Full streaming of farm players vs a limited number of moves

[Steve]

Glenn and I threw this idea around some time ago. I thought it best to poll the GMs in the league to get their opinion as we should be making up our minds now in considering what we should change, if anything, next season well before next season's start.

At one time I was all in favour of streaming farm players to my heart's delight, but I've actually started leaning towards at least considering a change in how we operate the farm. When we look at the total stats on Yahoo, it is very difficult to gauge how much impact the streaming of farm players has on our weekly matchups. A few of you guys are in Lucas' BITW league on Fantrax. Fantrax actually tracks the total season stats that each team currently has, and to be honest, I'm a little surprised how much impact there actually is with the streaming of farm eligible players.

Without going in to too many details I truly believe that streaming of your farm players really impacts categories like PIMS, Hits, Blks and obviously, to a lesser extent, the more common scoring cats as well. To me, my being in favour of streaming farm players was mostly because I wanted to get some of my good prospects into my lineup.

However, in my opinion, farm teams have become too much of an extension of a team's bench and these farm teams, in some cases, are just used to rotate players through a lineup in hopes that the extra games played will allow a team to win categories simply by having a superior number of players contributing then the opposition. That, again in my opinion, is not what a farm team should be about. Farm teams are primarily used to develop players and not just for streaming..

The other side of the coin is that you really aren't streaming anything as your farm players are yours to do as you please. It is a viable strategy to try an obtain good farm eligible players and attempt to use your team to your best advantage. This strategy is open to every GM and it is up to them to use their farm teams wisely. The streaming of farm eligible players actually allows a team to better compete with some of the league powerhouses and makes for better weekly competition.

So, since this league is collectively our league, I want to know what everyone's opinion is on this subject. I really like this league and would think that limiting the number of weekly moves would make GMs focus more on fielding the best team they can and not focus solely on the streaming of their farm eligible players.

It is your league, so your vote will decide.

[Deleted]

Fantrax has got to be the way we go now. With minor league rosters, you wouldn't have to worry about dropping prospects to the waivers anymore, and keep on checking here to see which prospects are available to add

[Deleted]

I don't have any issue with how the yahoo and the gmhl site work. I am in a fantrax league and prefer yahoo over it

[Deleted]

I think adjusting the Games Played by farm eligible players is the way to correct the situation. Goalies take longer to develop so 50GP is fine but dropping from 100 to 80 would be justified. Considering the NHL uses 25 as rookie requirement. Or if we stick with 100 GP your player immediate loses farm eligibility and then once they are called up have to stay up.

Sent from my Nexus S using proboards

[Deleted]

I like idea honestly, but I think its something that should be incorporated at beginning of next season. Doing before playoffs gives little time to make significant adjustments for teams that stream like 4-6(or more) players and built their team like that over the course of the year.

I like the 7-10 moves per week, but I like it for 2015-16 season. So I voted to keep the way it is, until season's end. Great idea guys.

I also think Glenn may be onto something but I'd like to see newly drafted prospects that start the season and play every game eligible for the one extra season. So maybe we could go from like 100 GP down to 85 GPP. Just a thought

[Deleted]

And I prefer Yahoo to Fantrax by a huge margin. I am in a league that just switched over this year and i'm thinking about leaving. Yahoo is just way way more user friendly. Their app is also much MUCH easier to use IMO.

[Deleted]

lou the vote is for next year

[Moose]

I voted for 7 or 10 moves per week.

Quality over Quantity.

[Deleted]

Then I'll go the other way haha. Sry fellas, was confused by the one part in the Yahoo message...

"Please vote on this poll soonest as I want to compile the results by the beginning of the playoffs."

Figured since wanted to tally votes before playoffs, you meant it was gonna be instituted in playoffs. I'm good with that change for next year. I think 10 moves would be a decent weekly total.

[Steve]

The only thing I really like about Fantrax is that we have full farm teams there; however, that is not even close enough to have me even consider switching. This is my 1st year back in a couple of years and I really do not like Fantrax at all. Besides, to use all the features it'll cost you a minimum of $80 or so a year. No thanks.

[Deleted]

I voted no. Leave it as is. If the vote is to change for the 2016-2017 season. I am open to the idea. But for team like mine and others who have built teams based on the streaming strategy one offseason isn't enough time to adjust rosters fairly to comply.

