|
eXXon posted:No the hilarious thing is that Daniel Sedin is broken and lovely now so it was actually a fair place for him to be drafted (this is not so funny for Canucks fans though). Hahahaha Andrew Ladd was a first round pick.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
I am totally gonna pick Craig Anderson way too high again and then spend way too long coming up with reasons why I did that but not post them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
eXXon posted:No the hilarious thing is that Daniel Sedin is broken and lovely now so it was actually a fair place for him to be drafted (this is not so funny for Canucks fans though). e: if I don't get my hands on a top-5 guy (again), I'm going to put the 'non elite goalie' theory into action (again), and pick some scrub rear end $1.5m goalie in the 20th round (again) and laugh (again) when he has a better season than Miller and Howard. Habibi fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Habibi posted:There was that, too, but I was amused by the slow-motion with which it all came together. This is what I did and I very happily ended up with Varlamov and although I was chided for it, he was one of the best picks in the draft (which only slightly offset all my other horrible picks)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Spamtron7000 posted:This is what I did and I very happily ended up with Varlamov and although I was chided for it, he was one of the best picks in the draft (which only slightly offset all my other horrible picks) Yeah. But I picked Steve Mason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Yeah. But I picked Steve Mason. Cam Ward was my starter last time around. Al Montoya was my backup. I still shudder to think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Cam Ward was my starter last time around. Al Montoya was my backup. I still shudder to think about it. You picked Ward in the fourth round and Montoya twenty rounds later, and Montoya posted a pretty decent.925 ES save %, though granted that was through 28 games and backup match-ups blah blah blah. That's sort of amusing in the context of this whole goalie discussion. (e: Funny enough, my original plan was to try to take Lundqvist with the 16th overall, as I've said that although I think outside of the elite tier, goalies seem to be volatile to the point of replaceability, I think the elite tier is probably more valuable than any other given player in any other position. But due to a miscommunication, my pick got passed-over and consensus-ed to Shea Weber, the poster now known as Ginette Reno picked Lundqvist immediately after me, and by the time my next pick rolled around, all of Price, Lundqvist, Quick (yeah yeah I know), and Rask had been taken, and at that point I figured that I was better off leaving the goalie selection to much later rounds and trying to gain an advantage in team construction. Ultimately, it more or less worked out, although in retrospect I Moneyballed the hell out of my team. I think my total cap hit was like ~$45m but for all that I felt they were solid (combined GF that would have easily been top third this season, D top-4 of Weber, Boyle, Demers, Barrie, etc...) if not exactly a SC contender.) I just checked, and I took Mason in the 14th round (I probably could have waited, but I'd already missed out on my top-2 non-established choices of Bishop and Lehner) and then Andersen in the 19th, and at even strength those guys ended up .923 and .928, respectively, respectably. Haha, for reference, this comment by whoever updated the list that day basically echoed the general sentiment: 
Habibi fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Steve Mason still sucks, but not as much as Ilya Bryzgalov's old contract, which more than offsets Spamtron's good Varlamov selection. Oh, and that Sekera pick was excellent. Speaking of which, since Lecavalier and Bryzgalov's godawful contracts found a home in the last draft, I wonder if anyone will get drunk enough to pick Clarkson. Habibi posted:I just checked, and I took Mason in the 14th round (I probably could have waited, but I'd already missed out on my top-2 non-established choices of Bishop and Lehner) and then Andersen in the 19th, and at even strength those guys ended up .923 and .928, respectively, respectably. It is you, the wrecker of spreadsheets! Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
