|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 7, 2014 0:35:05 GMT -5
While there's a little down time as I'm doing a bunch of updating I thought this would be a good time to discuss possible rule changes/adjustments for next season. I know in the ratings thread there was a discussssion about injury frequency so feel free to continue that here. Here are two things that I'd like to open to discussion.....
1. Goalie fatigue settings - I really think that there were way too many goalies this season getting extremely high start counts. Last season in the NHL the leader for games started was 64 starts. In our league we had 14 goalies over 70 starts.....
Anderson - 81 Niemi - 81 Rinne - 80 Smith - 80 Luongo - 77 Dubnyk - 76 Lehtonen - 76 Backstrom - 75 Howard - 75 Ward - 74 Bryzgalov - 71 Price - 72 Rask - 70 Holtby - 70
Those numbers are pretty damn high, especially 4 goalies starting 80+ games.
2. RFA compensation based on salary offered - I'd really like to see the system switched to base compensation on the salary offered and not the players OV.
Please feel free to comment on these or any other thoughts on rules you might have.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 7, 2014 7:38:50 GMT -5
While there's a little down time as I'm doing a bunch of updating I thought this would be a good time to discuss possible rule changes/adjustments for next season. I know in the ratings thread there was a discussssion about injury frequency so feel free to continue that here. Here are two things that I'd like to open to discussion..... 1. Goalie fatigue settings - I really think that there were way too many goalies this season getting extremely high start counts. Last season in the NHL the leader for games started was 64 starts. In our league we had 14 goalies over 70 starts..... Anderson - 81 Niemi - 81 Rinne - 80 Smith - 80 Luongo - 77 Dubnyk - 76 Lehtonen - 76 Backstrom - 75 Howard - 75 Ward - 74 Bryzgalov - 71 Price - 72 Rask - 70 Holtby - 70 Those numbers are pretty damn high, especially 4 goalies starting 80+ games. 2. RFA compensation based on salary offered - I'd really like to see the system switched to base compensation on the salary offered and not the players OV. Please feel free to comment on these or any other thoughts on rules you might have. I'm all for rfa comp based on salary for sure. I'm also for limiting goalie starts to say, 70 games, but I thought the problem was that the only way to do that was to manually track? Also, there was a lot of discussion around injuries during the finals. I'm not really into random injuries, and I'm definitely not for assigning injuries to teams in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 7, 2014 8:15:04 GMT -5
- I agree 100% about the goaltending starts. I used to be in another league that had a rule that the back-up(s) must start a minimum of 15 games. I know no one wants to track it, but we could leave it to the GMs to monitor themselves with an accounting done at the end of the season. Any team not meeting the minimum number of back-up starts, loses their next available first round draft pick. We have a good group, and I'm sure as long as everyone knows the rules up front, they will comply. Plus, no one wants to lose a draft pick.
- I also like the idea of tying RFA compensation to the salary offered. Why not copy the system used in the NHL? Using the NHL's 2013-2014 RFA compensation, adjusting it downward to fit our $57,000,000 salary cap and rounding it a bit so it makes more sense, here's what I came up with:
$950,000 and below - No Compensation Between $950,001 and $1,500,000 - 3rd Round Pick Between $1,500,001 and $3,000,000 - 2nd Round Pick Between $3,000,001 and $4,500,000 - 1st and 3rd Round Picks Between $4,500,001 and $6,000,000 - 1st, 2nd and 3rd Round Picks Between $6,000,001 and $7,500,000 - Two 1sts, 2nd and 3rd Round Picks $7,500,001 and above - Four 1st Round Picks
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 8:48:22 GMT -5
All that needs to be done to decrease goalie starts, is adjust the fatigue settings guys, which is what Jon was talking about.
