HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 - Draft Thread V

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 06:56 PM
  #51
Dwight
The French Tickler
 
Dwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,776
vCash: 500
I thought of grabbing Brian Sutter, placing him with Federko and doing another musical chairs with my lines

Dwight is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 07:29 PM
  #52
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
We 're planning to spend our whole clock taking trade offers.

Just kidding....we're pleased.to select a St Louis great. The man who blazed the trail from Viking, Alberta to the NHL...LW Brian Sutter!

Brian Sutter-Phil Watson-Dave Taylor will be the toughest, hardest-working third line in the draft...and they can score a little too.
Not as much defensive ability as you'd traditionally have from a third line, but they're definitely going to work their ***** off on the ice.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 09:25 PM
  #53
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,757
vCash: 593
Takes forever for people to do their picks now. Will be nice when the time limit changes.

Darth Yoda is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 10:04 PM
  #54
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,824
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
Takes forever for people to do their picks now. Will be nice when the time limit changes.
It's not that bad , just enjoy the conversations between picks.

Jafar is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 10:37 PM
  #55
Hawkman
Moderator
Deacon Blues
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
Griffey finished top 10 in HRs 9x and led the league 4x despite dealing with injuries over his career. Griffey was more of an elite home run hitter than Gartner was a goal scorer.
Your post is a great example of the way hockey fans think. I'm talking about longevity and career totals and you bring up elite individual seasons that raises Griffey up in your mind and also would if a goal scorer (such as Esposito) was top ten nine times and lead the league four times. To some baseball fans a home run is a home run, regardless of elite seasons. Hank Aaron never hit more than 47 home runs in a season (I know he retired in 76 before PEDs), but many fans consider him the greatest home run hitter ever.

Hawkman is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 10:44 PM
  #56
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
Your post is a great example of the way hockey fans think. I'm talking about longevity and career totals and you bring up elite individual seasons that raises Griffey up in your mind and also would if a goal scorer (such as Esposito) was top ten nine times and lead the league four times. To some baseball fans a home run is a home run, regardless of elite seasons. Hank Aaron never hit more than 47 home runs in a season (I know he retired in 76 before PEDs), but many fans consider him the greatest home run hitter ever.
I wouldn't say "hockey fans" think like that. It's mainly just the ATD/History crowd - AKA the educated hockey fans. How many times have you seen Mark Messier in top-5 lists outside this section?

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 10:54 PM
  #57
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
Here's something about longevity. I realize baseball and hockey are extremely different. Hitting is individual and a bad team doesn't lessen it. Hockey scoring is team driven and a bad team affects it.

Although I realize Mike Gartner is a HHoFer, if a baseball player hit 708 home runs and was 6th all time everyone would say he was one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. Compare the way we think and talk about Gartner to the way we do about the 6th biggest HR hitter ever, Ken Griffey Jr. Is it just the difference in the 2 sports or do we hold hockey players to a different (higher?) standard? Do hockey players have to be successful in a way we like (besides winning) and does style matter? Is style one of the reasons Denis Savard is more popular than Gartner imo?
The truth is that hockey has the problem of eras being completely and totally unrelated. Of the top ten players in the goal scoring list, only Gordie Howe and Phil Esposito didn't peak between '75 and '94. So Gartner's ranking amongst all time players isn't particularly relevant, his ranking among his peers is the only factor.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 11:17 PM
  #58
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
The truth is that hockey has the problem of eras being completely and totally unrelated. Of the top ten players in the goal scoring list, only Gordie Howe and Phil Esposito didn't peak between '75 and '94. So Gartner's ranking amongst all time players isn't particularly relevant, his ranking among his peers is the only factor.
Baseball actually also has this issue in certain statistics, like batting average, pitching wins, ERA, etc.

vecens24 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 11:23 PM
  #59
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,124
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
Your post is a great example of the way hockey fans think. I'm talking about longevity and career totals and you bring up elite individual seasons that raises Griffey up in your mind and also would if a goal scorer (such as Esposito) was top ten nine times and lead the league four times. To some baseball fans a home run is a home run, regardless of elite seasons. Hank Aaron never hit more than 47 home runs in a season (I know he retired in 76 before PEDs), but many fans consider him the greatest home run hitter ever.
Well I really don't know what to tell you. You can't just ignore the fact Arron led the league 4 times. To hit a lot of home runs you have to be at the top of the league every year in most cases. The same was not true for Gartner because of the era he played in. Wayne Gretzky is the all time leader in goals and many don't consider him the best goal scorer of all time. It's two different sports that have to be looked at differently.

