HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > General Fantasy Talk
General Fantasy Talk Forum for fantasy leagues, mock and all time drafts, and hockey video games.

new dynasty league forming...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-05-2009, 01:24 PM
  #26
The Brewmeister
#Winning.
 
The Brewmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Hammer
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,201
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to The Brewmeister Send a message via Skype™ to The Brewmeister
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZhasX View Post
Not a bad idea.
How would we go about randomizing them?

Here's another idea: 5 is definately too much. How about we just freeze one player (maybe two at most) from our current roster? Build the team around that/those player(s). I dunno about you, but it's really hard for me to build a team without having at least one guy/guys to build it around.

(not only that, I'm hell-bent on keeping Ovechkin)

However, if we do this, the best way to set up the draft is by finding who got the (for lack of a better word) 'worst' of the players that were kept on the team.
The only problem I see here is that there would most definately be arguments about who's better than who (i.e. Timmy vs. Backstrom - or unlikely matchups like G vs. D).
well, a full snake draft would be complete randomizing. If we only do 16 teams, we'd have potential to make some pretty good teams. There are websites where you can randomize a list and that way it will give you a random resulted list of teams and we can pick in that order. the 1st-5th rounds would be star studded so you can build around them

The Brewmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 02:29 PM
  #27
loganmacinnis*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
vCash: 500
ill be with philly or tampa bay

loganmacinnis* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 04:16 PM
  #28
Schooner Guy
Registered User
 
Schooner Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,657
vCash: 500
Could I go in as the Habs?

Schooner Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:51 PM
  #29
AyVee
Registered User
 
AyVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Springs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureFF View Post
well, a full snake draft would be complete randomizing. If we only do 16 teams, we'd have potential to make some pretty good teams. There are websites where you can randomize a list and that way it will give you a random resulted list of teams and we can pick in that order. the 1st-5th rounds would be star studded so you can build around them
Then what would be the point in taking a team? It doesn't seem to matter only for maybe fan-based purposes.
It's kinda discouraging personally

AyVee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 09:49 PM
  #30
Porn*
Registered User
 
Porn*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your nightmares
Country: Israel
Posts: 33,702
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Porn*
I would either keep full teams... or draft full teams, i'm not a huge fan of the protected lists, but i'll go with whatever the majority goes for... either way!

Porn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 09:55 PM
  #31
papershoes
Registered User
 
papershoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kenora, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porn* View Post
I would either keep full teams... or draft full teams, i'm not a huge fan of the protected lists, but i'll go with whatever the majority goes for... either way!
it seems as though most people are intrigued by the "select a team, protect five players" idea however, the majority would rather utilize a full dispersal draft (no protected players).

if this is the case, we need to get about 4-5 more gm's to sign up, then we can create a forum and start the draft.

papershoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 10:00 PM
  #32
Porn*
Registered User
 
Porn*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your nightmares
Country: Israel
Posts: 33,702
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Porn*
so the majority want a full redraft? if so... we could make a rule; no trades during dispersal draft...

Porn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 10:08 PM
  #33
Bleak
Registered User
 
Bleak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
I like the protection idea but we could have some rules like:
4 players protected:
Only one player can have a salary = or < Max Cap
The next player can only have a salary < or = 5.5M
The next player can only have a salary < or = 3.5M
< or = 2.0M

That way you are protection certain groups of players and not just protecting the stars. Thoughts?

Bleak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 10:12 PM
  #34
Porn*
Registered User
 
Porn*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your nightmares
Country: Israel
Posts: 33,702
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Porn*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleak View Post
I like the protection idea but we could have some rules like:
4 players protected:
Only one player can have a salary = or < Max Cap
The next player can only have a salary < or = 5.5M
The next player can only have a salary < or = 3.5M
< or = 2.0M

That way you are protection certain groups of players and not just protecting the stars. Thoughts?
thats actually a great idea... evens things out a bit...

but maybe do it by age a bit? prevents guys like chicago or pitts from building a team with a pre-existing nucleus...

Porn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 10:52 PM
  #35
Bleak
Registered User
 
Bleak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porn* View Post
thats actually a great idea... evens things out a bit...

but maybe do it by age a bit? prevents guys like chicago or pitts from building a team with a pre-existing nucleus...
one < or = 22
one < or = 27
one < or = 33
one > 33

It would be 18-22, 23-27, 28-33, 33+ I don't know how to do the age groups correctly.

