|
|
Post by Smolik20 - Retired Blues GM on Aug 8, 2012 12:13:54 GMT -5
some really neat ideas, I like the seniority team pick then legends draft idea, pretty sweet. Only thing is in a few seasons (likely when NHL 14 comes out) you will have to do the same thing. I mean if the teams that have Gretzky now are not moving him, what is to make the next guy to do it? If your looking to shake things up without having to completely retool the site you could make the draft more interesting. Maybe make a system where the conference finalists lose one of their top protected players depending on how they finished the playoffs. For example: - Conference runner-ups: Lose 1 of their top 4 players - Runner-ups: Lose 1 of their top 3 players - Stanley Cup Champs: Lose their top player & 1 of their top 3 players after that (do not need the second loss of a player but if you want the top 5 picks to be good then you have to) This way the lottery picks are guaranteed a great player making the draft a little more exciting and no team that has succeeded in building their team well can hoard all their players. The draft is pretty useless right now since the worst teams most likely end up draft the same overall player (likely 2 extra overalls max) and don't actually get any better while the best teams stay the best barring a freak injury or simming BS. It isn't the greatest idea since most people are greedy and want to hoard all of their guys giving the bad teams a pain in the ass 3-5 season long job to fix their clubs but if you don't want to do a full rebuild this system adds flavor to something you guys desperately want to change up. I really do not like the idea of punishing teams that perform well during each year. I am all for a change but I do not think the solution is to take away a teams best player because they won the cup. That doesnt make any sens to me. What about instead of a complete restart we set a limit of "keepers" like 10 or so and then draft the rest of our team from all remaining NHLers. Then we can reintroduce the Legends that are not protected either by draft or Auctions again. This way people get to protect the players they have worked hard to land but it will completely change up the rest of the rosters. Thoughts/ideas on that option? |
|
|
|
Post by New York Islanders GM on Aug 8, 2012 12:19:41 GMT -5
^ If we abolish legends and do that it wouldn't work, my only players would be Stamkos and Phaneuf
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Aug 8, 2012 13:19:40 GMT -5
That's like a half ass restart. If were doing a restart, lets restart, if not, I want my 8 guys still. Except barely anyone wants to do a full restart. Considering many of us are in Uni and a good handful have full-time jobs, it's hard to be on as much as we were 3-4 years ago when the league started up. We have to decide whether we go with a full restart, a small-step change or do nothing. One promotes the most activity, the 2nd promotes a good amount of activity and the third promotes none. The one is the most time consuming, the 2nd is less time consuming while the last one is the least time consuming from a GM standpoint. Although I don't understand why teams wouldn't prefer a "half-restart/small restart" if you get to keep 5 of your prized players than that should be satisfactory. You lose 3 but I'm sure you can live with yourselves that you lost 3 of your fav players. Besides, if you really wanted you can easily trade that 1 or 2 or 3 guys for equal ratings and not lose a step. Hell, you may even find your new guys be more productive than the others.. |
|
|
|
Post by Smolik20 - Retired Blues GM on Aug 8, 2012 15:42:42 GMT -5
^ If we abolish legends and do that it wouldn't work, my only players would be Stamkos and Phaneuf I guess I wasnt as clear as I wanted to be. You could protect Legends if you wanted. Any unprotected Legends would go back to the Draft or Auctions. This allows us to keep our top players and shuffle up the depth chart across the board. |
|
|
|
Post by Lilwayne - Retired Canucks GM on Aug 8, 2012 17:05:59 GMT -5
That is interestinf blues but then we'd have to have like 15 draft picks each
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2012 18:38:27 GMT -5
@blues, that's pretty much changing up the 81's..... you said protect 10 players, and the rest we do a draft....
It's pretty much another draft we usually do, and then a shuffle of the 77-80 overall players. Not many care about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Florida Panthers GM on Aug 8, 2012 20:00:39 GMT -5
"Why would you punish teams for winning a Stanley Cup?" And "Why fix something that isn't broken ?" Those are the famous two lines ive heard almost everyseason since i joined in 2010. Never gets old  .Give up people's nothings gonna happen. move on there's no point of arguing and bickering if nothing's gonna happen. " History repeats itself " how about we think about that line before posting another thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2012 20:07:54 GMT -5
1. I agree, stanley cup champs shouldn't be punished to help people unable to build a good team/people too lazy to build a team get better.
