HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > GM Games and HF Leagues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

GM Games and HF Leagues All GM Games and Fantasy League drafts and discussion go here.

T6S's GM Game - Team Draft 2.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-14-2014, 04:36 PM
  #76
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,838
vCash: 500
Instead of vetoing, how about a trade adjustment: TWO players/prospects per franchise after a 5-name protection list in exchange for swapping the second round team for the first round one. Or,... no protection list!

T6S?

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 04:40 PM
  #77
Habsfannick
Registered User
 
Habsfannick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 2,857
vCash: 500
That still seems pretty horrible, its like trading the Rangers franchise for the Devils but the devils get to pick the 6th and 7th best players on the Rags. doesn't make sense

Habsfannick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 04:40 PM
  #78
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Instead of vetoing, how about a trade adjustment: TWO players/prospects per franchise after a 5-name protection list in exchange for swapping the second round team for the first round one. Or,... no protection list!

T6S?
Two players each as no list are both way too much IMO. I would do only 3 per team protected of people are ok with that.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 04:44 PM
  #79
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling View Post
Two players each as no list are both way too much IMO. I would do only 3 per team protected of people are ok with that.
or...

2-man selection per franchise AFTER 5-man protection list

OR

1-man selection per franchise with no protection list

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:01 PM
  #80
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
or...

2-man selection per franchise AFTER 5-man protection list

OR

1-man selection per franchise with no protection list
Compromise: You can take 3 total from my two teams instead of 2, with 5 per team protected.

I need opinions, other GMs.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:02 PM
  #81
JayP812
The Team of Tomorrow
 
JayP812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 6,460
vCash: 500
That's fair.

JayP812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:03 PM
  #82
BigBenSF*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: bay area
Country: United States
Posts: 3,876
vCash: 500
1 man selection per franchise with no protection list is fair

BigBenSF* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:03 PM
  #83
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling View Post
Compromise: You can take 3 total from my two teams instead of 2, with 5 per team protected.
I'd of course do it but,... that is not much different than our original deal so might not satisfy those who want to veto.

Were my two suggested alternatives too much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dime a Dozen
1 man selection per franchise with no protection list is fair
Agreed.

As is the alternative: two-men per franchise (4 in total) after a 5-name protection list.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:04 PM
  #84
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dime A Dozen View Post
1 man selection per franchise with no protection list is fair
I'm not giving up the best player on each of my teams. Not a chance.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:04 PM
  #85
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
That is not much different than our original deal so might not satisfy those who want to veto.

Were my two suggested alternatives too much?
Personally, I think so. Losing 4 quality players or my 2 best players is a lot to give up.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:07 PM
  #86
xxOPPNOOBZxx
#ProduceForKing
 
xxOPPNOOBZxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 676
so are both trades involved?

xxOPPNOOBZxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:08 PM
  #87
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxOPPNOOBZxx View Post
so are both trades involved?
Yeah, I assume so. Again, if it were up to me I'd veto neither, but it looks pretty clear people don't like the original ones.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:08 PM
  #88
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling View Post
Personally, I think so. Losing 4 quality players or my 2 best players is a lot to give up.
So maybe the best thing to do is let others veto it.

I'm happy either way. We don't want anyone to have hard feelings.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:15 PM
  #89
BigBenSF*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: bay area
Country: United States
Posts: 3,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling View Post
I'm not giving up the best player on each of my teams. Not a chance.
then don't trade from 26 to 5

BigBenSF* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:19 PM
  #90
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
How about 3 players to VI (one from each team, one from the team of his choice) with four protected players per team. Seems like a decent compromise to me.

Barring a lot more objections, this is the final compromise.

This also applies to the DD/xx deal, providing DD accepts. Otherwise, that deal is vetoed.

I hope this makes people feel a little better. Even if you don't think it's completely even, I hope you think it's good enough to not be veto-able. Or at least better than the original by a lot.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:20 PM
  #91
BigBenSF*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: bay area
Country: United States
Posts: 3,876
vCash: 500
that's still a bad deal for VI

BigBenSF* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:21 PM
  #92
Habsfannick
Registered User
 
Habsfannick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 2,857
vCash: 500
Still bad but much more debatable on whether or not it should be vetoed

Habsfannick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:22 PM
  #93
Patchey*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Gaylord, Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 12,768
vCash: 500
Still veto

Patchey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:23 PM
  #94
CoachBadkitten
Matt Hunwick
 
CoachBadkitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 5,408
vCash: 500
I think we should just keep the pick trades simple personally.

CoachBadkitten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:25 PM
  #95
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dime A Dozen View Post
that's still a bad deal for VI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausar View Post
Still veto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsfannick View Post
Still bad but much more debatable on whether or not it should be vetoed
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBadkitten View Post
I think we should just keep the pick trades simple personally.
Is it still really that bad? I'm giving him three of Marleau, Burns, Stepan, Braun, Nash, Kreider, Hertl, Niemi, etc. That's significant.

Again, the goal isn't a 100% fair trade, just one that is within reason. I think this accomplishes that.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:26 PM
  #96
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling
Barring a lot more objections, this is the final compromise.
Er,... we now got a lot more objections.

However much I'd like to get Marleau and Kreider (left unprotected on the lists you PM'd me for SJ and NYR), it may be best to veto.

Sigh.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:27 PM
  #97
JayP812
The Team of Tomorrow
 
JayP812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 6,460
vCash: 500
VI offered the lopsided deal himself, we shouldn't be trying to make him win it. The compromise is fine.

JayP812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:29 PM
  #98
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayP812 View Post
VI offered the lopsided deal himself, we shouldn't be trying to make him win it. The compromise is fine.
Exactly. I've thrown in one less protected player per team and an extra top pairing/top line guy on top of that. I personally think that's enough. But if others disagree, fair enough.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:31 PM
  #99
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,838
vCash: 500
If it's not vetoed, I claim Marleau, Burns, Stepan.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 05:39 PM
  #100
LarKing
Registered User
 
LarKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 6,879
vCash: 500
It's not that bad, certainly not vetoable but whatever. I'll give a third player a well but I'd like to keep it as too 6 and top 5 protected, I'm moving up less spots than you are.

LarKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:34 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.