Professor What
Registered User
Well, since others are giving their thoughts, I'll give mine too.
- redo a positional list: My preferred option. We're talking about lists that have a decade on them, and I can see the argument on the goalies that there might be some shuffling at the top. I say we go with @rmartin65's idea and start there and work out.
- top all-time 100 or 200 again (300?): I'd definitely participate, but I think this should be delayed. As others have said, the list isn't that old, and while it has some issues (looking at you, McDavid), there will be a lot more to "correct" in a a few years.
- women's list: Might be the most worthwhile project, and as such, it was fairly high on my vote, but I've expressed my concerns about it. Might be one of the hardest projects to do right because of the research barrier.
- coaches: I'd do it, but I've expressed my concerns, and also agree with concerns that others have aired. I have to be honest, I wouldn't be as excited about this. I'd be doing it more to take part in the project experience.
- subset lists (defensive forwards, goal scoring, etc): Zero interest. I'm just not a big fan of the idea of lists that don't take in the players' entire careers, with the exception of postseason since that is just so important.
- best peak, prime, season, etc: Zero interset. See above.
- fill in awards and Allstars for old seasons: This got my #2 vote. I guess it could be argued that that goes against the rule I gave above, but filling in holes and possibly giving recognition to some players that didn't have the chance to win these accolades is attractive to me.
- builders: I basically have the same feeling about this as I do coaches based on my impression of what this would be, but part of me is still wondering what exactly we would be doing.
- teams: Very little interest. I'm just not attracted to this idea.
- hall of fame: I'm cooler on it than I was previously, but I still like the idea. I just feel like the real Hall is getting watered down while ignoring players that are very worthy. This would be our small contribution to righting that wrong.
I'd participate in most of these. The ones that I have no or very little interest in would be the exceptions. As badly as I want to work on a project, I just couldn't justify putting that kind of time into something that I didn't really believe would be advantageous to us going forward.
Either way, whether it's something that I want to do or not, I want to see this board move forward with some project. I don't want to see that die out, as I think it's one of the most valuable things that this board does.
- redo a positional list: My preferred option. We're talking about lists that have a decade on them, and I can see the argument on the goalies that there might be some shuffling at the top. I say we go with @rmartin65's idea and start there and work out.
- top all-time 100 or 200 again (300?): I'd definitely participate, but I think this should be delayed. As others have said, the list isn't that old, and while it has some issues (looking at you, McDavid), there will be a lot more to "correct" in a a few years.
- women's list: Might be the most worthwhile project, and as such, it was fairly high on my vote, but I've expressed my concerns about it. Might be one of the hardest projects to do right because of the research barrier.
- coaches: I'd do it, but I've expressed my concerns, and also agree with concerns that others have aired. I have to be honest, I wouldn't be as excited about this. I'd be doing it more to take part in the project experience.
- subset lists (defensive forwards, goal scoring, etc): Zero interest. I'm just not a big fan of the idea of lists that don't take in the players' entire careers, with the exception of postseason since that is just so important.
- best peak, prime, season, etc: Zero interset. See above.
- fill in awards and Allstars for old seasons: This got my #2 vote. I guess it could be argued that that goes against the rule I gave above, but filling in holes and possibly giving recognition to some players that didn't have the chance to win these accolades is attractive to me.
- builders: I basically have the same feeling about this as I do coaches based on my impression of what this would be, but part of me is still wondering what exactly we would be doing.
- teams: Very little interest. I'm just not attracted to this idea.
- hall of fame: I'm cooler on it than I was previously, but I still like the idea. I just feel like the real Hall is getting watered down while ignoring players that are very worthy. This would be our small contribution to righting that wrong.
I'd participate in most of these. The ones that I have no or very little interest in would be the exceptions. As badly as I want to work on a project, I just couldn't justify putting that kind of time into something that I didn't really believe would be advantageous to us going forward.
Either way, whether it's something that I want to do or not, I want to see this board move forward with some project. I don't want to see that die out, as I think it's one of the most valuable things that this board does.