eXXon posted:It is you, the wrecker of spreadsheets! Uhoh. What did I do? e: did I do something dumb? e2: (besides drafting Mason)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Habibi posted:You picked Ward in the fourth round and Montoya twenty rounds later, and Montoya posted a pretty decent.925 ES save %, though granted that was through 28 games and backup match-ups blah blah blah. That's sort of amusing in the context of this whole goalie discussion. I panic picked Ward because I wanted someone with something of a proven track record. He'd put up pretty respectable numbers his previous few full seasons so I figured at worst he'd be league average. Ugh. Luongo was my original target, but he got taken a few picks before me and I settled for considerably inferior second choice. We're only missing 6 teams I believe. Is there any reason not to spam the N/V thread with requests so we can get this started?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:We're only missing 6 teams I believe. Is there any reason not to spam the N/V thread with requests so we can get this started? Not really. I sent a PM to infidel castro and Starsfan, who both mentioned they wanted to do it again. Rene Rancourt also mentioned wanting back in, but he has no PMs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
ok its settled, im ignoring rule #6 unless someone threatens to kick me out and even then i might not listen
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
dont be a dick
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I picked Bernier, JS Gigeure and Lindback last season, so, uh, one outta three ain't bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Brett Connolly second line RW 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:dont be a dick It's a stupid rule
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
tofes posted:It's a stupid rule Only if you're an impatient twit
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Wait, if I'm the Islanders does this mean I'm obligated to pick someone with an insanely stupid contract?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
tofes posted:It's a stupid rule Why? People will forget about certain players and they'll fall to someone else, or someone will take players (lol Ladd) way earlier than they should, and that's part of the fun. If you have a bunch of people continually mentioning players that are still available, comparing players they drafted to guys who haven't been taken, or going "I can't believe X" hasn't gone yet, that influences the way everyone drafts. I don't want to play "goons list the 900 most valuable hockey players"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
It's really not hard to describe why you like a player without mentioning his teammates or comparable players. By the time you'd want to make comparisons (prospects or young players) the guys you'd be comparing them to are likely already drafted anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Why? People will forget about certain players and they'll fall to someone else, or someone will take players (lol Ladd) way earlier than they should, and that's part of the fun. If you have a bunch of people continually mentioning players that are still available, comparing players they drafted to guys who haven't been taken, or going "I can't believe X" hasn't gone yet, that influences the way everyone drafts. I don't want to play "goons list the 900 most valuable hockey players" ok well i dont really want to play "walk on eggshells in case you remind someone that kulemin is still in the league" its really easy and reasonable to have a rule against posting "i cant believe x hasnt gone yet!" because those are lovely posts regardless
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
I guess we should probably put a moratorium on talking about players outside the thread too then just to be safe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:ok well i dont really want to play "walk on eggshells in case you remind someone that kulemin is still in the league" Well the point is there's no reason you should have to even bring Kulemin up. Can't you explain why you value a player without comparing him to another one? If you really need a comparable is opening the spreadsheet and taking five seconds to search "Kulemin" really that much of a hassle? tofes posted:I guess we should probably put a moratorium on talking about players outside the thread too then just to be safe. Yes that's exactly what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
I dunno, it felt like some really interesting discussions were stopped because of that rule last time. When you start getting into picking guys like Gardiner or Hamilton, it's interesting to compare and contrast to justify your reasoning. At the end of the day the talking about the picks is a lot more interesting than the teams we all post afterwards, at least to me, and I think if we dump rule 6 we improve the quality of that talk. Also, all the "man I can't believe THAT GUY" isn't taken posts were pretty stupid. I think a rule like "don't make white noise posts who you're going to pick later on, or who other people are going to pick, or who hasn't been picked (or if you do, do a 'I can't believe Manny Murderer is still availalble' post), but don't worry about naming guys who haven't been picked in the context of a discussion about guys who have been" would make for better discussion. Jordan7hm fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
The last thread was 157 pages. I think stopping a handful of conversations so that people don't have the perception that discussion may have prevented them from getting a player they wanted is ok.
Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I dunno, it felt like some really interesting discussions were stopped because of that rule last time. When you start getting into picking guys like Gardiner or Hamilton, it's interesting to compare and contrast to justify your reasoning. At the end of the day the talking about the picks is a lot more interesting than the teams we all post afterwards, at least to me, and I think if we dump rule 6 we improve the quality of that talk. Sounds fine to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Well the point is there's no reason you should have to even bring Kulemin up. Can't you explain why you value a player without comparing him to another one? If you really need a comparable is opening the spreadsheet and taking five seconds to search "Kulemin" really that much of a hassle? probably not. yes Jordan7hm posted:
thats reasonable
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
I think people do forget about valuable players (this happened repeatedly last time) and for that reason I'd prefer not discussing unpicked guys. I think the 'this isn't pick 900 guys whom goons value' assessment is accurate in that regard, and if you are worrying about walking on eggshells with regard to player discussion, you might be taking this too seriously. I also think that by the time you get to a point where you're drawing finer distinctions, we'll be far enough in that there should be plenty of drafted players to use for comparables. But I also understand hoe people could be drawn to reasoning out why they drafted player X over similar but still undrafted players Y and Z. So in the end, I don't really care, let's just all have fun, set a consistent rule of whichever variety, and try not to worry too much about pedantic bullshit that may or may not noticeably impact how this goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
I suppose I'll snatch up the Tampa Bay Lightning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
i'll take the capitals if no one else wants them. i'm going to pick all dudes under 23 and viciously mock anyone who takes brad boyes again, ok?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Well I was Buffalo last year, and it doesn't look like there's very many teams left to choose from so I'll go with the Sabres again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
We are down to three (3) teams remaining! They are: The Anaheim Mighty Ducks The LA Kings The Florida Panthers I'll crosspost this to the general thread, and hopefully we can get started today. Anyone have a good sort random list website?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Speaking of which, since Lecavalier and Bryzgalov's godawful contracts found a home in the last draft, I wonder if anyone will get drunk enough to pick Clarkson. I picked Lecavalier b/c he was still a 20ish goal scoring, ~0.8PPG player on a bad contract. I think I picked him in the fourth or fifth round, and by that point, I realized that I was never going to come close to the cap, so why not select a "good" player? Then last year happened. With that said, Clarkson will eventually get picked, but it will be a 24th round decision where you are choosing between Clarkson and Joey Whothefuck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Habibi posted:But I also understand hoe people could be drawn to reasoning out why they drafted player X over similar but still undrafted players Y and Z. So in the end, I don't really care, let's just all have fun, set a consistent rule of whichever variety, and try not to worry too much about pedantic bullshit that may or may not noticeably impact how this goes. Yeah I agree, but I don't think it's asking a lot to say something like "I think X has better speed and a better shot than most of his peers" or "I think X was the player with the most pure offensive skill to come out of Y draft" instead of using explicit comparisons in your analysis. That said I guess it would be ok if someone wanted to compare their pick to other players, who may or may not have been drafted, but I think there will be issues if someone else wants to contend that analysis. I think lengthy arguments about which player is a better comparison, who has the higher upside, or why the pick isn't as good as one of the guys you compared him to is what's going to cause people to realize someone is still available. I'd like to keep that to a minimum if possible because it's going to influence how people value players, and I think the draft is more fun when people are relying on their own judgement and perceived needs rather than what the majority of the participants believe about certain players or who should be drafted next.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Ah, screw it. I'll take the Panthers right to the cup
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Now Jordan7hm also knows what it feels like to spam NHL threads. It's a dirty job. Anyway, I'm gonna make up a draft order list tonight and submit it to Jordan (I don't have pm, could I email you?). My job is such that some days (am I correct in anticipating this will take a week or two?) I will be able to self-actualise while others my phone won't leave the truck. I'm reasonably confident the majority of days I will be able to take care of things myself, but if not Jordan is it ok if I send you an email relinquishing control of that pick to you/my list?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:Now Jordan7hm also knows what it feels like to spam NHL threads. It's a dirty job. Sure. If I pick for off the list though, try to come back in and justify the auto-pick. Only two (2) teams left! (This is going to take well more than a month. 900 picks to be made. Even if we're fast, it's not gonna be over in a couple weeks.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
fits posted:Ah, screw it. I'll take the Panthers right to the cup big shoes man, big shoes
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Discussing picks is dumb. It'd just turn into an SAS hivemind where people will draft not only based on influence, but not wanting to leave a consensus best player undrafted and be called a moron. Not being able to discuss players also leads to poo poo like Andrew Ladd; franchise player, which is hilarious. Also if I could pick 5th and get gifted Erik Karlsson again that would be p cool
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Paulocaust posted:Discussing picks is dumb. It'd just turn into an SAS hivemind where people will draft not only based on influence, but not wanting to leave a consensus best player undrafted and be called a moron. I don't have strong feelings either way, but defending a pick is half the fun. If people are seriously worried that a bunch of people on the internet will mock them for not choosing what others see as the best player in the forum nerd fantasy hockey game then they need to step away from their computers or phone, take a deep breath and really assess where they are in life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:48
|
|