|
|
Post by Mighty Ducks of Anaheim on Jul 10, 2020 9:38:49 GMT -5
k no guys u shuldnt be able to bid goalie on player. their scale is so much diffrnt thats pure bullshit.
i dont care if i lose on any bid but if i los a player caus someone bid a goalie thats trash.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks on Jul 10, 2020 9:49:20 GMT -5
k no guys u shuldnt be able to bid goalie on player. their scale is so much diffrnt thats pure bullshit. i dont care if i lose on any bid but if i los a player caus someone bid a goalie thats trash. Agreed |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jul 10, 2020 12:09:43 GMT -5
I do have to say though, Kings shouldn’t be able to get Langkow cause the whole league lost out on Rolston.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jul 10, 2020 12:18:55 GMT -5
I do have to say though, Kings shouldn’t be able to get Langkow cause the whole league lost out on Rolston. do you want to move Brian Rolston? Quebec wants you to move Brian Rolston. The whole league lost out on BRIAN. ROLSTON. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Jul 10, 2020 13:08:52 GMT -5
I do have to say though, Kings shouldn’t be able to get Langkow cause the whole league lost out on Rolston. I do have to agree with this statement here, too. And it's not because I'm bidding for him. If I lose, I lose and get to keep an extremely consistent scorer in Janney. I just wanted to baseline that he should be an expensive bid. But the team who just dropped him for Roloson should have zero opportunity to snatch him back. Cant have your cake, and eat it too. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jul 10, 2020 13:17:27 GMT -5
It would be the equivalent of not letting me bid on Roloson. I was given Roloson bc of a mistake made after my pick, which directly affected my pick. Thus Langkow became a UFA instead of Roloson. Plus I'm sure most teams would rather bid on a 85 F than a 87 G
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jul 10, 2020 13:35:45 GMT -5
It would be the equivalent of not letting me bid on Roloson. I was given Roloson bc of a mistake made after my pick, which directly affected my pick. Thus Langkow became a UFA instead of Roloson. Plus I'm sure most teams would rather bid on a 85 F than a 87 G But Roloson would have been apart of the draft not FA. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jul 10, 2020 13:50:54 GMT -5
It would be the equivalent of not letting me bid on Roloson. I was given Roloson bc of a mistake made after my pick, which directly affected my pick. Thus Langkow became a UFA instead of Roloson. Plus I'm sure most teams would rather bid on a 85 F than a 87 G But Roloson would have been apart of the draft not FA. Sure, but that wasn't my fault. It was an error made, which was then fixed. Maybe the next pick should get a shot at Langkow, then go down the list with the sub. I don't know, this is what Leafs and Oilers deemed easiest and most fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jul 10, 2020 14:05:37 GMT -5
But Roloson would have been apart of the draft not FA. Sure, but that wasn't my fault. It was an error made, which was then fixed. Maybe the next pick should get a shot at Langkow, then go down the list with the sub. I don't know, this is what Leafs and Oilers deemed easiest and most fair. Yes but now the whole league has lost out on the chance of drafting Roloson in a draft that already has little talent. I get the error but you've already gotten a sizable adjustment made because of it. I don't see it fair that now you could potentially still have Langkow as well. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Jul 10, 2020 14:08:30 GMT -5
Plus I'm sure most teams would rather bid on a 85 F than a 87 G Not at all. Pretty sure at least half the league would be bidding for an 87 goaltender. |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Wild on Jul 10, 2020 15:52:34 GMT -5
Roloson's nothing special.
