AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 08/09: Preseason

[snoopy369]

Either they should just nominate the BAPAE at that point (which could screw with nominating strategies slightly, but you should expect the BAPAE to be possibly a nominee at any point anyway) or they should nominate the WORST player at $1 and take him. Both are reasonable solutions I think, the former being somewhat easier.

Remember, just because they nominate them doesn't mean they GET them ...

Also, flubb, we do need to check into whether you can have three instances running from the same computer... I'd guess no, but I'd not be sure Otherwise we need some folks with different computers. I could in theory but it would be complicated on my end ...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I can see a few guys from that list that might actually make the draft as someone's choices. Might want to go lower still.

I noticed a couple as well but thought that its no big deal if a null account brings up a player someone wants-- it will be bid as normal and no one will be garnering any advantage or tactical advantage from the null accounts

But perhaps I should go down another hundred or so on the list-- IN any event, it should not be hard to list some nobodies.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Either they should just nominate the BAPAE at that point (which could screw with nominating strategies slightly, but you should expect the BAPAE to be possibly a nominee at any point anyway) or they should nominate the WORST player at $1 and take him. Both are reasonable solutions I think, the former being somewhat easier.

Remember, just because they nominate them doesn't mean they GET them ...

Also, flubb, we do need to check into whether you can have three instances running from the same computer... I'd guess no, but I'd not be sure Otherwise we need some folks with different computers. I could in theory but it would be complicated on my end ...

Two things

1. I was going for the "worst players" so as not to fool up nominating strategies for anyone-- Its actually pretty easy to do as I think about it-- I'll post a little list later -- That cut and paste job actually had a couple of biddable players (although with only 8 teams we should/would have stronger teams on average than in the 14 team draft league.

2. Three accounts may be tough-- I have two computers at home so I should be able to do two easily enough

[notyoueither]

Cavalcadeus still needs to join the normal league.

Does anyone have any opinion on maximum moves per season or per week?

I know the auction is fascinating, but we need some things decided by the draft or they can't be changed and we are stuck with them.

Speak up, or I may well have to change things back to no maximums whatsoever, as the only recent discussion is negative on the idea of seasonal maximums and there has been zero discussion of weekly.

[Asher]

I'd prefer a max moves per week of 5 (assuming this means 1 move is 1 full swap).

Not too restricting, but enough to keep things sensible.

[notyoueither]

I think that is a good compromise based on what I've dug up.

Wants limits on transactions
kontiki

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5385212#post5385212

I'd like to see some kind of restriction, either in terms of total number of moves for the season or a minimum length of time you have to hold on to someone before you can drop them (I can't recall what the options are in Yahoo). I don't have a problem with being active with your roster per se, but I don't like the fact that it's so easy to pick up extra skater or goalie games with no consequences. Plus, restricting the number of total moves you can make adds another strategic element of when the best time to tinker is, rather than just tinkering constantly.

and

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5398757#post5398757

I'd be in favor of a cap, but I think I'm in the minority on that.

Guynemer

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5398784#post5398784

I'm with the distiguished poster above.

Asher

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5398805#post5398805

I wouldn't mind a cap either, so long as it's not too stringent. Some weeks I feel like firing half my team, and I wanna be able to do so.

Against
Flubber

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5400821#post5400821

Limit on moves? I'll play with whatever the people want -- and I am the person people are probably hoping to curtail (even thougfh I didn't really go crazy-- I just rotated a couple of players though my lineup) ----- 40 seems pretty low though-- Since every roster move actuially take 2 "moves" that would be slightly fewer than 1 change a week, wouldn't it?



I'm actually in agreement with Asher that a weekly limit may be better-- It does seem fairer all around since otherwise a manager could be advantaged disadvantaged by whether or not their opponents had moves left when an injury hit.

In any event I'll play with whatever was decided -- full scale churn was never my intent and in fact seemed a little counter productive anyway

snoopy was indifferent.

For the record, I am for some sort of limit if a couple or more people are bothered by churning.

5 per week sounds reasonable. I hope Flubber may have faith in me that 1 move equals dropping player a for player b.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Flubber


Two things

1. I was going for the "worst players" so as not to fool up nominating strategies for anyone-- Its actually pretty easy to do as I think about it-- I'll post a little list later -- That cut and paste job actually had a couple of biddable players (although with only 8 teams we should/would have stronger teams on average than in the 14 team draft league.

2. Three accounts may be tough-- I have two computers at home so I should be able to do two easily enough

The problem with nominating 'lower' players is that those are often the sleepers you want to get for $1 when nobody has any money left. Either the junk teams nominate players that won't play at all, ever, or they should nominate BAPAE. I'm leaning towards BAPAE because that's actually less harmful...

[Cavalcadeus]

Blaine's Bruisers are logged into the league now. As for a move cap, last year I played in a league that had somewhere around 50 for the season. I didn't mind it, but the weekly moves limit sounds pretty good. Somewhere around 5ish sounds good too me. That should cut any churning out but still gives some manager leeway.

[notyoueither]

Yay. That's 14, and equal to the high water mark.

It's also good from the POV of lessening the effect of moving players without expanding the bench.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by snoopy369


The problem with nominating 'lower' players is that those are often the sleepers you want to get for $1 when nobody has any money left. Either the junk teams nominate players that won't play at all, ever, or they should nominate BAPAE. I'm leaning towards BAPAE because that's actually less harmful...

