Interesting Change-Up

[Mike - Former Wild GM]

To be fair, I'm not even sure if what I suggested somehow moves away from the original suggestion, but I think finding out how many 90+ players are on every team is a must to figure out the formula.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

I don't like the 90+ thing because everybody will be dumping 90+ players. I know I will let them go to draft rather than keep them. 90+ players will have zero value in trades, it will be a disaster. I like the idea of 15slots 86 or below = 1 slot 87-89 = 2 slots 90-93 = 3 slots 94+ = 4 slots.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

There are 54 90+ rated players

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

But we need to come a decision soon on this, so but the two options to a vote. I will slow down on the simming so we can come to a decision and be able to start trading accordingly

[Justin]

Jan 3, 2014 22:13:53 GMT -5 Pittsburgh Penguins GM said:

I don't like the 90+ thing because everybody will be dumping 90+ players.

This could not be more wrong. I keep telling you, people are part of sim sites for the 90+ players, not the depth. If you drop them, someone will be happier than a pig in shit to pick them up, and keep them. I plan on keeping mine, which frees up lots of depth from my team for other teams in the draft. And if not, every draft we have 54 90+ players to draft from. You think that won't get activity and attendance numbers to the draft?

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

I have been trying to trade them forever. But no way will I get two 89's for a 90 or 4 89's for Crosby and Bossy. These players will screw you in the end. I look forward to playing all the teams with 4 90's players and bench players against a team with 16 89-88 players. At any rate we still need a vote to go ahead with anything.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

The 54 player's rated 90+ didn't include goalies. I don't know if we want to there also??

[The Admin Account]

It's not about how many 90s someone can have based on the average amount in the league, its about creating the biggest chance for the most balance lineups in the league.

[Colorado Avalanche GM]

I prefer the "slot value" idea.

88's and above for me. 86's and 87's can be the "leftovers" and forgotten about.

88-89: 1 slot
90: 2 slots
91-94: 3 slots
95+: 4 slots

Or any modification of that.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Once I make it into December and we still haven't made a Decision this will be tabled until another season. Without a vote though, nothing is happening.

[Boston Bruins GM]

I get the idea of all of this but don't think I agree. So we're all about parity now? Being penalized for acquiring higher overall players is stupid.

Saying we need to put higher rated players into the draft just to reward the teams that finish low in the standings is pointless, and trust me because I'm one if those teams that finishes near the bottom more than I do at the top. I've made the playoffs even made the finals but I don't expect that every season.

[Deleted]

It's not about punishing or rewarding teams at all.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

all the top teams will end up with all the top picks anyway. I will trading all my 90+ players for an 89-88 and pick swap to get a bunch of 1st RD picks anyway. Better get the bidding started on Bossy, Crosby and Weinhandl. But I don't see any of this happening. This might as well be locked. Nobody wants a poll or wants to go with that anyway. We will be talking about the same thing for the next 2 years. I'm done with it. Let me know when you guys are done with it.

[Mike - Former Wild GM]

I think that there's a way to do this that's a lot easier.

Goalies remain untouched, because if someone wants a top goalie they should have to acquire him, most are within reason anyways.

Go with a keeper list of 9 skaters. But just make it so any player rated 91 or over is worth 2 spots. That makes it so that the elite of the elite aren't THAT difficult to keep, but at the cost of having that one AMAZING player, you lose a spot to keep one REALLY GOOD player.

Then the teams that want to keep their 90s players would essentially have one good line followed by a team of lower-depth support players, or another team could go with 2nd line players with supportive depth.

We all have had the players long enough to determine if it's worth keeping a 91 rated player over an 89 based on how they produce in the game, or who they are paired with, so the decision is left to the GM of the team to make the decision he feels is best for his club moving forward.

So if you had three guys rated 91 and opted to keep them, you've already used up 6 spots on your keeper list of 9 players. You now have 3 more spots left. You could protect your two top defenceman and one second line player, theoretically.

That makes it so the best of the best teams can still enjoy their six best elite players, while others who have a hard time cracking into the top 88-89 rated players have a chance to build a team of depth and lose out on weaker players, still allowing them to contend.

I think that will also draw a balance of equality among the site in the lines of what the salary cap attempted to do in the NHL (and sort of has done well with the three-point formula). But since this isn't a cap league, setting a draft selection spot cap I think adequately fills the void.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

damn, that one extra PT does make a big difference. Thanks Mike. I like that idea. Make it 9 and if you have zero 90 rated players you get a 10th. That I could live with.