Buds Board Keepers League

SuperMario wroteCOLON p.s. this means backes keeps his faceoffs from the wing . lol its all on price now.

it might also mean he's a full time C.

i think mtl should have keep halak and traded price.... but this being said i understand why they traded halak..... with price there is so much potenital and hes really young... it usaully takes goalies a little more time to develop into a number one...just look at ryan millar

cliff11 wroteCOLONi think mtl should have keep halak and traded price.... but this being said i understand why they traded halak..... with price there is so much potenital and hes really young... it usaully takes goalies a little more time to develop into a number one...just look at ryan millar

millar eh? no clue who that is... Ryan Miller on the other-hand is a stud.


IMO they traded Halak because he was worth more, and they were basically split on which goalie was their 'guy'.

Doug Wilson sucks - another year of underachieving in San Jose again.

Nighthock wroteCOLONDoug Wilson sucks - another year of underachieving in San Jose again.

how can you say this? multiple 100pt seasons, always IN the playoffs.. 3rd round, 3x 2nd round & 2x 1st round... thats nothing to shake a stick at... its missing a cup.... Halak is not the only goalie on the market, and Nabakov was not the only reason SJS lost this year.... That doesn't sound like 'sucking' to me.


but I guess you never really know what sucking is like until you truly suck -> try being a Leafs fan, or a Canuck fan

Habber I am impressed with your optimism! For you sake and the sake of the rest of my family (all habs fans) I hope Price pans out. However I know if it was the nuck that made this trade..I'd be livid. Two prospects for arguably the top player in the playoffs....I get the reasoning behind selling him at a high but this is selling at a high for a bargain price. Time will tell tho..

i asked neel this earlier today: name a list of teams that need a goalie AND would pay up for halak without the assurance of signing him? this deal for montreal make more sense when you consider the lack of demand for goalies given the option of free agency and the potential for a huge amount of money tied up on the back end with two netminders. price will determine the value of this deal. im one of the few who thinks its pretty decent for montreal.

facey wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON p.s. this means backes keeps his faceoffs from the wing . lol its all on price now.

it might also mean he's a full time C.

wait a second. its the off season now and everyone is making trades according to what their team is going to be. now if in september, suddenly a RW switches to a C we'll suddenly have to make a major adjustment? why not dual eligibility?

it is dual eligibility for a reasonable period. 30 games in & he's played nothing but C.....i dunno....

if the cbs update lists a player as a C that is what they will be unless significant proof otherwise

SuperMario wroteCOLONi like it for montreal. sell halak on a high when his free agent status is uncertain (salary hit etc). get two prospects and eller is going to fit in perfectly.

p.s. this means backes keeps his faceoffs from the wing . lol its all on price now.

Thats exactly it. They needed to sell Halak when his value was at its highest. I guarantee Montreal would not have gotten the same package if they tried to move Price....everyone would have wanted a discount on him. Price has the higher upside but obviously hasnt played as well as Halak. That being said it makes the most business sense as well. Both goalies needed to resign this year and Halak was obviously going to ask for a hefty raise. They can resign Price for about 2 million cheaper per year based on his performances, where as Halak is going to demand massive money from St Louis. They can then take that 2 million or however much they saved and put that towards upgrading elsewhere.

Like I said if Price turns it around Gauthier looks like a genius....if he doesnt then he looks like Mike Milbury a la moving Luongo for Dipietro.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON p.s. this means backes keeps his faceoffs from the wing . lol its all on price now.

it might also mean he's a full time C.

wait a second. its the off season now and everyone is making trades according to what their team is going to be. now if in september, suddenly a RW switches to a C we'll suddenly have to make a major adjustment? why not dual eligibility?

Dual eligibility is determined during the season, not after. For example if Richard Park were listed as a C, he is a C until he plays enough game to justify dual eligibility.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON
Dual eligibility is determined during the season, not after. For example if Richard Park were listed as a C, he is a C until he plays enough game to justify dual eligibility.

right so Backes is an RW until it is proven he is a C during the season.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON
Dual eligibility is determined during the season, not after. For example if Richard Park were listed as a C, he is a C until he plays enough game to justify dual eligibility.

right so Backes is an RW until it is proven he is a C during the season.

