OT: HFWings Keeper Fantasy Hockey League: Season Three (need one new owner to run team)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,095
8,225
Good season, everyone. I too thought there was one more day on the schedule, not that it would have made any difference in my matchup, heh (good job on the bronze, @Bench). Congrats to @Martinez on the championship!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martinez

Sparty

Registered User
Oct 2, 2015
1,208
748
Congrats to Martinez on the victory!

League standings basically worked out to overall point totals, which isn't always a guarantee come playoffs and head-to-head. There's a lot of instances someone is buzz sawing all year and gets popped in one bad week. Not so here. Things fell mostly how they did all year.

Team - Season Points - Playoff Finish
Team Martinez - 5102 points (1st) - Champion
Turkeys - 4839 (3rd) - 2nd place
Bull moose - 4889 (2nd) - 3rd place
Benders - 4711 (5th) - 4th place
Winger98 - 4638 (6th) - 5th place
Spartys - 4819 (4th) - 6th place

Good games, all.

Hall of History

2018 - MD Spartys (8-6)
2019 - Benchworth Bull Moose (17-2)
2020 - Team Martinez (10-2)

I'm still salty about my first round loss this year, that's why I haven't thought much about checking this thread. Between Draisatl only playing two games that week and Mackenzie Weegar winning the dang thing I still wonder what could have been, lol.

You need an asterisk on that 2019 entry ;)
 

Sparty

Registered User
Oct 2, 2015
1,208
748
Wondering how early we should try to fill teams and when we should figure out which owners want to come back. Instead of assuming everyone wants to stay in, let's make owners opt back in and go from there.
 

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,095
8,225
Mark me down as in. My 4th place finish will act as a nice springboard to the league championship next season.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
I'll try again.

I think the initial plan would be contracting 4 teams minimum. Ricelund, mantha39, and BinCookin all went MIA. That's 3. Looking at number and dates of transactions, sards and Prez were fairly dormant most of the year, so we'll want to be sure they want to keep at it and will.

Regardless, for head to head, we'll need an even number.

And with potentially 4 teams dumping players, some of them top 5 players like Vasilevskiy, I fully expect those of you who have been patient with your rebuild to finally have your year.

Alternatively, we could reduce the number of keepers this year and almost use it as a soft reset for the league rather than completely disrupt the balance of power.
 

Sparty

Registered User
Oct 2, 2015
1,208
748
I think that sounds about right Bench.

I'm looking through the thread here to see what kind of posts we had from players who bailed.

There's posts from Martinez, Bench, jaster, Hammett, Sparty, Turkleton, TZE, Winger98, PPP, Raymoondoh (10 players) and they all seem engaged.

Sards posted on 2/21 that he was going to tank for next year, never bothered to set a roster much so I'm not sure if he really wants to play. What's going to stop him from doing it again next year if he doesn't get the roster he wants. He had good teams the previous two years though, 12-7 last year and 8-6 the year before.

Ricelund already said he's out, so that's easy.

So we'd contract Sards, Ricelund, Mantha39 and the Ghost Team (BinCookin).
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
Alternatively, we could reduce the number of keepers this year and almost use it as a soft reset for the league rather than completely disrupt the balance of power.

Any thoughts on this? Maybe 4 keepers instead of 8?

I think @The Zetterberg Era made a good point previously about the viability of trying to compete if you're behind with so many keepers.

So instead of rolling 11 players (including prospects), it would be 7. Over 10 teams that frees up 40 players in the draft - or 4 rounds worth.

I know this stinks if you're like me and have 10+ viable keepers but I'm trying to think of ways to boost engagement and parity across all the rosters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Any thoughts on this? Maybe 4 keepers instead of 8?

I think @The Zetterberg Era made a good point previously about the viability of trying to compete if you're behind with so many keepers.

So instead of rolling 11 players (including prospects), it would be 7. Over 10 teams that frees up 40 players in the draft - or 4 rounds worth.

I know this stinks if you're like me and have 10+ viable keepers but I'm trying to think of ways to boost engagement and parity across all the rosters.

I'm game. Really hoping we just have a normal season next year. It's been hard getting into this with the schedules so screwed up.
 

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,095
8,225
I vote to stick with 8 keepers.

As a first-year guy who made an honest effort to win this season, I was mostly planning for next season by improving my 8-player keeper pool. I drafted towards next season and better keepers, and a lot of my adds/drops were geared toward potential keepers. Kaprizov worked out well for me either way, but I don't think I would have taken him with my first pick if I weren't trying to bolster my keepers. Contracting the keeper pool after a season spent trying to improve my 6th, 7th, 8th best keepers is tough to hear.