2. I wouldn't call this "not broken" because it's now something most people come on, maybe check standings, check the odd results. I've also noticed that auction bids are going down, and that there are more "no bid" auctions
|
|
|
|
Post by Crash988 - Former Canadians GM on Aug 9, 2012 9:46:21 GMT -5
lol, first thing with the Gretzky comment, Edmonton was a franchise team that could have won many more cups if they could have afforded to pay Gretzky the big bucks he deserved but that isn't important. if your talking about being realistic then Stanley Cup winners usually cannot afford their top players. The team plays great enough to win the cup which gives everyone on the team a huge raise (most more than they deserve) forcing the team to choose who is lost. And as for the "punishing" teams for winning the cup we do that with the draft. Why are we giving the winners the worse pick if we truly believe they shouldn't be punished. Also you winning the cup after 2-3 seasons after rebuilding isn't really proof of anything, great accomplishment but you can argue the other way. I mean don't you find it weird that so many teams with 2 or less 85+ players were like that for 5+ seasons? Fact is it is hard for them to rebuild, new members wont join if they feel they have to work their asses off since nobody is trading and it is impossible for anyone to get a hall of famer with their 84 players. Now let me be clear, I'm not saying my idea is a good one by any means, I was just pointing out that if we are looking for a change without blowing up the system completely then this is an option. It doesn't solve our trading issue but nothing will. In this system, blowing up the whole thing only sparks trades for the first few seasons, then we will be back where we were. |
|
|
|
Post by Crash988 - Former Canadians GM on Aug 9, 2012 9:58:54 GMT -5
1. I agree, stanley cup champs shouldn't be punished to help people unable to build a good team/people too lazy to build a team get better. so you would rather a site with 15 GMs instead of a site with 30 active GMs? Fact is it is a huge pain in the ass to rebuild from nothing. And new GMs that join the site are sure as hell not going to stay if they know they cannot trade or win big named players. And fact is they cannot get anyone like this until 3+ seasons in. At which point that gives them one good player forcing them to do it again for the other 7. also I don't understand the line "The Stanley cup Champs shouldn't be punished". The Cup Champs are always punished every year with the worse draft pick, if we really believed we shouldn't punish them then we would be doing a full 2005-like draft lottery every year. And if your looking to be more realistic then the cup champs in the NHL have a hard time affording their top guys forcing teams to lose players out right. Again, I'm not saying this is a good idea. Hell I think we are way better off doing a full rebuild or doing nothing to prevent people from whining about a small useless change but without something like this everyone will keep their top players and nothing will change. Considering that a thread like this shows up every season or 2 people clearly want a change. |
|
|
|
Post by New York Islanders GM on Aug 9, 2012 10:13:10 GMT -5
That's like a half ass restart. If were doing a restart, lets restart, if not, I want my 8 guys still. Except barely anyone wants to do a full restart. Considering many of us are in Uni and a good handful have full-time jobs, it's hard to be on as much as we were 3-4 years ago when the league started up. We have to decide whether we go with a full restart, a small-step change or do nothing. One promotes the most activity, the 2nd promotes a good amount of activity and the third promotes none. The one is the most time consuming, the 2nd is less time consuming while the last one is the least time consuming from a GM standpoint. Although I don't understand why teams wouldn't prefer a "half-restart/small restart" if you get to keep 5 of your prized players than that should be satisfactory. You lose 3 but I'm sure you can live with yourselves that you lost 3 of your fav players. Besides, if you really wanted you can easily trade that 1 or 2 or 3 guys for equal ratings and not lose a step. Hell, you may even find your new guys be more productive than the others.. As I said before the reason is I've spent 4 years building this team, actually 2 years, but still, if we are going to be keeping our top players, I want all the guys I worked towards getting. Even though my bottom four guys are 89, 88, 87, 85, I had to give up much higher rated players to get those four guys, the highest being a 92 in Sakic. I'm not interested in letting them walk away. I don't care anymore about production on my team really, I know that they'll compete, I just want those names that I always liked playing for me. @mtl, do you not understand the concept of a draft? It's because they already are the best team, the worst team needs to get better, but not at the expensive of giving them the best teams players because they're god awful. And yeah it is proof of something, be active, make lots of smart trades, be active on the free agent auctions, be active, and yeah be active. That's what will lead you too success, clearly the bottom teams haven't done that compared to the top end teams. and hey, I joined when I had Bill Guerin 79 as my best player, so I don't believe that as well. People are itching to get into this league. If you know you're idea is bad, why are you bringing it up? @fla, stop bitching and build your own team. you're never on, and when you are, you're giving up a 88 for nail yakupov. |
