EHM The Blue Line

Manimal wrote:I won my game which is great but I had a -23 rating!
Stinson , can you put up a record of worsts in the league as well. It would be fun to see if I made it

Maybe I'll beat your -23 this week. I had -12 today...

I believe you just made a real good trade there, Batdad.
Now I want to improve my team. Maybe B72 wants to trade me Nabokov for Leclaire. He's getting relegated anyway

Wow...that was a deal I was not expecting to be accepted. Thought I may have to give up more than Whitney on the blueline. I now have my keepers at all positions.

C-Richards
LW-Marleau
RW-Iginla
D-Seabrook, Lidstrom (or maybe Blake)
G-Luongo


I can still stand to improve on D...but really happy with that deal. Basically the same guy in Guerin-Bourque (save sh chances for Bourque)...and Seabrook is A HUGE upgrade on Whitney.

Manimal wrote:I believe you just made a real good trade there, Batdad.
Now I want to improve my team. Maybe B72 wants to trade me Nabokov for Leclaire. He's getting relegated anyway

Now that wouldn't be very fair!

I want to see more of these "double position" players. There seems to be only about 30 of these in the league and I think there is only 1 on the FA list (Tkachuk).

ESPN however keeps on describing Antropov as a LW, even though he can only play C, and I feel there should be more players listed at 2 positions.

"Spin: Antropov's minutes will probably still be limited on Thursday night as his hip injury has really nagged him since sustaining it last week. Buffalo also doesn't give up a ton of goals, so with a heavy slate of games, go with another option at left wing on Thursday night."

EDIT: Just checked Antropov and he's not got RW eligibility. Which is even weirder...

Yeah, ESPN seems to be pretty cheap with handing out dual positions. Yahoo seems to allow for more of those. It's not something we can really control though. That's controlled by ESPN.

I should probably concede my week's matchup now. I'm gettin beat in all but 1 category!

As for my keepers. I'm undecided about 2 positions.

C - Anze Kopitar
LW - Zach Parise
RW - Martin St. Louis
D - Pronger
D - Gonchar or Edler
G - Huet or Howard

My head tells me to pick Huet but if Howard can really nail down the no.1 job in Detroit... Who knows?

I've only ever seen one dual-position player on ESPN, and it's one of my centers: Brooks Liach, who was just given LW eligibility probably last week sometime. Before him, I've been wondering for a while if ESPN even does dual-positions.

I guess they do, just on extremely rare occasions.

I have:

Marleau C, LW
Fleischmann RW,C
Bourque LW,RW

Nice fits...means I can slide guys all over the place to fill in the roster. These three (now that I have added Bourque) are always the last three in the lineup on a busy day...they go where they fit.

Marleau and Fleischmann both had the 2nd position added after about 2 weeks of the season...not sure about Bourque since I did not have him at the time.

Secondary positions are a key advantage. They allow you so much flexibility and you don't have to leave open spots in your lineup many nights.

Tis part of the reason I made the deal for Bourque...

Frolik now has Dual Positions. Look like ESPN are updating a few of these guys...

Honestly, they should have done this at the start of the season and then left it alone once the season started. It changes the value of a player.

It has always (or at least the last few years I've taken part) been the same in Yahoo's fantasy hockey. In the beginning of the season there's almost no dual position players, but as the season goes on they upgrade players' statuses every now and then. On what they base the status upgrades, I don't know. And yea, sure it would be better if it all would have been done before the season starts. I just wonder, have the players who now have dual positions had same dual positions last season?

bruins72 wrote:Honestly, they should have done this at the start of the season and then left it alone once the season started. It changes the value of a player.

Couldn't agree more!

Just a little proof that activity and paying attention are keys to success in a pool.

Team-Place in Standings-Place in # of moves

Black Ice-1-2
Mustangs-2-9
Karlstad - 3-3
Corinthia-4-4
Vasteras 5-1
Lake Ala 6-7
Philadelp-7-8
Marsac 8-6
Chilliwk-9-5
Phaneuf-10-11
Kent Tur-11-14
Chicago-12-13
Boston - 13-12
Caerph-14-10


So you will see...with the obvious part that Lidas and I have more moves due to the way we played at the start...although I am sure we would both be extremely active from what the past has said anyway...that those who are most active are doing the most in the pool. In other words...watching for guys who are hot and making moves for guys who are, getting rid of those who are not...

