|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators on Jul 10, 2020 18:39:03 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. I could have sworn we made this a rule. But I went looking, and I couldn't see anything about it in any of the free agency threads. But I have a feeling we made this rule in S2, but the S2 Free Agent thread was mysteriously deleted (or maybe it never existed in the first place!). So now I'm all  Care to comment Toronto Maple Leafs Edmonton Oilers ? |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jul 10, 2020 19:04:43 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. This isn't even close to comparable lol. I was told Giguere was an 87. When he was drafted, he came in as an 87. Me knowing he was an 87 made me not draft him. I originally wanted him, thinking he'd be an 88-89. Then after the draft, he gets boosted to an 89. There is no real life scenario of this, it's purely a sim league scenario. I hope you can appreciate the fact that the mistake was not the fault of the Kings as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jul 10, 2020 19:05:53 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. I could have sworn we made this a rule. But I went looking, and I couldn't see anything about it in any of the free agency threads. But I have a feeling we made this rule in S2, but the S2 Free Agent thread was mysteriously deleted (or maybe it never existed in the first place!). So now I'm all Care to comment Toronto Maple Leafs Edmonton Oilers ? |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Jul 10, 2020 19:47:36 GMT -5
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. This isn't even close to comparable lol. I was told Giguere was an 87. When he was drafted, he came in as an 87. Me knowing he was an 87 made me not draft him. I originally wanted him, thinking he'd be an 88-89. Then after the draft, he gets boosted to an 89. There is no real life scenario of this, it's purely a sim league scenario. I hope you can appreciate the fact that the mistake was not the fault of the Kings as well. Oh, I'm not concerned about the mistake at all. Shit happens, it's whatever. It's you getting your player back at the cost of, for you, pretty much nothing. And this bid kinda confirms, to me, that you had absolutely no intention to use Ranford at all. So, why didn't you just draft Giguere with 6 or 7 anyways? Knowing that he'd probably be better than Langkow anyways? Knowing he'd probably be better than even Shane Doan? Two overall points should not deter you away from a goalie name that you like, and you'd probably start over someone like Ranford. Also, what you're saying is that I could have been rewarded with Roloson first because I decided to take Berard instead of Giguere, where everyone knew that Nabokov wasn't in my plans in the first place, if I decided to bring the issue up when Giguere got the 2 overall boost. Could say the same thing with Montreal, if they wanted to take Giguere instead of Kipprusoff. Basically, what I got from all this is that you got unhappy about 2 points of overall, and got rewarded for it with a goalie from next season's draft. You should be just fine with that alone. You shouldn't be able to takether guy that you dropped right back afterwards. It honestly feels like catering specifically to you so you can get what you want. Please don't take this as an attack to you, because this isn't my intention. This is moreso what I'm seeing, and what I believe to be the fair thing, which is you shouldn't be able to get everything of what you want. You can't have both Roloson *and* Langkow, despite you sacrificing someone for it. You should pick either Roloson or Langkow. |
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators on Jul 10, 2020 19:51:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jul 10, 2020 19:57:42 GMT -5
This isn't even close to comparable lol. I was told Giguere was an 87. When he was drafted, he came in as an 87. Me knowing he was an 87 made me not draft him. I originally wanted him, thinking he'd be an 88-89. Then after the draft, he gets boosted to an 89. There is no real life scenario of this, it's purely a sim league scenario. I hope you can appreciate the fact that the mistake was not the fault of the Kings as well. Oh, I'm not concerned about the mistake at all. Shit happens, it's whatever. It's you getting your player back at the cost of, for you, pretty much nothing. And this bid kinda confirms, to me, that you had absolutely no intention to use Ranford at all. So, why didn't you just draft Giguere with 6 or 7 anyways? Knowing that he'd probably be better than Langkow anyways? Knowing he'd probably be better than even Shane Doan? Two overall points should not deter you away from a goalie name that you like, and you'd probably start over someone like Ranford. Also, what you're saying is that I could have been rewarded with Roloson first because I decided to take Berard instead of Giguere, where everyone knew that Nabokov wasn't in my plans in the first place, if I decided to bring the issue up when Giguere got the 2 overall boost. Could say the same thing with Montreal, if they wanted to take Giguere instead of Kipprusoff. Basically, what I got from all this is that you got unhappy about 2 points of overall, and got rewarded for it with a goalie from next season's draft. You should be just fine with that alone. You shouldn't be able to takether guy that you dropped right back afterwards. It honestly feels like catering specifically to you so you can get what you want. Please don't take this as an attack to you, because this isn't my intention. This is moreso what I'm seeing, and what I believe to be the fair thing, which is you shouldn't be able to get everything of what you want. You can't have both Roloson *and* Langkow, despite you sacrificing someone for it. You should pick either Roloson or Langkow. I see 87s as poor starters, more so a 1A. I'd rather have a true starter, since there's no progression a 87 starter has limited value to me. Roloson was offered to me as an 89, I said make him an 88. My plans with Ranford are really irrelevant tbh. He's an 88 G with min YR. If he has no value here, you'll have no problem beating the bid. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Jul 10, 2020 20:10:57 GMT -5