|
|
|
Post by Crash988 - Former Canadians GM on Aug 9, 2012 10:30:31 GMT -5
Except barely anyone wants to do a full restart. Considering many of us are in Uni and a good handful have full-time jobs, it's hard to be on as much as we were 3-4 years ago when the league started up. We have to decide whether we go with a full restart, a small-step change or do nothing. One promotes the most activity, the 2nd promotes a good amount of activity and the third promotes none. The one is the most time consuming, the 2nd is less time consuming while the last one is the least time consuming from a GM standpoint. Although I don't understand why teams wouldn't prefer a "half-restart/small restart" if you get to keep 5 of your prized players than that should be satisfactory. You lose 3 but I'm sure you can live with yourselves that you lost 3 of your fav players. Besides, if you really wanted you can easily trade that 1 or 2 or 3 guys for equal ratings and not lose a step. Hell, you may even find your new guys be more productive than the others.. As I said before the reason is I've spent 4 years building this team, actually 2 years, but still, if we are going to be keeping our top players, I want all the guys I worked towards getting. Even though my bottom four guys are 89, 88, 87, 85, I had to give up much higher rated players to get those four guys, the highest being a 92 in Sakic. I'm not interested in letting them walk away. I don't care anymore about production on my team really, I know that they'll compete, I just want those names that I always liked playing for me. @mtl, do you not understand the concept of a draft? It's because they already are the best team, the worst team needs to get better, but not at the expensive of giving them the best teams players because they're god awful. And yeah it is proof of something, be active, make lots of smart trades, be active on the free agent auctions, be active, and yeah be active. That's what will lead you too success, clearly the bottom teams haven't done that compared to the top end teams. and hey, I joined when I had Bill Guerin 79 as my best player, so I don't believe that as well. People are itching to get into this league. If you know you're idea is bad, why are you bringing it up? @fla, stop bitching and build your own team. you're never on, and when you are, you're giving up a 88 for nail yakupov. lol, I love that you defend the draft but still refuse to allow the worse teams from getting better. The 1st overall pick in this league is worthless. Not a single person here would trade their 90 overall player for the 1st overall pick EVER. There was talk in the real NHL about Edmonton flipping Yakupov's pick for a guy like Weber or Myers. Possible deals to be made in the NHL but in this league it is a retarded deal that would be cancelled. You don't have to strictly punish the good teams either, just trying to get people to think outside the box. What about a system like this: The top 8 protected system stays with the following exceptions: 1) all teams that miss the playoffs do the exact same thing - No change. 2) all teams that made the playoffs but didn't make the Conference finals must give up someone in their top 6 in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. 3) conference finalists that lost must give up a top 4 player in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. 4) Stanley Cup runner up must give up a top 2 player in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. 5) Stanley Cup champs must give up their top player in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. Basically if you give up the following: 84, 83, 82, 81, 80 to the draft and you won the cup you must give up your best player and you can keep any one of those 5 guys (likely the 84 one). It isn't a major loss and allows the draft to be exciting and will improve trading. Here are the reasons trading would go up: 1) the 1st round picks are now worth so much more. A 1st round pick can be valued at anything between a 90 overall and a 84 overall thereby making them actually valuable and allowing admins to allow a deal of for example: 90 + 3rd for 85 + 1st. Right now the difference between picks is anywhere from 0 overalls to 1 overall per round, the deal above is retarded right now. 2) With top guys being moved teams will either trade them after drafting them or the original teams will try to deal for them back, thereby overpaying and moving the top guys around where they would never have moved to begin with. It will happen, if Pens lost Crosby or Ovie he will overpay to get them back. 3) Tanking is now rewarding. Teams on the outside of the playoff race before the trade deadline will trade their better players for future picks or overall losses. No one does this now because it is too much work to make the overalls back. Now it is easy and fun. Admit it, this idea is interesting. It may not be what people want but I'm sure we can come up with something if we actually tried. |
