Fantasy Hockey Draft Take 2

[Sparrowhawk]

I was still playing around with mine. I know I have asked this question before, but just so I am sure, what would the deadline be for roster changes in order to make sure your players are active for Wednesday night games.

NOTE: By roster changes I mean moving players off the bench and into the active lineup, not dropping/picking up players.

/me

[notyoueither]

Around Midnight the day before, maybe a little earlier. That's for players on and off the roster.

Game time is the deadline for benching or playing a player already on your roster. Keep in mind that the rosters get frozen 30 to 60 minutes before faceoff.

[Sparrowhawk]

I appreciate the help nye, but you are losing me. I am not sure if my roster is frozen the night before, an hour before gametime or game time.

I have no intention any time soon of changing any players (waivers or trades). All I am worried about is the deadline for taking a player from my bench and putting them in play

If I read your message correctly that deadline is 30-60 minutes before the start of that players game.

/me

[joncha]

If you add a player to your team (or drop one) it won't show up on your roster for 24 hours (hence the midnight deadline).

If you want to take a player off the bench and put him in the game (or vice versa), the deadline is game time (hence the 30 to 60 minutes).

[notyoueither]

Joncha is both correct and a communist slime monster.

[notyoueither]

While waiting for the new season, some Knob Hockey is called for.

Ilya Bryzgalov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Deyi408m3a8

vs

Ty Conklin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMn84SgSAgI

[Asher]

Ottawa put Corvo on the IR, but Yahoo has yet to let me put him on the IR.

[notyoueither]

Conks aint gettin' no love.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
5 million dollars well spent.

I think you pay more attention to the Leafs than I do, which is great. It's like having my own Leafs RSS feed.

[Asher]

It's hard to miss the news, living in Toronto.

Can't wait til the season starts tonight...I also can't wait to see the Regehr/Phaneuf pairing in action. Top lines are going to get pummeled into submission, and it's going to be gorgeous to watch.

[Asher]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061003.wnhlroundtable/BNStory/Front/?pageRequested=4

Q: Which Canadian team has the best chance of winning the Stanley Cup?

Eric Duhatschek writes: On paper, it has to be Calgary, just because the Flames — coming off a 106-point season last year — didn't lose any meaningful players, but added at least one (Alex Tanguay) who will address their primary shortcoming, which is to say, an inability to score goals, especially at even strength. Everybody already knows Calgary was 28th in total offence last year; even more discouraging was the fact that they were actually 29th in 5-on-5 scoring because their power play (led by Dion Phaneuf's 16 goals) was surprisingly effective, at 13th overall. Last year, the Flames played an old-style game in a new-look NHL, concentrating on defence and trying to win 3-2 every night. New coach Jim Playfair says the overall identity of the team isn't going to change under his regime — he still wants them to play in-your-face hockey and make the Pengrowth Saddledome a tough place for a visiting team to earn two points. If he succeeds in that and if Tanguay can help Jarome Iginla get to the 90-point level (from 67 last year); and if some of the players that just had dreadful offensive years (Tony Amonte, Chuck Kobasew, Matt Lombardi, Jeff Friesen) can just pop five more goals apiece, then the Flames have enough to challenge for the Cup. Of course, a serious injury to Iginla or to goaltender Miikka Kiprusoff would change everything. As it would for any serious contender.

William Houston writes:It should be Ottawa Senators, but I'm saying Edmonton Oilers.

Grant Kerr writes: A Stanley Cup for Canada for the first time since 1993 rests in the hands of the Calgary Flames. They have the proven goaltender in Miikka Kiprusoff, the leader in sharp-shooting Jarome Iginla and a match-up defensive combination with Robyn Regehr and Dion Phaneuf. They will need to develop secondary scoring along the way as new head coach Jim Playfair tries to bring out the best in centres Matthew Lombardi, Daymond Langkow and Jamie Lundmark.

David Naylor writes: Canadian team to win the Cup? I like Calgary with its outanding goaltending and defence and just enough offence to get the job done. Especially if they can upgrade their centre position during the season through trade.

Allan Maki writes: Calgary for the obvious reasons - its goaltending, strong defensive mindset and the addition of Alex Tanguay. The fact there's a new voice on the bench barking out the signals won't hurt, either. Jim Playfair may have been hand-picked by Darryl Sutter but he is his own man, and he'll have the players' attention.

David Shoalts writes: The best Canadian team will be the Ottawa Senators. They are not as good as they were last season but they are still better at scoring than the Calgary Flames.

Last year's rookie class has been heralded as one of the deepest and most talented in decades. It's sparked debate over who will emerge as the best player from the group. If you had to build an NHL team around Dion Phaneuf, Sidney Crosby or Alexander Ovechkin, who would you choose? Why?