But also I'm just not that sympathetic. Again, as a first-year guy, I started with only 6 worthwhile keepers from the previous year, and I mined 3 guys in the draft (Kaprizov, Ekblad, and Sergachev), of which at least 2 will be new keepers for me, as well as 4 prospects (Zegras, McMichael, Tomasino, and Robertson), from which I'll choose 3. Everyone had the same opportunity.

Lastly, if we contract 4 teams, that's up to 32 potential keepers that will be released to the draft. That's a lot of opportunity for teams to improve their keeper pool already.

In the end, I just see too much opportunity to improve keeper pools if you're willing to try, and I'm not a huge fan of giving out free assists while those opportunities exist. It's like a penalty on teams that are putting in more effort, or sacrificed a little of this season for what would potentially be no reason with this change.

My 2 cents.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
But also I'm just not that sympathetic. Again, as a first-year guy, I started with only 6 worthwhile keepers from the previous year, and I mined 3 guys in the draft (Kaprizov, Ekblad, and Sergachev), of which at least 2 will be new keepers for me, as well as 4 prospects (Zegras, McMichael, Tomasino, and Robertson), from which I'll choose 3. Everyone had the same opportunity.

But they didn't. You started with a team that was really well managed by the league founder. So you had great foundational pieces. TZE and others had to scrape out expansion players, none of which were as good as your dudes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Zetterberg Era

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,095
8,225
But they didn't.

They did. I was specifically talking about the 7 guys I acquired via the draft and free agency that have the potential to be a part of my keeper core moving forward. Everyone had a shot at those same guys was my point.

You started with a team that was really well managed by the league founder. So you had great foundational pieces. TZE and others had to scrape out expansion players, none of which were as good as your dudes.

Right, but that's kind of a different thing. Having MacKinnon, Crosby, Stone, and Carlson was a boon for me, I completely recognize and acknowledge that, but they are not what we're talking about here, right?

If we are talking about top keeper talent being uneven, like your top-3 or -4 or whatever, that won't change much with a draw-down of the bottom half of everyone's keepers. Now we are just all scrambling to re-fill those 5-8 spots next year, with the top talent still remaining uneven. You'd be better off doing a hard reset of all keepers.

But if we are talking about the 5-8 keeper pieces for every team, which it sounds like we are, then I refer back to my last post.

I'm not opposed to trying to remove unfairness that may be existing, but I'm not convinced that resetting the tier of keepers that everyone has had a shot at improving will get it done. And I'm generally opposed to knee-capping in keeper leagues.


Here's another idea. Maybe it needs some fleshing out, but it's a way to increase parity while not mucking up the work some managers have put in for the future that was based on league rules, as they stood. I think we have an opportunity here with 4 teams being contracted. Perhaps we conduct a "contraction draft" as it were, where struggling teams that were maybe handed a junk team at some point in the past can poach better keepers from the 4 teams being contracted. I haven't looked closely at the rosters of the 4 teams we've discussed, but there must be some real good players among those teams.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
I vote to keep the keepers the same (at least for this upcoming year) for the same reason I voted for it last time. I, like others, made moves throughout the season with the amount of keepers in mind. Going forward, we need to come to conclusions about rule changes well ahead of time so teams don't get screwed for the way they planned their roster thinking the same rules would apply.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
They did. I was specifically talking about the 7 guys I acquired via the draft and free agency that have the potential to be a part of my keeper core moving forward. Everyone had a shot at those same guys was my point.



Right, but that's kind of a different thing. Having MacKinnon, Crosby, Stone, and Carlson was a boon for me, I completely recognize and acknowledge that, but they are not what we're talking about here, right?

If we are talking about top keeper talent being uneven, like your top-3 or -4 or whatever, that won't change much with a draw-down of the bottom half of everyone's keepers. Now we are just all scrambling to re-fill those 5-8 spots next year, with the top talent still remaining uneven. You'd be better off doing a hard reset of all keepers.

But if we are talking about the 5-8 keeper pieces for every team, which it sounds like we are, then I refer back to my last post.

I'm not opposed to trying to remove unfairness that may be existing, but I'm not convinced that resetting the tier of keepers that everyone has had a shot at improving will get it done. And I'm generally opposed to knee-capping in keeper leagues.


