Each year I suggest that we expand and this year is no different. My goal at the inception of the league was to get to 20 owners. I always felt that the point of the league was to be a relative reflection of the NHL and the more teams we have the more that reflection becomes a reality.
No way!!! We have neither the time nor the fortitude to deal with dorky new owners!!!
ReplyDeleteLOL
ReplyDeletePot, meet kettle. I reckon you've got something in common.
ReplyDeleteI am all for this. My only problem is bidding day. Right now its already a full day with 16? owners. I couldn't imagine what it would
ReplyDeletebe like with more people in the room or online. And is there a way to speed up the bidding. It all starts out fast and furious but in hour
five it seems to slow down to a snail pace where guys are nickel and diming for a good 10 minutes. Is making the increments 25 cents a easier way and a problem solve to get this pool moving. We could retroactivate all present contracts. To make it fair all contracts would round down to the nearest 25-50-75 or dollar mark. Think how
easier it would be to know your budget. And it would save people having 15 cents left at the end of the day for nothing.
Happy with the league number now.
ReplyDeleteAnd think the bidding process is fine.
I think we just have to stay on top of time in the later rounds. I don't think it has to with the bidding process itself. Has more to with people not having a name ready, and then everyone else flipping through the mags to look up who the hell that is.
100% in favour of expansion. From day 1 I agree with Dave that the goal was 20. Rob's idea to reduce the increments to $.25 is good. Obviously not for this season, but next year? I reckon the process should be started now, find the best owner possible over the course of a year for go next season. I do not, however know how 17 teams would muck with the scheduling. Perhaps straight to 18? Two years off, 20.
ReplyDeleteOthers will say that there isn't enough talent out there. Well, tighten the FP limit first (perhaps down to 15? That is FIVE YEARS worth of picks after all. If you haven't promoted bodies in that time...you suck at this. :) ) Second...there is always the potential to tweek our rosters downwards somewhat to free up bodies. I can think of a couple ways to go from 192 forward (minimum) that we're at now to only a slight increase for 20 teams total. Spreadsheet willing. Spreadsheet ackbar.
I am 100% in favour of expansion.
ReplyDeleteI propose that we expand in 2 stages of 2 teams each, first to 18 teams, and then 2 years later bump us up to 20 teams.
In terms of managing rosters and fp depth.
I agree with a couple of comments made above. Perhaps it is time to goto 25 cent increments (grandfathering in all older contracts).
I would also not mind pulling back the FP list, but I would instead suggest that we goto 20 FPs each.
Also, one way of reducing roster size would be to reduce the number of extra players that teams can have at each position. At the moment those numbers are 8 at each forward, 9 d, and 5 g. Perhaps we could reduce this to 6 f, 8d, and 4g.
Also, instead of 30 players per team we could reduce the max number of players on a team to 25 or 26. Ideas to consider anyway.
Please, please, please only do this if we can find suitably committed owners.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Richard. People have to be committed to the process, but I'm all for expansion.
ReplyDelete