|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 21:55:40 GMT -5
Ooouuu a sarcastic phrase turned into a sarcastic K. Nice work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 21:56:56 GMT -5
I wrote a witty reply, but knew it was lost on you, so I changed it to something I knew you could follow.  (trollface) |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 22:00:02 GMT -5
Really, though, it's best for the league if both you and I shut up and just allow people to look at the suggestion and have their own thoughts on it. The original suggestion can be found by clicking here.  Weigh in, if you haven't. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Jan 2, 2014 22:08:16 GMT -5
Wow, I am not reading all this.
But, I really dig the idea and Devil's modification.
Fresh new idea. I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 2, 2014 22:37:03 GMT -5
Really, though, it's best for the league if both you and I shut up and just allow people to look at the suggestion and have their own thoughts on it. The original suggestion can be found by clicking here. Weigh in, if you haven't. This. If you two could shut the fuck up and learn how to PM each other, that would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Jan 3, 2014 2:49:00 GMT -5
What about something like this: If your top 10 in the league or whatever number is agreed on you have to give up one of your top 5 players?
Other then that I like canes idea.
When I first joined the league and realized how shitty my team was I was all excited because I was getting a top 5 pick. Then I saw the draft list and was very disappointed because it basically did nothing to make my team improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 3, 2014 11:21:26 GMT -5
What about something like this: If your top 10 in the league or whatever number is agreed on you have to give up one of your top 5 players?Other then that I like canes idea. When I first joined the league and realized how shitty my team was I was all excited because I was getting a top 5 pick. Then I saw the draft list and was very disappointed because it basically did nothing to make my team improve. No, that system just punishes successful teams, which isn't what were looking for. I'm also not talking about on paper success, I'm talking about actual results. Can you imagine having the Hawks win the cup and then be told they now lose Seabrook for no apparent reason? "Hey you won, congrats!" "Cool, what did I win?" "You won the chance to give away one of your best players!" "Oh, no thanks..." "No, we mean you don't have a choice, give us Sharp" We're hopefully going to be going with a version of canes suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Jan 3, 2014 13:29:00 GMT -5
What about something like this: If your top 10 in the league or whatever number is agreed on you have to give up one of your top 5 players?Other then that I like canes idea. When I first joined the league and realized how shitty my team was I was all excited because I was getting a top 5 pick. Then I saw the draft list and was very disappointed because it basically did nothing to make my team improve. No, that system just punishes successful teams, which isn't what were looking for. I'm also not talking about on paper success, I'm talking about actual results. Can you imagine having the Hawks win the cup and then be told they now lose Seabrook for no apparent reason? "Hey you won, congrats!" "Cool, what did I win?" "You won the chance to give away one of your best players!" "Oh, no thanks..." "No, we mean you don't have a choice, give us Sharp" We're hopefully going to be going with a version of canes suggestion. It's basically the system that's in place in the real nhl. Look at the last few years who contenders lost. Det-Hossa Bos-Horton Chi-Ladd Buf Versteeg Niemi Pit-Michalek iginla Hossa Tb- Richards Tor- nobody cuz there shit. Just the way the real nhl works you get to keep your core of 4-5 guys and there's always 1 guy you would love to keep but he always plays his way off the team with a amazing season/playoffs. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Jan 3, 2014 15:17:05 GMT -5
I think Canes' idea does ensure that a couple of "stacked teams" will eventually lose 1-2 or more good players.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 3, 2014 17:23:02 GMT -5
No, that system just punishes successful teams, which isn't what were looking for. I'm also not talking about on paper success, I'm talking about actual results. Can you imagine having the Hawks win the cup and then be told they now lose Seabrook for no apparent reason? "Hey you won, congrats!" "Cool, what did I win?" "You won the chance to give away one of your best players!" "Oh, no thanks..." "No, we mean you don't have a choice, give us Sharp" We're hopefully going to be going with a version of canes suggestion. It's basically the system that's in place in the real nhl. Look at the last few years who contenders lost. Det-Hossa Bos-Horton Chi-Ladd Buf Versteeg Niemi Pit-Michalek iginla Hossa Tb- Richards Tor- nobody cuz there shit. Just the way the real nhl works you get to keep your core of 4-5 guys and there's always 1 guy you would love to keep but he always plays his way off the team with a amazing season/playoffs. None of those examples happened because they played their way off their team. Hossa was on a 1 year contract, thought Chicago was better (was right) Horton wanted to leave Ladd/Buf/Versteeg, not top 5 players on that team Michalek wanted back in Phoenix Iginla was a rental Hossa was offered a renewal, wanted to go to Detroit They couldn't afford Richards anymore because they were Tampa Bay, not because of the cap. The salary cap wasn't up yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Jan 3, 2014 20:32:06 GMT -5
