HomeFAQSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 PART 2 -proposed changes

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:16 am

-20 man reserve bench that shall contain your depth types and prospects.
keep in mind that I really dont enjoy policing anyones roster , so gm's will have total freedom to admin the ratio of depth types / prospects they maintain on their reserves .This set up will eliminate the need for seperate farm team , policing farm flex etc....

common sense coupled with the 80% rule / protection limits should make this work.

-max 3 free agent pikups per week (first come first serve)

-no max wire claims (successful claim >> head to bottom of priority order)
use a 48 hour period like majority of leagues

-IR , looser setting , 3 spots.
most who commented in the thread seem to like this idea.

-----------------------------------------------------------

drafts

I'd like to start a new tradition of drafting in August (after long weekends) instead of early July.

this will give us all a nice break from the league (mid april to august)

also allows many of the nhl transactions to settle in and we can react accordingly come draft time.

you guys can make offseason trades in preparation for the draft obviously , but as most of you should know , free agent pik ups , wire claims are frozen from our trade deadline(march 2) up until completion of our summer draft .


Last edited by Butch on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
maya has the knife

avatar

Posts : 69
Join date : 2010-08-03
Age : 34
Location : BUFFALO NY

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:31 am

I'm in favor of all the proposals mentioned here. Looking forward to a good season!
Back to top Go down
Bruins GM

avatar

Posts : 74
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 53
Location : Kingston, Ontario

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:45 am

This all sounds fine to me ... thanks Butch.
Back to top Go down
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:20 pm

dan m-uno and deuce
--------------------------
''Good job Mr. Commish. I like all the changes, but more importantly, I like the democratic way it happened.''
Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
Sudden Death

avatar

Posts : 31
Join date : 2010-12-14

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:18 pm

thumbs up to everything proposed
Back to top Go down
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:43 pm

from joe-uno
----------------------------------------

Works for me.

-Joe Pawich
Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
Slats-23

avatar

Posts : 36
Join date : 2010-08-05
Age : 49
Location : Chicago, Illinois

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:49 pm

I too concur with all of the proposed changes. Well done Butcher and to all that participated in the debate.
Back to top Go down
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:19 pm

mark-uno
----------------------------

''Sounds good.''

Mark
Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:10 pm

geoff-uno
--------------------------

''sounds great''
Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
steve

avatar

Posts : 93
Join date : 2010-08-03
Age : 59
Location : Ottawa

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:14 pm

I'm in favour of the overall proposal here, but I have to admit that I am a little concerned about the 20 man bench. While I don't know if a GM overloading his bench to win the season at the expense of his farm team will actually make a difference or not, I certainly wouldn't want to the season decided by the GM with the "deepest" bench.

I do acknowledge that having a deeper bench doesn't necessarily mean these players get into many more games, but this is just something I think should be mentioned here. Regardless of that fact, I still vote your proposals a go.

Lastly, I still would like to see the farm team eligibility carry through for the entire season; i.e. if your farm player is under the 70/35 criteria at the beginning of the season, then he holds farm eligibility for the entire season. I just think it is far easier to manage rather than something else I always have to check.


Last edited by steve on Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:06 pm

steve wrote:
Lastly, I still would like to see the farm team eligibility carry through for the entire season; i.e. if your farm player is under the 70/35 criteria at the beginning of the season, then he holds farm eligibility for the entire season. I just think it is far easier to manage rather than something else I always have to check.

unless I'm missing something , I dont know why under this proposed set up it would matter .

