Buds Board Keepers League

I am looking for centres and defencemen.

Matt Moulson

2 studs...

wish i didn't have only 3 active centres atm.

Go offer up on nicklas backtrom + coburn or justin schultz for both to aidan

dAN boyle for either

I want Centres and Defenseman also.

Why are we forced to roster centres? If i choose to roster a forward cor of all wingers, why is that not allowed? I am only hurting myself in not winning FOW....just a discussion starter...

Another good cc topic, nice one kyle.

Trade me something now

I have T.J. Brodie - waiver exempt, #2 dman for the flames.

but i'd trade him for neither of the guys listed.

Thx anyways shep

CAM wroteCOLONWhy are we forced to roster centres? If i choose to roster a forward cor of all wingers, why is that not allowed? I am only hurting myself in not winning FOW....just a discussion starter...

Especially when Cs you are counting on to be in your lineup lose their C eligibility forcing you to add a C in a trade you wouldn't otherwise do. I agree with Kyle in that I don't understand why a C/W can't dress as a C once they fall short of the FOR. I understand making Ws who are taking lots of FOs a C, but who cares if a player is a C and not taking draws, like it was mentioned it only hurts that GM and provides no advantage.

Yah I want boone as a c!

ribeiro is available

CAM wroteCOLONWhy are we forced to roster centres? If i choose to roster a forward cor of all wingers, why is that not allowed? I am only hurting myself in not winning FOW....just a discussion starter...

if you do that then you'd have to also allow full rosters of centers which would throw player values totally out of whack.

anton wroteCOLON

CAM wroteCOLONWhy are we forced to roster centres? If i choose to roster a forward cor of all wingers, why is that not allowed? I am only hurting myself in not winning FOW....just a discussion starter...

if you do that then you'd have to also allow full rosters of centers which would throw player values totally out of whack.

Why? Max centers = 5. Max W = 12. There is no advantage to rostering 12 wingers, where there is an advantage to rostering 12 centers, statwise.

CAM wroteCOLON

anton wroteCOLON

CAM wroteCOLONWhy are we forced to roster centres? If i choose to roster a forward cor of all wingers, why is that not allowed? I am only hurting myself in not winning FOW....just a discussion starter...

if you do that then you'd have to also allow full rosters of centers which would throw player values totally out of whack.

Why? Max centers = 5. Max W = 12. There is no advantage to rostering 12 wingers, where there is an advantage to rostering 12 centers, statwise.

1. There is definitely an advantage to rostering 12 Ws.
2. No NHL team can roll without Cs. 3 is the minimum for that reason.
3. We're not a Yahoo league. We're trying to make this as close to the real NHL as possible.
4. Also why we have FOR to evaluate C eligibility. If a guy is taking too many FOs, he's a C.

2 deals in the works, both guys likely gone.

Thanks for coming out.

CAM wroteCOLON

anton wroteCOLON

CAM wroteCOLONWhy are we forced to roster centres? If i choose to roster a forward cor of all wingers, why is that not allowed? I am only hurting myself in not winning FOW....just a discussion starter...

if you do that then you'd have to also allow full rosters of centers which would throw player values totally out of whack.

Why? Max centers = 5. Max W = 12. There is no advantage to rostering 12 wingers, where there is an advantage to rostering 12 centers, statwise.

if we're trying to mirror the NHL as accurately as possible then yes teams can play all wingers if they want, but they could also theoretically ice all centers (ala team canada).

Team canada = IIHF =/= NHL

gooker wroteCOLONTeam canada = IIHF =/= NHL

what he's trying to say is a team in real life can dress 7 guys who play center if they want to and put 3 of them on the wing.

the sharks for example

CAM wroteCOLONWhy are we forced to roster centres? If i choose to roster a forward cor of all wingers, why is that not allowed? I am only hurting myself in not winning FOW....just a discussion starter...

In the NHL you can dress 12 guys who are usually all wingers, but if they are taking draws they are centres. If you see a game where one team declines to participate in faceoffs I will find more value in this argument.

Bruyns wroteCOLONEspecially when Cs you are counting on to be in your lineup lose their C eligibility forcing you to add a C in a trade you wouldn't otherwise do. I agree with Kyle in that I don't understand why a C/W can't dress as a C once they fall short of the FOR. I understand making Ws who are taking lots of FOs a C, but who cares if a player is a C and not taking draws, like it was mentioned it only hurts that GM and provides no advantage.

You are able to track your team's FOR numbers and be proactive when it comes to having enough eligible players.

On the topic of C/W: there is no such thing in BBKL. All players are uni-positional.

We have a lot of in-built flexibility as far as positional eligibility goes: you can dress another dman instead of a fwd, you can go plus or minus one on the usual 4 centres.

Were we to abolish the need for centres there would be a couple consequences. First, some tanking teams would get rid of their centres to tank a full cat every week. That outcome is anti-competitive in my opinion and should be discouraged. Second, the market will be flooded with centres which would lower their value dramatically as a whole. No value judgement on this point.