|
Post by BluesGM on Apr 5, 2013 16:31:18 GMT -5
For now, I think the cap is fine. It makes teams not load up on superstars. You shouldnt have your top 6 be all 80+ ov players. why? Pittsburgh does. Chicago does. again, regardless, thats not what this is about.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Apr 5, 2013 16:39:53 GMT -5
I said when we instituted the cap and the chart that they both would revisited in the future. This is year two of both. I'd have to do research but I don't think its nearly as bad as some make it out to be my personal opinion on the chart would be just to scrap it and institute a different system: i get the feeling you instituted it because people were sending in too many ridiculous low-ball offers that, as a commish, were incredibly frustrating to see. and work with. what i used to do in my league is tell people that i had the power (acting as the players agent) to request a trade if an insulting offer was presented as the starting point. this causes GM's to be careful as to what they offer, and be more thorough in explaining their offers to you without having a strict guideline that handicaps the GM's into forcing them to offer something they may not want to. i found it worked well, and i think everyone here would trust your judgement. the mere threat of their player forcing a trade should stop all the idiotic offers
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Apr 5, 2013 16:58:12 GMT -5
and lastly, about prospects:
dont force people to activate prospects, thats just stupid. theres plenty of young players in this league, the problem is majority of them are complete garbage with no realistic future at being a pro player.im not trying to insult tom, i like the guy (although he'll probably take it this way....i dont mean it as an insult) - i don't think he's done a good job creating prospects. the majority of them are way too generic, low 60's all across the board for most players. that type of prospect will never, ever amount to anything. and most of the prospects created are created that way. that's why i've totally abandoned prospects.
what he needs to do (IMO) is exaggerate their strengths and weaknesses. so for example: lets say prospect "A" has a scouting report as a dynamic offensive player who is soft and poor defensively. instead of making his scoring a 68 and his D A 62, make his scoring a 75 and his D 52. make his PC a 77 and his intensity a 48. etc. etc. if prospect B has the reputation of being a defensive defensman : give him 77 DF, high strength, insensity. give him PC/PA/SC ratings in the 50's. make it so every player has an identity and a legitimate hope at filling some type of role in the future. this player still will start at 68 overall or whatever, but maybe 3-4 years down the line if/when he's a 74 i may not mind having him in my lineup if his defense is an 80. as it stands now, most prospects, even at 74 overall, are useless because their individual ratings are terrible.
it just gives prospects an identity...whereas right now, most players look like the prospect i just traded in nikita nestorov. he's 19 years old but i valued him like nothing because he'll never become anything with those ratings.
also, i'd give them 5 year deals at the league minimum instead of 3 year deals. remember in the NHL, these prospects usually dont sign their 3 year entry level deals right away. for example, the panthers drafted nick bjugstad in 2010....they just signed him on tuesday. so he'll be under contract for 3 years starting now.
for the prospects that actually do amount to something, it will give teams two more years of play at the league minimum. as it stands now, most guys take 3 years to develop anyway, so by the time they amount to anything, we're already having to give them a new, usually far more expensive, contract. this just gives teams who are rebuilding some added benefits. young prospects will have more value due to cheaper contracts and improved ratings if this is instituted.
and those who think i'm asking for these changes for the benefit of my team: i have zero prospects and zero picks for like the next 5 years. none of this is about my team, its about improving the league as a whole. that's all i want.
|
|
Harry
Full Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by Harry on Apr 5, 2013 17:17:10 GMT -5
I do agree about prospects, particularly the high-end ones, tend to be underrated. Going by the chart, Yakupov will be rated 73. He's playing pro as a 19 year old, yet that rating in this league will force teams to keep him in the farm till his rating skyrockets. I'm in favor of doing away with charts for free agents and prospects. But I also see why they are necessary, especially when teams submit lowball offers, particularly to re-sign players.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixgm on Apr 5, 2013 17:22:20 GMT -5
and lastly, about prospects: dont force people to activate prospects, thats just stupid. theres plenty of young players in this league, the problem is majority of them are complete garbage with no realistic future at being a pro player.im not trying to insult tom, i like the guy (although he'll probably take it this way....i dont mean it as an insult) - i don't think he's done a good job creating prospects. the majority of them are way too generic, low 60's all across the board for most players. that type of prospect will never, ever amount to anything. and most of the prospects created are created that way. that's why i've totally abandoned prospects. what he needs to do (IMO) is exaggerate their strengths and weaknesses. so for example: lets say prospect "A" has a scouting report as a dynamic offensive player who is soft and poor defensively. instead of making his scoring a 68 and his D A 62, make his scoring a 75 and his D 52. make his PC a 77 and his intensity a 48. etc. etc. if prospect B has the reputation of being a defensive defensman : give him 77 DF, high strength, insensity. give him PC/PA/SC ratings in the 50's. make it so every player has an identity and a legitimate hope at filling some type of role in the future. this player still will start at 68 overall or whatever, but maybe 3-4 years down the line if/when he's a 74 i may not mind having him in my lineup if his defense is an 80. as it stands now, most prospects, even at 74 overall, are useless because their individual ratings are terrible. it just gives prospects an identity...whereas right now, most players