Or if CBS starts him as a C...

this doesnt make sense. the off season is the time to make changes. but suddenly october rolls around and our planning can be useless because cbs lists a player differently. we're supposed to plan our positions after the season starts then? isnt the off season the time to make the adjustment? cbs changing positions should not affect keeper leagues. it should be more for one year leagues. otherwise every october we will be at the mercy of cbs to adjust roster spots - that is, trades made simply to satisfy positional requirements, not strategic fantasy hockey decisions. it doesnt make sense.

SuperMario wroteCOLONthis doesnt make sense. the off season is the time to make changes. but suddenly october rolls around and our planning can be useless because cbs lists a player differently. we're supposed to plan our positions after the season starts then? isnt the off season the time to make the adjustment? cbs changing positions should not affect keeper leagues. it should be more for one year leagues. otherwise every october we will be at the mercy of cbs to adjust roster spots - that is, trades made simply to satisfy positional requirements, not strategic fantasy hockey decisions. it doesnt make sense.

At the mercy of CBS? They aren't conspiring against their customers and will certainly be trying to provide the best possible positional eligibility.

Everyone is in the same boat as you are. Let's see what CBS does with listing players. At this point you need to use your better judgment (depth charts, historical position) to make assumptions. A good GM will leave himself some positional flexibility.

the list of players who people need to worry about are small (aside form C becoming Wingers, which is typically regarded as a good thing)

-> grioux, backes, park, marleau & zetty... ??? we are all.. playing under the same rules shiv. IMO it would be really cool if we could make JUST 4 players count towards FOW.

facey wroteCOLONthe list of players who people need to worry about are small (aside form C becoming Wingers, which is typically regarded as a good thing)

-> grioux, backes, park, marleau & zetty... ??? we are all.. playing under the same rules shiv. IMO it would be really cool if we could make JUST 4 players count towards FOW.

WE don't have to do anything...Whatever CBS posts is what we will use...Don't call out Shiv for trying to play under different rules, and then make a claim about certain players "we" (I use this term loosely) need to worry about...

did I say that we had to do something? i think thats exactly what I said kareem, aside from mentioning that making it a 4 person stat, but thats nothing more then an idea, one i don't even like... IMO having a winger win 1 or 2 draws in a game is really cool. Tight FO games actually involve the wingers, LOTS.


Does not mean that I like the idea of having wingers who take 20 draws a game, just another loophole we're not closing because of which GM's (who) are taking advantage of it. On each ling there is 1 guy taking the draws... weird that we're allowed to have 2 guys.

facey wroteCOLONdid I say that we had to do something? i think thats exactly what I said kareem, aside from mentioning that making it a 4 person stat, but thats nothing more then an idea, one i don't even like... IMO having a winger win 1 or 2 draws in a game is really cool. Tight FO games actually involve the wingers, LOTS.


Does not mean that I like the idea of having wingers who take 20 draws a game, just another loophole we're not closing because of which GM's (who) are taking advantage of it. On each ling there is 1 guy taking the draws... weird that we're allowed to have 2 guys.

You're the only one against it, and you have been for some time; so you're argument about "who" is against it is rather moot. If anything I would argue that you are making this an issue out of your own self interests, and the fact that you don't have such speciality players, because the arguments in favour of keeping the status quo are plentiful, as is the support for it...

1. FOW by a winger changes year to year

2. We already have an established value system for such players and to change it now is a slap in the face to those of us who specifically targeted wingers and centerman with high FOW totals.

3. If you open the door to posisition changes for wingers based on FOW you are setting a precedent for several other posisition changes, such as Stamkos to the wing because he doesn't take many draws etc.

4. It is not at all uncommon for a winger to take a draw and then move back to the wing.