I'm for any rules that make it easier to land RFA's and against any that make it harder.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 7, 2014 9:03:23 GMT -5
All that needs to be done to decrease goalie starts, is adjust the fatigue settings guys, which is what Jon was talking about. I'm for any rules that make it easier to land RFA's and against any that make it harder. I don't there's any evidence that adjusting the fatigue settings has resulted in a decrease in goalie starts. I think we tried that already. If you adjust them too much, then maybe you get in a situation where the starting goalies are forced to miss too many starts. To me the goalie fatigue settings are good now. We don't want to get into a situation where a goalie faces 25 shots one night, gets a day off and still isn't ready to play two night later. I don't think that would be realistic. That's why I suggested a rule mandating a minimum number of starts for the #2 goalie(s). And my system wasn't intended to make it harder to sign free agents. I just suggested the NHL system as a model. We could adjust it any way we choose, although to be honest I think it seems ok to me. While I agree it would be great to see a few more offer sheets, I also think if you make an offer on a superstar calibre player like a Crosby, Stamkos or Getzlaf, the compensation should be severe enough to make a team think twice and give the team losing the star adequate compensation.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 9:10:20 GMT -5
$950,000 and below - No Compensation Between $950,001 and $1,500,000 - 3rd Round Pick Between $1,500,001 and $3,000,000 - 2nd Round Pick Between $3,000,001 and $4,500,000 - 1st and 3rd Round Picks Between $4,500,001 and $6,000,000 - 1st, 2nd and 3rd Round Picks Between $6,000,001 and $7,500,000 - Two 1sts, 2nd and 3rd Round Picks $7,500,001 and above - Four 1st Round Picks Love this. I have never made an RFA bid for several reasons, and have never accepted compensation. Why? Because it sucks. If someone gets their hands on 2 late 1sts and decides to bid 9 mil on an RFA all it does is handcuff the GM with the RFA. Who would ever accept 2 late 1sts for an all star player? With this scale, people who want to bid on RFAs with reasonable bids like 4.5-6 would still be paying a hefty price. So if someone truly has cap issues they would think long and hard about taking the comp.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 9:19:57 GMT -5
Sorry joe you are mistaken, about the settings, jon can adjust them to make goalies get tired faster. when you get to 94 cd they can't be used, basically one doesn't want to use them any lower then 96 since shots ware them down fast, sometimes 2 pts. a game at present. Jon can explain this better to you. No rule is going to tell me when i can use my goalie if he is healthy. lol
As far as the RFA'S I was not talkin personally about what your idea was, I was merely stating what I would and would not like to see.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 9:26:47 GMT -5
You guys sleigh me lol, the staff has been encouraging offer sheets for years, now that a few of us start going after rfa's you guys want to make it tougher. If it gets changed this season it looks like a few handshake deals I made will be voided. If you guys want to change it next season, no prob here.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 10:06:29 GMT -5
You guys sleigh me lol, the staff has been encouraging offer sheets for years, now that a few of us start going after rfa's you guys want to make it tougher. If it gets changed this season it looks like a few handshake deals I made will be voided. If you guys want to change it next season, no prob here. Ray, you can still go after whoever you want. If anything, this will encourage more bids on lower end RFAs. What it does is protect the team with a franchise player RFA. To me, the comp has never been high enough to even consider taking it. With this, if someone decides to get cute and bid over 7.5M on one of my top end guys, I would seriously consider it. It's about getting rid of "sabotage" bids, and making the compensation good enough to think about accepting.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 10:08:24 GMT -5
My reason for not wanting to do a salary based compensation is the same now as its ever been…I think it'll stop all bids on RFA players. If you have a player who is set to make say, 7m in salary based on ratings, there no absolutely zero chance anyone is going to bid FOUR 1st round picks on that.
I don't like that idea of "I have Crosby or (insert name here) now, so I get him forever", I like players to move around, or at least have the chance to move around. I don't feel like we can base this on the NHL exactly, in the NHL you have real players who make their own decisions. Here we only have contract to determine things. If the majority wants to change it to bidding, thats fine, we'll change it…but I know I'll never bid on an RFA again, and I doubt anyone else will either, its cost prohibitive. Just acquiring the four 1st rounders would likely impossible for most of us, then it'll just end up being matched in the end.
