|
|
Post by Lilwayne - Retired Canucks GM on May 29, 2011 20:31:43 GMT -5
we're fine as is, there hasn't been a gm with a "shitty" team reply to this, so maybe our issue is something else. (cough dedication cough).
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bruins GM on May 29, 2011 20:31:46 GMT -5
I just think some gm's get frustrated with not being able to get any of the top players. There are some teams that are stacked and will never trade any of there top players. When you start out with a crappy team and not a lot of quality players it's difficult to get better...but it can be done. When I started 5 seasons ago I had one good player and a bunch of nobodys. If you use the auctions/draft and make small trades you can turn your roster around. I think the way to win is chemistry though. If you look back, it's not the stacked teams that win the cup every season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on May 29, 2011 21:05:04 GMT -5
considering we are going through 6+ seasons every year, you can definitley build a contender in a years time if you try and stay focused on getting better. I have dealt many higher rated players to teams to help them get started only to have them then deal the guy to one of the stacked teams. Not fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by C00kies - Retired Kings GM on May 29, 2011 21:35:33 GMT -5
if stacked teams start winning every year, we could make it so that the cup champ loses an extra keeper.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Islanders GM on May 29, 2011 23:02:33 GMT -5
So you would get punished for winning the cup?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lilwayne - Retired Canucks GM on May 29, 2011 23:08:02 GMT -5
Just let me win 1 with vancouver, Three's a charm  |
|
|
|
Post by Crash988 - Former Canadians GM on May 30, 2011 1:25:43 GMT -5
I'm for reducing the keepers. Other than the fact that the good teams will forever be good in this system a draft of 82 overall players isnt exciting or as game changing as everyone here thinks it is. How can you get better when a bad team loses these 5 guys: 82-82-81-80-79 and then drafts an 82 overall player with their top 10 pick. If we changed the Keeper number to 6 then we would have 7 players in the draft with an overall of 85 to 89. And that is only after 9 teams submitting their keeper list.
Anyway I would suggest doing it just to shake things up, I mean name one teams with 8 players with an overall of 87+ that will ever truly be bad? In sports every team, even dynasties finish last at some point. 17 straight years with certain teams always making the playoffs is a statistical impossibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings GM on May 30, 2011 14:34:51 GMT -5
I'd be up for maybe doing 6 keepers one every 3 seasons or something like that. For a change up once in a while if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs GM on May 30, 2011 15:06:53 GMT -5
Im fine with 8 but whats frustrating is the teams that rape the new gm's of their good players and let real talent sit on the bench. This is supposed to be "realistic". How many GM's have players sitting on the bench that should be playing steady minutes? If this were real they would be demanding trades. I dont feel its right to hoard players you never plan to use just so anoher GM cant get them. Ive brought this up before and I still feel this way. If a team has a player who is barely ever used that should be used alot then they should have to trade him or lose him.
Better yet, why not keep 8 and lose 10 (or some # higher than 5)? that way we can keep who we want then build back from the draft. That way the hoarders would have to give up some of the good talent not being used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on May 30, 2011 15:51:52 GMT -5
I don't mind the idea of keeping 8 but losing more. Make the draft alittle more interesting. However, I'd do this before our turnaround to the new gen game.
We all know teams have those "potential" players that'll go up in future games. I myself have a few guys I hold onto just in case they increase for the next gen game.
The draft would certainly be interesting if this were the case. Although I'm not too sure how many guys want to do such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on May 30, 2011 18:03:31 GMT -5
only problem is 10 rds would take 2 days and we can't get guys to show up for 5rds on one day. 10 rds would just meen alot more 80 rated players to be drafted. Woudn't really affect the league. The guys that don't show up would get higher rated garbage while those that show up would get good producing lower rated players.. All it would take would be taking it down to 5 or 6 for a few years to balance things out. But after that we all know what happens, the new GM's show up and scavengers take charge. Same thing in every sim league everywhere
|
|
|
|
Post by Elite - Former Oilers GM on May 30, 2011 18:08:25 GMT -5
Its realistic Stamkos,Crosby,Ovechkin,Kane on one team  |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bruins GM on May 30, 2011 18:12:43 GMT -5
I agree, a 10 round draft wouldn't really help. The draft the last few seasons has been really weak as it is. There should be better players added to the the draft, like Legends or something. This way the teams that finish low in the standings have a better chance at improving.
Most of the Legends/Higher overall players in the auctions just go to the better teams that have the players to bid on them. A prime example would be Pavel Datsyuk. Yotes gave him up in the last auctions but he's going to be held out of the draft until next years auctions. Then one of the stacked teams will outbid everyone else for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on May 30, 2011 18:17:10 GMT -5
Every team with a player rated above 84 can turn that into Datyuk almost every year. Through auctions. But not enough of the guys take advantage of auctions. Most people will keep there 87's that produce over taking Datsyuk. Atleast until we get to NHL12 anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bruins GM on May 30, 2011 18:21:47 GMT -5
I realize Datsyuk doesn't produce all that well, it was more of an example of how things work.
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*