King Forsberg is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 11:29 PM
  #60
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,824
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I wouldn't say "hockey fans" think like that. It's mainly just the ATD/History crowd - AKA the educated hockey fans. How many times have you seen Mark Messier in top-5 lists outside this section?
I would say that having uninformed opinions and shamelessly sharing/defending it isn't exclusive to the average sport fan but to every average person talking about any existing fields.People like to think they are informed and their opinion matters , because if they faced the truth (that they are extremely out of touch) it would completely destroy their mental house of cards and therefore their sanity.The more informed you are , the more you realize how much you have to learn and the more you are competant to spot the few people who knows even more than you.

That's why only obsessive people knows what it takes to truly know something.Obsessive people will respect the knowledge of other obsessive people in other fields (even if the former aren't obsessive about THAT field) , to the contrary of average joes that aren't passionated/obsessive about anything and therefore won't have that respect.Basically , obsessive people recognizes the value of obsessiveness.

This is why the older I get , the less subjects I'm truly passionated about.I keep around 5/6 subjects that I spend most of my mental energy on and leave the rest to other people.Sure , I can talk baseball , but I know deep down I'm a fish in the history of baseball debates.My place isn't there.

I'm not trying to be condescending to the mass or to boost my ego , but it is what it is.I think this is a reality.As I already said , being an amateur hockey historian is a monk's labor and lonewolf's game.While we are lucky to live in this era when we can talk to each other , we're still all alone in real life about this hockey history thing (or at least I am).It is also a thankless hobby.Who cares about what we do here?(And by who I mean people around the NHL or that has been around the NHL).While we're far from perfect where in the entire world did a group of human beings analyzed hockey history as in-depth as we did? Why shouldn't we be the ones on TV when they make a little hockey history special or Top 20 players from X or Y era/teams? Why not? Because nobody cares.But certainly not because our opinions aren't better than theirs (or at least more informed).

I tried to present my past-ATD teams to some of my friends that are supposely REAL hockey fans.We are talking about guys that thinks STRONGLY that they are very knowledgable about hockey history.They made such a face when they saw my entire first line was composed of three players they had never heard about.They told me your team sucks , look at this one you're competing against , they have Pavel Bure , or they have Doug Gilmour (just picked random modern names).


Last edited by Jafar: 02-27-2013 at 12:03 AM.
Jafar is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 12:36 AM
  #61
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I was posting my interpretation of your system. I misunderstood your system...

Actually, now that I understand your system better, it makes less sense than I thought it did.

Yeah, I posted numbers that were different from yours. I must be a liar.

If I wanted to pump up Turgeon, I would have just used 70s' system, they were more impressive than the ones I got.
The funny thing is, you seem to have gotten some of the seasons the same as I did, specifically the top and the bottom three, so something is going on here other than consistently different methodology.

Dreak's numbers:
89, 87, 86, 85, 83, 80, 80, 78, 75, 70, 70, 67, 61, 52

Sturm's numbers:
89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

The top season and the bottom three seasons are the same, but the middle is quite different. A simple misunderstanding of my system, which is hardly rocket science, does not account for the strange divergence in results here, nor does a disagreement on how one should handle 1988-89 or 1996-97. I have tried to figure out how you came up with these numbers - which two numbers you divided to reach 87, for example - and I can't fathom it. The top and bottom are the same, but in the middle, everything is a few percentage points higher. Curious.

I've already posted the exact data I used to come up with the results you see above. Care to explain how you actually generated these numbers?

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 12:45 AM
  #62
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
The funny thing is, you seem to have gotten some of the seasons the same as I did, specifically the top and the bottom three, so something is going on here other than consistently different methodology.

Dreak's numbers:
89, 87, 86, 85, 83, 80, 80, 78, 75, 70, 70, 67, 61, 52

Sturm's numbers:
89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

The top season and the bottom three seasons are the same, but the middle is quite different. A simple misunderstanding of my system, which is hardly rocket science, does not account for the strange divergence in results here, nor does a disagreement on how one should handle 1988-89 or 1996-97. I have tried to figure out how you came up with these numbers - which two numbers you divided to reach 87, for example - and I can't fathom it. The top and bottom are the same, but in the middle, everything is a few percentage points higher. Curious.

I've already posted the exact data I used to come up with the results you see above. Care to explain how you actually generated these numbers?
If you approached it like this the first time, this whole thing would have gone a lot smoother.

Give me a few minutes to run through the process again.....


Edit:

Ok, here is what I got...

