|
|
Post by Beaver Banker on Mar 13, 2015 12:21:33 GMT -4
There has been a lot of discussion in other threads about the number of keepers we retain at the end of each season. Because teams have already been building their rosters looking ahead to this summer's draft, I don't think it'd be fair to make changes that take place this year, so by the end of April, I'd like to have some concrete decisions made about keepers that will take effect after NEXT season. There are a few issues at hand 1) How many should we get to keep? You have 10 players, how many should go back in the draft? 2) Should some teams be able to keep more than others? Do you protect an extra if you miss the playoffs? Can you protect an extra if you forgo your first round pick? 3) Are some players more protectable than others Can you protect an additional player provided he's 16? What about if he's never played a Q game? If you drafted Eichel the year Halifax drafted him and held him all season, should you be able to keep him for free at the following year's draft? 4) How will adjusting the number of keepers affect the draft? Do we care? I've probably missed a few things, but these are the ones that came to mind quickly. If you have comments on this, or anything else to do with the way we handle year-end roster management, please let it be heard! I have my opinions, but I'll save those for later  . |
|
|
|
Post by WildcatMapleLeafs on Mar 24, 2015 7:39:09 GMT -4
1. I'd like to see 6 or 7 keepers. I think it would increase trading and make it easier for teams to build for the future. 2. I think each team should have the same amount of keepers. I don't think you should be able to keep an extra player in exchange for your 1st round pick. 3. Again I think each team should be able to protect the same amount of players. 4. I think more keepers allows teams to draft younger players with an eye toward the future. Spot on with my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Mar 24, 2015 7:57:57 GMT -4
I agree as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Mar 24, 2015 8:09:39 GMT -4
I'm not in this pool anymore so I haven't followed any of the rule changes and proposed changes but this keeper issue caught my eye so I figured I'd ask. Have you guys given any thought to an age based keeper format? Like how each team could keep "X" amount of 17 year olds, "Y" 18 year olds, "Z" 19 year olds etc etc? Might be too complicated maybe or more work than its worth. Just seemed an interesting idea that popped into my head that I thought I'd throw out there. Obviously chances are that a team that just went for a title likely wouldn't have any/many guys turning 17-18 to return, so they'd start the following year with a lot less keepers as they could only keep whatever number you guys agreed upon for 19's and 20's. Then obviously a rebuilding team likely has a pile of returning players that will be 17-18....you get the picture I'm sure. Anyway just thought I'd fire it out there. I thought it could be a neat way to do things, but I'm an oddball so probably the only one who would think so lol. Happy keeper pooling. |
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Mar 24, 2015 8:21:26 GMT -4
I'm not in this pool anymore so I haven't followed any of the rule changes and proposed changes but this keeper issue caught my eye so I figured I'd ask. Have you guys given any thought to an age based keeper format? Like how each team could keep "X" amount of 17 year olds, "Y" 18 year olds, "Z" 19 year olds etc etc? Might be too complicated maybe or more work than its worth. Just seemed an interesting idea that popped into my head that I thought I'd throw out there. Obviously chances are that a team that just went for a title likely wouldn't have any/many guys turning 17-18 to return, so they'd start the following year with a lot less keepers as they could only keep whatever number you guys agreed upon for 19's and 20's. Then obviously a rebuilding team likely has a pile of returning players that will be 17-18....you get the picture I'm sure. Anyway just thought I'd fire it out there. I thought it could be a neat way to do things, but I'm an oddball so probably the only one who would think so lol. Happy keeper pooling. There's only 2 things I hate more than Seadogs fans. 1)Mooseheads fans 2)People who don't mind their own fucking business. The fact that you fall into 2 of my top 3(Or bottom 3) categories has me pretty irate. A Jeremy Roenick avatar is just the cherry on top of the Sunday. I don't know why you aren't in the pool anymore and it's none of my business so I won't get into it but all I'll say is that with suggestions like these I'm flag you aren't. Why not implement a vowel cap so you can have as many keepers as you want but you only have a max of 20 vowels. Martin Frk - 2(BARGAIN) Alexander Radulov -7 Ryan Papaioannou G - 8 Total 17 We're trying to make this as close as possible to the QMJHL, ideas like yours are going against that. Thanks for reading and have a good day. |
