|
|
Post by nash on Jun 7, 2023 12:31:32 GMT -7
We voted here for what appears to be a similar request. It was voted down after a request for a vote was made. See relevant dates. |
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jun 7, 2023 12:32:47 GMT -7
Ah, well that makes it easy then. Thank's Larry, I had bypassed that note and wasn't aware we could store a vet in those slots. |
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jun 7, 2023 12:34:37 GMT -7
We voted here for what appears to be a similar request. It was voted down after a request for a vote was made. See relevant dates. Yeah I got these mixed up too. This one we did NOT vote in was for an "extra" slot. Larry's posted link was where the addition of a veteran was allowed onto the 3 slot pod. I think that clears most of this up form my perspective, though Mike may have a question or two left. |
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jun 7, 2023 12:38:30 GMT -7
The question is why are you listening to Larry? Clearly he didn't read the last post of that thread which said I was going to recreate it with a vote.
Lesson: Don't listen to Larry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jun 7, 2023 12:57:18 GMT -7
The question is why are you listening to Larry? Clearly he didn't read the last post of that thread which said I was going to recreate it with a vote. Lesson: Don't listen to Larry. But the vote and the proposal weren't the same? One was adding a slot, one was allowing a vet player to be added if he were uncarded, wasn't it? If not, then Mike's original proposal here still needs to be considered, which is, in effect, to allow a veteran player to use a slot in the 3 player pod if he were to be uncarded in a season. I don't think that's a world altering suggestion, and it would alleviate having good veterans injured for full seasons. Mike's criteria made sense, in it established the baseline for what a veteran would be, and it still allows for the rookie players under 82 games to be slotted there as well. It seems a reasonable compromise doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by brandonmoose on Jun 7, 2023 13:59:35 GMT -7
1)Mike fuck Daniel he is in the finals his strategies seem fine 🙂 2) if a gm has open spots for rookies but has no rookies he can trade with other teams to get rookies and open spots on his team. 3) opening it up to any uncarded player makes the rule super easy Dude! Why so mean!? What the hell did I do to get dragged into this so violently? These are just suggestions from our "friends", to discuss on the boards. WAY to much venom and exasperation, evidenced by edited and deleted posts. Let's keep this civil, it's where we're supposed to be putting suggestions and questions. I put a smiley face 8) 😀 |
|
VFS Adam
Power User
Truculence is an art
Posts: 123
|
Post by VFS Adam on Jun 7, 2023 13:59:51 GMT -7
This may be an unpopular opinion, but what if we just got rid of the 'extra' three slots? Do we actually need them?
My thinking is if your roster has 6 players for each forward position (4 to play, 1 sub to cover any man games lost, and 1 backup player to cover for players with no card), 5 for each defense position (3 to play, 1 sub, 1 backup), and 3 goalies, you would have 31 players (18 + 10 + 3) on your roster and still have 4 slots remaining. There could obviously be some overlap with subs/backups, or using prospects as backups etc., which would create even more slots remaining and more roster flexibility. And this is not even counting the rookies/free agents we draft for that draft year.
Getting rid of them might help cut down on some roster bloat. I don't think there is a team out there that doesn't have a handful of players with no cards (and haven't had one for a couple of seasons), or one or two 35 year old, 5.0 shifting wingers who are borderline unplayable (sorry Pat Maroon). Even if some of those players do make a comeback, wouldn't it just make for a more interesting Free Agent pool in the draft?