1989 – Rob Brown (5th) – 80 (should have been 77)
1990 – Mark Messier (2nd) – 83 (should be 82)
1991 – Adam Oates (3rd) – 70 (should be 69)
1992 – Brett Hull (4th) – 87
1993 – Pat Lafontaine (2nd) – 89
1994 – Sergei Fedorov (2nd) – 78
1995 – Eric Lindros (1st) – 67
1996 – Joe Sakic (3rd) – 80
1997 – Paul Kariya (3rd) – 86
1998 – Peter Forsberg – (2nd) – 75
1999 – Teemu Selanne (2nd) – 61
2000 – Pavel Bure (2nd) – 70
2001 – Patrik Elias (3rd) – 85
2002 – Markus Naslund (2nd) – 52

I looks like I did make errors on the first 3 seasons. Apparently, I did use 70s' method on the first three seasons before switching back to your method. Whoops.

Dreak's corrected numbers:
89, 87, 86, 85, 82, 80, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

Sturm's numbers:
89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52


Looks like the differnces are in 1989, 1992, 1997, and you missed the 52 in 2002.


Last edited by Dreakmur: 02-27-2013 at 01:15 AM.
Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 01:59 AM
  #63
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Looks like the differnces are in 1989, 1992, 1997, and you missed the 52 in 2002.
I see. Well, this is why it is important to be careful about checking our data and communicating exactly which methodology we have used.

The 1992 season is a difficult one to evaluate. Gretzky is only a cunthair over the 10% standard as compared to Hull in 4th place, and Stevens is in the top-3, which smells funny. I really don't like using Hull as the standard here because of Stevens. If Gretzky was such an outlier in this season, there's no way Kevin Stevens outscores him, even playing with hockeyjesus on his line.

The problem here, as well as in 1988-89 and 1970-71, is that you end up with a distortion no matter who you use as a benchmark. Stevens as a benchmark likely results in a downward distortion of Vs2 numbers, but Hull as a benchmark likely results in an upward distortion.

My gut tells me we need a special standard for dealing with seasons in which there is greater than a 10% gap in the top-5 after the 2/3 gap. In these seasons, we get into territory where there was a whole group of players who are treated as outliers, and that raises the question of whether they really were outliers, or whether the rest of the league just didn't score that well. I would propose counting the number of players in the "outlier tier" (so in 1991-92, there are three), and averaging the scoring of the top-x players in that season as a benchmark, with x being the number of players in the outlier tier times two.

So, for example, in 1991-92, we would average the following:

1. Lemieux - 131
2. Stevens - 123
3. Gretzky - 121
4. Hull - 109
5. Messier - 107
5. Robitaille - 107

...to come up with a Vs2 benchmark number of 116.

So in Turgeon's case, we end up splitting the difference, which is probably the least distorting result.

My method: 95/123 = 77

Yours: 95/109 = 87

New proposed method: 82 - which almost exactly splits the difference.

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

This stuff is hard, and we really need some kind of standardization. The Vs2 methodology is quite clearly superior to the ranking system, but it would be very helpful if everybody agreed on which numbers we should use. I will have to do the hard work of actually going through NHL results season-by-season as seventies has suggested in order to further the discussion. Ugh...

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:04 AM
  #64
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I see. Well, this is why it is important to be careful about checking our data and communicating exactly which methodology we have used.

The 1992 season is a difficult one to evaluate. Gretzky is only a cunthair over the 10% standard as compared to Hull in 4th place, and Stevens is in the top-3, which smells funny. I really don't like using Hull as the standard here because of Stevens. If Gretzky was such an outlier in this season, there's no way Kevin Stevens outscores him, even playing with hockeyjesus on his line.

The problem here, as well as in 1988-89 and 1970-71, is that you end up with a distortion no matter who you use as a benchmark. Stevens as a benchmark likely results in a downward distortion of Vs2 numbers, but Hull as a benchmark likely results in an upward distortion.

My gut tells me we need a special standard for dealing with seasons in which there is greater than a 10% gap in the top-5 after the 2/3 gap. In these seasons, we get into territory where there was a whole group of players who are treated as outliers, and that raises the question of whether they really were outliers, or whether the rest of the league just didn't score that well. I would propose counting the number of players in the "outlier tier" (so in 1991-92, there are three), and averaging the scoring of the top-x players in that season as a benchmark, with x being the number of players in the outlier tier times two.

So, for example, in 1991-92, we would average the following:

1. Lemieux - 131
2. Stevens - 123
3. Gretzky - 121
4. Hull - 109
5. Messier - 107
5. Robitaille - 107

...to come up with a Vs2 benchmark number of 116.

So in Turgeon's case, we end up splitting the difference, which is probably the least distorting result.

