HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD#8 to begin in September

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-08-2007, 12:29 PM
  #51
Warm Cookies
The Dynamic Duo
 
Warm Cookies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 47,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Mario as never a first team all-star? never as a hart winner? never as a conn smythe winner?... hard to fathom...

Gretzky would have been a two time hart winner, 1st team and 2nd team all-star... would have been drafted

Orr would have a Norris trophy and first team all-star... probably: all Norris trophy winners have been drafted

by the way... through the massive 28-team 24-round all-time draft #7 and the 11-team 14+ round minor league draft to date... there are SEVERAL Calder trophy winning rookies of the year still undrafted. because a year or two early have not been backed up, due to injury, death and simple reduced brilliance
That certainly makes sense, since the Calder doesn't prove anything in terms of comparing a player to the rest of the league as a whole.

I just think that if someone is widely regarded as the best player in the world, he ought to merit serious consideration in the ATD regardless of age or accumulated big-league service. Experience is a huge factor, but exceptional cases deserve a less rigid approach.

Otherwise, we might as well re-name it the 20th Century Union Draft.

Warm Cookies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2007, 01:36 PM
  #52
ck26
Free Raptor Reagan
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 8,516
vCash: 50
Regardless of what they are, I wouldn't mind seeing limitations of some sort placed on the draft pool.

The rookie draft has been fascinating because judgements on player value have been all over the place. Maybe 1/3 of the guys that have been picked are guys I've never even heard of, especially Wisent's European players. The "competition" is all well and good, but I'm enjoying hearing about the new players. Yeah, yeah, Jean Beliveau, Eddie Shore ... the ATD doesn't even get interesting until the 8th or 10th round, so any ideas about how to force new players into the discussion I'm all for!

ck26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2007, 10:50 PM
  #53
Leaf Lander
Registered User
 
Leaf Lander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BWO Headquarters
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,754
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Leaf Lander Send a message via MSN to Leaf Lander
this isn't the first time that this subject has come up

as far as im concerned the best players are always drafted

whether they are worthy picks or merit where they have been drafted is another matter.

I am for allowing the crosby's phenuef's ovechkin's kovalchuk's into the draft

Leaf Lander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2007, 11:57 PM
  #54
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Lander View Post
Thats ageism

crosby ovechkin are great talents who are victims of there youth

Crosby, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk or Staal > Morrow
And where did I say that Morrow was better than any of them. I said I considered Morrow for sentimental reasons. He played his hockey right until junior down here, I've met the guy on several occasions, and I've always wanted him on my team. I didn't think I would be in the minor league draft, so I thought long and hard about picking him. Two years from now, he'll have accomplished enough to go in the main draft. But not now, unless sentimentality kicks in.

Although I would take him ahead of Kovalchuk if I'm building a team. If Kovalchuk isn't on a scoring line, he's useless. And he's surly, moody and a hot dog. Morrow brings a lot to a team, and is an excellent leader and locker room influence.

A team that takes Crosby or Ovechkin will get punished when voting starts. And for good reason. Two great regular seasons does not make one draft-worthy. You'd need to surround them with an outstanding cast of talent and leadership to win with them on your team.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 12:29 AM
  #55
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
My thoughts.

Buyer beware. As long as the player is/was a pro hockey player, they are fair game, just be aware that picks can hurt you in voting.

I think Henrik Lundqvist has earned 3rd goalie status after 2 NHL seasons. Crosby could be a 2nd liner with the right linemates. But, be very careful. Many of the younger talents have very limitted playoff resumes which absolutly hurts them. Many of them don't fit well in certain roles, but don't have the resumes for other roles.

And remember, this is based 100% on what has actually happened. Crosby's "Best player in the world" status is so far on par with Tommy "Do you know anything about my game?" Anderson and Jose "Daddy Issues" Theodore. We can expect that he'll establish himself as an era defining player, but as of now he's a cross between Anderson and Herb Cain.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 02:52 AM
  #56
Wisent
Registered User
 
Wisent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mannheim
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
And where did I say that Morrow was better than any of them. I said I considered Morrow for sentimental reasons. He played his hockey right until junior down here, I've met the guy on several occasions, and I've always wanted him on my team. I didn't think I would be in the minor league draft, so I thought long and hard about picking him. Two years from now, he'll have accomplished enough to go in the main draft. But not now, unless sentimentality kicks in.