Oh, I'm not concerned about the mistake at all. Shit happens, it's whatever. It's you getting your player back at the cost of, for you, pretty much nothing. And this bid kinda confirms, to me, that you had absolutely no intention to use Ranford at all. So, why didn't you just draft Giguere with 6 or 7 anyways? Knowing that he'd probably be better than Langkow anyways? Knowing he'd probably be better than even Shane Doan? Two overall points should not deter you away from a goalie name that you like, and you'd probably start over someone like Ranford. Also, what you're saying is that I could have been rewarded with Roloson first because I decided to take Berard instead of Giguere, where everyone knew that Nabokov wasn't in my plans in the first place, if I decided to bring the issue up when Giguere got the 2 overall boost. Could say the same thing with Montreal, if they wanted to take Giguere instead of Kipprusoff. Basically, what I got from all this is that you got unhappy about 2 points of overall, and got rewarded for it with a goalie from next season's draft. You should be just fine with that alone. You shouldn't be able to takether guy that you dropped right back afterwards. It honestly feels like catering specifically to you so you can get what you want. Please don't take this as an attack to you, because this isn't my intention. This is moreso what I'm seeing, and what I believe to be the fair thing, which is you shouldn't be able to get everything of what you want. You can't have both Roloson *and* Langkow, despite you sacrificing someone for it. You should pick either Roloson or Langkow. I see 87s as poor starters, more so a 1A. I'd rather have a true starter, since there's no progression a 87 starter has limited value to me. Roloson was offered to me as an 89, I said make him an 88. My plans with Ranford are really irrelevant tbh. He's an 88 G with min YR. If he has no value here, you'll have no problem beating the bid. Here, let me bold it for you; No value to you. I'm more than sure he has significantly more value to other teams. Say, a Boston or something, who have 87's as goalies, and would maybe love to have Ranford, who has been so far a serviceable starting goalie in this kind of simulation. Let's also add in the fact that the Stanley Cup was won with Garth Fucking Snow in net. So, if anything, a poor starter would be maybe an 84 to start, and Snow is the outlier to the measurement. 87-89 are solid starters, and 90+ are elite. Such a poor reason to not draft Giguere, in blunt honesty. Plans with Ranford are completely relevant if you are rewarded a goalie, and had intentions to initially draft a goalie. I understand you're trying to justify yourself in getting your cake and eating it too. But, you had your chance with Giguere at 6 and 7. You could have taken him, made your case then, and then you would have had an 89 Giguere instead of this debacle in this free agency thread. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Jul 10, 2020 20:13:24 GMT -5
I'm moreso done in discussing about this whole situation. I understand both sides of the situation here, and I've decided to make my stance on it, and wish not to trade possible barbs on this discussion. Edmonton Oilers , if you could possibly move the discussion portion of the thread into a seperate one, so that Mike doesn't have an aneurysm trying to sift through bids, that would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Bruins - XX on Jul 10, 2020 20:33:48 GMT -5
I see 87s as poor starters, more so a 1A. I'd rather have a true starter, since there's no progression a 87 starter has limited value to me. Roloson was offered to me as an 89, I said make him an 88. My plans with Ranford are really irrelevant tbh. He's an 88 G with min YR. If he has no value here, you'll have no problem beating the bid. Here, let me bold it for you; No value to you. I'm more than sure he has significantly more value to other teams. Say, a Boston or something, who have 87's as goalies, and would maybe love to have Ranford, who has been so far a serviceable starting goalie in this kind of simulation. Let's also add in the fact that the Stanley Cup was won with Garth Fucking Snow in net. So, if anything, a poor starter would be maybe an 84 to start, and Snow is the outlier to the measurement. 87-89 are solid starters, and 90+ are elite. Such a poor reason to not draft Giguere, in blunt honesty. Plans with Ranford are completely relevant if you are rewarded a goalie, and had intentions to initially draft a goalie. I understand you're trying to justify yourself in getting your cake and eating it too. But, you had your chance with Giguere at 6 and 7. You could have taken him, made your case then, and then you would have had an 89 Giguere instead of this debacle in this free agency thread. I would never draft Ranford. What are we talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jul 10, 2020 20:43:40 GMT -5
Alright there Jets
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jul 10, 2020 20:50:34 GMT -5
