|
Post by gmcanucks on Jun 23, 2015 10:50:06 GMT -5
There needs to be more battles for playoffs spots as we wind down the season. Makes league exciting As far as creating more battles for playoff spots, while this is a good goal to have, I don't think we should read too much into last season. The teams that missed the playoffs didn't miss the playoffs because the sim was overly biased towards the good teams. The teams that missed the playoffs were at a considerably lower level than the playoff teams. Most of this was by design and the 10 teams who missed the playoffs, generally, were not trying to be competitive. An addition of a morale component wouldn't have helped the non-playoff teams last year. They simply weren't good enough to compete. The only way to ensure battles for playoff spots is to have more teams building towards being competitive. I think the competitive balance between the Top 12-15 teams was actually quite good this season.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Jun 23, 2015 11:10:00 GMT -5
Thank you! Never knew Overall was! All these years.
I would like to see competitive balance between 18 to 20 teams, so battle for last spots goes to last days of season is all I am saying....
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jun 23, 2015 11:15:02 GMT -5
I think we could use a bit of a change to keep things interesting. I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jun 23, 2015 15:38:08 GMT -5
We also may want to look at a max of 5 rated goalies per team.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jun 23, 2015 16:21:24 GMT -5
We also may want to look at a max of 5 rated goalies per team. Is this a burning issue? Why limit goalies as opposed to defensemen or forwards? I took a quick look and I don't see anyone hoarding goalies. There's no team that has more than two playable goalies, with playable defines as an OV rating of 76 or higher. Anyone with an OV less than that is really just a prospect. When you draft goalies you have no way of knowing, when or if they will be rated. But they are assets like any other position. I don't think there should be an artificial limit on the goaltending position. If you're short and need one, you can always make a deal with another team or sign a free agent. I have 7 but two are AHL goalies (Makarov and Eriksson), and I drafted some of them and signed others. Not really interested, or do I see a need , in dropping any of them. But if you need one Shawn, I'm willing to trade you one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 17:11:03 GMT -5
I'm all for it, it adds parity to the league and the element of surprise which happens every year. Here we don't have that, unless a player has a breakout year and then the following year (when rerates happen) he becomes better thus negating any sort of "in season" sleepers.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 23, 2015 19:06:10 GMT -5
We also may want to look at a max of 5 rated goalies per team. Is this a burning issue? Why limit goalies as opposed to defensemen or forwards? I took a quick look and I don't see anyone hoarding goalies. There's no team that has more than two playable goalies, with playable defines as an OV rating of 76 or higher. Anyone with an OV less than that is really just a prospect. When you draft goalies you have no way of knowing, when or if they will be rated. But they are assets like any other position. I don't think there should be an artificial limit on the goaltending position. If you're short and need one, you can always make a deal with another team or sign a free agent. I have 7 but two are AHL goalies (Makarov and Eriksson), and I drafted some of them and signed others. Not really interested, or do I see a need , in dropping any of them. But if you need one Shawn, I'm willing to trade you one I agree, I see no reason for a goalie limit. Goalies have never been so difficult to obtain that one could not find themselves a starter.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jun 23, 2015 19:18:16 GMT -5
I think he's talkin about using them to fill rosters up.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 23, 2015 19:52:58 GMT -5
What does that matter?
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jun 23, 2015 22:53:39 GMT -5
We have a minimum number of goalies per roster. Thats why I brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jun 24, 2015 16:46:42 GMT -5
Was there any plan to crank up injuries some to level the playing field a bit?
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 3, 2015 10:09:15 GMT -5
One rule change I'd like to see is an adjustment in the way we calculate the salary cap.
Right now farm league players count at 10% of their salary during the season and 100% during the off-season. I always thought this was unfair to teams who do a good job in acquiring assets and have more players under contract than others. If we are allowed to have a maximum of 50 players under contract, then there shouldn't be any penalty for having a higher number.
This impacts team's ability to compete for players during free agency or to trade for higher priced players. If I have 40 players under contract and you have 30, you are going to have a minimum of $5 million dollars more to bid on players than I do, based on a minimum salary of $500,000. Obviously this gives the team with fewer players under contract an advantage in signing free agents or making trades in the off-season.
Similarily, teams who carry fewer farm league players are at an advantage during the season, when it comes to player moves, because of the cap dollars being used up by farm league players.
