Banner
View Single Post
  #14  
Old 02-20-2013, 09:56 AM
Cowboy_Up Cowboy_Up is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9
 
Rep Power: 0
Cowboy_Up is an unknown quantity at this point
Dobber Sports Newbie
Default

Honestly, i'm not a huge fan of the stat categories in your league. It really values only pure offensive guys.

A guy like Getzlaf in a league with points, PIMs and maybe hits, becomes that much more valuable. If it were a league like that, i wouldn't move him at all, but in your league where its pure offense other than PIMs and shots, i wouldn't have an issue moving him.

Backes is another one i would actually go after even more than Lundqivst if you had stats like Hits, Faceoffs and blocks. He is almost one of the most dynamic fantasy players there is, because he provides good numbers in every single category in the fantasy sports game.


Also, John Calrson is another terrific player when you have categories like shots, hits and blocks. He does play PP in Washington and i would take him over Whitney any day. Whitney will never see the PP in edmonton unless Schultz gets hurt.

Lundqivst is not off to a stellar start and Miller has a history of slow starts. I would be cautious about giving up too much for Lundqivst. I would try to be more careful about when you start miller or try to find another goaltender to help with wins, instead of going after an all or nothing type of guy. If you're going to overpay, i think i would over pay with Rinne myself or even Rask or Fluery because i think Boston and Pittsburgh will win more than they lose. Rask would probably be the guy for me and you may even be able to get him for Getzlaf alone. Then i would secure Khodobin if available and you're set with Boston as your goalies. (Good team to have)

You may be able to move Miller for Halak right now with the injury too and Halak is more consistent than Miller too.

I just think you're going to the ceiling for a guy not playing his best and its going to cost you a MAJOR premium to get him. I think their are better alternatives for you.
Reply With Quote