|
Post by catnut on Feb 13, 2007 12:29:22 GMT -5
Same for me with the failed Grant Charland experiments.
|
|
|
Post by Sec21critic on Feb 13, 2007 12:31:32 GMT -5
Same for me with the failed Grant Charland experiments. Ironically, not long after Grant was dropped (on both sides), he started going on a bit of a tear and continues to do so.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Feb 13, 2007 12:33:33 GMT -5
Same for me with the failed Grant Charland experiments. Ironically, not long after Grant was dropped (on both sides), he started going on a bit of a tear and continues to do so. Of course I noticed that. Charland stopped producing when I picked him up (2-3 points in about 20-25 games) and started again when I dropped him.
|
|
|
Post by hockeyfan99 on Feb 13, 2007 12:50:15 GMT -5
Definately need to incorperate more roster moves next year. I think this is a great pool and you are doing a great job administering it Sec 21 and there are good reasons to restrict or allow roster moves. On one hand, allowing only 5 roster moves forces people to do a better job drafting and be smarter with their picks. For my team Vlasic was a surprise NHL player and my risk with Kveton cost me 2 roster moves which limited my ability to make any real adjustments. Plus I made the mandatory homer pick (Lachaine) for fun. But had Vlasic & Kveton worked out 5 actually would have been enough for me. Having said that if we do this again next year I think 7 - 10 roster moves might be nice and make the pool more interesting on a week to week or month to month basis because there is more flexibility to make adjustments. These adjustments can be really important considering NHL drafted players, Euro's questionable adjustment, injuries, trades and large jumps in player's production. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Sec21critic on Feb 13, 2007 13:04:17 GMT -5
Definately need to incorperate more roster moves next year. I think this is a great pool and you are doing a great job administering it Sec 21 and there are good reasons to restrict or allow roster moves. On one hand, allowing only 5 roster moves forces people to do a better job drafting and be smarter with their picks. For my team Vlasic was a surprise NHL player and my risk with Kveton cost me 2 roster moves which limited my ability to make any real adjustments. Plus I made the mandatory homer pick (Lachaine) for fun. But had Vlasic & Kveton worked out 5 actually would have been enough for me. Having said that if we do this again next year I think 7 - 10 roster moves might be nice and make the pool more interesting on a week to week or month to month basis because there is more flexibility to make adjustments. These adjustments can be really important considering NHL drafted players, Euro's questionable adjustment, injuries, trades and large jumps in player's production. Just my 2 cents. Agreed.... if we do this again next year, there will definately still be a limit, but the limit will be raised from five moves a season.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Feb 13, 2007 13:14:32 GMT -5
I can't believe that everyone let Billy get Brassard. I had my eye on this back in Oct before Kveton (2moves) and Vlasic screwed me over.
|
|
|
Post by Sec21critic on Feb 13, 2007 13:23:33 GMT -5
I can't believe that everyone let Billy get Brassard. I had my eye on this back in Oct before Kveton (2moves) and Vlasic screwed me over. I suppose I shouldn't even bring up the fact that he wound up with Kveton as well, eh?
|
|
|
Post by hockeyfan99 on Feb 13, 2007 13:46:29 GMT -5
Oh trust me I didn't miss that part. I knew Kveton was a risk when I took him but had he played for my team all year (averaging 1.3 points per game) it would have been great. Even if he had just not shown up or left right away it wouldn't have been a bad risk except that he stuck with the Rangers for a while, then the whole rumoured quit but returned thing, before finally leaving for Europe and after all of this he had the gull to come back and let Billy grab him. Also the guy I replaced his roster spot with suffered a long term injury soon after I picked him forcing me to find someone else. Meaning that picking Kveton not only cost me 2 roster moves but he came back to rub it in. P.S If Billy wins this I think i deserve half the credit since he has my guys Laliberte, Brassard, Kveton & Howes.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Feb 13, 2007 14:09:40 GMT -5
Oh trust me I didn't miss that part. I knew Kveton was a risk when I took him but had he played for my team all year (averaging 1.3 points per game) it would have been great. Even if he had just not shown up or left right away it wouldn't have been a bad risk except that he stuck with the Rangers for a while, then the whole rumoured quit but returned thing, before finally leaving for Europe and after all of this he had the gull to come back and let Billy grab him. Also the guy I replaced his roster spot with suffered a long term injury soon after I picked him forcing me to find someone else. Meaning that picking Kveton not only cost me 2 roster moves but he came back to rub it in. P.S If Billy wins this I think i deserve half the credit since he has my guys Laliberte, Brassard, Kveton & Howes. Quit your whining! I drafted Laliberte. I had Madsen and Kveton on my list but stayed away because both were drafted and we only had 5 roster moves, that's why I took a lot of 20 year olds and avoided WJHC players. PS. If I had any luck, Brassard and Lats stay in Drummondville and I win easy because Demers and St.Denis would both be at 1PPGM
|
|
|
Post by hockeyfan99 on Feb 13, 2007 14:18:55 GMT -5
No one is whining I was just kidding. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mac_27 on Feb 14, 2007 9:29:24 GMT -5
For my last move I'd like to Drop Joey Ryan and Add Kirill Tulupov
|
|
|
Post by Sec21critic on Feb 15, 2007 18:16:42 GMT -5
For my last move I'd like to Drop Joey Ryan and Add Kirill Tulupov Mac_27 drops the player J. Ryan (D, QUE) Mac_27 adds the player K. Tulupov (D, CHI)
|
|