It's basically the system that's in place in the real nhl. Look at the last few years who contenders lost. Det-Hossa Bos-Horton Chi-Ladd Buf Versteeg Niemi Pit-Michalek iginla Hossa Tb- Richards Tor- nobody cuz there shit. Just the way the real nhl works you get to keep your core of 4-5 guys and there's always 1 guy you would love to keep but he always plays his way off the team with a amazing season/playoffs. None of those examples happened because they played their way off their team. Hossa was on a 1 year contract, thought Chicago was better (was right) Horton wanted to leave Ladd/Buf/Versteeg, not top 5 players on that team Michalek wanted back in Phoenix Iginla was a rental Hossa was offered a renewal, wanted to go to Detroit They couldn't afford Richards anymore because they were Tampa Bay, not because of the cap. The salary cap wasn't up yet. I guess I should have added they were no longer on the team because of cap reasons also and they were traded or not re-signed because the team thought they were better off without that player in the long run. But clearly you dont know much do you or are just a very stubborn person whos only point of view is his? Like I said I liked Canes original suggestion, mine was just another suggestion that I threw out there. But to show you how wrong you are here you go... 1. Iginla left Pitt because they had no cap space to re-sign him and yes he was rental but almost guarantee he would have re-signed there if Pitt had the cap space. 2. Ladd/Buf/Versteeg Chicago couldn't afford them and I never said anywhere they were top 5 players. I said a team gets to keep around 5 players maybe more now that the cap is rising so much last couple of years. They also lost Niemi because they didnt want to pay him which turned out to be a mistake for a few years till Crawford finally came around. 3. Okay maybe Horton wanted to leave but didn't stop them from trying to re-sign him and if they did re-sign him guess what they would have had to get rid of someone else to get under the cap. Or not sign Iginla who would have ended up somewhere else. 4. Michalek went back to Phoenix because Pitt asked him to so they could get more cap space 5. Better check your facts on Richards and when the salary cap came into place. Tampa got rid of him because they had Boyle Richards Stlouis Lecavalier taking up a good chunk of there cap with no depth. ** I could also throw in Ana losing Penner, even though he had been a slug for most of his career. Or Chicago having to trade Bolland this year. Top teams lose good players every year weather its through free agency or trades just fact of life. You can even add in the Lecavalier buyout if he doesnt get bought out is Tampa as good as they are now? They keep him and they don't get filppula plus they are over the cap. Yes I know this isn't a cap league. This was just another suggestion/option to get more of the talent spread around the league because clearly whats happened in the league is a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 3, 2014 21:15:42 GMT -5
None of those examples happened because they played their way off their team. Hossa was on a 1 year contract, thought Chicago was better (was right) Horton wanted to leave Ladd/Buf/Versteeg, not top 5 players on that team Michalek wanted back in Phoenix Iginla was a rental Hossa was offered a renewal, wanted to go to Detroit They couldn't afford Richards anymore because they were Tampa Bay, not because of the cap. The salary cap wasn't up yet. I guess I should have added they were no longer on the team because of cap reasons also and they were traded or not re-signed because the team thought they were better off without that player in the long run. But clearly you dont know much do you or are just a very stubborn person whos only point of view is his? Like I said I liked Canes original suggestion, mine was just another suggestion that I threw out there. But to show you how wrong you are here you go... 1. Iginla left Pitt because they had no cap space to re-sign him and yes he was rental but almost guarantee he would have re-signed there if Pitt had the cap space. 2. Ladd/Buf/Versteeg Chicago couldn't afford them and I never said anywhere they were top 5 players. I said a team gets to keep around 5 players maybe more now that the cap is rising so much last couple of years. They also lost Niemi because they didnt want to pay him which turned out to be a mistake for a few years till Crawford finally came around. 3. Okay maybe Horton wanted to leave but didn't stop them from trying to re-sign him and if they did re-sign him guess what they would have had to get rid of someone else to get under the cap. Or not sign Iginla who would have ended up somewhere else. 4. Michalek went back to Phoenix because Pitt asked him to so they could get more cap space 5. Better check your facts on Richards and when the salary cap came into place. Tampa got rid of him because they had Boyle Richards Stlouis Lecavalier taking up a good chunk of there cap with no depth. ** I could also throw in Ana losing Penner, even though he had been a slug for most of his career. Or Chicago having to trade Bolland this year. Top teams lose good players every year weather its through free agency or trades just fact of life. You can even add in the Lecavalier buyout if he doesnt get bought out is Tampa as good as they are now? They keep him and they don't get filppula plus they are over the cap. Yes I know this isn't a cap league. This was just another suggestion/option to get more of the talent spread around the league because clearly whats happened in the league is a problem. Lol you're wrong on all of those but anyways, you're point was they lose one of their top 5, none of those teams did unless it was a rental. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 3, 2014 21:31:43 GMT -5
Anyways, that's not important. What I like is you get a certain amount of slots. Each overall area takes up a certain amount of slots. Can we start working with this now?
How many slots are we going to have and what value are we going to give to each player is the question going forward. I personally like having 18ish slots and have values like this: 86 or below = 1 slot 87-89 = 2 slots 90-93 = 3 slots 94+ = 4 slots.
This means you can keep pretty much your entire team if you have only 86s and below I suppose, 9 87s-89s, 6 90-93s and ....
Lol nvm this doesn't work hahaha Maybe 15 slots? Iunno.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 3, 2014 21:42:31 GMT -5
I think the original was perfect. 8 slots to start. go up to 10 if you have no one over 90. Go down for everyone under 90.
Clean. Simple. Clear. Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 3, 2014 22:03:52 GMT -5
I think it's cool to award people 8 slots. Then you get to keep an additional slots for a certain amount you don't have over 90.
So, the big thing is to figure out how many 90+ rated players each team has. Then you can find the average, so a team can keep/protect a certain amount of guys over 90 then a certain amount in the 80s. for each player they don't keep (or don't have) in the 90s, they get an extra two players from a specific rating grade that would be equalizing a 90+ player.
for example, if the average amount of 90+ players on every team is 3, and you only have 2, you get to protect your main 8 players, plus two players rated in the 83 to 85 range to equal that extra 90+ player another club has. you get depth, they get an elite.
thoughts?
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*