Bleak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 11:07 PM
  #36
AyVee
Registered User
 
AyVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Springs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,995
vCash: 500
I'm a fan of freezing at least one player.
Bleak's idea sounds interesting, but I'm kinda lost in trying to understand it. I think I got it though.
Ovie wouldn't be able to be frozen though... The main reason I picked this team in the flippin first place
Maybe if I protected OV and only 2 others instead of 4? (just throwin it out there if we're gonna go with this)


Last edited by AyVee: 08-05-2009 at 11:18 PM.
AyVee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 11:25 PM
  #37
Bleak
Registered User
 
Bleak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZhasX View Post
I'm a fan of freezing at least one player.
Bleak's idea sounds interesting, but I'm kinda lost in trying to understand it. I think I got it though.
Ovie wouldn't be able to be frozen though... The main reason I picked this team in the flippin first place
Maybe if I protected OV and only 2 others instead of 4? (just throwin it out there if we're gonna go with this)
A.O would be able to be frozen, he would fall into that max category.

Bleak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 11:42 PM
  #38
Roflologist
Go Jays!
 
Roflologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 179
vCash: 500
Maybe just keep 1 player/prospect from that team then do a fantasy draft with the rest. I'm fine with whatever is decided though.

Roflologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 11:54 PM
  #39
The Brewmeister
#Winning.
 
The Brewmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Hammer
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,201
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to The Brewmeister Send a message via Skype™ to The Brewmeister
i dunno, i kinda lose interest in this if we freeze a player. Bleak's idea is interesting, but some people may not understand as much and can create controversy.

I'd rather do a full re-draft... IMO, you get the players you want, and dont have to worry I'm phoenix, and lose a ton of players to bleaks idea. Example... peter mueller, Kyle Turris, Mikkel Boedker, and Oliver Ekman-Larrson... I could only keep 1/4, and then boom, the other 3 are gone... pretty ****** if you ask me.

The Brewmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 11:58 PM
  #40
AyVee
Registered User
 
AyVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Springs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,995
vCash: 500
Ovechkin's 23 not 22, so he actually wouldn't. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule?

If we did a full draft I'm just worried about the order. If someone snags Ovie before I do, it would be next to impossible to get him back. The person before me would pick him up knowing I would want him and then I'd have to probably overpay just to get him - assuming they would even want to.


Last edited by AyVee: 08-06-2009 at 12:13 AM.
AyVee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 12:15 AM
  #41
glassjaw*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,238
vCash: 500
I'll do Buffalo, Philadelphia, or Ottawa.

glassjaw* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 09:39 AM
  #42
Zauper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
I'll sign up. Detriot or San Jose.

Zauper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:10 AM
  #43
papershoes
Registered User
 
papershoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kenora, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureFF View Post
i dunno, i kinda lose interest in this if we freeze a player. Bleak's idea is interesting, but some people may not understand as much and can create controversy.

I'd rather do a full re-draft... IMO, you get the players you want, and dont have to worry I'm phoenix, and lose a ton of players to bleaks idea. Example... peter mueller, Kyle Turris, Mikkel Boedker, and Oliver Ekman-Larrson... I could only keep 1/4, and then boom, the other 3 are gone... pretty ****** if you ask me.
while i like bleaks idea - i certainly understand your counterpoint here. the salary cap restrictions would be effective for limiting the stacking of teams with top-notch talent (i.e., pittsburgh - as only one of malkin / crosby could be protected) but, would cripple those gm's who select teams based on young top-notch players (i.e, phoenix, columbus).

i think i'm of the same mentality as most of you in that we either pick teams and protect 5 or, we just do a complete dispersal draft. the only other intriguing option, and this would be purely based on fan-base, would be to select your favourite team and protect one player. either way.

a couple more teams and we can get this thing rolling.

also, i'm digging all the conversation going on - definitely a strong sign for a new league.

papershoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 11:21 AM
  #44
Zauper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by papershoes View Post
while i like bleaks idea - i certainly understand your counterpoint here. the salary cap restrictions would be effective for limiting the stacking of teams with top-notch talent (i.e., pittsburgh - as only one of malkin / crosby could be protected) but, would cripple those gm's who select teams based on young top-notch players (i.e, phoenix, columbus).

i think i'm of the same mentality as most of you in that we either pick teams and protect 5 or, we just do a complete dispersal draft. the only other intriguing option, and this would be purely based on fan-base, would be to select your favourite team and protect one player. either way.

a couple more teams and we can get this thing rolling.

also, i'm digging all the conversation going on - definitely a strong sign for a new league.
For what it's worth, my preference is the same as yours. Or if not 5, a few, certainly. With 16 players, you're looking at at least getting all of the playoff teams. That's a pretty good core of talent, even if not all of them have a malkin or ovechkin.