William Houston writes: I'd take Phaneuf because Norris Trophy calibre defensemen are a rare breed indeed.

Grant Kerr writes: Building a team around one player is tricky business at best. Ovechkin can score, Crosby play-makes and Phaneuf is a feared hitter who also can play the point on power plays. Each brings something that every team needs. Still, you can't teach scoring. Ovechkin has the magic touch and gets the nod here.

David Shoalts writes: If I had just one? Well, in a U.S. city it would be Crosby because he can sell tickets better than any of the others and he's a great player. In Canada, where building a winner is most important, I'd take Phaneuf. Stud defencemen like him are very, very rare.

Eric Duhatschek writes: You mean, I can't get all three? Who makes these rules anyway? Obviously, there are compelling reasons to like all three — Phaneuf because his combination of size and skill are so rare that he conjures up images of a young Scott Stevens, with more scoring ability; Ovechkin, because he plays the game with such passion and verve; and Crosby, because he does so many things well; there are just no perceptible flaws in his game. I'd lean towards Crosby for two reasons: One, he is the youngest of the three (26 months younger than Phaneuf and 23 months younger than Ovechkin). If the ages of 18 to 22 represent the growing and maturing years, and Crosby had that kind of impact when he was effectively the youngest player in the league, you'd have to think he isn't close to reaching his potential yet. In theory, he might still be improving when the other two eventually reach a peak. Two: The cornerstone players of the past two decades (the Steve Yzermans, the Joe Sakics etc.) possess all the same dimensions that Crosby boasts as well. Lots of people see some Peter Forsberg in Crosby — so skilled offensively, so hard to knock off the puck, and yet so determined to win. Of course, Forsberg's wonderful career was undermined by injury, so that will be the ultimate test of the three — who can stay healthy for the longest? I'd disqualify Phaneuf just because of the way he plays, leaving us with Crosby and Ovechkin — and then pick Crosby just because of the date on the birth certificate. Ovechkin turned 21 in September; Crosby was just 19 in August. Ovechkin, I think, can get a little better still; Crosby looks as if he's just scratched the surface of his vast potential.

David Naylor writes: I'd take Ovechkin, my only hesitation being that his style is not conducive to remaining injury-free throughout his career. I'm reminded of the kind of player Pavel Bure was during his early years in the NHL and how ultimately that high-flying style was unsustainable due to injuries.

Allan Maki writes: In today's NHL, with the priority on speed and excitement, I'd go for Ovechkin. The kid has a love for the game that shines through and he speaks his mind in that wonderful mix of Russian/English exuberance. Try to imagine how remarkable Ovechkin would be if he was surrounded by a few good forwards. I tried. It was too much for me this early in the day. (I work in the west, people.)

Eric Duhatschek is a moron, apparently.

[snoopy369]

You mean a spammer, right? As he's obviously the spammer of that group of writers... Perhaps he's really DrSpike or somesuch?

[Asher]

He spams a lot and then he has very little actual content. He dismisses Phaneuf based on "the way he plays", then picks Crosby over Ovechkin based on the date on his birth certificate.

[snoopy369]

Huh? I don't know these three players, so I don't claim to be an expert here, but his argument has rather more substance to it than that.

He suggests that Phaneuf plays a more physical style, that makes him a lot more likely to be injured, Forsberg-style, and thus incapable of being a true superstar. You can argue with that if you want, but it's not a bad argument; in the NFL, for example, QBs are considered much "safer" bets than HBs, all things equal in terms of their relative ability, because most QBs don't suffer serious injuries (largely due to the absurd protectivity of the NFL) whereas HBs are much more physically involved and thus much more likely to get injured.

He says also that you should choose the younger player because the younger player has more room for maturation, again, when all things are equal.

Basically he's saying that all three are pretty similar in their level at the moment, but given that one player is more likely to get injured, and another player is considerably older and thus has a shorter career/learning period, he'd rather choose the younger, less likely to get injured one, in a random bit of speculation.

Sounds reasonable to me...

[Asher]

I think it's a pretty superficial argument that neglects other qualities such as leadership ability, rarity (how many players truly compete for the scoring title versus how many players truly compete for the Norris trophy).

High-calibre forwards are fairly common these days, young stud defensemen are not. It's not unusual for rookie forwards to break out in their first year, but it's extremely unusual for rookie defensemen to break out as early as Phaneuf did. For that reason, his age comparison is flawed IMO -- yes, it's amazing Crosby did what he did at 18...but that's a lot easier to do than to be the kind of defenseman Phaneuf was at 20.

Ovechkin did extremely well and plays a more complete game than Crosby, IMO, which should also have factored into his decision.

Phaneuf, aside from being my homer favourite, is the kind of guy I'd want to build my team around. A "stud defenseman" at such a young age with so many years ahead of him is far more rare than a stud forward at an age.