My method: 95/123 = 77

Yours: 95/109 = 87

New proposed method: 82 - which almost exactly splits the difference.

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

This stuff is hard, and we really need some kind of standardization. The Vs2 methodology is quite clearly superior to the ranking system, but it would be very helpful if everybody agreed on which numbers we should use. I will have to do the hard work of actually going through NHL results season-by-season as seventies has suggested in order to further the discussion. Ugh...
I think this method is probably the fairest way to deal with 1992... but god, it's a hell of a lot of work.

Before he got banned again, the poster Cognition had an idea to average the top 18 scorers in the league every season and use that as the standard. I thought it was a great idea, but would want to see it tested in practice, and it's a lot of work to set up. (He picked 18 because that was the number of 1st line spots available in the original 6).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:12 AM
  #65
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I see. Well, this is why it is important to be careful about checking our data and communicating exactly which methodology we have used.
Honestly, I threw my numbers together rather quickly. Based on the switch I made after season #3, it was too quickly.

Quote:
The 1992 season is a difficult one to evaluate. Gretzky is only a cunthair over the 10% standard as compared to Hull in 4th place, and Stevens is in the top-3, which smells funny. I really don't like using Hull as the standard here because of Stevens. If Gretzky was such an outlier in this season, there's no way Kevin Stevens outscores him, even playing with hockeyjesus on his line.
I just remove Gretzky and Lemieux regardless.

So I looked at Stevens dropping to Hull, and it was more than a 10% gap.

Quote:
The problem here, as well as in 1988-89 and 1970-71, is that you end up with a distortion no matter who you use as a benchmark. Stevens as a benchmark likely results in a downward distortion of Vs2 numbers, but Hull as a benchmark likely results in an upward distortion.

My gut tells me we need a special standard for dealing with seasons in which there is greater than a 10% gap in the top-5 after the 2/3 gap. In these seasons, we get into territory where there was a whole group of players who are treated as outliers, and that raises the question of whether they really were outliers, or whether the rest of the league just didn't score that well. I would propose counting the number of players in the "outlier tier" (so in 1991-92, there are three), and averaging the scoring of the top-x players in that season as a benchmark, with x being the number of players in the outlier tier times two.

So, for example, in 1991-92, we would average the following:

1. Lemieux - 131
2. Stevens - 123
3. Gretzky - 121
4. Hull - 109
5. Messier - 107
5. Robitaille - 107

...to come up with a Vs2 benchmark number of 116.

So in Turgeon's case, we end up splitting the difference, which is probably the least distorting result.

My method: 95/123 = 77

Yours: 95/109 = 87

New proposed method: 82 - which almost exactly splits the difference.

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

This stuff is hard, and we really need some kind of standardization. The Vs2 methodology is quite clearly superior to the ranking system, but it would be very helpful if everybody agreed on which numbers we should use. I will have to do the hard work of actually going through NHL results season-by-season as seventies has suggested in order to further the discussion. Ugh...
That's exactly why I use a combination of rankings and percentages. There is no perfect method.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:16 AM
  #66
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think this method is probably the fairest way to deal with 1992... but god, it's a hell of a lot of work.

Before he got banned again, the poster Cognition had an idea to average the top 18 scorers in the league every season and use that as the standard. I thought it was a great idea, but would want to see it tested in practice, and it's a lot of work to set up. (He picked 18 because that was the number of 1st line spots available in the original 6).
When working with goalie save percentages, I usually try to see how far they are from the league average.

Maybe that's something we can do with the scoring?

Total goals scored by all teams.... divided by number of teams.... divided by the max player roster (or maybe just forwards?). That would give you the average goal per player. Then compared your target tot he average.

Not sure how that would be impacted by different roster sizes.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:16 AM
  #67
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think this method is probably the fairest way to deal with 1992... but god, it's a hell of a lot of work.
Well...we'll see. I will do the work, because I think it is ultimately valuable to get everybody speaking the same language.

I don't believe there are actually that many seasons where an average will be necessary. I'll set the over/under at 12 seasons post-consolidation. The greatest virtue of the 10% rule (and the reason I chose it) is that it is easy to eyeball the numbers and know if you need to switch from #2 to #3 as the benchmark. It's other great virtue is that it is fairly stringent, and isn't necessary most of the time.

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

I'll tell you what, seventies. I will do the hard work of going through NHL scoring results season-by-season using the Vs2 standard with my preferred caveats (Vs3 with greater than 10% gap between #2 and #3, averaged VsX when the gap appears later in the top-5) and publish the results of the study. I've done a lot of work with Vs2 numbers and I believe the integrity of the 10% standard is sufficient to stay with it, but setting a few artificial, averaged benchmarks for years in which there is a whole tier of outliers looks like maybe the last necessary step towards a truly consolidated system.

