I choose option 1 following the initial idea, I wouldnt be opposed to lowering the number to 4 or even 3 but 1 or 2 is way too low, defeats the purpose.
i can see what you are saying - choosing a team and keeping only one player would defeat the purpose of building a "team identity"
one other option i just thought of, we could reduce the number to THREE protected players - one goalie, one defence, one forward (or four and add another prospect). just a thought.
i'll have the message board created and posted sometime tonight.
if anyone has any cool league names, feel free to pm them to me.
A)i can see what you are saying - choosing a team and keeping only one player would defeat the purpose of building a "team identity"
B) one other option i just thought of, we could reduce the number to THREE protected players - one goalie, one defence, one forward (or four and add another prospect). just a thought.
cheers
A) I don't see how, could you explain?
B) so would there be an option Four? Or would that go in One?
So far it's
One: 4
Two: 5
Three: 1
And I guess there's an option Four now... protecting 3 (I would say one off, one def, and either goalie OR prospect - not every team chosen has an amazing goalie or prospect - some have both).
I would also say that anyone who wants to change votes to Four can do so, but that's not my call to make...
And I guess there's an option Four now... protecting 3 (I would say one off, one def, and either goalie OR prospect - not every team chosen has an amazing goalie.)
if option one and two ends up tied for the lead... then isn't option four the middle ground compromise?
And I guess there's an option Four now... protecting 3 (I would say one off, one def, and either goalie OR prospect - not every team chosen has an amazing goalie or prospect - some have both).
That would follow in option one, we are going to VOTE how many people we are going to protect, how we protect, restrictions, and all that jazz after we decide the method.
That would follow in option one, we are going to VOTE how many people we are going to protect, how we protect, restrictions, and all that jazz after we decide the method.
OK good, that's what I first thought but I overthought the situation alltogether i guess.
I think I'm just being unnecessary at this point. I'm going to bed.
Why doesn't each team keep one entire line from their respective team + one prospect. Pittsburgh is not allowed to keep Malkin and Crosby as they are both centres. I find this pretty enticing.
LW-C-RW
D-D
G
+prospect
Pittsburgh would keep for example,
Kunitz-Crosby/Malkin-Guerin
Gonchar-Letang
Fleury
And Eric Tangradi or Goligoski as their prospect.
People were talking about a team identity and I think this would cover that. Also it's not like the idea of keeping 5 different players where one team can choose 5 random positions, this gives you a player at each position.
The teams with the weaker rosters would get the chance to draft higher in the disperal draft. Worst team get's 1st overall (Malkin/Crosby)?
Pittsburgh would keep for example,
Kunitz-Crosby/Malkin-Guerin
Gonchar-Letang
Fleury
And Eric Tangradi or Goligoski as their prospect.
the premise of the argument was that keeping 5 players would be unfair to other teams. while that sounds like a good idea and all, some teams would end up with a comparitively crummy roster.
That rule works well for pitts not getting both malking and crosby, but teams would be far too powerful:
Ovie, backs, knuble
Green, poti/morrisonn
Varlamov
--------
what would teams like coyotes and blue jackets choose?
the premise of the argument was that keeping 5 players would be unfair to other teams. while that sounds like a good idea and all, some teams would end up with a comparitively crummy roster.
That rule works well for pitts not getting both malking and crosby, but teams would be far too powerful:
Ovie, backs, knuble
Green, poti/morrisonn
Varlamov
--------
what would teams like coyotes and blue jackets choose?
Here's where I forgot to add. The teams with the weaker rosters would get the chance to draft higher in the disperal draft. Worst team get's 1st overall (Malkin/Crosby)?
Here's where I forgot to add. The teams with the weaker rosters would get the chance to draft higher in the disperal draft. Worst team get's 1st overall (Malkin/Crosby)?
All 16 teams vote, on which teams have the best starting line from their original team, and prospect. you know what I mean? They vote all the way from the worst to best. The worst team gets 1st overall, the best get's 16th overall.
AlexMaz, it could be way biased, a lot of people would think their team is terrible and believe they should get 1st overall pick.
With a full dispersal draft, we could then fairly pick our players without anybody being called out for cheating.
IMO if we are to keep any players, 5 would be useless because people can stack their teams... 1 or 2 would make most sense to me. but i want a full dispersal draft. the only reason i vote for #2 is because i absolutely hate the idea of idea #1
#1 can be used with restrictions applied as well. I dont people understand this =p
I'd like 2 players protected that would help, but then again what about WSH/PIT/CHI etc.
I don't like the idea of a full dispersal draft or the idea of 5 players locked as you've guys convinced me.
Locking 5 is too much
Locking 2 and 3 are iffy but manageable, and those who don't want to can make an extra 1st round pick? (just an idea added on from a previous idea)
And a full dispersal would kinda ruin the point of picking teams in the first place.
