WANTED: NYI Picks for F

[Tony]

5th round picks (any and all) for a forward who can give me ice time and salary

Picks:

PHI, VAN, STL 5ths

NYI 6th as well

[Tony]

Since I won't be able to keep any of the these picks once I draft them, all three picks for a 4th liner ... anyone?

[kyuss]

Since I won't be able to keep any of the these picks once I draft them, all three picks for a 4th liner ... anyone?

see..this is exactly what i was talking about in the thread about the 60 men limit:
how foolish is that one of the worst team in the league has to opt to get rid of his picks?!

[Nick]

just hang on. you have 2+ months to sort things out. being hasty is a common mistake amongst GM's.. its like when a GM says he needs an answer by tonight, or right now... fucking pass.... LOL

[kyuss]

just hang on. you have 2+ months to sort things out. being hasty is a common mistake amongst GM's.. its like when a GM says he needs an answer by tonight, or right now... fucking pass.... LOL

however, it's probably easier to trade now your picks then later 3 unknown players YOU chose to draft..

[shooker]

this was my argument exactly. We would make a farce of the later rounds without a higher limit. However some people seem stuborn on this topic and I see zero chance of that changing. So unfortunatly we will have to make due. Just time out on the picks

[Tony]

Seems like the one who are stubborn are the ones who have all the best players ... interesting ...

[Mike]

Seems like the one who are stubborn are the ones who have all the best players ... interesting ...

I'm in the same boat as you are - 60 players - at the cap. Why? Poor management. I don't blame anyone but myself. But here's the fun... trying to improve your club within the guidelines already in place.

[Shep]

[kyuss]

I'm in the same boat as you are - 60 players - at the cap. Why? Poor management. I don't blame anyone but myself. But here's the fun... trying to improve your club within the guidelines already in place.

dropping players doesn't mean improving our team though..
and every time i tried to trade lower assets people replied: sorry dude, i can not do that cause i'm too close myself to the 60 men limit. So you either trade away the best ones to make room for the worsts, or you cut the worst for nothing, losing potential NHLers for nothing.

[MSP4LYFE]

Seems like the one who are stubborn are the ones who have all the best players ... interesting ...

Both myself and Neel (as well as others) fought tooth and nail to have the limit upped to 70+ over a year ago...So don't go making broad generalizations...

[Shoalzie]

I think we can all admit to one another that we have some guys that could be dropped if it was truly necessary. Can anyone here say with a straight face that all their prospects or fringe players are earmarked for the NHL? I realize picks and prospects are a big part of this league...not just the NHL talent...but everyone should know the roster limits and keep that in mind when they make trades. If you've got 12 picks, you should have room for 12 new players.

If you have to drop a couple dud prospects, just replace them with some fresh faces and see what happens. We've all be burned by trading a guy at the wrong time or not getting full value or just being impulsive...I can raise my hand on all three occasions...but that's the whole fun of this. We make decisions and take risks because we want to see if they'll work out. If you fail, you try again.

I'm not against the roster limit going up from year to year but changing the rule now after it already has been decided just opens the door for more massaging of rules. We need to have some rigid guidelines to work within.

[Nick]

[
Both myself and Neel (as well as others) fought tooth and nail to have the limit upped to 70+ over a year ago...So don't go making broad generalizations...

easy to claim w/o any history ....

[Tony]

Both myself and Neel (as well as others) fought tooth and nail to have the limit upped to 70+ over a year ago...So don't go making broad generalizations...

Or what? It's an observation ... don't remember saying "all" teams.

[MSP4LYFE]

easy to claim w/o any history ....

LMAO...

Luke
Neel
Billy
Mike
Scott

Ask anyone of the above people and they will confirm my standpoint on the matter. You seem to have a very selective memory...

[MSP4LYFE]

Or what? It's an observation ... don't remember saying "all" teams.

You never specified who you were talking about specifically, only mentioning that it was the teams with the best players, not difficult to see why I took that to mean me, among others of course.

[MSP4LYFE]

You want proof Nick, here you go:

http://nhlnotes.com/bbkl/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=589

I agree completely, the entire CC is stupid if you ask me, I'm not refering to any of the members, but the CC itself. I think it's unfair that a few members have the power to make decisions for the entire league. This rule specifically was BS, everyone on the CC was pro 50, as evidenced by the unanimous decision against 60. Not one member on the CC wanted to increase 60, how is that fair? And like Berney said, most of us don't know what the **** is going on, hell most here didnt even know TB quit until a few days ago...

IMO if we are going to have a CC we should at least have the option of electing it's members.

60 would have been a good middle ground, 55 is useless it helps no one. As for your argument that it makes for tough decisions down the road, thats complete BS, we already have tough decisions to make, trades, drafting, evaluating pro talent, managing our cap etc, forcing us to dump picks makes for an unfair playing field. It favors contending teams whilst punishing rebuilding teams who stockpile picks, if anything it takes away tough decisions, as we will no longer have the option of drafting past round 4 in a couple of years.

I would add an additional 2/3 spots becuase of the additional waiver claims after the Dispersal draft, regardless you are proving what I have been saying, we are set until 2011/2012 and then we are full, but the problem is that it takes longer to judge certain prospects, with this system we will be forced to dump players before they are fully developed.