Although I would take him ahead of Kovalchuk if I'm building a team. If Kovalchuk isn't on a scoring line, he's useless. And he's surly, moody and a hot dog. Morrow brings a lot to a team, and is an excellent leader and locker room influence.

A team that takes Crosby or Ovechkin will get punished when voting starts. And for good reason. Two great regular seasons does not make one draft-worthy. You'd need to surround them with an outstanding cast of talent and leadership to win with them on your team.
Thing is that the team Crosby didnīt get punished. He was a proliferate scorer in the play-offs.

Still I have nothing against picking the young ones. They go in the later rounds anyways. If you fill up a top6 spot with them it might work against you. But somehow this draft is not only about ranking where players should be (IMO). I try to draft a team of players that I like and that I would pay to see (OK, Ciccarelli was an exception in the last draft) and still try to ice a competitive team. When I look through the line-ups I ihave the impression that many GMs do it that way.

Wisent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 09:24 AM
  #57
Warm Cookies
The Dynamic Duo
 
Warm Cookies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 47,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
My thoughts.

Buyer beware. As long as the player is/was a pro hockey player, they are fair game, just be aware that picks can hurt you in voting.

I think Henrik Lundqvist has earned 3rd goalie status after 2 NHL seasons. Crosby could be a 2nd liner with the right linemates. But, be very careful. Many of the younger talents have very limitted playoff resumes which absolutly hurts them. Many of them don't fit well in certain roles, but don't have the resumes for other roles.

And remember, this is based 100% on what has actually happened. Crosby's "Best player in the world" status is so far on par with Tommy "Do you know anything about my game?" Anderson and Jose "Daddy Issues" Theodore. We can expect that he'll establish himself as an era defining player, but as of now he's a cross between Anderson and Herb Cain.
Not that I want this to degenerate into a Crosby-centric thread, but it is an interesting issue, and I'm not entirely sure that's a fair comparison. The Hart seemed to be based more on it's original criteria back in Anderson's day than it is now, and Theodore's Hart Trophy was not only hotly contested in '02 - he was hardly the runaway consensus "best player in the NHL" - but his non-Hart seasons don't have anything comparable to Crosby's 102 point effort in '05-'06.

Not to mention Crosby also has an Art Ross, a Pearson, and that WC "Top Forward" honour to recommend him.

Warm Cookies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 07:57 PM
  #58
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Lander View Post
Thats ageism

crosby ovechkin are great talents who are victims of there youth

Crosby, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk or Staal > Morrow
...But do I want to have Crosby on a 4th line? NO! Would I take Morrow on a 4th line?!?! RIGHT AWAY! This guy has 700 games, can do anything on the ice, and got some success in the SC finals... I wouldn't take Ovechkin, Kovy or Staal (well, maybe Staal...) on a 4th either...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 08:07 PM
  #59
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,460
vCash: 500
Oh...

If Lindberg is worthy of 2nd goaltender status (I think he isn't, I wouldn't touch this guy at all in the main draft...), if Lundquist is worthy of STARTING goaltender status for the regular season (Nalyd paid the price, but it was likely his best option out there... I don't think he was worthy of starting, maybe 3rd stringer, but I'd still take the guy I drafted as my 3rd stringer before Lundquist, which was Jon Casey, who isn't a great 3rd stringer either...)... Why would people here considers Jose Theodore as not worthy of 4th or 5th rounder IN THE MINOR LEAGUE DRAFT?!?! Theodore had more good seasons than Lundquist, whether you take half seasons or not... And Lundquist got the EXACT SAME career track than Pete Peeters (seriously, look at these stats...) until he was killed... And then Peeters continued to have some good seasons. Yet, nobody would draft Peeters ahead of Lindberg, and while it MIGHT be explained by the fact Peeters was bad in playoffs... Lindberg shouldn't have playoff time to begin with, unless he's on a team with a starter that wasn't very good in the playoffs (Espo?)

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 08:29 PM
  #60
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Why would people here considers Jose Theodore as not worthy of 4th or 5th rounder IN THE MINOR LEAGUE DRAFT?!?!
Because unless you're really biased toward peak value over career value, his getting drafted in the third round, 29th overall, as the second goaltender taken, just doesn't reflect his value relative to several other goaltenders available, ioo.

Lundqvist as a starter in either league draft is unwise. His two-year career is just not experienced enough to gauge playoff performances, but would be a third stringer type pick.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 08:37 PM
  #61
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Because unless you're really biased toward peak value over career value, his getting drafted in the third round, 29th overall, as the second goaltender taken, just doesn't reflect his value relative to several other goaltenders available, ioo.

