Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 17:13:03 GMT -5
Right now our roster size is 23. I'm in another fantrax league with a 25 man roster size. My suggestion is to increase the roster size from 23 to 25. This will allow flexibility and also if your minors are full, the main roster increase can house those NHL ready talents.
Discuss!
|
|
|
|
Post by Erie Otters on Mar 26, 2016 16:10:04 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa 67's on Mar 26, 2016 21:31:57 GMT -5
I would suggest one more roster spot only and allow it to be a goaltender. If additional IR spots are given I don't see a need for more roster spots. If additional IR spots are not given, then I would agree to the extra roster spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Apr 3, 2016 11:23:56 GMT -5
Keep in mind the IR positions are increasing and our minor league rosters are also increasing. With those changes I'm not sure I see a need for more main roster positions. It looks like we might be taking the limit off goaltenders so keeping 23 man rosters will keep the goaltenders in check.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitchener Rangers on Apr 4, 2016 5:27:02 GMT -5
Agreed. Do we do a goalie draft for the extra spot or can you just snatch them from free agency?
|
|
|
|
Post by London Knights on Apr 7, 2016 15:25:33 GMT -5
I'm in favour of an extra roster spot, and a goalie can be used for it, but not exclusively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saginaw Spirit on Apr 11, 2016 14:56:34 GMT -5
I can agree with bumping to 25. One suggestion I would have is that increasing the roster size we also lower the average cost per player. Currently, we are at $3.75 million, I would say bring it down to $3.6 million which would increase the cap to $90 million.
The flexibility from adding more IR places along with additional bench positions I think more than accommodate any issues previously addressed about which players end up in the free agency.
And as London stated also, we should allow, but not limit, the extra space to hold a goalie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flint Firebirds on Apr 11, 2016 16:27:47 GMT -5
I can agree with bumping to 25. One suggestion I would have is that increasing the roster size we also lower the average cost per player. Currently, we are at $3.75 million, I would say bring it down to $3.6 million which would increase the cap to $90 million. The flexibility from adding more IR places along with additional bench positions I think more than accommodate any issues previously addressed about which players end up in the free agency. And as London stated also, we should allow, but not limit, the extra space to hold a goalie. I like it |
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Apr 11, 2016 20:08:25 GMT -5
This is looking like the direction we are going
-25 main roster
-25 minor roster
-4R - Red Flag Eligible
-Allowing a 3rd goalie but not creating a designated slot for it
-Cap increase overall but decrease salary per roster position
Increasing the cap to much would create a bigger gap between the top teams and bottom teams. This would make rebuilds much more difficult and increase the time it takes to turn a team around. As a result it would likely further increase our GM turnover rate. I know we talked about increasing the value of vet star players in the past but that comes at a cost. I think we are pretty much on the money as far as balancing all the pros and cons. The added cap due to roster position increases should help increase these players value to some extent.
|
|