The other option would be to have the GMHL do a complete restart and redraft in the summer with to no-streaming rules.

My biggest issue with the fantrax league is the fact that the rules were changed several times after the draft which negatively affected teams. Having said that I wouldn't mind GMHL moving over to fantrax (I prefer over yahoo) or a 2nd league started by Steve is opened up using non-streaming rules.

[Stu]

voted for 7 to 10 moves and continuing to use yahoo/gmhl works for me

[scoop12ca]

i think that 7 moves per week is more than enough to cover any injuries that occur and keep your line up competitive. i have leagues in yahoo, espn and fantrax. i like yahoo and fantrax about the same. they both have features that make them enjoyable. i would be okay with staying. the one thing fantrax would be better at is if a new member comes on board after yahoo shuts down. it is difficult to know who is a free agent until yahoo starts up. i speak from experience as you all know. other than that i would say the pros and cons are about the same.

[Steve]

I'm not sure why you find it difficult to know who is available as a free agent Dale as I keep the Master Index of the Team Rosters up-to-date. If a player isn't listed there, he should be available.

[Steve]

Feb 21, 2015 20:02:59 GMT -5 @bruinsfan17 said:

Fantrax has got to be the way we go now. With minor league rosters, you wouldn't have to worry about dropping prospects to the waivers anymore, and keep on checking here to see which prospects are available to add

I'll pretty much state the same for you Jason. Searching the Master Index Roster page will let you know if a player is available to pick up or not, even during the off-season.
Having to search this page here doesn't seem to be too much of an imposition to anyone I would think. I think that with the work I do on the lineups, all of your farm eligible players should be available to you to put back into your lineup the next day. This may not be ideal, but I don't mind doing it at all.

As for Fantrax, we've talked about this a few times in the past. I don't have any intentions of moving the league to Fantrax. I do appreciate everyone's input, but I don't think Fantrax at $80 per season offers much value for what you pay for, especially since there is no cost here on Yahoo.

[Deleted]

I love YaaaaHoooo!!!

Sent from my Nexus S using proboards

[Deleted]

Agreed, i LOOOVVVE Yahoo! Would hate switching over to Fantrax. Their premium features ate worth the $$ each year. Well put Steve, keep up great work brother!

[Deleted]

Feb 22, 2015 0:32:14 GMT -5 @basalt13 said:

I voted no. Leave it as is. If the vote is to change for the 2016-2017 season. I am open to the idea. But for team like mine and others who have built teams based on the streaming strategy one offseason isn't enough time to adjust rosters fairly to comply.

I agree with this. If we switch it to a limit of GP per week, we can't implement it in the following season. It really does not give them GMs that have used this as a strategy time to adjust and make trades accordingly because these managers would most likely not get fair value in any deals knowing that the changes will be in effect next season.

[Steve]

Lucas, you make a point, but have you looked at the teams that are currently utilizing this strategy? I believe you've made a broad general statement that just doesn't seem to hold any water once you've looked at the facts.

Take Anthony's team as an example. He has 21 Pro players and 26 Farm players. Before next season begins, he has to call up 6 of his players: MacKinnon, Kreider, Krug, DeKeyser, Gelinas and Merrill. This puts him at 27 Pro and 20 Farm, which is where he needs to be. If he wanted to stream anyone, then he would have to make some moves by dropping some Pro players, which is what he would have to do regardless.

Your team is another good example Lucas. Currently you have 22 Pro and 21 Farm. Prior to next season beginning, you have to make 8 moves/call ups due to GP limitations: Scheifele, Maroon, Toffoli, Smith-Pelly, Lindholm, Holden, Bartkowski and Andersen. This puts you at 30 Pro and 13 Farm.

Regardless if we keep unlimited streaming of Farm players or not, you have to trade/drop 3 players. If you plan to stream, then obviously you have to trade/drop at least 2 or 3 more than this to make this a viable option for you.

Lets take for example that the streaming of Farm players stays the same. If I'm another team, I know that I may possibly get a good deal from you, because you have to make a minimum of 6 moves. For you, I don't think it has any bearing on whether we modify this rule or not.

Neither of you have any draft picks to speak of either as Anthony has currently one 1st rounder only and you have no picks at all. Anthony will have to make 1 move to accommodate his draft pick whereas you have room to add 7 players to your Farm.