I'm not going to be setting up fantrax with any ''minors'' slots at all , so your depth types and prospects will all be ''reserves''
Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
steve

avatar

Posts : 93
Join date : 2010-08-03
Age : 59
Location : Ottawa

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:14 pm

You're right Butch, it won't matter it all... this just makes it better...
Back to top Go down
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:28 pm

steve wrote:
You're right Butch, it won't matter it all... this just makes it better...

it will only matter when our draft nears and gm's are required to submit their protection lists in preparation for the big day.

one list for your designated 10 prospects who are at or under 70/35 as of draft launch.

other list is 19 or 20 of whoever else you want to protect (20 spots if you protect 2 or less goalies , 19 spots if you protect 3 or more goalies)

Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
jetwing13

avatar

Posts : 17
Join date : 2010-11-20

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:22 am

Sounds okay to me
Back to top Go down
Barry - Nehithaw

avatar

Posts : 60
Join date : 2010-08-05

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:10 pm

steve wrote:
I'm in favour of the overall proposal here, but I have to admit that I am a little concerned about the 20 man bench. While I don't know if a GM overloading his bench to win the season at the expense of his farm team will actually make a difference or not, I certainly wouldn't want to the season decided by the GM with the "deepest" bench.

I do ackowledge that having a deeper bench doesn't necessarily mean these players get into many more games, but this is just something I think should be mentioned here.

I agree with Steve on this point.

The original idea was to have 10 prospects and 10 depth players. With this new system, teams may end up with 5 prospects and 15 depth players or something like that.

Back to top Go down
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:17 am

Barry - Nehithaw wrote:
steve wrote:
I'm in favour of the overall proposal here, but I have to admit that I am a little concerned about the 20 man bench. While I don't know if a GM overloading his bench to win the season at the expense of his farm team will actually make a difference or not, I certainly wouldn't want to the season decided by the GM with the "deepest" bench.

I do ackowledge that having a deeper bench doesn't necessarily mean these players get into many more games, but this is just something I think should be mentioned here.

I agree with Steve on this point.

The original idea was to have 10 prospects and 10 depth players. With this new system, teams may end up with 5 prospects and 15 depth players or something like that.


it is a valid concern that most seem cool to deal with .
speaking as a gm and not commish , I have no intentions of icing a team with 15 depth types / 5 prospects.I plan to strike a fine balance of 10/10 or something close as possible to that ratio.

if you've been following the 2 threads it is known that the original intention was to make use of fantrax minors position , but since they've added that to their ''premium service of 60 bucks per league'' we've had to improvise.

one solution is to keep the status quo and keep farm teams seperate , thus requiring me and you to continue processing anything farm related manually , once a week.
you feel like doing that next season ? -- I dont .

Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
Danmor

avatar

Posts : 89
Join date : 2010-08-04
Age : 62
Location : Warrenton, VA

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:03 pm

I have to agree with Butchie. The pros outweight the cons. Frankly, a GM wanting to add 5 reserves from the diluted pool of FAs left at the expense of their future would be irresponsable and probably would not last long in this elite league. Similarly, if one wants to add 5 Minors at the expense of depth, it would be his prerogative also, but keep in mind that either way, at the end of the season, he only gets to protect 10 Minors and 20 keepers (I may have those numbers wrong and Commish will be quick to send me to the hole and read the rules again...). 10-10 is a good balance given the depth and pool of available depth players and available prospects.

I stick to my story and still vote yay.
Back to top Go down
Butch
Admin
avatar

Posts : 380
Join date : 2010-08-02
Age : 52
Location : milky way

PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:38 pm

you are correct Dan
10 protection spots designated for prospects --must be at or under 70/35

if a team doesnt have 10 prospects to submit , his unused spots go up in smoke

i.e
TEAM X only has 8 prospects to submit towards the 10 permitted
he will have 2 unused spots that go up in smoke

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then , for the remainder of the roster (lets call it the ''pro'' roster) you can protect 19 or 20

19 spots if you protect 3 or more goalies
20 spots if you protect 2 or less goalies

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so its to your advantage to try and stick as close to the 10/10 ratio on your bench
Back to top Go down
http://70sdeuce.forumotions.net
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: PART 2 -proposed changes   

Back to top Go down
 
PART 2 -proposed changes
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» which part of toronto is grass roots canada located?
» Proposed Rhyl Harbour Development Plans
» My private part died
» Panning a critical part of wet water prospecting.
» 1st attempt at a MTD vari drive and 3 speed manual trans mutation

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
70's League Deuce :: League Chatter-
Jump to: