HFVan Hockey League 2017-18 III

[Canucks LB]

So does LB get Varly since he's last? If not I put a claim on him and would send Subban down in that case

I am assuming i am 1st no?

 

[Dabeast]

claim Calvin Pickard and send down Zane McIntyre (I don't think he needs waivers since he was just waived, but if he does waive Curtis McElhinney)

 

[RandV]

Considering the broad scope of the league you're probably not going to be able to cover every angle without a significant legal document, so maybe there should just be a general 'no bush league' rule? I know that's kind of ambiguous, but still.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

How does waiver priority work? Am i 1st in list?

Since i put in a claim thx

Based on draft order right now.

Reverse of draft order gives Detroit higher priority.

 

[Canucks LB]

claim Calvin Pickard and send down Zane McIntyre (I don't think he needs waivers since he was just waived, but if he does waive Curtis McElhinney)

I am only waiving him if i get confirmation varmy is going to me.

 

[RandV]

You can't force everyone to have an NHL starter, if people want to tank, fine. As long as we have a 14+ team lottery draft.

I can only speculate which way the league may go and the organizers say they're basing it off another league(s) that run just fine this way, but I see a potential problem here. With 30 teams, the big impact goalies have, and only being allowed to hold 1 designated starter, I feel the key to success is going to be being able to roll a season with two contributing starter goalies. At the draft this could be accomplished by taking undesignated guys like Scott Darling or Anti Raanta.

There's only going to be a very limited number of teams able to accomplish this in any given year though, leaving only a few teams with a real chance at competing. This being fantasy hockey and not the real NHL, that could lead to a massive 'race to the bottom'. In my experience leagues where there's only a couple contenders and a significantly larger 'rebuilding' crowd tend not to be very fun. In particular because it creates a massive buyers market, the few contenders get their choice of options while it's near impossible for a rebuild team to sell a player.

It's way to early and I'm not saying we're going in that direction, but just something to watch out for.

 

[Intoewsables]

I can only speculate which way the league may go and the organizers say they're basing it off another league(s) that run just fine this way, but I see a potential problem here. With 30 teams, the big impact goalies have, and only being allowed to hold 1 designated starter, I feel the key to success is going to be being able to roll a season with two contributing starter goalies. At the draft this could be accomplished by taking undesignated guys like Scott Darling or Anti Raanta.

There's only going to be a very limited number of teams able to accomplish this in any given year though, leaving only a few teams with a real chance at competing. This being fantasy hockey and not the real NHL, that could lead to a massive 'race to the bottom'. In my experience leagues where there's only a couple contenders and a significantly larger 'rebuilding' crowd tend not to be very fun. In particular because it creates a massive buyers market, the few contenders get their choice of options while it's near impossible for a rebuild team to sell a player.

It's way to early and I'm not saying we're going in that direction, but just something to watch out for.

Absolutely, and I appreciate the input here btw. I'm totally okay with re-evaluating virtually anything in terms of the rules or the scoring structure, as long as it's done during the off-season. It's not fair to a lot of teams to be changing rules and scoring in the middle of a season when everyone has built their teams according to the existing rules. If the starting goaltender on a given team is the difference between a top contender and a team in position to rebuild, the goalie scoring structure needs tweaking. We'll see how it shakes out over the course of the season but I certainly hope we avoid the scenario you've outlined here.

 

[Weylspin]

So who gets Varly? Me or LB cuz if lb gets it I'll claim Pickard instead and I'll have higher priority with the standings

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

I can only speculate which way the league may go and the organizers say they're basing it off another league(s) that run just fine this way, but I see a potential problem here. With 30 teams, the big impact goalies have, and only being allowed to hold 1 designated starter, I feel the key to success is going to be being able to roll a season with two contributing starter goalies. At the draft this could be accomplished by taking undesignated guys like Scott Darling or Anti Raanta.

There's only going to be a very limited number of teams able to accomplish this in any given year though, leaving only a few teams with a real chance at competing. This being fantasy hockey and not the real NHL, that could lead to a massive 'race to the bottom'. In my experience leagues where there's only a couple contenders and a significantly larger 'rebuilding' crowd tend not to be very fun. In particular because it creates a massive buyers market, the few contenders get their choice of options while it's near impossible for a rebuild team to sell a player.

It's way to early and I'm not saying we're going in that direction, but just something to watch out for.

The 1 starter thing was only for the draft to encourage parity wasn't it? Randomly declaring players as starters would completely devalue them in the future. I used a 2nd round pick on a goalie for a reason.