I would like to see a change in these rules to level the playing field a bit.
I would propose the following:
1) Farm Players no longer count against the cap
2) All teams, similar to the NHL, be required to have a 23 man roster at the pro level.
3) The salaries of the three additional players would be absorbed by the elimination of farm salaries counting against the cap, meaning no adjustment in the salary cap would be required.
4) In the off-season period, a club's 23-man roster would consist of the 13 forwards, 7 defensemen and 3 goaltenders with the highest OV rating, including RFAs. If a team did not have the required number of players to fill-out one of the positions, the highest OV player from another position will be added to 23-man roster.
5) As per current rules, any player with a minimum OV rating 68 or higher or a goaltender with a minimum OV rating of 78 or higher would not be permitted to be sent to the farm during the off-season as well as in-season. This would ensure that teams were not able to "hide" quality players on the farm to create cap space.
I think these changes would create a more equal playing field and not penalize teams for doing a good job acquiring assets. It would also be more realistic in terms of what happens in real-life. Teams should want to have more use-able and trade-able assets, but the current rules discourages this practice.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 3, 2015 10:48:29 GMT -5
One rule change I'd like to see is an adjustment in the way we calculate the salary cap. Right now farm league players count at 10% of their salary during the season and 100% during the off-season. I always thought this was unfair to teams who do a good job in acquiring assets and have more players under contract than others. If we are allowed to have a maximum of 50 players under contract, then there shouldn't be any penalty for having a higher number. This impacts team's ability to compete for players during free agency or to trade for higher priced players. If I have 40 players under contract and you have 30, you are going to have a minimum of $5 million dollars more to bid on players than I do, based on a minimum salary of $500,000. Obviously this gives the team with fewer players under contract an advantage in signing free agents or making trades in the off-season. Similarily, teams who carry fewer farm league players are at an advantage during the season, when it comes to player moves, because of the cap dollars being used up by farm league players. I would like to see a change in these rules to level the playing field a bit. I would propose the following: 1) Farm Players no longer count against the cap 2) All teams, similar to the NHL, be required to have a 23 man roster at the pro level. 3) The salaries of the three additional players would be absorbed by the elimination of farm salaries counting against the cap, meaning no adjustment in the salary cap would be required. 4) In the off-season period, a club's 23-man roster would consist of the 13 forwards, 7 defensemen and 3 goaltenders with the highest OV rating, including RFAs. If a team did not have the required number of players to fill-out one of the positions, the highest OV player from another position will be added to 23-man roster. 5) As per current rules, any player with a minimum OV rating 68 or higher or a goaltender with a minimum OV rating of 78 or higher would not be permitted to be sent to the farm during the off-season as well as in-season. This would ensure that teams were not able to "hide" quality players on the farm to create cap space. I think these changes would create a more equal playing field and not penalize teams for doing a good job acquiring assets. It would also be more realistic in terms of what happens in real-life. Teams should want to have more use-able and trade-able assets, but the current rules discourages this practice. On my first read I was deadset against this, but after reading it over a couple times, its not so bad. I mean, I dont see a reason to change it, but the changes proposed arent so bad. I mean, if youre carrying extra contracts its a strategic decision IMO. The real thing that isnt dealt with here is how you can stash terrible contracts (such as a 64 OV player making 5 mil a season) and not be penalized at all. If there was a way to penalize for that stuff i think I would be all in.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 3, 2015 13:21:31 GMT -5
I will read it over again later but here are my initial thoughts...
- I am against anything that I have to track manually. I already manually keep track of too much stuff and not looking to do more.
- Do I have to manually go through every teams roster, pick out their 23 highest OV players at F/D/G and adjust all the rosters for FA?
- What if there are multiple players with the same OV? What if they have different salaries? How do you choose which to use?
- What if a team doesn't have 23 players in the offseason? San Jose only has 22 players, 17 signed players, so then what?
- To Montreal: What is Getzlaf breaks his leg this offseason and doesn't play a signle NHL game? Should you be forced to carry his $6mil salary on your pro roster for a useless player?
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 3, 2015 13:36:22 GMT -5
*Shrugs Not in favour of changing it lol Just said that I think Joe's solution was interesting and well thought out (from a theoretical sense).
|
|