My apologies, dreak. Some good may yet come of this little tempest. We shall see.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:18 AM
  #68
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
That's exactly why I use a combination of rankings and percentages. There is no perfect method.
An improved and consolidatedpercentages system is the best way forward. Using both percentages and rankings results in quite a muddle, and really...the ranking aren't all that valuable. BM67's initial insight which led to the genesis of the Vs2 system is just as valid today as it was when he started his work. Watch this space.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:23 AM
  #69
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
With our thirteen selection, the 425th overall in this year All-Time Draft, les Nordiques de Quebec are proud to select, from Boston, Massachusetts, United States, goaltender Tom Barrasso



''We are pleased to anchor the most important position in ice hockey with right-handed Tom Barrasso. With five teams still to select their #1 goaltender and over 50 picks before our next selection, we couldn't wait any longer to select the #1 goaltender on our list for the longest of time, that will play on a team that have resemblance to the early 1990's Pittsburgh Penguins.''

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:26 AM
  #70
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
My apologies, dreak. Some good may yet come of this little tempest. We shall see.
I would have hoped I have earned a reputation as an honest GM by now. I think you questioning my integrity was out of line, which is why I responded the way I did.

I am the first to admit I make my fair share of mistakes, but I definitely don't deliberately post false information to promote my players.


I do appreciate the apology, and there are no hard feelings on my end.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:29 AM
  #71
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
I was wondering when one of the teams without a goalie would finally blink.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:34 AM
  #72
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I was wondering when one of the teams without a goalie would finally blink.
Does that mean we didn't need to trade up for Turgeon?

EB was the only guy I thought might take him.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:43 AM
  #73
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
With our thirteen selection, the 425th overall in this year All-Time Draft, les Nordiques de Quebec are proud to select, from Boston, Massachusetts, United States, goaltender Tom Barrasso



''We are pleased to anchor the most important position in ice hockey with right-handed Tom Barrasso. With five teams still to select their #1 goaltender and over 50 picks before our next selection, we couldn't wait any longer to select the #1 goaltender on our list for the longest of time, that will play on a team that have resemblance to the early 1990's Pittsburgh Penguins.''

MadArcand is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:45 AM
  #74
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I was wondering when one of the teams without a goalie would finally blink.
It never was in our plan to select a high-end goaltender, but we've been talking about selecting Tom Barrasso since the late-200's. Then, we were able to get our hands on Leo Boivin, Sid Smith & Gordie Drillon, and we always gamble and waited just a little more. Barrasso was #1 on our list, but there's another G we pretty much hold in the same value as Barrasso, but the later is proven in the system we want to implement. There's another two goaltenders we would of been ok with, but a notch below. We have 47 picks until our next selection, and we would of been disappointed if Barrasso would of been picked, and in very unsatisfying position if a run of G would come & miss on the top-4 BGA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Does that mean we didn't need to trade up for Turgeon?

EB was the only guy I thought might take him.
Although I'm not Pierre Turgeon biggest supporter, and that he never was in our plan at 425, he would of been in serious contention for our next selection. (BTW, he's a very good selection at this point). At this point in the draft, I don't think it's ever a bad move to trade up to get THE player you are coveting. Not worth standing still when giving up assets later in the draft doesn't mean as much. Players taken in the 600's are sometimes better than players taken in the 400's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Very please to read that blinking first was the right move at this point in the draft. We tried to trade up for Barrasso as soon as we picked Gordie Drillon, but no one wanted to trade with us. I had made a list of teams without a goaltender, picking between our two selections, and never would I had think Barrasso would of still be available, let alone no goaltender getting picked.


Last edited by EagleBelfour: 02-27-2013 at 02:51 AM.
EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:55 AM
  #75
Hawkman
Moderator
Deacon Blues
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
It never was in our plan to select a high-end goaltender, but we've been talking about selecting Tom Barrasso since the late-200's. Then, we were able to get our hands on Leo Boivin, Sid Smith & Gordie Drillon, and we always gamble and waited just a little more. Barrasso was #1 on our list, but there's another G we pretty much hold in the same value as Barrasso, but the later is proven in the system we want to implement. There's another two goaltenders we would of been ok with, but a notch below. We have 47 picks until our next selection, and we would of been disappointed if Barrasso would of been picked, and in very unsatisfying position if a run of G would come & miss on the top-4 BGA. ...
I thought you knew a little bit about goalies...until it took you almost 8 hours to pick Barrasso!

Hawkman is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.