Lundqvist as a starter in either league draft is unwise. His two-year career is just not experienced enough to gauge playoff performances, but would be a third stringer type pick.
My previous question was more : why Lundquist ahead of Theodore?...

Not about the relevance of Theodore's pick itself...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 08:40 PM
  #62
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,460
vCash: 500
... I'd take Tommy Anderson's "other seasons" as a whole ahead of Jose Theodore's "other seasons" as a whole, though.

... And I WON'T draft Tommy Anderson unless it's with the 700th pick or so. The mystery around this guy's career (and the fact he played with a BAD team) really kills the guy.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 08:45 PM
  #63
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
My previous question was more : why Lundqvist ahead of Theodore?......
Very good question!

But part of the fun of the all-time drafting is not only making comparisons but seeing how others see it, with silent scoffing at times.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2007, 09:56 PM
  #64
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
My previous question was more : why Lundquist ahead of Theodore?...

Not about the relevance of Theodore's pick itself...
Best on Best tournament winners:
Summit Series: Ken Dyden/Tony Esposito
'76 Canada Cup*: Rogie Vachon
'81 Canada Cup: Vladislav Tretiak
'84 Canada Cup: Pete Peeters
'87 Canada Cup: Grant Fuhr
'91 Canada Cup: Bill Randford
'96 World Cup: Mike Richter
'98 Olympics: Dominic Hasek
'02 Olympics: Martin Brodeur
'04 World Cup: Martin Broduer
'06 Olympics: Henrik Lundqvist

*=questionable best on best status due to limited Soviet participation.

I think most can agree that the Summit Series was the tough competition. I believe that the Canada/World Cups haven't had the level of seriousness and competition that the Summit series and Olympics have had. I also believe that asside from the fall of the Soviets, international competition has gotten tighter. I also believe that it is harder to win on a team that isn't USSR or Canada.

That is why I think Henrik Lundqvist deserves to be a 3rd goalie in the all-time draft. being twice named #3 goalie in the NHL during a period of very tough goaltending competition does not hurt either.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2007, 05:21 PM
  #65
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Best on Best tournament winners:
Summit Series: Ken Dyden/Tony Esposito
'76 Canada Cup*: Rogie Vachon
'81 Canada Cup: Vladislav Tretiak
'84 Canada Cup: Pete Peeters
'87 Canada Cup: Grant Fuhr
'91 Canada Cup: Bill Randford
'96 World Cup: Mike Richter
'98 Olympics: Dominic Hasek
'02 Olympics: Martin Brodeur
'04 World Cup: Martin Broduer
'06 Olympics: Henrik Lundqvist

*=questionable best on best status due to limited Soviet participation.

I think most can agree that the Summit Series was the tough competition. I believe that the Canada/World Cups haven't had the level of seriousness and competition that the Summit series and Olympics have had. I also believe that asside from the fall of the Soviets, international competition has gotten tighter. I also believe that it is harder to win on a team that isn't USSR or Canada.

That is why I think Henrik Lundqvist deserves to be a 3rd goalie in the all-time draft. being twice named #3 goalie in the NHL during a period of very tough goaltending competition does not hurt either.
But his NHL career is REALLY, REALLY short...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2007, 05:37 PM
  #66
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Only 34 less games than Lindburgh. My basic premise is that winning a legit best on best tournament is better than winning a cup. Many will disagree, but, that's the individual's call.

Some more credentials that I missed the first time.

2004 WC best goalie
2005 Swedish MVP
2005 Swedish player of the year
2003, 2004, 2005 Swedish goalie of the year.

Only a handful of years that matter, but, he's done more than most goalies available at the time, he was a last round pick.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2007, 05:47 PM
  #67
raleh
Registered User
 
raleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Only 34 less games than Lindburgh. My basic premise is that winning a legit best on best tournament is better than winning a cup. Many will disagree, but, that's the individual's call.

Some more credentials that I missed the first time.

2004 WC best goalie
2005 Swedish MVP
2005 Swedish player of the year
2003, 2004, 2005 Swedish goalie of the year.

Only a handful of years that matter, but, he's done more than most goalies available at the time, he was a last round pick.
Winning in the Olympics means beating the absolute best...once...If you play for any contending team, and you have an awesome week, your team has a good chance. If Hasek plays the best hockey he possibly can at the Olympics, his team wins. If he plays the exact same way in the playoffs for the Sabres, his team loses. Winning the Stanley cup requires you to be at the top of your game night in and night out. You need 16 wins against teams that are willing to sacrifice anything to beat you. To win the Olympics, you need 3 wins against the very best there is. The 2002 team that won the Olympics hit their stride in the quarterfinal game. You can't do that in the playoffs. If you don't bring your A game from the first puck drop until the cup is lifted, you're going to get eliminated.