look like the prospect i just traded in nikita nestorov. he's 19 years old but i valued him like nothing because he'll never become anything with those ratings. also, i'd give them 5 year deals at the league minimum instead of 3 year deals. remember in the NHL, these prospects usually dont sign their 3 year entry level deals right away. for example, the panthers drafted nick bjugstad in 2010....they just signed him on tuesday. so he'll be under contract for 3 years starting now. for the prospects that actually do amount to something, it will give teams two more years of play at the league minimum. as it stands now, most guys take 3 years to develop anyway, so by the time they amount to anything, we're already having to give them a new, usually far more expensive, contract. this just gives teams who are rebuilding some added benefits. young prospects will have more value due to cheaper contracts and improved ratings if this is instituted. and those who think i'm asking for these changes for the benefit of my team: i have zero prospects and zero picks for like the next 5 years. none of this is about my team, its about improving the league as a whole. that's all i want. Excellent post. Having not been in this league before, I assumed that's how the prospects were created. I would be very disappointed if my "defensive specialist" had the same ratings as the poor defensively, somewhat offensive defenceman I hypothetically bypassed in the draft, or the 3rd line grinder, because I assumed that in my 67OV would be a 72DF to show his strong defensive presence.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Apr 5, 2013 17:25:25 GMT -5
I do agree about prospects, particularly the high-end ones, tend to be underrated. Going by the chart, Yakupov will be rated 73. He's playing pro as a 19 year old, yet that rating in this league will force teams to keep him in the farm till his rating skyrockets. I'm in favor of doing away with charts for free agents and prospects. But I also see why they are necessary, especially when teams submit lowball offers, particularly to re-sign players. i'm fine with the chart for prospects - it gives people a general idea of what they're getting. yakupov at 73 ov may be a bit underrated overall wise, but still fine. just make sure he gets individual ratings to comp for it. give him 78 SC, 84 PC, 77 PA. make his DF in the 50's, strength in the 50's. by year two he'll be a legit top-6 option on a rebuilding team.
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Apr 5, 2013 17:56:28 GMT -5
and lastly, about prospects: dont force people to activate prospects, thats just stupid. theres plenty of young players in this league, the problem is majority of them are complete garbage with no realistic future at being a pro player. That was supposed to be my point, but you said it better.
|
|
|
Post by anaheimgm on Apr 5, 2013 17:59:22 GMT -5
Well, eventually all of them will be pro players. The lg average will just be much lower...
|
|
|
Post by NJDevils on Apr 5, 2013 17:59:39 GMT -5
Funds will be an issue if we raise the cap because successful cap teams are still losing money and only have a large stock of cash because of the year one infusion. Raising the cap allows for more spending and less revenue.
Stupid contracts have everything to do with it. Don't overspend on mid-6 players and you don't have cap issues. There is no reason to spend 4mil on a #5 dman when they're plentiful but people do it. When it happens you lose your own valuable cap space. We raise it and give more to screw up we're right back in the same spot.
I made sure I didn't give Patrik Elias too much so I could demote him if he dropped in OV. Granted I never expected him to go from 77 to 74 in one off-season but I'm covered. If someone else wants to spend themselves into a bind then let them. 5 million dollars adds a good player and/or hides mistakes. Make teams sleep in the beds they make.
Also I'm on my phone so forgive mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Apr 5, 2013 19:39:56 GMT -5
Funds will be an issue if we raise the cap because successful cap teams are still losing money and only have a large stock of cash because of the year one infusion. Raising the cap allows for more spending and less revenue. teams are losing money? good! then maybe our leagues revenues will have some meaning instead of half of the clubs (including yours!) having over $50 million in finances. teams that are losing money generally are the teams spending to the cap that are not finding success. sounds.....realistic?? maybe they should trade for some $$, then? stupid contracts have nothing to do with it. you're not understanding my point. GM's will give out stupid contracts. that will always happen, it doesn't matter what the salary cap is. the numbers might change, but stupid deals will always be shelled out. in other words, if the cap was $30 mil, a contract of $4 million for a #5 d man would be considered stupid, whereas in a cap of $70 million, that same GM would likely offer $7 million (aka: robidas for example). this is always going to happen and you're not going to stop it. it happens in real life, too. teams overpay in free agency because they feel they add a player for nothing. if that's how they feel, then good for them. it's why i never sign anyone worth a damn in free agency my point is that the system we have in place cannot, and will not, maintain itself. there are far, far, FAR more players getting significant raises than there are new, good young players being introduced into the league. we can fix it by a combination of raising the cap and fixing the way young players are introduced, but make no mistake, it has to be fixed. it's basic economics. inflation is happening, and GM's being forced to sell off players like jeff carter for nothing just shouldn't happen. that's just an example....the point is there is almost no market for good players anymore, because more than half the teams can't afford them. and this is just going to get significantly worse every offseason. that's why i think it needs to be fixed now, so teams have a full season to adapt and plan. you blame GM's giving out bad contracts, but that's just not the actual cause of what's going on. it may add to it, but a) it's not the main cause and b) they will always occur. always. if we raise the cap, the bad GM's will still shell out terrible deals and the good GM's will use the extra cap room wisely. it's that simple.
|
|