|
|
Post by Boston Bruins GM on Mar 1, 2012 21:28:35 GMT -5
Building a team can still be done, it just takes time. I started here almost 2 years ago with an Atlanta team that had been completely destroyed. My highest OA was an 82.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Mar 1, 2012 21:31:58 GMT -5
It just takes alittle time. Years go by fast here, so accepting one lossing season to build a winner is no big deal. Remember we are doing ruffly 6 seasons every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crash988 - Former Canadians GM on Mar 1, 2012 21:52:17 GMT -5
not a bad idea, if you do not want such a drastic change you could do something more simple:
-Keep the same protection system (protect 8, lose 5)
-Final four teams auto lose an additional player (one of their protected players; they choose which one. If they dont it is automatically their worse protected player) if you do not want teams to lose 6 players and have only 5 picks then give them a "6th round pick" (a pick at the end of the draft)
-Stanley Cup Champion loses their best player (highest overall, if tied then the GM chooses which he will lose. (again you can give them a second 6th rounder to even out the players lost)
What this does is makes the draft a little more exciting and give the lottery picks tons of value, sad when a 1st overall pick is a piece of crap.
If you do not like the idea of losing 6 or 7 players to the draft you can always have the teams in the conference finals re-protect 7 players instead of 8 keeping the weaker player... example:
Team Protects: 92,90,89,89,89,88,87,87
Team loses to draft: 84,84,82,80,79
then one of those 87s loses their protection and that team does not lose that 79 overall to the draft. If they won the cup, then that team loses the 92 and an 87 overall player and keeps the 80 and 79 overall players.
This will allow the worse teams to get better and the best teams to balance out a bit making it more fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Devils GM on Mar 1, 2012 21:54:42 GMT -5
not a bad idea, if you do not want such a drastic change you could do something more simple: -Keep the same protection system (protect 8, lose 5) -Final four teams auto lose an additional player (they choose which one, if they dont it is automatically their worse protected player) if you do not want teams to lose 6 players and have only 5 picks then give them a "6th round pick" (a pick at the end of the draft) -Stanley Cup Champion loses their best player (highest overall, if tied then the GM chooses which he will lose. (again you can give them a second 6th rounder to even out the players lost) What this does is makes the draft a little more exciting and give the lottery picks tons of value, sad when a 1st overall pick is a piece of crap. If you do not like the idea of losing 6 or 7 players to the draft you can always have the teams in the conference finals re-protect 7 players instead of 8 keeping the weaker player... example: Team Protects: 92,90,89,89,89,88,87,87 Team loses to draft: 84,84,82,80,79 then one of those 87s loses their protection and that team does not lose that 79 overall to the draft. If they won the cup, then that team loses the 92 and an 87 overall player and keeps the 80 and 79 overall players. This will allow the worse teams to get better and the best teams to balance out a bit making it more fair. This is 18 types of retarded. Why would we punish good teams for being good? There should be no addition penalty for teams that play good. It should be equal. Everyone lose the same amount.. |
|
|
|
Post by Crash988 - Former Canadians GM on Mar 1, 2012 21:57:29 GMT -5
not a bad idea, if you do not want such a drastic change you could do something more simple: -Keep the same protection system (protect 8, lose 5) -Final four teams auto lose an additional player (they choose which one, if they dont it is automatically their worse protected player) if you do not want teams to lose 6 players and have only 5 picks then give them a "6th round pick" (a pick at the end of the draft) -Stanley Cup Champion loses their best player (highest overall, if tied then the GM chooses which he will lose. (again you can give them a second 6th rounder to even out the players lost) What this does is makes the draft a little more exciting and give the lottery picks tons of value, sad when a 1st overall pick is a piece of crap. If you do not like the idea of losing 6 or 7 players to the draft you can always have the teams in the conference finals re-protect 7 players instead of 8 keeping the weaker player... example: Team Protects: 92,90,89,89,89,88,87,87 Team loses to draft: 84,84,82,80,79 then one of those 87s loses their protection and that team does not lose that 79 overall to the draft. If they won the cup, then that team loses the 92 and an 87 overall player and keeps the 80 and 79 overall players. This will allow the worse teams to get better and the best teams to balance out a bit making it more fair. This is 18 types of retarded. Why would we punish good teams for being good? There should be no addition penalty for teams that play good. It should be equal. Everyone lose the same amount.. the best teams in the real NHL never keep their rosters intact easily, increases to salaries, retirements, general fatigue, etc. This doesn't and cannot happen here. Plus the biggest thing it forces teams to finally give up the players they have been holding on to since season 1, no one ever has to move any of their best players, this allows that to change. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Mar 1, 2012 21:58:26 GMT -5
Everybody come to the draft drunk.
There, draft = interesting.
Being high doesn't count, I've done it and it's not that fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lilwayne - Retired Canucks GM on Mar 1, 2012 22:01:28 GMT -5
you pothead you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tjhaskell - Retired Jets GM on Mar 1, 2012 22:11:56 GMT -5
I honestly think this sucks....
Why is everything just falling apart this year? Because someone apparently got fucked over in a trade and then someone wanted to compensate him??
We have been doing the same thing for 21 seasons (with MINOR tweaks) how come we are all of a sudden having a hard time..
I have been tinkering on this team for a while.. Having some rough luck with chemistry, but I went from having an 84 as my top center and player, now I have Two 88's, Three 85's and couple 84's. I have had a hard time trading with people but I am finally getting my shit together and now were gonna change everything.
I know my opinion means fuck all, but that's my rant.. Go ahead and change it, do whatever you guys want. I'll just have to suck it up and deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Mar 1, 2012 22:42:05 GMT -5
Nothing is changing TJ.
And Wings, I like the way you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tjhaskell - Retired Jets GM on Mar 1, 2012 23:04:17 GMT -5
Nothing is changing TJ. And Wings, I like the way you think. lol okay, and I also like the way Wings thinks. |
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Devils GM on Mar 2, 2012 0:11:48 GMT -5
Nothing is changing TJ. And Wings, I like the way you think. Must say, I'm disappointed how quick you are to dismiss the idea. But not surprised. Everybody come to the draft drunk. There, draft = interesting. Being high doesn't count, I've done it and it's not that fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lilwayne - Retired Canucks GM on Mar 2, 2012 0:13:10 GMT -5
I like the way I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Mar 2, 2012 0:48:05 GMT -5
I'm no pothead.
I'm just the guy who has a good time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Mar 2, 2012 0:56:25 GMT -5
I need some special brownies for the draft
|
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Mar 2, 2012 18:45:02 GMT -5
Nothing is changing TJ. And Wings, I like the way you think. I like this idea, but the big teams (the ones that always compete AKA the people who have been here forever) won't approve, so this will never come into fruition. Point proven. |
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*