Max Number of Games Played for Rookie Eligibiilty

Do you think we should raise the max number of GP for rookie eligibility?

axlsalinger said:

Making tough choices is part of player evaluation.

Click to expand...

Every keeper/Dynasty league I've ever been in, this idea always comes up about making the keeper period longer for players/prospects, and ultimately it's because a handful of guys want to keep prospects longer.

For me, I want to have to make tough decision, I want to have to create room on my roster or make trades to accommodate players I believe in......I want it to be difficult.

Moreover, I'm tired of us constantly tinkering with everything about this league.....trying to change the scoring settings, the prospect term, the player positions etc etc......many people have made many trades and roster decisions with longterm ramifications, specifically because of the rules, scoring, and roster settings we currently have in place. To constantly tinker and f*ck around with things, retroactively alters what the values of these players were in their former deals.


I'm all for fixing loopholes and errors in the league format that we overlooked originally.....but this habit of constantly wanting to alter the leaugues every single season, isn't necessary at all, imo.



/16 cents

Montana said:

Every keeper/Dynasty league I've ever been in, this idea always comes up about making the keeper period longer for players/prospects, and ultimately it's because a handful of guys want to keep prospects longer.

Click to expand...

Okay...does that mean they're all wrong, or that the original set up of the league was wrong?

For me, I want to have to make tough decision, I want to have to create room on my roster or make trades to accommodate players I believe in......I want it to be difficult.

Click to expand...

I agree, and this isn't about my club. I don't have anyone that I'm concerned about having to release for nothing this season and the only kids I have who are close look like they'll transition pretty nicely into reserve quality players for me next season. Where my concern is, is for the clubs at the bottom of the league that could easily end up stuck on rebuilding treadmills because it takes a lot of young players longer than a cup of coffee and their rookie season before they show whether or not they're going to turn into anything. I have medium to long term concerns about the viability of the league if the standings are relatively static over a few year period of time, which has been the case for the last few seasons.

Moreover, I'm tired of us constantly tinkering with everything about this league.....trying to change the scoring settings, the prospect term, the player positions etc etc......many people have made many trades and roster decisions with longterm ramifications, specifically because of the rules, scoring, and roster settings we currently have in place. To constantly tinker and f*ck around with things, retroactively alters what the values of these players were in their former deals.

Click to expand...

Reasonable concerns, but one question. If your concern is retroactively altering player values, why are you against fixing the player position issue? Just for example, I traded for Valteri Filpulla & Vermette when they had winger eligibility...it's pretty ****ing impossible to argue that them losing W (and in Flip's case, as I mentioned to Axl in email is a bit retarded when you look at the usage charts and compare him to numerous players who are clearly also C's who haven't lost their W eligibility) has retroactively effected their value to me.

I see tinkering as a potential positive as long as the intent is to make the league more realistic, and the effects of the changes aren't overly significant.

just looking at my team, i'm sure there are similar examples on most other teams as well

Filip Forsberg 3 faceoffs C/W
Ben Smith 359 faceoffs W
Brayden Schenn 75 faceoffs C/W

how does that make any ****ing sense? previously i had a lot of problems with some rookies being listed as centers and not being able to use them as wingers until the next season even though they were always wingers

we are letting the whims of fantrax either reward a team greatly or punish them for some unknown reason. at least if there seemed to be a set out criteria they followed for setting the positions i could understand but there doesn't appear to be one.

a couple of the winger spots should be turned to forward positions

i don't think championships should be decided by who fantrax deems to be duo eligible and who isn't

MindzEye said:

Okay...does that mean they're all wrong, or that the original set up of the league was wrong?

Click to expand...

They were all wrong, and were ultimately outvoted on it because people realized they were just trying to make their jobs easier as managers.....or in one keeper league we altered it, then ended up changing it back 5 years later, after realizing it unnecessarily removed some of the important strategic/managerial aspects of the format.

I have medium to long term concerns about the viability of the league if the standings are relatively static over a few year period of time, which has been the case for the last few seasons.

Click to expand...

I do too, that's why I'm always fighting for competitive balance and helping the lower teams, versus the rich getting richer......to me this helps top tier clubs like myself, far more than it would help a rebuilding squad. (perfect example is my trading Adam Larsson to GH......that trade doesn't happen without the cap being what it is. Personally, I want those challenging decisions, and rebuilding squads to be able to benefit from teams who can't afford to burn bench/roster spots on guys who aren't producing yet.

That said....GH has had the deck stacked against him more than anyone, being an expansion team.......but imo has currently has one of the best 3-5 franchises in our league. So good management is ultimately paid off, as he's shown.

