|
|
Post by Justin on Aug 10, 2013 1:43:30 GMT -5
What if we made the age for legends default at 17 years old for all legends?
Let's be honest - already no one gives a damn about the really old guys - they are almost un-tradeable (from what I hear), so why make them worth significantly less than current players of the same overall?
Since Legends ratings never change, but current players' do, it also kind of makes sense to me. Legends are legends. Not trendy, potential one-hit-wonders, so they should be treated as such, and given a minor advantage in auctions and such.
Making them all 17 would also make everyone's life easier when figuring out auction winners. No age-googling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lilwayne - Retired Canucks GM on Aug 10, 2013 2:10:07 GMT -5
nahhhh ex: someone bids a legend at 88overall and someone else bids a legend at 88overall  |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bruins GM on Aug 10, 2013 10:38:09 GMT -5
The league is getting overrun by legends. Too many if you ask me, some of them seem like a reach now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Aug 10, 2013 14:37:39 GMT -5
nahhhh ex: someone bids a legend at 88overall and someone else bids a legend at 88overall It's an auction...you have to BEAT the previous bid. So they go higher overall, or they add another player. Regular auction procedures. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Aug 10, 2013 17:43:19 GMT -5
The league is getting overrun by legends. Too many if you ask me, some of them seem like a reach now. I somewhat agree. I think we have more than enough high rated players. I think we should implement something else, though. Anyone got ideas? I'm thinking maybe players that can move up in rating based on how well they do. They start off as an 80 or whatever and each season for x number of years they can improve. Something new, something trendy. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Aug 10, 2013 21:55:25 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. We can only add so many Legends to the game before it is too much
|
|
|
|
Post by C00kies - Retired Kings GM on Aug 10, 2013 22:20:45 GMT -5
Yeah. We could do NYI's idea for a season while we figure things out.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Rangers GM on Aug 10, 2013 22:23:43 GMT -5
There's always room for sub-Legend types... everyone has like a fave player that's not an HOFer (ie. Tomas Sandstrom, Tony Granato, Martin Gelinas, Craig Simpson, Scott Mellanby. Adam Graves, Stan Smyl, Bill Quackenbush, Marty McSorley, etc.)
Maybe open the flood gates a little to the non-HOFers at a lower overall like 82-83 or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Aug 10, 2013 23:41:27 GMT -5
Um. I feel as though everyone missed my original suggestion, haha. Can we revisit that breifly before considering where to go with legends in the future?
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Aug 11, 2013 12:49:50 GMT -5
I don't see how changing the age helps at all.
Most of the legends now are lesser known/not as sexy of a name as an Orr or a Howe or a Gretzky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Aug 11, 2013 12:59:31 GMT -5
For auctions. Strictly for auctions.
That way someone like Howie Morenz is not 167 years old - if there is a draw, he is a perpetual loser.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Aug 11, 2013 19:34:27 GMT -5
Kinda adds a certain element to it by keeping their real ages though, no?
Iunno, I don't view it as a big issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Aug 11, 2013 19:39:39 GMT -5
Don't see the point in this, its fine the way it is. If anything it gives the current NHLers more value which is fine.
Regarding too many legends, we need to keep adding them in order to keep the auctions running, we'll look into other suggestions later but we will continue to bring them in for the next upcoming season
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Aug 11, 2013 19:54:56 GMT -5
Don't see the point in this, its fine the way it is. If anything it gives the current NHLers more value which is fine. Regarding too many legends, we need to keep adding them in order to keep the auctions running, we'll look into other suggestions later but we will continue to bring them in for the next upcoming season agreed |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Aug 11, 2013 21:00:51 GMT -5
If anything it gives the current NHLers more value which is fine. Exactly. So what's the point in having legends? They are supposed to be LEGENDS. Thus, worth more then current NHLers. The definition of a legend is someone who played the game and whose contribution actually stood the test of time. A Doug Gilmour bid should not be outbid by some shitty Jon Cheechoo-esque one hit wonder of the same overall just because of the age tie breaker. As I said, half the old legends are already unwanted (I see someone desperately shopping Dit Clapper, for example). Why make them more worthless than they need to be? At least if I know I can win auctions with him I might consider acquiring him. But if I can get some scuzzball current player, I win more auctions. It's silly. LEGENDS are legends. They should be treated as such. Plus, did we ignore the whole "it's easier because no one has to look at ages for them anymore" part? |
|