Not questioning your pick. He's got two Vezina nominations which is better than most. Just questioning the bolded part of your post.

raleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2007, 06:14 PM
  #68
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
The difference is level of competition.

Winning the cup means beating the best in the world diffused over 30 teams. Winning the Olympics means doing it against 7 teams.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2007, 06:31 PM
  #69
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,614
vCash: 500
An all-star team just isn't as good as an 82-game tried and tested and battle ready team with all the roles fulfilled.

To get 16 playoff wins against four NHL teams is more significant than 4-5 wins against quickly assembled teams

(not to mention that wins against teams like Latvia or Germany can get one to the quarterfinals of an international tournament, requiring only 3 wins thereafter).

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2007, 07:14 PM
  #70
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post

(not to mention that wins against teams like Latvia or Germany can get one to the quarterfinals of an international tournament, requiring only 3 wins thereafter).
You should have mentionned Belarus...

Oh well, finally, you shouldn't.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2007, 11:00 PM
  #71
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,983
vCash: 500
I'm known as a follower of these drafts, and I definitely recommend a 28-team limit. Whether that's filled up with a lot of co-GM's is your perogative, but I just think that 28 teams should be a max limit.

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2007, 12:57 PM
  #72
Leaf Lander
Registered User
 
Leaf Lander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BWO Headquarters
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,754
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Leaf Lander Send a message via MSN to Leaf Lander
i wouldn't be opposed to having 2 all time drafts with 15 gms each.


BM67 could run one and who would lead the other one?


Last edited by Leaf Lander: 07-13-2007 at 03:26 PM.
Leaf Lander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2007, 01:11 PM
  #73
vancityluongo
undisputed genius
 
vancityluongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 1972
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 12,149
vCash: 1070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Lander View Post
i wouldn't be oppsoed to have 2 all tiem drafts with 15 gms each.
16 would work better. That may have to happen for ATD #9.

vancityluongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2007, 01:26 PM
  #74
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,614
vCash: 500
Two conferences, 16 teams in each, works perfectly for the playoffs.

(A 16-team league by itself would involve ignoring half the players drafted in the last main draft, and of all all-time drafts to date, that draft produced the most realistic looking teams! the 28-team draft league was a resounding success: it can handle ONE extra team per division)

One thing we could do is ensure that it's an all-time draft.

Suggestion:

Require every team to have a player who began their professional hockey career (first pro game as rookie, in whatever league) from every era. In fact, perhaps something like:

1 player from 1939 or earlier
1 player from the 40s
1 player from the 50s
1 player from the 60s
1 player from the 70s
1 player from the 80s
1 player from the 90s
1 player from 2000 or later

and even:

2 non-NHLers (never played in that league)

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2007, 03:06 PM
  #75
ck26
Free Raptor Reagan
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 8,516
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Two conferences, 16 teams in each, works perfectly for the playoffs.

(A 16-team league by itself would involve ignoring half the players drafted in the last main draft, and of all all-time drafts to date, that draft produced the most realistic looking teams! the 28-team draft league was a resounding success: it can handle ONE extra team per division)

One thing we could do is ensure that it's an all-time draft.

Suggestion:

Require every team to have a player who began their professional hockey career (first pro game as rookie, in whatever league) from every era. In fact, perhaps something like:

1 player from 1939 or earlier
1 player from the 40s
1 player from the 50s
1 player from the 60s
1 player from the 70s
1 player from the 80s
1 player from the 90s
1 player from 2000 or later

and even:

2 non-NHLers (never played in that league)
Maybe don't be quite so specific with the restrictions? Maybe minimum 4 players from pre-1960 + 1 active player? I'm sure GBC or Nayld would call me crazy, but I can't name 30 players (1 per team) who I actually like who played pre-1930, but there are hundreds from the 50's and 60's. Is Doug Harvey any less "all-time" than Cyclone Taylor? I think you're going to drive up the value on certain decades and drive down the value on others disproportionately.


Last edited by ck26: 07-13-2007 at 03:13 PM.
ck26 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 12:46 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. Đ2015 All Rights Reserved.