Buds Board Keepers League

With the recent changes to the centre position, I have noticed we have SO many centres now.

There are 163 centres listed. That averages out to 5.43 centres per team, and that isn't even including rookies that'll be coming into the league.

I think there should be serious consideration and at least dicuss the possibility of changing the centre requirements from 3-5 to either 3-6 or 4-6.

There are PLENTY of centres now, and without dual eligibility there are going to be a lot of unused centres.

Just discuss it and don't ignore it. It is certainly something that should be looked into.

Shep wroteCOLON There are 163 centres listed. That averages out to 5.43 centres per team, and that isn't even including rookies that'll be coming into the league.

how did you come up with that number?

I added up your list and divided by 30.

facey wroteCOLON

What?

Shep wroteCOLONI added up your list and divided by 30.

that's obviously wrong then, as many players listed are not regulars..

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3663&start=20#p47754

Quoted me when I was still working on getting it right... reply options not having BBCodes displayed is annoying.

I was wondering where you got 163?

Shep wroteCOLON There are PLENTY of centres now, and without dual eligibility there are going to be a lot of unused centres.

Just discuss it and don't ignore it. It is certainly something that should be looked into.

i wouldn't worry about it, that would not be ignored..
IF indeed it will turn out we will have too many centers, we would certainly take care of that, cause it would affect too much their value on the market.
Another reason to wait before going crazy about selling your centers.

That being said, would 5.43 per team ( wrong number, but anyway..) really be too high a number?

Most NHL teams indeed dress at least 5 centers..

kyuss wroteCOLON

Shep wroteCOLONI added up your list and divided by 30.

that's obviously wrong then, as many players listed are not regulars..

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3663&start=20#p47754

What?

facey wroteCOLONQuoted me when I was still working on getting it right... reply options not having BBCodes displayed is annoying.

I was wondering where you got 163?

I took Mik's list, added them all up, and divided by 30.

kyuss wroteCOLON

Shep wroteCOLON There are PLENTY of centres now, and without dual eligibility there are going to be a lot of unused centres.

Just discuss it and don't ignore it. It is certainly something that should be looked into.

i wouldn't worry about it, that would not be ignored..
IF indeed it will turn out we will have too many centers, we would certainly take care of that, cause it would affect too much their value on the market.
Another reason to wait before going crazy about selling your centers.

That being said, would 5.43 per team ( wrong number, but anyway..) really be too high a number?

Most NHL teams indeed dress at least 5 centers..

Yes, it is too high.

We could dress 5 C last year with WAY less centre eligible people.

Now we significantly raise that number, and we keep it the same?

Makes NO sense.

All teams can have 5 C's and then there are extras due to 23 roster spots. 5.43 C's seems about right for this league.

The Devil wroteCOLONAll teams can have 5 C's and then there are extras due to 23 roster spots. 5.43 C's seems about right for this league.

My point is, we raised the centre number significantly with this rule change, but we keep our rosters the same?

Shep has brought up a critical point here. By instituting this policy, you are essentially making it so that each team will HAVE to own 5 centers. there are huge pitfalls to this:

1. People will have to trade Centers at lower value
2. Trades will be hindered in the future due to positional requirements.

Honestly if the max number of centers is increased to 6, this system makes sense. Otherwise it is actually going to shit right now. Shep and I are not the only GMs who think this either. I've had gms msg me on msn about it saying that they will be making posts later today.

Shep wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

Shep wroteCOLONI added up your list and divided by 30.

that's obviously wrong then, as many players listed are not regulars..

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3663&start=20#p47754

What?

what are you missing?

Shep wroteCOLONWe could dress 5 C last year with WAY less centre eligible people.

Now we significantly raise that number, and we keep it the same?

Makes NO sense.

Last year we had too many wingers and not enough centers in respect with our lineup system.
So moving in the other direction does make sense, the concerne is about not exaggerating the other way.

Hear come the tears

4x30 teams = 120 Sentres, and that list will mostly be in common with the 119 players who broke the 450FOT mark, which once again will mostly overlap with players having a FOR >.30

It's only the 'bottom' of the lists where there will be differences. We need to see how much non-overlap there really is. IMO if we break the 140mark we should consider making the criteria with a little higher bar (ie FOR of .35, or 500 FOT).

SuperMario wroteCOLONShep has brought up a critical point here. By instituting this policy, you are essentially making it so that each team will HAVE to own 5 centers. there are huge pitfalls to this:

1. People will have to trade Centers at lower value
2. Trades will be hindered in the future due to positional requirements.

Honestly if the max number of centers is increased to 6, this system makes sense. Otherwise it is actually going to shit right now. Shep and I are not the only GMs who think this either. I've had gms msg me on msn about it saying that they will be making posts later today.

you're forgetting the part where last year we had too many wingers comparing with the 6 slots to cover.
People had to trade wingers at a lower value as a result? maybe.
The point now is not to have too many centers in the future, but having more than last year is only fair.

How fucking hard is it to start a topic and discuss it with the other CC members? I don't care if you don't change your stance.