LGP Fantasy Hockey Keeper League

[Letang Is The Truth]

It "wasn't worth deciding or arguing over" at that time. Otherwise I would have.

[Kraftster]

Likely 1B (worst case) on one of the league's top teams. I wouldn't trade him for something meaningless, and I'm fine in goal.

[Kraftster]

I think we should increase the number of keepers. Reducing the games played reqs doesn't really give the same result because a decision must be made based upon a smaller sample size of games, which creates unnecessary difficulty in making such decisions.

By the same token, you'll have an abnormally large sample size if we wait until next year.

Perhaps a third alternative would be requiring teams to make keeper decisions by game 34 next year. Only issue there is determining which teams get 1 spot and which teams get 2.

[TheHammer24]

That is an interesting point of view Krafster. I'm not sure, however, that the difficulty in the 65-game limit is the certainty that the player will produce in the NHL. To me, the benefit is keeping a player that you would have to use a regular spot for. And if all rookies are freely keepable this year, you get two years of free keeping instead of one. This is most prominent with a guy like Yakupov, but I'm not sure how much benefit the shortened season will provide most guys that would have otherwise lost eligibility, as the number of rookies that turn into fantasy stars is rather limited and you keep them based on their pedigree more than what they do between games 40-65.

If any rule, I think we should limit the guys that played the entire season (i.e., Yakupov) to one year, but the rest of them can just go with the normal 65 game rule.

[Idoit40fans]

I just think its best to sort it out this offseason so it doesn't carry on. Its hilarious that someone is going to get 2 free seasons out of Yakupov. If a guy is a rookie and played 40+ games, they were going to play 65...probably were going to play 75. Yakupov should not be a rookie after this season.

[Letang Is The Truth]

i think we should sort it out now as the last time this was broached, we said it wasnt worth deciding at the time and here we are now. i also think it is ridiculous that yakupov could be a rookie again next year, but i also think it is ridiculous to penalize the yakupov owner because we did not want to deal with this during the lock out

[Idoit40fans]

THere would be no penalty if he isn't a rookie next year, it would be exactly as it should be. You got the one season, got the next season for "free" using him as your expiring rookie keeper, then he becomes a regular player after that.

[TheHammer24]

I do have a tough time seeing how this rule affected anyone's decision. If you thought rookies lasted longer, you may have drafted one a round earlier in the regular draft, but I doubt that controlled your decision.

[Letang Is The Truth]

there shouldnt be a penalty as it is the rule structure to which we agreed

[Idoit40fans]

Who said the rule structure was in place regardless of the length of the season?

[Letang Is The Truth]

the commissioner at the beginning of the season?

[TheHammer24]

To the extent I/we agreed, it was pretty informal and without many people's consideration, but that is a fair argument.

What if we did this:

Keep the regular 65 game rule. But if a rookie played 38 games this season then he automatically loses status.

This rule avoids the windfall to owners of 2013 rookies of getting to use the rookie keeper in consecutive years, but it keeps rookie tracking manageable.

[Letang Is The Truth]

what about goalie starts?

[Kraftster]

Shouldn't it be 38 games?

[Idoit40fans]

I see no reason to change goalie starts at all. If they're getting less than 10, they weren't really going to get enough starts that they'd matter anyway. I guess we could drop it to 6 or 7 though.

[TheHammer24]

Shouldn't it be 38 games?

Yeah. I thought "half season" and divided by two, but we actually have a 48-game schedule.

[Letang Is The Truth]

[quote="Idoit40fans"]I see no reason to change goalie starts at all. If they're getting less than 10, they weren't really going to get enough starts that they'd matter anyway. I guess we could drop it to 6 or 7 though.[/quote]

lol

[Letang Is The Truth]

quote fail

[Idoit40fans]

...wut?

[Letang Is The Truth]

what in the instance of someone who played 10 games last year and 38 games this year? retain rookie status or not?

[Idoit40fans]

If you are asking about Hammer's scenario, they played 38 games this season, so they would not.

[Letang Is The Truth]

i do not like this rule

[TheHammer24]

i do not like this rule

What are its short comings. I'm open.

[Kraftster]

I had a similar issue come up in my main league where I dealt Sid last year and part of the trade was a conditional 1st round pick coming back to me if Sid scored 100 points this year. After a lot of back and forth, my trade partner and I agreed to reduce the condition to 60 points this season. I can see arguments both ways as to whether it is easier or more difficult to play 38/48 as opposed to 65/82. If you call that part a wash, then it really only impacts your ability to get a longer preview of how the player looks before making a decision on him.

I guess I could really go either way on this issue. How to treat existing rookies who carred some GP into this season does get a little tricky, though.

[Letang Is The Truth]

i have made moves (and not made moves) based on the knowing that the limit would not change. for example - i have been reluctant to trade granlund since i will be able to keep him for another year for free. this is something that is valuable to me as i think he will need that extra year before achieving his potential. similar to my goalies, knowing that i will hopefully be able to keep them for free another year.