|
|
|
|
Post by brandonmoose on Jun 7, 2023 14:00:43 GMT -7
I'm also saying that 3 uncarded guys on the list no matter age is fine with me don't need all the calculations
|
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jun 7, 2023 15:51:17 GMT -7
This may be an unpopular opinion, but what if we just got rid of the 'extra' three slots? Do we actually need them? My thinking is if your roster has 6 players for each forward position (4 to play, 1 sub to cover any man games lost, and 1 backup player to cover for players with no card), 5 for each defense position (3 to play, 1 sub, 1 backup), and 3 goalies, you would have 31 players (18 + 10 + 3) on your roster and still have 4 slots remaining. There could obviously be some overlap with subs/backups, or using prospects as backups etc., which would create even more slots remaining and more roster flexibility. And this is not even counting the rookies/free agents we draft for that draft year. Getting rid of them might help cut down on some roster bloat. I don't think there is a team out there that doesn't have a handful of players with no cards (and haven't had one for a couple of seasons), or one or two 35 year old, 5.0 shifting wingers who are borderline unplayable (sorry Pat Maroon). Even if some of those players do make a comeback, wouldn't it just make for a more interesting Free Agent pool in the draft? Since we don't have options like AHL, or free agent signings during the season, and since rookies can take a long ass time to develop, we compromised on these 3 rookie slots to allow for drafting and development purposes. The making sense of how many guys you need is complicated by the fact that when we do have injuries or unexplainable drop offs in play, we dont have options to remedy these situations with our league, hence the larger rosters than an NHL team would field. This was hard fought and this was our compromise for everyone to be happy and not be losing players an/or rookies for no reason. 35 + 3 is the number. Thou shalt not count 36+3, nor shall we count 34+3, 37+3 is right out. The max size isn't going ot change without some serious heated discussions that we've just been able to overcome. Let's not rock the boat. All anyone is saying is that the 3 "unusable for the season" slots are allowed to be a mix of rookies or veterans who are uncarded. |
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jun 7, 2023 17:15:25 GMT -7
I recall that the possible "amendment" was discussed at the AGM but I didn't push for a vote at the time because based on the agenda/timeline, all rule proposals had to be voted on prior to the meeting. The AGM is just where the upcoming rule changes are discussed and the rookie draft occurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jun 7, 2023 17:33:50 GMT -7
This may be an unpopular opinion, but what if we just got rid of the 'extra' three slots? Do we actually need them? My thinking is if your roster has 6 players for each forward position (4 to play, 1 sub to cover any man games lost, and 1 backup player to cover for players with no card), 5 for each defense position (3 to play, 1 sub, 1 backup), and 3 goalies, you would have 31 players (18 + 10 + 3) on your roster and still have 4 slots remaining. There could obviously be some overlap with subs/backups, or using prospects as backups etc., which would create even more slots remaining and more roster flexibility. And this is not even counting the rookies/free agents we draft for that draft year. Getting rid of them might help cut down on some roster bloat. I don't think there is a team out there that doesn't have a handful of players with no cards (and haven't had one for a couple of seasons), or one or two 35 year old, 5.0 shifting wingers who are borderline unplayable (sorry Pat Maroon). Even if some of those players do make a comeback, wouldn't it just make for a more interesting Free Agent pool in the draft? So I favour you proposal Adam. However, I also recognize that different people have different ways to have fun in our league as well as different ways to build their teams. All I keep seeing now though is that there is a demand to increase roster sizes even after having put in the farm team a few years ago, when we had only a 35 man roster. That seems like the thin edge of the wedge. What isn't being appreciated is that a large part of the enjoyment we have managing the teams is having to make choices. Whether it is trades, lineups, draft choices etc, it all comes down to one choice or another. As we make things easier, we are reducing the number of choices we need to make. I choose the hard (that's what she said). We can vote again on any proposal Mike wants to make. I just don't want to vote on the variations of the same proposal every year. |
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jun 7, 2023 17:53:32 GMT -7
There is no demand to increase the roster sizes. Even I've given up that ghost. The discussion is merely to allow non carded veteran players into that 3 man pool.
Can we just vote on that and we should be golden then?
|
|
|
|
Post by brandonmoose on Jun 7, 2023 18:44:25 GMT -7
For some reason we draft 55 players every year but some people can't come to terms that this means 55 players have to leave
|
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Jun 8, 2023 6:09:47 GMT -7
This may be an unpopular opinion, but what if we just got rid of the 'extra' three slots? Do we actually need them? My thinking is if your roster has 6 players for each forward position (4 to play, 1 sub to cover any man games lost, and 1 backup player to cover for players with no card), 5 for each defense position (3 to play, 1 sub, 1 backup), and 3 goalies, you would have 31 players (18 + 10 + 3) on your roster and still have 4 slots remaining. There could obviously be some overlap with subs/backups, or using prospects as backups etc., which would create even more slots remaining and more roster flexibility. And this is not even counting the rookies/free agents we draft for that draft year. Getting rid of them might help cut down on some roster bloat. I don't think there is a team out there that doesn't have a handful of players with no cards (and haven't had one for a couple of seasons), or one or two 35 year old, 5.0 shifting wingers who are borderline unplayable (sorry Pat Maroon). Even if some of those players do make a comeback, wouldn't it just make for a more interesting Free Agent pool in the draft? Hey man, Pat Maroon has played in every season for me at least 4 games... gotta play a 3 time Stanley Cup Champion! |
|
VFS Adam
Power User
Truculence is an art
Posts: 123
|
Post by VFS Adam on Jun 8, 2023 9:07:47 GMT -7
Lol, sorry, he was the first 5 shifter I saw over 30  |
|
