|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 8, 2014 21:43:04 GMT -5
Thank you.
Can we do a quick "yes/no" about if we want to include goalies in the keeper from now on or not? We will talk about keeper numbers after, but I kinda think that should be a quick detour discussion to get that figured out before figuring out what keeper numbers to go with.
Like, I don't think I care if they are, it could free up some more talent for rebuilding for people, and give people more to work with. But it also brings about a bigger change than we were originally discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 8, 2014 21:45:31 GMT -5
no matter what they would be more complicated. It is still the same crap. Winnipeg was the one that wanted all the top 10 teams to lose a player. All of this stuff will only be more work for me and 2 minutes for everybody else once a season. When the complaining started I should have pulled a Quinn and just nixed the whole idea. This is going to become very frustrating as those that don't like this one get to take shots at it. Let me know when we figure it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 8, 2014 22:20:28 GMT -5
WHat'cha talkin' about cooker? There is nothing new to figure out on that front. We are moving forward with Option 3, which is what majority wanted. I just want to make sure whatever we do is as simple as we can make it, while still fun. We can do that; stop getting frustrated over nothing.
Goalies as keepers: yes/no?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 8, 2014 22:26:54 GMT -5
WHat'cha talkin' about cooker? There is nothing new to figure out on that front. We are moving forward with Option 3, which is what majority wanted. I just want to make sure whatever we do is as simple as we can make it, while still fun. We can do that; stop getting frustrated over nothing. Goalies as keepers: yes/no? i think we should but it depends on the amount of slots. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 8, 2014 22:28:25 GMT -5
Yeah, the slots would be adjusted accordingly. I think it makes the most sense to make sure people WANT to include goalies in the keeper numbers. Since we have never done it before now, it's kind of a big change here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 8, 2014 22:28:56 GMT -5
when I spend 10 hours over the last two days doing stuff here and then see we are taking steps backwards on here with this. I don't know what to do anymore?? You guys figure it out. Every time I think we have things figured out I am wrong and we start on something else. If we do goalies what do we do then 20 slots, 18 slots?? Are we doing 95+ as +5?? Are 87's +1 or +2?? Is 16 to many slots, should it be 15 slots?? I'm tired of thinking about it anymore. I have debating this stuff long enough as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 8, 2014 22:31:13 GMT -5
when I spend 10 hours over the last two days doing stuff here and then see we are taking steps backwards on here with this. I don't know what to do anymore?? You guys figure it out. Every time I think we have things figured out I am wrong and we start on something else. If we do goalies what do we do then 20 slots, 18 slots?? Are we doing 95+ as +5?? Are 87's +1 or +2?? Is 16 to many slots, should it be 15 slots?? I'm tired of thinking about it anymore. I have debating this stuff long enough as far as I am concerned. What I was thinking was 95+ are 5 , 87s are 2, 16 for no goalies, 18 for with goalies. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 8, 2014 22:35:44 GMT -5
when I spend 10 hours over the last two days doing stuff here and then see we are taking steps backwards on here with this. I don't know what to do anymore?? You guys figure it out. Every time I think we have things figured out I am wrong and we start on something else. If we do goalies what do we do then 20 slots, 18 slots?? Are we doing 95+ as +5?? Are 87's +1 or +2?? Is 16 to many slots, should it be 15 slots?? I'm tired of thinking about it anymore. I have debating this stuff long enough as far as I am concerned. What I was thinking was 95+ are 5 , 87s are 2, 16 for no goalies, 18 for with goalies. Well if most can agree on that then just put up a poll for the goalies  . It will be funny because every year we will be drafting a lot of good backup goalies. There are a lot of 87-89 goalies, I think LOL. So there will a lot in the draft even with one protected. Again I think LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 8, 2014 22:36:00 GMT -5
when I spend 10 hours over the last two days doing stuff here and then see we are taking steps backwards on here with this. I don't know what to do anymore?? You guys figure it out. Every time I think we have things figured out I am wrong and we start on something else. If we do goalies what do we do then 20 slots, 18 slots?? Are we doing 95+ as +5?? Are 87's +1 or +2?? Is 16 to many slots, should it be 15 slots?? I'm tired of thinking about it anymore. I have debating this stuff long enough as far as I am concerned. Relax, friend. If this stresses you out even in the least, just sit back and The Admin Account, myself, and the rest of the league will get it figured out. There is nothing bad happening here right now, we are fine-tuning the idea, just like you and I discussed on Skype. It's all for the good of the site, and that is what we are all looking towards. And we'll get there. We are moving forward, not backwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Jan 8, 2014 22:47:49 GMT -5
My only issue is the lack of member activity in these threads. It's basically 4-5 people. Yes, some voted and yes a few made 1 post but nobody else is chiming in. Are they OK with it? Is it too confusing? Do they want this?
Come on people. Fuckin' post you lazy bunch of twats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 8, 2014 22:54:43 GMT -5
My only issue is the lack of member activity in these threads. It's basically 4-5 people. Yes, some voted and yes a few made 1 post but nobody else is chiming in. Are they OK with it? Is it too confusing? Do they want this? Come on people. Fuckin' post you lazy bunch of twats. 75% of the league voted for change, and 50% the league felt they were okay with option 3 (implying it was not too confusing, and they wanted it). But yes, chime in, twats! |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 8, 2014 22:54:43 GMT -5
we are getting a few which is good. I think we should be able to pretty much go with the
16 Slots
86 and lower = 1 slot
87-89 = 2 slots
90-92 = 3 slots
93-94 = 4 slots
95+ = 5 slots
If we do goalies it will be 18 slots
We need to get this figured out from this. What needs to be decided or changed from this?? We can see that this help the weaker teams huge. Lets work from this forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 23:26:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 9, 2014 0:10:09 GMT -5
Keeping in mind, the wording people ACTUALLY voted on, was this: "11 Default keepers. Different value per player protected, based on rating (example: 88-89: 1 slot, 90: 2 slots, 91-94: 3 slots, 95+: 4 slots)".
If we are throwing up another poll, we should include that option, since probably at least 1 or 2 people liked that exact thing as it was written.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 9, 2014 0:14:56 GMT -5
Keeping in mind, the wording people ACTUALLY voted on, was this: "11 Default keepers. Different value per player protected, based on rating (example: 88-89: 1 slot, 90: 2 slots, 91-94: 3 slots, 95+: 4 slots)". If we are throwing up another poll, we should include that option, since probably at least 1 or 2 people liked that exact thing as it was written. lol |
|
. It will be funny because every year we will be drafting a lot of good backup goalies. There are a lot of 87-89 goalies, I think LOL. So there will a lot in the draft even with one protected. Again I think LOL