Snoopy-- the sleeper problem is why I will use my judgment and create a list that NO ONE would ever want ie older 3rd and 4th line guys-- I know hockey well enough to do that-- First two nominees


David Hale
Eric Godard

A goaless 3rd strng d-man and a 2 minutes a game goon in a league that doesn't count PIM- Its unfathomable that anyone could want them

I'll do a complete list of the 28 nominees later today so that anyone running a null account would use them. If anyone has the slightest interest in any of the list (and they don't have to say who) we can do it some other way. But there will be no rookies or real youthful guys. It will be a tribuite to the medicocre (and the goalies will be the last 4 nominees)- I cannot see how a 10th round nomination of a keeper would ruin anyone's draft strategy

[Flubber]

Nominees


Godard and Hale plus



574 Brendan Witt NYI D 59 2 5 7 -8
575 Blair Betts NYR C 75 2 5 7 -4
576 Cory Sarich CGY D 80 2 5 7 2
577 Derian Hatcher PHI D 44 2 5 7 4
578 Vitaly Vishnevski NJD D 69 2 5 7 -12
579 Garnet Exelby ATL D 79 2 5 7 -21
580 Nolan Pratt BUF D 55 1 6 7
582 Jody Shelley SJS L 62 1 6 7 -4
583 Steve McCarthy ATL D 55 1 6 7 -23
584 Brad Lukowich TBL D 59 1 6 7 -15
585 Vladimir Sobotka BOS C 48 1 6 7
587 Nicklas Grossman DAL D 62 0 7 7 10
589 Dwayne King STL L 61 3 3 6 -4
590 Dallas Drake DET R 65 3 3 6 -12
593 Rod Pelley NJD C 58 2 4 6 -3
595 Adam Hall PIT R 46 2 4 6 -2
598 Kurt Sauer COL D 54 1 5 6 17

-----------------------


601 Jeff Giuliano LAK L 53 0 6 6 -9
606 Marcus Nilson CGY L 47 3 2 5 2
609 Patrick Kaleta BUF R 40 3 2 5 1
617 George Parros ANA R 69 1 4 5 3
630 Andreas Karlsson TBL C 58 2 2 4 -7

Thats 24 players comprised of 11 d-men, 5RW,4LW and 4C. ON reflection I decided not to overthink this . If someone actually wants someone on this list, they can bid for them. Its unfathomable to me that any of these guys would be in any way a material part of anyone's draft strategy.

The methodology was to go the page 20 of the list (near the bottom but not so far down as to mainly get players who only played a game or two) of players by 'points" at NHL.com and include any players on that list that had played at least 40 games last year. Once I had 19 players I only took forwards so that the null teams can obtain valid rosters. So all these folks scored between 5 and 7 points last year in more than 40 appearances.


Goalies-- would be the final nominees of the two null teams-- NO matter who gets nominated I cannot see how a round 13 nomination of anyone will materially impact anyone's draft strategy-- I am tending toward

Hasek
Emery
Brian Boucher and
McElhinney, Curtis

but at that stage whoever. It won't matter as once we actually form the league back at yahoo-- all the null players will be back as free agents anyway

[Asher]

Sauer might not be a good fit for that list, he's turning into one of colorado's top d-men.

[snoopy369]

Again - I think I'm going to go for just using the BAPAE for the pick (whomever is highest on the overall list). If they don't rank goalies and skaters on the same list, then it will be the skater list. It's safer, and it also has the advantage of moving along the auction faster, which is a significant benefit.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher
Sauer might not be a good fit for that list, he's turning into one of colorado's top d-men.

I did notice his name and I will delete him --- but really Sauer.

1. With only 8 real bidders only about 24 dmen are likely to be selected. Since there are 30 dmen that scored over 35 points last year I saw the chances of anyone wanting a 6 points in 54 games guy to be pretty low. If he quadruples his production he would only be cracking into the top 30 on points

2. In the current pecking order he was a 9th round nominee-- I figured if someone wanted him they can bid on him-- Its just hard for me to comprehend how having Sauer available in rounds 10-14 instead of having to bid him in rd 9 would be a material strategy for anyone

My goal is just not to materially impact anyone's draft strategy-- I don't see how Sauer would but just the fact you mentioned his name is enough for me to replace him

I'll replace Sauer with Mark Smith ( My other alternates are Wayne Primeau, Rhett Warrener and Stefan Yelle)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Again - I think I'm going to go for just using the BAPAE for the pick (whomever is highest on the overall list). If they don't rank goalies and skaters on the same list, then it will be the skater list. It's safer, and it also has the advantage of moving along the auction faster, which is a significant benefit.

Fair enough-- That means that Ovechkin and Crosbie will absolutely be auctioned in the first round-- They probably would have been anyway but if the null accounts come up as the first nominators, we would see one of those two as the first person up for bid. ( They might be the first or very early anyways but BAPAE guarantees it). Overall it reduces the ability of one or more people to try to have some elite players available later on

My suggestion to go with bad players was so that the null accounts were largely irrelevant-- Eric Godard -- one dollar sold -- and that the real draftable players come up ONLY when a real manager chooses to put them on the block-- So I humbly disgaree with your call on this if the intent is to minimze/eliminate any impacts of the null accounts