|
|
|
Post by Lilwayne - Retired Canucks GM on Aug 9, 2012 12:10:36 GMT -5
I gave up a 87 last draft |
|
|
|
Post by New York Islanders GM on Aug 9, 2012 13:31:14 GMT -5
As I said before the reason is I've spent 4 years building this team, actually 2 years, but still, if we are going to be keeping our top players, I want all the guys I worked towards getting. Even though my bottom four guys are 89, 88, 87, 85, I had to give up much higher rated players to get those four guys, the highest being a 92 in Sakic. I'm not interested in letting them walk away. I don't care anymore about production on my team really, I know that they'll compete, I just want those names that I always liked playing for me. @mtl, do you not understand the concept of a draft? It's because they already are the best team, the worst team needs to get better, but not at the expensive of giving them the best teams players because they're god awful. And yeah it is proof of something, be active, make lots of smart trades, be active on the free agent auctions, be active, and yeah be active. That's what will lead you too success, clearly the bottom teams haven't done that compared to the top end teams. and hey, I joined when I had Bill Guerin 79 as my best player, so I don't believe that as well. People are itching to get into this league. If you know you're idea is bad, why are you bringing it up? @fla, stop bitching and build your own team. you're never on, and when you are, you're giving up a 88 for nail yakupov. lol, I love that you defend the draft but still refuse to allow the worse teams from getting better. The 1st overall pick in this league is worthless. Not a single person here would trade their 90 overall player for the 1st overall pick EVER. There was talk in the real NHL about Edmonton flipping Yakupov's pick for a guy like Weber or Myers. Possible deals to be made in the NHL but in this league it is a retarded deal that would be cancelled. You don't have to strictly punish the good teams either, just trying to get people to think outside the box. What about a system like this: The top 8 protected system stays with the following exceptions: 1) all teams that miss the playoffs do the exact same thing - No change. 2) all teams that made the playoffs but didn't make the Conference finals must give up someone in their top 6 in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. 3) conference finalists that lost must give up a top 4 player in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. 4) Stanley Cup runner up must give up a top 2 player in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. 5) Stanley Cup champs must give up their top player in place of one for the player they would have lost normally. Basically if you give up the following: 84, 83, 82, 81, 80 to the draft and you won the cup you must give up your best player and you can keep any one of those 5 guys (likely the 84 one). It isn't a major loss and allows the draft to be exciting and will improve trading. Here are the reasons trading would go up: 1) the 1st round picks are now worth so much more. A 1st round pick can be valued at anything between a 90 overall and a 84 overall thereby making them actually valuable and allowing admins to allow a deal of for example: 90 + 3rd for 85 + 1st. Right now the difference between picks is anywhere from 0 overalls to 1 overall per round, the deal above is retarded right now. 2) With top guys being moved teams will either trade them after drafting them or the original teams will try to deal for them back, thereby overpaying and moving the top guys around where they would never have moved to begin with. It will happen, if Pens lost Crosby or Ovie he will overpay to get them back. 3) Tanking is now rewarding. Teams on the outside of the playoff race before the trade deadline will trade their better players for future picks or overall losses. No one does this now because it is too much work to make the overalls back. Now it is easy and fun. Admit it, this idea is interesting. It may not be what people want but I'm sure we can come up with something if we actually tried. Your post is too long to read, but I'll counter with build your own team, i did it twice. |
|
|
|
Post by New York Islanders GM on Aug 9, 2012 13:34:22 GMT -5
This thread wasn't made to talk about helping the crappy teams get better. I'm not the only one who took a bad team far, look at Vancouver when they were Dallas, they were the worst team in the league. Minnesota was terrible in Season 1 as well.
If you guys are that upset, we can just make an extra legend, and put the worst one in the draft. But even then, the crappy teams are usually clueless and trade their picks away to the top end teams.
|
|
.Give up people's nothings gonna happen. move on there's no point of arguing and bickering if nothing's gonna happen. " History repeats itself " how about we think about that line before posting another thread.
