|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Nov 28, 2012 2:58:03 GMT -5
Read, then vote. Please do not ask me what option 1 and option 2 are. They are buried in this text so you will read and understand the reason for this poll. This poll drastically affects how we do the league. If you know when a guy retires, it takes a lot of gamble out of acquiring guys. But it also means that if someone has a great ManNHL year, they might be forced to retire when we might have kept them around for another season (or several).So basically, if you vote want to have them retire when they retire in real life, regardless of ManNHL production, vote for Option 1. If you want players to retire based on ManNHL production (and other factors - age, injuries, etc) determined on a case-by-case basis by league officials, vote for option 2. I know trades have been made based on the information we were using real life retirements, but since everyone had access to the same information, this gives no one an advantage or disadvantage here. Leafs did not know about this poll at the time of its posting - we have not discussed this option, and I may even get in trouble for posting a poll about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Flyers on Nov 28, 2012 8:35:38 GMT -5
good poll
|
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Flyers on Nov 28, 2012 8:37:17 GMT -5
and here's a good pole  |
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Thrashers on Nov 28, 2012 11:22:39 GMT -5
Option 2, there are some players that retired based on injury way too early or that they were washed up. What happens if that injury doesn't occur here or they produce here? They just call it quits anyways?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 11:45:33 GMT -5
I like option 2
|
|
|
|
Post by Smashville - BK on Nov 28, 2012 11:56:39 GMT -5
and here's a good pole I disagree  |
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Avalanche - XX on Nov 28, 2012 12:21:36 GMT -5
Option 2, there are some players that retired based on injury way too early or that they were washed up. What happens if that injury doesn't occur here or they produce here? They just call it quits anyways? haha, I wonder how much acquiring Mario Lemieux influenced his decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Ducks of Anaheim on Nov 28, 2012 12:35:17 GMT -5
Option 2, there are some players that retired based on injury way too early or that they were washed up. What happens if that injury doesn't occur here or they produce here? They just call it quits anyways? haha, I wonder how much acquiring Mario Lemieux influenced his decision. haha only difference here is that Lemieux is 40 at the end of the 1st season. He probably will still retire anyway, I think Option 2 is more for the 32-36 year old guys that retired due to injury / lack of ability. |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Nov 28, 2012 13:06:03 GMT -5
I'm kind of on the fence with this. On the one hand, I really would prefer to see some of the greats play a little longer that were cut short due to injury and not their playing ability. On the other, I was careful not to acquire such players during my trades to this point as well.
For me personally, option 2 could mean early retirement for Roloson if he starts to flounder a bit or anything. I think I'd prefer an option 2 with a bit of an addendum, whereby in certain cases, that their real life retirement after 40 is taken into account. (ie. Roloson, Hasek, Selanne, etc.) Granted, I agree that Roli shouldn't have played the 1 extra year that he did, but you can't deny that the man was still effective and hadn't lost much of a step in his own game right up until last season when he was 41, and even then it was his speed diminishing that hindered him not his vision or his skill.
That being said, if we can do something like that, option 2 doesn't seem so bad really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Nov 28, 2012 14:07:28 GMT -5
Nashville wins this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Thrashers on Nov 28, 2012 14:12:11 GMT -5
Option 2, there are some players that retired based on injury way too early or that they were washed up. What happens if that injury doesn't occur here or they produce here? They just call it quits anyways? haha, I wonder how much acquiring Mario Lemieux influenced his decision. Not at all actually, I was thinking what if Stefan ended up producing for me and turning out, then he just retired. But I don't see Mogilny retiring at 36 now  |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Nov 30, 2012 20:09:16 GMT -5
closed. The majority have spoken.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Rangers on Nov 30, 2012 20:59:13 GMT -5
Does this also affect Jagr and Hasek (or other players who went to Europe and then returned)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Thrashers on Nov 30, 2012 23:04:19 GMT -5
It affects everyone
|
|
|
|
Post by Florida Panthers on Nov 30, 2012 23:31:58 GMT -5
k
|
|