Reasonable concerns, but one question. If your concern is retroactively altering player values, why are you against fixing the player position issue? Just for example, I traded for Valteri Filpulla & Vermette when they had winger eligibility...it's pretty ****ing impossible to argue that them losing W (and in Flip's case, as I mentioned to Axl in email is a bit retarded when you look at the usage charts and compare him to numerous players who are clearly also C's who haven't lost their W eligibility) has retroactively effected their value to me.

Click to expand...

I've no problem with that.....I have issue with use removing the value that a duel eligible guy has, because he happens to have W eligibility and gets some points as a result of taking face-offs. Reason being.....I didn't acquire player X because he is a W and takes face-offs.....I acquired player X because he produces at a certain FPPG and believed he had a reasonable expectation to continue producing at that level. I think us as a league, stripping those kinds of players of their value, after teams have made pretty significant moves to acquire said players would be bullshit.

I also think it's bullshit that Fantrax f*cks over a guy like Filp......who you paid for because he was W eligible, and scored at a certain FPPG (in part because of his face-offs) is also bullshit.


Ideally Fantrax would simply get it right every single time.....sadly they don't.




What I'm against, is stripping guys of value they currently have......I believe one person suggested face-offs only count for guys who are put in at the C position, for example (which is what I'm referring to in the post you quoted).....which would significantly impact the FPPG and value of dual eligible guys, who some franchises paid a lot to acquire. Changes like that imo, would be overly significant.

Utimately this league breaks down to one thing.......our abilities to projects and predict how good a player will be vis a vis his FPPG. People have made very significant changes to their rosters to acquire guys because of their current/past/future FPPG based on the current set up. So any changes that could potentially drastically change a players FPPG & position, I'm against.

Something that solves the issue you mentioned though with a guy like Filp, etc....I'm cool with as long as it doesn't through the equilibrium of the league off too much.

The Green Hornet said:

a couple of the winger spots should be turned to forward positions

Click to expand...

My only issue with something like this for instance, is that league wide we would somewhat deflate the value of W's, (position scarcity has been baked into every W trade made since this league's inception) while elevating the value of C's.

What would seem to be on paper a very subtle change, would actually alter the values of nearly every forward in our league.

i don't think championships should be decided by who fantrax deems to be duo eligible and who isn't

Click to expand...

Agreed.


Ideally since this likely only effects 10-25 or so roster worthy players per season, I wish this was something that we could solve without having to alter how the rosters have been laid out since day one.

Because this involves such a small sample of players in the end, could we not set up a criteria that a player has to meet to get C/W eligibility.....have a thread dedicated to it, then post players name in said thread when eligibility is met, and they C/W could then be changed.


Dunno, just spitballing ideas........cause ideally I would love to see a solution where a Valteri Fillpula isn't f*cked out of legit value....at the same time, I don't want a random #5 center who is a 0.9 now becoming = in value to a 0.9 W, because he can be played at that "forward" slot. Artificially elevating his value.

The position scarcity element that is baked into this league, is imo a very important one and a key element of virtually every fantasy league.....so I'm very hesitant to f*ck with that, unless it's absolutely necessary.

Could we use Fantrax's eligibility and then use common sense appeals for players that should have dual eligibility? We could ask the commish to review and if it makes sense, add the eligibility.

I suggested to Axl via email that the position eligibility decisions be made on a case by case basis. There are tools that allow us to see the legitimacy of the claim (line combo reports are available on numerous websites) as well as some common sense applications (if a player like Kadri spends time on the wing to start his career, it stands to reason that he could be slotted back on the wing at any other part of his career without problem). Basically, one a player has a W eligibility, there's almost zero reasons for them to ever lose it, it's by far the easiest skater position to play in hockey. Even some defenders like Buff & Burns, once they've proven they can play the W, should maintain the eligibility more or less forever. They just shouldn't get the .10 defender point scoring bonus if they're slotted into a W position.

I agree that there's not a lot of players needing adjustment through out the league, and fixing this issue would definitely be a step towards making the value gap between a W & C more realistic. More players who should have W eligibility, will lower the position scarcity issue that has caused their value to be so high.

Blueman said:

Could we use Fantrax's eligibility and then use common sense appeals for players that should have dual eligibility? We could ask the commish to review and if it makes sense, add the eligibility.

Click to expand...

You and I agree on something.

MindzEye said:

You and I agree on something.

Click to expand...

Dammit, I take it back.

