canucklax Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I wanted to make things interesting, + I've always felt bad for Cheechoo, lol. I think its interesting enough with 30 people competing against each other without handing out ridiculous ratings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I think its interesting enough with 30 people competing against each other without handing out ridiculous ratings *shrug* *VC* didn't mind, I'm not even going to bother defending it anymore since its just causing problems. If you had a problem with it from day 1, you should have said something to *VC* - at the end of the day, its his say, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Fantasy hockey is supposed to be fun, being anal and realistic in a league based on the STHS system(Which we all know works "wonderfully" sometimes: See Shane Doans 118 pts) is just silly, if you want realism, well, thats what keeper leagues are for. lol I can see maybe a bump to the low 80s, but 89? I think you're confusing STHS with NHL 12 leagues. We also did point it out in the thread when it was first caught by Nail, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 *shrug* *VC* didn't mind, I'm not even going to bother defending it anymore since its just causing problems. If you had a problem with it from day 1, you should have said something to *VC* - at the end of the day, its his say, not mine. Did you rate him? For the sake of what's right in the world I hope this can be changed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 who is rollingrock180? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 *shrug* *VC* didn't mind, I'm not even going to bother defending it anymore since its just causing problems. If you had a problem with it from day 1, you should have said something to *VC* - at the end of the day, its his say, not mine. I remember people pointing it out when it happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Are we rating players well because we feel sorry for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Just in case anyone doesn't feel like reading the next few pages, I'll summarized the most likely scenario of what's going to happen: > RollingRock is going to get upset because we're criticizing his rerates again. > More general bickering > Bob Corkum (Gmen) is going to tell everyone to stop whining about a sim hockey league, and to go with the flow. > More general bickering > Name calling > More general bickering > VC comes in and tells us all "no more of this in the thread" > Someone decides they need to get the last word in > More bickering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I can see maybe a bump to the low 80s, but 89? I think you're confusing STHS with NHL 12 leagues. We also did point it out in the thread when it was first caught by Nail, lol. Did you rate him? For the sake of what's right in the world I hope this can be changed.. I remember people pointing it out when it happened Are we rating players well because we feel sorry for them? Just in case anyone doesn't feel like reading the next few pages, I'll summarized the most likely scenario of what's going to happen: > RollingRock is going to get upset because we're criticizing his rerates again. > More general bickering > Bob Corkum (Gmen) is going to tell everyone to stop whining about a sim hockey league, and to go with the flow. > More general bickering > Name calling > More general bickering > VC comes in and tells us all "no more of this in the thread" > Someone decides they need to get the last word in > More bickering I have my reason's for rating Cheech' the way I did, former 50 goal scorer, trying to make the UFA pool a little less thin - since that was something I remember hearing people weren't happy with. I'm not here to fight, you don't like my ratings, thats what re-rates and PM's are for, I made the re-rate obvious, put a note on it to make everyone that was re-rating aware and he was never changed. If its a big deal and you guys really want it, I don't have a problem with *VC* dropping his ratings like a rock. I just wanted to have some fun & make things interesting for you guys Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I'm going to be honest, dropping his ratings like a rock at this point would be pretty unfair to (San Jose?). But 89 is a bit out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baercheese Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 And he didn't do squat the last few years he was in the NHL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 And he didn't do squat the last few years he was in the NHL.... Neither did MacKinnon in STHS Aaaaand, go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AriGold Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Neither did MacKinnon in STHS Aaaaand, go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmen81 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I'm sure I'm not alone when I say we all appreciate the work you put into the re-rates and stuff, but I personally think that a player like Cheechoo who is obviously in the downswing of his career shouldn't have an 89 rating. That should be saved for guys like Huberdeau, Drouin, Fleischmann etc.... That being said we should all just go with the flow and quit complaining about every little detail that doesn't go your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmen81 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I'm going to be honest, dropping his ratings like a rock at this point would be pretty unfair to (San Jose?). But 89 is a bit out there. Maybe it would be ok to have him at 89 if he was making 5 or 6 mil a year, but at 2.5 I don't think that's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 It's a 1 year deal He's gonna cash next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Maybe it would be ok to have him at 89 if he was making 5 or 6 mil a year, but at 2.5 I don't think that's fair. I agree with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 89 is an understatement...he is a previous Rocket Richard Winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Also, veteran top 6 players are being shopped by San Jose. Can be had for the right price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.