I love the idea of a public vote, because at least then we can get the view of the entire league, and not those of a select few, and yes this vote ended in a 50/50 split, but it also changed dramatically by the hour, so it's impossible to tell where the entire league really stood on the matter.

Secondly, the fact that the entire CC wanted to maintain 50 proves that it was bias, because of that there was ZERO chance of increasing roster sizes to 60. I can't understand how you fail to see this. Furthermore 50, was not a middle ground, if you revisit the debate many of us were calling for 70+, 60, not 55 would have been a good middle ground, and therein lies my disdain with this ruling.

Whether or not you would maintain 50 spots without a CC is irrelevant, as it the decision would still be unjust and not for the betterment of the entire league.

Anyways, this is my last post on the subject.

Where the did I say anything about my opinion holding any more weight then anyone else? Huh, chief, please find a quote where I stated or even implied such a thing. Last I checked my argument was to hold a league wide vote or elect CC members to ensure the best interests of the entire league are met, which is the complete opposite of what you claim. I along with several others have debated this argument for the last couple of days, and from the discussions its seems apparent that 60 + is most beneficial to the league. Furthermore, not everyone voted, and the votes changed on an hourly basis making it impossible to truly gauge what the leagues opinon on this matter is.

As for being spoiled, perhaps you should look up the meaning, what I have done is excercised by right as a GM in this league and Canadian citizen to voice my opinion, if you have a problem with that you can go fuck yourself, because it's not going to change.

The funny thing is that I am a competitive team, and while I have quite a few prospects, I am not by any means rebuilding, my stance on this matter isnt even in the best interests of my team, but moreso yours, and yet you accuse me of being selfish and spoiled.

BTW Facey, here was your post on the subject...

the CC is actually a group of relatively level headed GM's... our discussions do not become arguments, and we try and think of all the teams... voted CC members is a good idea, one we will probably adapt, however if you increase the size of the CC it means longer decision time, and less representative of the population (ie guy with most votes had no more power then guy with least... if you add more choices that gap gets bigger).


70+ is ridiculous, as is 30. however 55 allows for 30 players not playing in the NHL, yes if you stockpile a HUGE # of picks you could run into a situation wherein you have to make a judgment on a player your still unsure of, however thats the fun part, the challenging part..

if a large group of us (aka not half, but more then half) feel that we need to expand our 'minors' system in a few years then we can do that... not like we are writing the 10 commandments here.

and MSP, as i've said before, you make almost every discussion into an argument, and you make almost every argument personal ... its great that you seem to think that your side won the discussion earlier in this thread, the majority did not, IMO not all your reasoning is even approaching sound, and there has been no rebuttal to many of the others sides points (true for both sides, as they are actually arguing different points, your side doesn't want to have to make tough decisions regarding prospects, the other side thinks that is a necessary facet of the simulation, but if its too many decisions, multiple people have already said we can address it again when the concern is more warranted).

The CC thread is deleted, and that is where I claimed verbatim that this would come back to bite us, so unfortunately I cannot retrieve that info, but the above should be proof enough that I am not making shit up...

[MSP4LYFE]

On an unrelated note, after reading some of my previous posts it is immediately evident that I have toned down the agression since the mid point of last year. That will not continue...

[inferno31]

Clearly this topic is dead, I willfully acknowledge I was clamouring to see an increase over to at least 60, but it didn't happen and its 55. I think starpainter is right, we should reexamine this later, my view on the topic is not that the CC really made a decision but rather bought us at least a year to revisit the topic. Keeping it at 50 made it an immediate concern, keeping it at 55 lets us let the league run for a year (We haven't even started the season yet!), and then reanalyze the situation which in my mind is fair. In such time I will again be vocal about my views on the topic, which is every gms right. For now whatever, and for the record my beef wasn't necessarily that the CC made the decision, it was mentioned that the CC would vote on it in the other thread but it wasn't clear as we discussed other options as well. I didn't know a vote was forthcoming or what issues the CC are even considering voting on at any moment, which was my issue with it. I was under the impression there was a process to present something to the CC and didn't know we had gone through it, but in the future we'll figure that out then too. I'd rather see mistakes and issues brought up now rather than later, but lets let the league run for a year and we'll gauge interest before the next draft on changing the roster size. Electing members seems like a good idea as well.

Is what I said on the topic in the general fourm.
It was significantly more HEATED in other threads.
What I said a year ago still stands though IMO.

[shooker]

I just find it funny that the people who decided this wont even consider a change in this even with this fairly large up roar on it..Im not saying increase it to 80 today but by next draft its not in there I feel we have made a very bad decision. For one we all started with 30 guys, so the guys we have accumulated are guys that we have some belief in. I would hate to let a guy go I drafted two years ago and is just about to get a start pro just to draft a new player or give away the draft cause I dont have any spots open. No matter what the rule is we will have to make choices at some point, but why force it soo soon. This is a fantasy league and one of the things that seperates this league is the depth. We all want to hit homeruns in our drafts and a home run imo is a later round guy not first two or three and unfortunatly with this limited roster size we will have to let some of those guys go.