LA should be able to bid on Langkow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets on Jul 10, 2020 16:09:06 GMT -5
k no guys u shuldnt be able to bid goalie on player. their scale is so much diffrnt thats pure bullshit. i dont care if i lose on any bid but if i los a player caus someone bid a goalie thats trash. If you want to argue that goalies have less value for free agency that's one thing but if someone wants to give up a straight up starter goalie for a forward I don't think we should just say it is worthless. If someone really wants the non-goalie they will beat the goalie bid with ease |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets on Jul 10, 2020 16:17:40 GMT -5
Sure, but that wasn't my fault. It was an error made, which was then fixed. Maybe the next pick should get a shot at Langkow, then go down the list with the sub. I don't know, this is what Leafs and Oilers deemed easiest and most fair. Yes but now the whole league has lost out on the chance of drafting Roloson in a draft that already has little talent. I get the error but you've already gotten a sizable adjustment made because of it. I don't see it fair that now you could potentially still have Langkow as well. you guys get that he isn't adding Langkow for free right? This is no different than trading a draft pick or player package to jump into the top 10, he has to give up assets to get this guy. The fact that Langkow is available, then the guy(s) given up for him, then the guy(s) given up for him, etc, etc, etc in this FA class is a huge bonus to us all. More fun and excitement and all we lose is a goalie for the next draft (which I have seen half this league complain about bidding a goalie for Langkow so I know half of you do not care about goalies lol). I completely say fair game. I hope LA wins him because that means he is crushing the 87F bids, leaving an even BETTER player in FA for me to go for. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Jul 10, 2020 17:55:23 GMT -5
Yes but now the whole league has lost out on the chance of drafting Roloson in a draft that already has little talent. I get the error but you've already gotten a sizable adjustment made because of it. I don't see it fair that now you could potentially still have Langkow as well. you guys get that he isn't adding Langkow for free right? This is no different than trading a draft pick or player package to jump into the top 10, he has to give up assets to get this guy. The fact that Langkow is available, then the guy(s) given up for him, then the guy(s) given up for him, etc, etc, etc in this FA class is a huge bonus to us all. More fun and excitement and all we lose is a goalie for the next draft (which I have seen half this league complain about bidding a goalie for Langkow so I know half of you do not care about goalies lol). I completely say fair game. I hope LA wins him because that means he is crushing the 87F bids, leaving an even BETTER player in FA for me to go for. First off, it's an asset he doesnt want, despite Ranford being a very good goalie in sim history. But that's beside the point. Secondly, I'm all for a little bit of realism. So let me put you in a bit of a scenario; You were just drafted to Atlanta as a top pick in the draft, after their first look at another player didnt give them enough interest to use their pick on them. Then, the Atlanta head office looks at an article on NHL.com, and it says that this certain player is the steal of the draft. They make an issue about it to head offices, and they end up getting this other guy that is very similar to the first choice they had, but they had to let you go. They give you a call, and say 'Yeah, I know we just drafted you, but we like Steve from Windsor better than you. We're gonna let you go.' So, tell me. Would you want to go back to the team that picked you, then so easily dumped you for someone else? Doesnt matter if they're sacrificing someone else to get you back, the initial sting would still hurt. Now, my scenario might be jumbled because I'm doing this all in one go in the middle of a 15 minute break at work, so I hope the message I'm trying to convey is still good. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets on Jul 10, 2020 18:06:14 GMT -5
you guys get that he isn't adding Langkow for free right? This is no different than trading a draft pick or player package to jump into the top 10, he has to give up assets to get this guy. The fact that Langkow is available, then the guy(s) given up for him, then the guy(s) given up for him, etc, etc, etc in this FA class is a huge bonus to us all. More fun and excitement and all we lose is a goalie for the next draft (which I have seen half this league complain about bidding a goalie for Langkow so I know half of you do not care about goalies lol). I completely say fair game. I hope LA wins him because that means he is crushing the 87F bids, leaving an even BETTER player in FA for me to go for. First off, it's an asset he doesnt want, despite Ranford being a very good goalie in sim history. But that's beside the point. Secondly, I'm all for a little bit of realism. So let me put you in a bit of a scenario;
You were just drafted to Atlanta as a top pick in the draft, after their first look at another player didnt give them enough interest to use their pick on them. Then, the Atlanta head office looks at an article on NHL.com, and it says that this certain player is the steal of the draft. They make an issue about it to head offices, and they end up getting this other guy that is very similar to the first choice they had, but they had to let you go.
They give you a call, and say 'Yeah, I know we just drafted you, but we like Steve from Windsor better than you. We're gonna let you go.'So, tell me. Would you want to go back to the team that picked you, then so easily dumped you for someone else? Doesnt matter if they're sacrificing someone else to get you back, the initial sting would still hurt. Now, my scenario might be jumbled because I'm doing this all in one go in the middle of a 15 minute break at work, so I hope the message I'm trying to convey is still good. I love that you started that paragraph with "I'm all for a little bit of realism" then proceeded with that. lol. I kind of get where you were going with that but oh boy that was a fun read.  But if I have to answer then yeah I can see a player who was traded back to a team that snuffed him actually going back..... because it is his job (happens in the NHL all the time). And honestly do you want to start tracking Player Happiness or whatever in trades here? Give players the ability to have NTCs? Seems like it may make everything more complicated than it needs to be. To me the simple question is: If it fair that LA bids on him? Yes, because he isn't getting anything for free. He has to pay a price and for Langkow he has to pay a premium against US. |
|
