|
|
Post by BlackhawksGM (Admin) on Jul 14, 2012 0:33:32 GMT -5
We are considering changing the line up settings following the 2012-13 season to the following:
3 - C
3 - LW
3 - RW
3 - Utility Players (Non Goalie)
6 - Defensemen
2 - Goalies
3 - Bench Spots (Non Goalie)
Thoughts or suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 14, 2012 1:10:08 GMT -5
I think its too late to change that in my opinion but w/e  |
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 14, 2012 1:11:06 GMT -5
We are considering changing the line up settings following the 2012-13 season to the following: 3 - C 3 - LW 3 - RW 3 - Utility Players (Non Goalie) 6 - Defensemen 2 - Goalies 3 - Bench Spots (Non Goalie) Thoughts or suggestions? Oops my bad, after the season sounds ok |
|
|
|
Post by CapitalsGM (Trade Council) on Jul 14, 2012 8:37:39 GMT -5
I voted no based on the fact that 3 of my top 4 forwards are RW at this point and I don't really want to have to try and trade them to try and find LW of equal value. I would vote in favor of 9 forwards instead of 3 of each forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by OilersGm (Commish) on Jul 14, 2012 10:44:04 GMT -5
Agreed Caps...Just leave it the way it is
|
|
|
|
Post by WildGM on Jul 14, 2012 11:11:27 GMT -5
Yeah def leave it the way it is for sure....it would be so non realistic if that happened
.
|
|
|
|
Post by AvalancheGM (Trade Council) on Jul 17, 2012 15:57:18 GMT -5
I voted "no" just because I'm against adding position requirements after we've made so many moves with our rosters.... 2-3 non-goalie bench spots I would not feel would be a bad option however, just to acount for send downs and healthy scratches. Just don't like the idea of being required to have 3 RW, 3 C, 3 LW etc.
|
|