If you don't feel like accepting current comp, thats fine, comp is not designed to really BE accepted, its not suppose to be a "trade", its suppose to be "Well, I can't afford that guy, I'll take some comp and move on" kinda situation. If you feel matching a 9m offer and not getting two late 1st's (which aren't always bad btw), thats on you, if that player is really worth 9m to you…sign him! But doing that is NOT always in your best interest. Four 1sts is just insane, you might as well just automatically resign any RFA who is 68 or higher (aka, desirable) because they aren't moving. Its less of an issue because we automatically raise their salary a bit now, but I WANT you guys to bid on RFAs and push each-others salary around, it makes things more competitive and interesting, I don't see anyone ever bidding again if you set the comp to favor the team holding the player so much its not even worth it.
We have to make a decision: Do we want players to be more available or do we want players to be "locked" onto teams for a decade? Personally, I want players to at least have a CHANCE to move around. We already have players locked onto teams until at least 24 years old (more like 27-28 since we all know how to setup contracts), do we want these players locked down until 35 now? Really with really obscene comp, we could easily have a player drafted and kept on 1 roster until 35 years old, only ever paying the minimum salary required on that player. Personally, I don't like that.
As far as injuries go: During the season, I want no changes. During the playoffs I'd like to see injuries upped quite a bit. Playoffs should focus on teams having good depth to make it through, I want to see the playoffs be less of a formality and more of a chess match. People seem against the idea of "assigning" injuries (to make sure its even), so we'll have to rely on the sim to randomly hurt people. I think this is a worse approach as it could mean one team gets 5 players injured while another gets zero…(assigning would make it fair to everyone), but we really should shift our playoffs into something much more challenging and for lack of a better word "brutal". It should be a struggle to win the cup, for everyone, the #1 teams should have to work for it if they want it…and the 8th seeds should have a valid chance as well.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 10:16:30 GMT -5
I liked everything you said except for assigning injury, it's random in the nhl cause surly you can't predict an injury. Also would like it to a factor for playoffs and regular season. Speaking of Crosby I see he is FA this season.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 10:24:36 GMT -5
As I mentioned, the "assigning" idea was just to keep everything "fair", so no team got more injuries than another…the player would be random (leaving goalies out), but each team would get one.
We can totally leave it up to the sim, but no complaining that your 1st line C and best defenseman got hurt while they avoided injury.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 10:32:14 GMT -5
Oh, forgot about goalies. I'm okay with game limiting if people think its a problem. Smith got 80 starts cause he was healthy for 80 starts, not going to sit him if he's good to play.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 10:37:23 GMT -5
You guys sleigh me lol, the staff has been encouraging offer sheets for years, now that a few of us start going after rfa's you guys want to make it tougher. If it gets changed this season it looks like a few handshake deals I made will be voided. If you guys want to change it next season, no prob here. Ray, you can still go after whoever you want. If anything, this will encourage more bids on lower end RFAs. What it does is protect the team with a franchise player RFA. To me, the comp has never been high enough to even consider taking it. With this, if someone decides to get cute and bid over 7.5M on one of my top end guys, I would seriously consider it. It's about getting rid of "sabotage" bids, and making the compensation good enough to think about accepting. I didn't trade guys like Pominville and Hanzal to go after lower end RFA's.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 10:40:07 GMT -5
Ray, you can still go after whoever you want. If anything, this will encourage more bids on lower end RFAs. What it does is protect the team with a franchise player RFA. To me, the comp has never been high enough to even consider taking it. With this, if someone decides to get cute and bid over 7.5M on one of my top end guys, I would seriously consider it. It's about getting rid of "sabotage" bids, and making the compensation good enough to think about accepting. I didn't trade guys like Pominville and Hanzal to go after lower end RFA's. Super good point. Why does ANYONE care about lower end RFAs? There are likely 10+ players of equal ratings available in UFA and you don't have to give up draft picks to sign those guys.
|
|