New Rule regarding goons?

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

New Rule regarding goons?

Panthers · Senior Member

Interesting idea, just not sure there are enough decent goons to go around. For instance, there are only 14 players with a FG of 80 or above and a DF of 65 or above. This means more than half the teams will be forced to play someone who is a defensive liability. Maybe that is the intent, but consider that not one of those 14 players will be a UFA at the end of the season. Some teams would be getting a huge gift by having 1 or 2 of these players.

This also makes the ratings extremely important. The difference between a 78 and 80 FG becomes huge. Expect a lot of bitching thrown your way.

chimoty · Senior Member

I can also tell you that my 5 players that have 80+ FG ratings are not moving anytime soon. Trades would be limited because of these players. Teams like Chicago decide not to build a team with these types of players. I promote "old-time hockey" on my squad and thats what makes my team different.

Wolves GM · Senior Member

I don't like this at all. If a GM doesn't want to dress a goon why would the league force them? I just doesn't make any sense.

Predsgm · Guru

i would consider this idea.. but obviously it cant come into effect until the following season.. you have to let time for gms to find their goon guy... and all gms relize that they dont necessarily have to put the goon in the lineup.. he can be benched... i do that on occasion with brandon crombeen on my team... rules state you can double shift only one forward.. so i put crombeen on the ice only in games where i think games will get ugly !! lol

p.s. im not sure if all gm's look at every single game simmed or just their own games.. but there are alot of fights anyways.. and we have had quite a few suspensions as well for their misconduct match penalty fights.

-- Edited by Predsgm on Wednesday 9th of February 2011 10:27:45 AM

RWCordell · Senior Member

Not a fan at all...becomes a nightmare to track and what would be the penalty for not playing one? If you don't dress the "goon" then you likely have an advantage over the guy that does dress one and then what happens if the team loses by a goal and the goon was a minus or in the box? I'd adapt to whatever rule is in place, but just don't see the reason to change it.

Hummers · Veteran Member

don't like it.. will inflate salaries unneccessarily.

Calgary GM · Senior Member

I don't like this either.

Ianintheam · Senior Member

I prefer to use dicks who can play, like Cooke, than a goon.

But I dont care, just as long as we have plenty of notice.

PhoenixGM · Guru

Montreal Canadiens don't have a guy like this either - the closest they have is Moen who is like 71FG.

I really don't like this idea at all.

I think that players who can fight already have merit. Having a fighter in the lineup will mean that non-fighters (good players) are less likey to end up in a fight - kinda like the NHL ... LOL

Sens · Guru

Hummers wrote:

don't like it.. will inflate salaries unneccessarily.

Don't like it for this reason

Pittsburgh GM · Senior Member

I agree with most here, I do not like the idea of being forced to have a player i may not want at all.

Eric_Isles · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Told ya Bryce... ;)

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

pansies (aka. Penguins)

-- Edited by BryceBruins on Monday 14th of February 2011 07:58:28 PM

Ianintheam · Senior Member

Our backup has more knockout wins than your starter has regulation wins.