Salary cap plays a big role, even if we end up getting an extra 15-20M in cap space.

I also like the alternative suggestion, where you can only pick x players making over y dollars -- one making 6M+, one 4-6M, one 2-4M, one 1-2M -- something like that. You could choose to select an additional player making less, but not more. This prevents the crosby/malkin combo, but doesn't prevent a decent selection from younger teams.

Zauper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 12:13 PM
  #45
AyVee
Registered User
 
AyVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Springs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper View Post
For what it's worth, my preference is the same as yours. Or if not 5, a few, certainly. With 16 players, you're looking at at least getting all of the playoff teams. That's a pretty good core of talent, even if not all of them have a malkin or ovechkin.

Salary cap plays a big role, even if we end up getting an extra 15-20M in cap space.

I also like the alternative suggestion, where you can only pick x players making over y dollars -- one making 6M+, one 4-6M, one 2-4M, one 1-2M -- something like that. You could choose to select an additional player making less, but not more. This prevents the crosby/malkin combo, but doesn't prevent a decent selection from younger teams.
Yeah, that's kind of a bummer rule for prospects and young teams as they seem to operate quite differently from playoff-bound teams.
Unless we create a completely new rule for those teams altogether, which so far be only Pheonix, but buffalo is kind of a different monster entirely, he would kinda be screwed out of all but a few players.
Whoever Toronto would protect, he'd lose out on Blake, Toskala, Kaberle and Beauchemin - that is, IF i'm reading Bleak's chart right, I may not be.

So that rule seems to only work for the Pens, Wash, Ducks,
I still think we need to discuss this a lot more cause I'd hate to see some GM's screwed.


(Side Note: I just noticed the Flyers are very Canadian. They'd also arguably be the most screwed.)

AyVee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 01:01 PM
  #46
Bleak
Registered User
 
Bleak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
I was just shooting ideas off the top of my head, I like the cap restriction more than I like the age restriction because of prospects and all that jazz for rebuilding teams. We could reduce it to 3 players, but I like 4. =p

Age restriction could be changed IE: players that fall in the age between 18-21 are exempted from this rule but still follow the salary cap rule. As you can select a player making 5.5M to fall under the "Max" category for the salary cap

Bleak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 01:39 PM
  #47
mlugia
That other guy
 
mlugia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S. Korea
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,065
vCash: 500
I'd be up for it. Columbus would be my first choice, and I honestly couldn't care for my 2nd.

If we're not keeping players, that's fine too. I'm flexible

mlugia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 01:49 PM
  #48
AyVee
Registered User
 
AyVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Springs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleak View Post
I was just shooting ideas off the top of my head, I like the cap restriction more than I like the age restriction because of prospects and all that jazz for rebuilding teams. We could reduce it to 3 players, but I like 4. =p

Age restriction could be changed IE: players that fall in the age between 18-21 are exempted from this rule but still follow the salary cap rule. As you can select a player making 5.5M to fall under the "Max" category for the salary cap
If we're doing some sort of restriction, we would have to individualize it for every team cause each team is different.

AyVee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 01:56 PM
  #49
mlugia
That other guy
 
mlugia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S. Korea
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,065
vCash: 500
Perhaps it's best if we just either choose to protect 0 or 1 player. Teams who don't protect get a bonus round pick pre-draft to fill that protected slot?

mlugia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2009, 02:06 PM
  #50
papershoes
Registered User
 
papershoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kenora, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,575
vCash: 500
alright - we've reached our 12 team minimum (i'm not sure if vujtek) is still interested.

so, i say we put this to a vote on the "protect a player" idea. so, i'll toss out three ideas - please vote on one (either via pm or in this thread). i'll tally the votes, and majority wins.

option one: choose a team and protect FIVE players (the methodology for choosing protected players will be voted on in a following vote)

option two: choose a team and protect ONE player / prospect

option three: no protection of players - complete dispersal draft.

papershoes 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 12:59 PM.

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.