 

[Intoewsables]

So who gets Varly? Me or LB cuz if lb gets it I'll claim Pickard instead and I'll have higher priority with the standings

Between the two of you? You. LB is only waiving Pickard if he gets Varlamov though.

 

[Intoewsables]

The 1 starter thing was only for the draft to encourage parity wasn't it? Randomly declaring players as starters would completely devalue them in the future. I used a 2nd round pick on a goalie for a reason.

No. The starter list will be tweaked every off-season to try and simulate how it is in the real NHL as best as we can. If you're carrying two legitimate starters in real life (e.g. Luongo and Schneider), you're really only getting value out of one of them on any given night. With the way this pool works, it's difficult to try to re-create this without restricting teams to one goalie.

Like you say, any team that ends up holding two starters when the list is updated has been put into a pretty crappy spot. I get that, and I'm not going to force teams to comply with the rule immediately for that reason. It's going to be more of a "fix this as soon as you can" thing (again, similar to how the Luongo/Schneider situation shook out IRL) now that the draft is over. Is this the best solution? I don't know. As I've said before, I'm open to better ideas if you guys have them.

 

[LaVar]

waive Semyon Varlamov with the intention of sending him to the AHL and call up Zane McIntyre

#TankWars

The amount of teams tanking... can't wait to see who doesn't end up with a top 2 pick

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

No. The starter list will be tweaked every off-season to try and simulate how it is in the real NHL as best as we can. If you're carrying two legitimate starters in real life (e.g. Luongo and Schneider), you're really only getting value out of one of them on any given night. With the way this pool works, it's difficult to try to re-create this without restricting teams to one goalie.

Like you say, any team that ends up holding two starters when the list is updated has been put into a pretty crappy spot. I get that, and I'm not going to force teams to comply with the rule immediately for that reason. It's going to be more of a "fix this as soon as you can" thing (again, similar to how the Luongo/Schneider situation shook out IRL) now that the draft is over. Is this the best solution? I don't know. As I've said before, I'm open to better ideas if you guys have them.

Why not just do a minimum and maximum for goalie games in future years and punish variance by moving back their draft priority. Avoids a ton of arbitrary administration.

 

[VanillaCoke]

There is already teams with two starters so the parity is gone anyways.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

The amount of teams tanking... can't wait to see who doesn't end up with a top 2 pick

 

[Canucks LB]

Redraft! Lol

 

[VanillaCoke]

Redraft! Lol

Seconded

 

[Dabeast]

thirded

 

[Intoewsables]

Why not just do a minimum and maximum for goalie games in future years and punish variance by moving back their draft priority. Avoids a ton of arbitrary administration.

Could you expand a little more on that? I don't want to punish people who lose a goalie to injury or anything like that.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

Could you expand a little more on that? I don't want to punish people who lose a goalie to injury or anything like that.

You could count LTIR as games played. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

 

[Intoewsables]

You could count LTIR as games played. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

So, for example, something like a 30 GP minimum and 100 GP maximum? How would you count LTIR as games played? I'm not trying to sound critical or anything -- I just feel like I'm not quite understanding your idea.

 

[Havre]

I got a weak team, but even if I have called it a "tank" I´m not purposely weakening my team (I´m trying to track my AHL guys in case one of my youngsters get called up so that I play as many NHL players as possible). If you can send down actual NHL players why shouldn´t a handful teams just field a full AHL roster (or as close to it as you can get with the floor and having enough decent players for the future)?

Should be a certain honour code here. Sending Varlamov down like that is a %%#"$% move to be honest and will ruin this league if GMs start to do this frequently.

 

[Weylspin]

i feel like if a gm pulls stunts where they purposely bury legit NHL players to tank should hurt there gm rep so that players will not want to sign there as frequently and make it harder to resign players.

 

[PG Canuck]

I got a weak team, but even if I have called it a "tank" I´m not purposely weakening my team (I´m trying to track my AHL guys in case one of my youngsters get called up so that I play as many NHL players as possible). If you can send down actual NHL players why shouldn´t a handful teams just field a full AHL roster (or as close to it as you can get with the floor and having enough decent players for the future)?

Should be a certain honour code here. Sending Varlamov down like that is a %%#"$% move to be honest and will ruin this league if GMs start to do this frequently.

i feel like if a gm pulls stunts where they purposely bury legit NHL players to tank should hurt there gm rep so that players will not want to sign there as frequently and make it harder to resign players.

This. All of this. I think it's beyond ridiculous.

 

[Intoewsables]

i feel like if a gm pulls stunts where they purposely bury legit NHL players to tank should hurt there gm rep so that players will not want to sign there as frequently and make it harder to resign players.

I'm a fan of this. We've done this before over a team strong-arming a player into waiving their clause.