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Mar 24, 2015 8:31:04 GMT -4
I'm not in this pool anymore so I haven't followed any of the rule changes and proposed changes but this keeper issue caught my eye so I figured I'd ask. Have you guys given any thought to an age based keeper format? Like how each team could keep "X" amount of 17 year olds, "Y" 18 year olds, "Z" 19 year olds etc etc? Might be too complicated maybe or more work than its worth. Just seemed an interesting idea that popped into my head that I thought I'd throw out there. Obviously chances are that a team that just went for a title likely wouldn't have any/many guys turning 17-18 to return, so they'd start the following year with a lot less keepers as they could only keep whatever number you guys agreed upon for 19's and 20's. Then obviously a rebuilding team likely has a pile of returning players that will be 17-18....you get the picture I'm sure. Anyway just thought I'd fire it out there. I thought it could be a neat way to do things, but I'm an oddball so probably the only one who would think so lol. Happy keeper pooling. There's only 2 things I hate more than Seadogs fans. 1)Mooseheads fans 2)People who don't mind their own fucking business. The fact that you fall into 2 of my top 3(Or bottom 3) categories has me pretty irate. A Jeremy Roenick avatar is just the cherry on top of the Sunday. I don't know why you aren't in the pool anymore and it's none of my business so I won't get into it but all I'll say is that with suggestions like these I'm flag you aren't. Why not implement a vowel cap so you can have as many keepers as you want but you only have a max of 20 vowels. Martin Frk - 2(BARGAIN) Alexander Radulov -7 Ryan Papaioannou G - 8 Total 17 We're trying to make this as close as possible to the QMJHL, ideas like yours are going against that. Thanks for reading and have a good day. I just pissed my pants a little bit. Both at the hilariousness of this post, and because you is scary. p.s. Can I trade away my bargain basement Martin Frk for a Fuck U ? After all they are equal value. |
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Mar 25, 2015 19:39:16 GMT -4
1. I'd like to see 6 or 7 keepers. I think it would increase trading and make it easier for teams to build for the future. 2. I think each team should have the same amount of keepers. I don't think you should be able to keep an extra player in exchange for your 1st round pick. 3. Again I think each team should be able to protect the same amount of players. 4. I think more keepers allows teams to draft younger players with an eye toward the future. I would agree with this...........more keepers would be awesome for rebuiding...I have a team full of young guys and would like to keep 7 or 8 of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Banker on May 1, 2015 14:58:47 GMT -4
Here are my thoughts:
When we first began this, I was relatively convinced that there should never be the opportunity to protect more than half your roster. The player movement suffers greatly, and the league could become stagnant. I like the level of activity we have now. Lots of picks move around, and teams can use great drafting to keep from having to completely suck the year after a run (though I fully expect next year to be a rough one in Souris...)
That said, the pool has a good group of pretty committable committed GMs, and I think the desire to be able to maintain a team more like a true Q team has gotten stronger. I think it is clear there is appetite to increase the number of keepers. I propose just one more P-Spot, allowing each team to keep six, and having a four round draft. Draft picks are big trade chips, and I think maintaining a draft of at least four rounds encourages involvement by enabling player movement.
Here is the formal proposal:
Beginning with the 2016 draft, teams will be able to protect six players from their previous year's roster. All remaining players will become eligible for the draft, provided they meet all other eligibility requirements. To compensate for this change, the draft will be only four rounds instead of five.
And while we're voting, I also want to add:
Beginning with the 2015 (this summer's) draft, the draft will commence on the third Monday in August, rather than the first. This will allow pool teams two more weeks to observe QMJHL offseason activities before making selections. Deadlines for protecting players will not change.
I'd like any GMs with issues with either of these proposals to speak up in this thread by Friday May 8. If there are no amendments proposed, we'll vote starting then.
|
|
.