Then at the bottom of the standings..we have the bottom 4 teams being the 4 teams who are the least active in making moves.

I think it is pretty obvious to all, but just wanted to point it out in writing. Those who are doing well make moves...those who are not...don't. The goal here should be to try and get the bottom teams more active. I think the relegation idea may help us this way..as it will keep new guys more active.

Mustangs appear to be the biggest exception to the rule that prove the rule...that team clearly either got lucky in the draft, or did a good job drafting.

It may also show that if you want to make a trade..do it with Caerphilly...he is the one who seems to be making the most bad moves...Heh.

Great research, batdad.

I never would have guessed that success was so directly related to activity. I mean, it's a pretty obvious concept, but for it to be so evident is a little surprising.

Just goes to show: staying active not only keeps the league spirited and fun for everyone, but good things can happen for yourself, too.

I don't know if I'd call it "activity". I set my lines for the week every Monday and usually check in at least every other day. I'd call that pretty active. I guess the real key is to have a fluid roster and not stick with your players. I think a big part of my problem is being reluctant to drop players. A lot of times it just doesn't look like there is anyone else to pick up, so you don't want to risk losing one of the players you have. And then of course you worry that the player you drop will get hot once you drop him. I've also lost a lot of starts due to injuries and only one IR slot. I never want to drop these guys and then risk not getting them back once they return from injury.

batdad wrote:Mustangs appear to be the biggest exception to the rule that prove the rule...that team clearly either got lucky in the draft, or did a good job drafting.

How dare you even suggest that my drafting skills were lucky. In fact, out of my 17 draft picks. I only have 8 left on my team. I got a one lucky draft pick in Wolski. But the FA's I picked up have performed extremely well for me. Antropov has 10 goals and 18 points in 22 games. Frolik has 10 points in 11 games for me. Backes, 16 points in 19. Gonchar, 19 in 24.

It's not that i'm not active. Just good at picking up FA's.

I found a real gem in FA. Patric Hörnqvist. 6G 3A 4PP 2GW in 8games

Manimal wrote:I found a real gem in FA. Patric Hörnqvist. 6G 3A 4PP 2GW in 8games

My most successful FA pickup would be Connolly, 5G 10A in his last ten games. But I've also dropped two guys who are now untouchable on other teams so... yeah. Atleast it's my first attempt at fantasy hockey, what's your excuse?

I had Hornqvist a long time ago. Getz: FA pick ups are included in activity. So you have not done much I guess. B72, activity is the key to a fluid roster. There are plenty of good 2 and 3 liners who get pp time avail that would help your roster and performance. You also have several guys that if you let them go no one would touch and even if they did, your replacement would do just as well.


I have let plenty of guys go who I am sure are doing well on other rosters, but the Moulson's, Hartnell's, Blake's, etc have done at least as well or better in areas I needed to shore up. And then they move off my roster as not needed. They are not Marleau's or richards' or Iginla's. Now the guys in those fluid spots are Byfuglien, Blake, Hamrlik, Latensdresse, Fleischman. I see someone who is hotter they go. Dime a dozen guys. On and off depending on streak, hot or not, team doing well etc. Why hold on to guys you are going to let go at end of season any way? I just never understand that.


Even I do become a bit attached. I kept Moulson far too long hoping he would get back with Tavares for example. Guillaume is the reason I am doing well this week though, so why would I care what Moulson is doing now?

To win at this you have to act like a crazy man and have no loyalty. It was hard to even put Guerin and Whitney in a trade offer. But it made my team better in my mind to do so.

My best Fa: you tell me. I mean Rask gets a shut out for me and I dump hi
next day. Moulson? Hartnell's? Quick? Niemi? Latendresse? Too many to choose but each of those guys is responsible for at least one of my wins.

My best pickups were Afinogenov, Rask, Plekanec & Enstrom. I'm in a 7 game winning streak since grab Enstrom & Afinogenov. ':thup:'

B-diddy. I haven't done much because i haven't wanted to. I'm like B72 with regards to me not wanting to drop any players. But i check my team nightly, just don't change it much.

Pitkanen is picking it up too. A goal and 9 assists in 14 games isn't bad at all.