Couldn't we just have a thread where we can petition Axl when we feel a change is needed in eligibility? Set out criteria? Something like (just spitballing here):

Maximum faceoffs taken in a set amount of games
Line combinations from a trusted site like leftwinglock

If the player meets them (with proof), then he's granted additional eligibility. I never like giving a commish extra work, but we need to figure out a solution to the eligibility issues. It's unbalances player value and is unfair to those being affected.

I know no one gives a **** about my team, but I have a guy like Paquette, who's played as a winger occasionally taking face-offs (because he's good at them) since mid November. Dude should be a winger. He ain't.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see why this is any more than a minor issue. It's not like Fantrax issues eligibility based on something random, it's reasonably legit. Just looking at the TB depth chart, Paquette is currently centering the 3rd line. They may put him out on the wing occasionally as a backup faceoff guy in case the C gets kicked out of the circle, but so what? That still doesn't make him a winger.

axlsalinger said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see why this is any more than a minor issue. It's not like Fantrax issues eligibility based on something random, it's reasonably legit. Just looking at the TB depth chart, Paquette is currently centering the 3rd line. They may put him out on the wing occasionally as a backup faceoff guy in case the C gets kicked out of the circle, but so what? That still doesn't make him a winger.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, the Fantrax depth charts aren't always right. Paquette has 4 games in the past 10 where has has exactly zero faceoffs taken while averaging around 16 mins of icetime. Not much of a centre if he goes games without faceoffs taken. He's both and should be positioned as such. Personally, I don't care about Paquette right now, but it doesn't mean that Fantrax has it right. I'm sure there are others that are the same deal.

Deckie007 said:

That's the thing, the Fantrax depth charts aren't always right. Paquette has 4 games in the past 10 where has has exactly zero faceoffs taken while average around 16 mins of icetime. Not much of a centre if he goes games without faceoffs taken. He's both and should be positioned as such. Personally, I don't care about Paquette right now, but it doesn't mean that Fantrax has it right.

Click to expand...

Nobody gives a shit about your team dude.

Habspatrol said:

Nobody gives a shit about your team dude.

Click to expand...

temperature of meadow lake sk/10

3? Come on. That's at least a 5/10

Deckie007 said:

That's the thing, the Fantrax depth charts aren't always right. Paquette has 4 games in the past 10 where has has exactly zero faceoffs taken while averaging around 16 mins of icetime. Not much of a centre if he goes games without faceoffs taken. He's both and should be positioned as such. Personally, I don't care about Paquette right now, but it doesn't mean that Fantrax has it right. I'm sure there are others that are the same deal.

Click to expand...

Didn't even know Fantrax had a depth chart, I use a different site.

Wtf happened to rookie games discussion? Haha

I have been for increasing rookie spots and games since about half way through year one of this. Prospects take too long to develop and if nhl teams have more time to make decisions, not sure why we have to put so quick. Players go to Europe, college...never been a fan of the system we have with it.

axlsalinger said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see why this is any more than a minor issue. It's not like Fantrax issues eligibility based on something random, it's reasonably legit. Just looking at the TB depth chart, Paquette is currently centering the 3rd line. They may put him out on the wing occasionally as a backup faceoff guy in case the C gets kicked out of the circle, but so what? That still doesn't make him a winger.

Click to expand...

Because the criteria doesn't seem to be remotely uniform.

Not to throw the Duo under the bus (because there's really no bus here) but look at Pittsburgh and Anaheim's depth charts and tell me where Malkin & Kesler sit on them. I can give you a hint, neither is on the wing. Yet there both are with C/W eligibility. As I explained in my pm to you, I have players with similar wing usage (according to line tracking sites) that don't have C/W, that used to have C/W.

Why is it not a small issue? Because finding 8 wingers good enough to field a contending roster in this league is very difficult and when the criteria for who receives a W eligibility and who doesn't, appears to be all over the place.

Too much is decided by who fantrax decides to make eligible on the wing, under what appears to be shaky criteria

soco22 said:

Wtf happened to rookie games discussion? Haha

I have been for increasing rookie spots and games since about half way through year one of this. Prospects take too long to develop and if nhl teams have more time to make decisions, not sure why we have to put so quick. Players go to Europe, college...never been a fan of the system we have with it.

Click to expand...

I would personally vote to go to 150, but no more than that. That's almost 2 full seasons of NHL hockey, and that should be enough to make a decision imo. I get the "hard decisions" argument. I just don't think that 150 games makes it a much easier decision, just a bit easier than it currently is. It's not like we'd be really trying to emulate the NHL's actual system for this, which would grant us control for ~2x this amount.