To me it seems like if you do have players on your Farm that are only there for streaming, and I believe most teams do, then if we do change things up, it focuses the competition in league on your ability to build the best team possible instead of trying to take advantage of a loophole in how we manage our Farm teams.

[Deleted]

Steve my point is teams like mine and others have built teams and made deals in terms of streaming. For example our deal. Dubinsky for Burkovsky and Karlsson. I only did that deal to get FE players for streaming. If I had known it was possible that rules would change I wouldnt have done deal. So switching it for next season isn't fair.

[Steve]

Anthony, if you look at my comment from he 27th, you are in no position to stream for next season at all unless you move/drop some players. In our conversation on YIM, you think that Backes and Callahan were acquired for way too high a price. You also said that you may consider either Karlsson or Burakovsky for Callahan, or perhaps you meant Mantha or Dal Colle. I said that I thought Dubinsky's value was between Backes and Callahan, so with you getting both Burakovsky and Karlsson for Dubinsky, I would think that by what you stated in response to my posting is more slanted towards defending your position rather than lamenting that you may have been taken for a ride because the rules may be changing.

I made you an offer at the going rate, which I would agree is quite high. I'd be willing to negotiate some as well, but I certainly won't give Dubinsky away.

I also think that limiting the amount of moves is only a minor change and, as with everything, it is the league that votes on these decisions, not just me.

[Deleted]

Steve, I know my team and where my team is headed and I would be streaming 5 players per day next season if no rule change happened. I never said I would consider, Burakovsky or Karlsson for Callahan, I would jump at that deal. I said I would consider Dal Colle for Callahan. In my evaluation of the players we were discussing.

1. Mantha
2/3. Callahan/Dal Colle.
4. Dubinsky.
5. Burkovsky
6. Backes
7. Karlsson

You were asking for Mantha + Dal Colle + My 2015 1st which will be a top 5 pick for one of them which is absolutely insane.

In any case I never asked for Dubinsky back, I simply stated that was one deal I would never have made if you had brought this poll up a month ago. There are many other deals, pick-ups, drops, and draft choices even that could have been different if this had been an option. I have no problem with changing rules if given a year in advance like we have always done. Even a bridge year like I suggested to you on YIM of limit to 20 moves per week next season, and 10 year after. Would cut back streaming. Another option would be limiting to 3 pickups per day. Having that option would also reduce it significantly without completing disadvantaging 3-4 teams while giving big advantage to 3-4 other teams.

[Deleted]

So far off topic now I forget what we're doing.

Sent from my Nexus S using proboards

[Moose]

Anthony, Does this mean that your offer of a 2020 4th round pick for Semin is off the table? I was hoping to use that offer to start a biding war. lol

[Steve]

I had a look at the last 8 weeks of moves on Yahoo. There are only 2 teams that currently average more than 20 moves a week, and they are barely over that amount, at 22 and 21 respectively. The next most averages 15.6 moves per week and then it falls to 11.6, 11.4, 10.2, 10 and then one at 7.6 moves per week. Other than yourself, the next two highest average are both in favour of dropping the moves/week to 7 to 10.

Your idea of 20 is simply too much imo. Typically a team averages approximately 3.5 games per week. With 20 man rosters, this works out to an average of about 70 GP per week. If you have 22 moves a week, this represents an excess of over 30% more GP per week than your competition; obviously, this isn't the same for all teams because some teams stream much more than others, but I think you get my point.

Yahoo doesn't allow the option of so many moves per day and I don't have the time to monitor and/or enforce this manually my self. If there is a limit, it will be total per week.

The whole goal here is to level the playing field and keep it fair for everyone. If the streaming was more reasonable in the numbers per week, this never would have come to our attention at all. As it stands now, there is too much streaming going on and, again imo, winning a week should be about the team you put together and not how many guys you can stream through your lineup. You may disagree, and that's fine.

As for how long we take to implement any changes, well I believe 7+ months is plenty long enough. When we went to a 2nd goalie, we talked about it about 3 weeks before the season began, so we had to push it back another year. If we make changes in streaming, I think every team has plenty of time to adjust. With the knowledge you GMs have and the amount of trading that goes on here, I have no doubt you will all be ready once the 2015-16 season begins.