Buds Board Keepers League

Nighthock wroteCOLONSince I won't be able to keep any of the these picks once I draft them, all three picks for a 4th liner ... anyone?

facey wroteCOLONjust hang on. you have 2+ months to sort things out. being hasty is a common mistake amongst GM's.. its like when a GM says he needs an answer by tonight, or right now... fucking pass.... LOL

Nighthock wroteCOLONSeems like the one who are stubborn are the ones who have all the best players ... interesting ...

Starpainter wroteCOLON I'm in the same boat as you are - 60 players - at the cap. Why? Poor management. I don't blame anyone but myself. But here's the fun... trying to improve your club within the guidelines already in place.

Nighthock wroteCOLONSeems like the one who are stubborn are the ones who have all the best players ... interesting ...

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON[
Both myself and Neel (as well as others) fought tooth and nail to have the limit upped to 70+ over a year ago...So don't go making broad generalizations...

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONBoth myself and Neel (as well as others) fought tooth and nail to have the limit upped to 70+ over a year ago...So don't go making broad generalizations...

facey wroteCOLONeasy to claim w/o any history ....

Nighthock wroteCOLONOr what? It's an observation ... don't remember saying "all" teams.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONI agree completely, the entire CC is stupid if you ask me, I'm not refering to any of the members, but the CC itself. I think it's unfair that a few members have the power to make decisions for the entire league. This rule specifically was BS, everyone on the CC was pro 50, as evidenced by the unanimous decision against 60. Not one member on the CC wanted to increase 60, how is that fair? And like Berney said, most of us don't know what the **** is going on, hell most here didnt even know TB quit until a few days ago...

IMO if we are going to have a CC we should at least have the option of electing it's members.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON60 would have been a good middle ground, 55 is useless it helps no one. As for your argument that it makes for tough decisions down the road, thats complete BS, we already have tough decisions to make, trades, drafting, evaluating pro talent, managing our cap etc, forcing us to dump picks makes for an unfair playing field. It favors contending teams whilst punishing rebuilding teams who stockpile picks, if anything it takes away tough decisions, as we will no longer have the option of drafting past round 4 in a couple of years.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONI would add an additional 2/3 spots becuase of the additional waiver claims after the Dispersal draft, regardless you are proving what I have been saying, we are set until 2011/2012 and then we are full, but the problem is that it takes longer to judge certain prospects, with this system we will be forced to dump players before they are fully developed.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONI love the idea of a public vote, because at least then we can get the view of the entire league, and not those of a select few, and yes this vote ended in a 50/50 split, but it also changed dramatically by the hour, so it's impossible to tell where the entire league really stood on the matter.

Secondly, the fact that the entire CC wanted to maintain 50 proves that it was bias, because of that there was ZERO chance of increasing roster sizes to 60. I can't understand how you fail to see this. Furthermore 50, was not a middle ground, if you revisit the debate many of us were calling for 70+, 60, not 55 would have been a good middle ground, and therein lies my disdain with this ruling.

Whether or not you would maintain 50 spots without a CC is irrelevant, as it the decision would still be unjust and not for the betterment of the entire league.

Anyways, this is my last post on the subject.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONWhere the did I say anything about my opinion holding any more weight then anyone else? Huh, chief, please find a quote where I stated or even implied such a thing. Last I checked my argument was to hold a league wide vote or elect CC members to ensure the best interests of the entire league are met, which is the complete opposite of what you claim. I along with several others have debated this argument for the last couple of days, and from the discussions its seems apparent that 60 + is most beneficial to the league. Furthermore, not everyone voted, and the votes changed on an hourly basis making it impossible to truly gauge what the leagues opinon on this matter is.

As for being spoiled, perhaps you should look up the meaning, what I have done is excercised by right as a GM in this league and Canadian citizen to voice my opinion, if you have a problem with that you can go fuck yourself, because it's not going to change.

The funny thing is that I am a competitive team, and while I have quite a few prospects, I am not by any means rebuilding, my stance on this matter isnt even in the best interests of my team, but moreso yours, and yet you accuse me of being selfish and spoiled.

facey wroteCOLONthe CC is actually a group of relatively level headed GM's... our discussions do not become arguments, and we try and think of all the teams... voted CC members is a good idea, one we will probably adapt, however if you increase the size of the CC it means longer decision time, and less representative of the population (ie guy with most votes had no more power then guy with least... if you add more choices that gap gets bigger).


70+ is ridiculous, as is 30. however 55 allows for 30 players not playing in the NHL, yes if you stockpile a HUGE # of picks you could run into a situation wherein you have to make a judgment on a player your still unsure of, however thats the fun part, the challenging part..

if a large group of us (aka not half, but more then half) feel that we need to expand our 'minors' system in a few years then we can do that... not like we are writing the 10 commandments here.

facey wroteCOLONand MSP, as i've said before, you make almost every discussion into an argument, and you make almost every argument personal ... its great that you seem to think that your side won the discussion earlier in this thread, the majority did not, IMO not all your reasoning is even approaching sound, and there has been no rebuttal to many of the others sides points (true for both sides, as they are actually arguing different points, your side doesn't want to have to make tough decisions regarding prospects, the other side thinks that is a necessary facet of the simulation, but if its too many decisions, multiple people have already said we can address it again when the concern is more warranted).

Clearly this topic is dead, I willfully acknowledge I was clamouring to see an increase over to at least 60, but it didn't happen and its 55. I think starpainter is right, we should reexamine this later, my view on the topic is not that the CC really made a decision but rather bought us at least a year to revisit the topic. Keeping it at 50 made it an immediate concern, keeping it at 55 lets us let the league run for a year (We haven't even started the season yet!), and then reanalyze the situation which in my mind is fair. In such time I will again be vocal about my views on the topic, which is every gms right. For now whatever, and for the record my beef wasn't necessarily that the CC made the decision, it was mentioned that the CC would vote on it in the other thread but it wasn't clear as we discussed other options as well. I didn't know a vote was forthcoming or what issues the CC are even considering voting on at any moment, which was my issue with it. I was under the impression there was a process to present something to the CC and didn't know we had gone through it, but in the future we'll figure that out then too. I'd rather see mistakes and issues brought up now rather than later, but lets let the league run for a year and we'll gauge interest before the next draft on changing the roster size. Electing members seems like a good idea as well.