I see 87s as poor starters, more so a 1A. I'd rather have a true starter, since there's no progression a 87 starter has limited value to me. Roloson was offered to me as an 89, I said make him an 88. My plans with Ranford are really irrelevant tbh. He's an 88 G with min YR. If he has no value here, you'll have no problem beating the bid. Here, let me bold it for you; No value to you. I'm more than sure he has significantly more value to other teams. Say, a Boston or something, who have 87's as goalies, and would maybe love to have Ranford, who has been so far a serviceable starting goalie in this kind of simulation. Let's also add in the fact that the Stanley Cup was won with Garth Fucking Snow in net. So, if anything, a poor starter would be maybe an 84 to start, and Snow is the outlier to the measurement. 87-89 are solid starters, and 90+ are elite. Such a poor reason to not draft Giguere, in blunt honesty. Plans with Ranford are completely relevant if you are rewarded a goalie, and had intentions to initially draft a goalie. I understand you're trying to justify yourself in getting your cake and eating it too. But, you had your chance with Giguere at 6 and 7. You could have taken him, made your case then, and then you would have had an 89 Giguere instead of this debacle in this free agency thread. Appreciate you putting it bold. Wasn't understanding your point prior. Just so we can see the current state of goalies, we have 7 guys 90+, 4 89s, 8 88s, not including Roloson. So that's 19 Gs better than 87, which is my thinking of why an 87 is actually a poor starter, or more of a 1A. This was the logic I used to not draft Giguere as an 87, but him being an 89 would have changed that. I hope you can see that now. It wasn't more so a player preference, as Oilers knows, I go purely by overalls. Again, I wasn't rewarded a goalie. An error was made, thus fixed with Roloson, as Leafs and Oilers deemed most fair. I wasn't really planning on drafting a guy I knew to be an 87 and then argue his overall immediately, but next time I'll consider it. It's difficult to argue Ranford has no value to me when I was the one who brought him to LA. Regardless of Roloson, an 88 is a valuable asset. I received two 1sts and a 2nd for an 89 (mind you a F) with less YR, so he does have value to me. I can see how he would be more serviable to the two teams that don't have an 88 already, but that's a mute point in all seriousness. When it comes down to it, a mistake was made that directly effected my pick. If you were planning on taking Giguere instead of Berard, I'll gladly give up Roloson to you and we can all bid on Berard. My understanding was I was the sole one that was interested in him as a higher overall. This wasn't a case of 'we didn't know the overalls and this is how it turned out.' So when it comes to me bidding on Langkow, it's the equivalent of me bidding on Roloson, since he's replacing him in UFA. If you have an issue with Langkow being a UFA to begin with, that's another thing. If you have an issue with bidding Gs on skaters, I was the first to mention the issue in the previous off-season. There is no rule against it, thus I'm following the rules. I feel you think I'm getting this player for free because Ranford is now potentially my back-up (but like we're both aware, he performs well, so who knows). |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets on Jul 10, 2020 20:55:38 GMT -5
hi sweety.  |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jul 11, 2020 2:05:27 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. I could have sworn we made this a rule. But I went looking, and I couldn't see anything about it in any of the free agency threads. But I have a feeling we made this rule in S2, but the S2 Free Agent thread was mysteriously deleted (or maybe it never existed in the first place!). So now I'm all Care to comment Toronto Maple Leafs Edmonton Oilers ? A rule was not specifically made, but people were asked to stop bidding goalies on players. After that, no goalie won a player, to the best of my knowledge. The intention, based on the backlash, was to make a rule, so I wold consider that the "rule", and we stick with not bidding goalies on players. Especially in one of the highest-overall skaters auctions we have ever had and perhaps ever will have. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jul 11, 2020 9:36:53 GMT -5
I could have sworn we made this a rule. But I went looking, and I couldn't see anything about it in any of the free agency threads. But I have a feeling we made this rule in S2, but the S2 Free Agent thread was mysteriously deleted (or maybe it never existed in the first place!). So now I'm all Care to comment Toronto Maple Leafs Edmonton Oilers ? A rule was not specifically made, but people were asked to stop bidding goalies on players. After that, no goalie won a player, to the best of my knowledge. The intention, based on the backlash, was to make a rule, so I wold consider that the "rule", and we stick with not bidding goalies on players. Especially in one of the highest-overall skaters auctions we have ever had and perhaps ever will have. This was the sole response Think we shouldn't allow bidding Gs for skaters The goalie bid win: Paul Ysebaert 80 F 5 YR - Team already won 4 auctions Sergio Momesso 80 F 3 YR - Player used in another win Robert Petrovicky 79 F 9 YR - void, team over roster limit Tommy Soderstrom 81 G 3 YR - only other bid - could have literally been a 66 with 1 YR at that point. An 81 is better for FA, is it not? No G bid won after because there wasn't another auction. The sole 'backlash' was me commenting on it saying it should be changed. I didn't see any intentions to make the rule based on that thread, it carried on as normal. I get it if this rule was clear from the get go, but it seems it's being adding in now since people are upset LA is winning and claiming my assets actually have zero value. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jul 11, 2020 9:45:13 GMT -5
A lot of shit has happened in life and the world since that auction closed. Nobody is perfect and sometimes things get forgotten. Nothing has closed and you’re still able to bid on this player if you wish to do so.
|
|