Here's another idea. Maybe it needs some fleshing out, but it's a way to increase parity while not mucking up the work some managers have put in for the future that was based on league rules, as they stood. I think we have an opportunity here with 4 teams being contracted. Perhaps we conduct a "contraction draft" as it were, where struggling teams that were maybe handed a junk team at some point in the past can poach better keepers from the 4 teams being contracted. I haven't looked closely at the rosters of the 4 teams we've discussed, but there must be some real good players among those teams.

All of this is fair but in the 3 years the teams that started good have stayed good and the struggling teams are still struggling. In order to boost engagement for everyone and not promise fun in 3 more years, I'm willing to reduce my own cache of players and even things out.

If you aren't, that's fine, but I'm offering my own version of a sacrifice and compromise to help make it more fun for others that have been chilling at the bottom since the beginning.

Your team was one of the better performing teams before you took over, I just want to put that into perspective.

What I'm proposing is really bad for me, especially since I traded away a 1st in a draft that will have the best talent in it in the last 3 years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Zetterberg Era

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
All of this is fair but in the 3 years the teams that started good have stayed good and the struggling teams are still struggling. In order to boost engagement for everyone and not promise fun in 3 more years, I'm willing to reduce my own cache of players and even things out.

If you aren't, that's fine, but I'm offering my own version of a sacrifice and compromise to help make it more fun for others that have been chilling at the bottom since the beginning.

Your team was one of the better performing teams before you took over, I just want to put that into perspective.
I don't think we need an incentive to boost engagement. Either they take responsibility and keep engaged or you don't sign up to the league. My teams hasn't done well and I still keep engaged because I made the commitment. Either find people that can make the commitment without some handout or just disband the league because if were are to keep giving handouts to the bottom dwellers, it will be a never ending process.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
I don't think we need an incentive to boost engagement. Either they take responsibility and keep engaged or you don't sign up to the league. My teams hasn't done well and I still keep engaged because I made the commitment. Either find people that can make the commitment without some handout or just disband the league because if were are to keep giving handouts to the bottom dwellers, it will be a never ending process.

This is a non-money free league. I don't think dangling the promise of being good in a few years is enough to keep people setting lineups.

And if the response is between "Either they have fun with it or we disband" I guess I'm trying to avoid the latter.

And I don't see it as a handout to make things more fun for everyone.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
This is a non-money free league. I don't think dangling the promise of being good in a few years is enough to keep people setting lineups.

And if the response is between "Either they have fun with it or we disband" I guess I'm trying to avoid the latter.

And I don't see it as a handout to make things more fun for everyone.
Its simple really. Either you make the commitment or don't join the league. Everyone knows whats in store for a free league like this.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
Yeah, it should be fun and not serious business.
Agreed, and I think people who are going missing if things aren't going their way aren't going to have fun regardless so maybe this isn't for them? We need to find owners who are going to engage no matter what or it wont ever work.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
Agreed, and I think people who are going missing if things aren't going their way aren't going to have fun regardless so maybe this isn't for them? We need to find owners who are going to engage no matter what or it wont ever work.

Or... rather than "no matter what" we create systems where you can keep your main core of great players for years and years, but those who are behind any given year can bounce back really quickly.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
Or... rather than "no matter what" we create systems where you can keep your main core of great players for years and years, but those who are behind any given year can bounce back really quickly.
i don't mind that, but my gripe the whole time is at least give managers a proper heads up before making changes like this. this isn't the first time this has happened and its getting rather annoying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaster

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
When do we have to set our keepers, I will just be excited to have a more normal season.

Hard to tell things about what I am building this year. I have traded for a few assets these last few years and I am building out. Don't mind the 8 keepers and 3 prospects, but I agree with @Bench 's point in terms of the other league I play we just have four keepers. I do actually find this league way more engaged than that one, but I think this board helps. Probably my biggest disadvantage joining the league is the caliber of goalies I just don't have. Fewer keepers usually makes that position more balanced across a league. I am fine with the rules though, I knew it would take a bit of time going in to build up a team.
 
Last edited:

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Does anyone else use the Armchair GM thing at Capfriendly? I use it to get an easy visual on putting together the wings, where guys fit, etc. It's fun. I think that's the real appeal of shrinking the keepers, at least it is for me. It's less about doing better in the league and more that it's just fun putting different teams together and this is an avenue of seeing how it would do and I know it's probably not what others find interesting/fun in a league like this.

Honestly, what sucks a lot of fun out of it for me is the league not reporting starters/injuries until 5 minutes before game time. I've missed out on a lot of points at times because I don't have the time to hover around yahoo to make every last minute lineup adjustment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->