|
Post by Tyrants on Oct 30, 2021 10:52:02 GMT -7
Hey Guys
AJ suggested a Poll on this so I figured I would throw it out there.
How many games should be added to new players ( second poll to follow for CDHL champions contracts)
|
|
|
Post by doug on Nov 1, 2021 7:44:50 GMT -7
I was thinking about the fifth choice, but James is a friend. But, there are no friends in competition eh?
Still, chose another option.
|
|
|
Post by legends on Nov 1, 2021 16:09:54 GMT -7
I think I'm not going to say what I was going to say, (I might of got fined by the commissioner)but I will give my opinion on the latest rumblings, and like any of this, where your sitting is directly proportional to your responses.
1. In adding player positions.... I agree with those who said they have sought out , maybe overpaid for players that play multiple positions, now the masses want it for free! I'm not OK with that.
2. Rookie games played.... I haven't been drafting in those spots for awhile but I still have had to make it work in my cap, (Mitch Marner)(Victor Hedman), I have also traded and had to make tough choices and roster moves to be cap compliant, again the whole salary cap was to make it more interesting and make it more like real team building and harder to win, I think by adding to games played is fair, and reflects salary structures for top Players, (Austin Matthews 12.5m per or 300 CDHL games played) isn't that the price of selecting 1rst overall? Let your creativity as a GM flourish, last I checked, parity in the CDHL is not a league mandate.
3. Adding games to successful teams... well that's just plain messed up, the salary cap is set and I play by the same rules like everyone else, the added games played for top draft picks was already added so in my opinion that's just a luxury tax with no obvious gain for the lower teams in the standings, that's just laying the boots to the champion, last I checked, parity in the CDHL is not a league mandate.
I think every response is from where your sitting, if I have had limited success, I might want to change things, "it's just not fair", but, those who have been successful and have played by the same rules, they probably don't want to change a thing. I'll leave it to you to guess which side I'm on!
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Nov 1, 2021 22:18:33 GMT -7
I get it.
That is something I've thought about myself. How is it fair to the teams that have lost players due to early draft picks if we change it now. The Roadrunners have traded first overall picks just to avoid the cap issues. I've thought that 300 might be high, but having thought about it some more, I think it is ok. He starts off at a 4, but if you are drafting first, chances are good that won't be an issue. Then after two years he could become a 5, not the worst thing. In the NHL after 3 years they can get a huge raise, top of the team sometime. It would take a minimum of 6 years for our player to reach that.
Bonus for winning? I could see the top players getting a bump. Not a huge one, not for everyone, top forward, top d-man, top goalie maybe. I don't think we really need it, but I can see why it could happen.
Player positions have been a sore point forever. You know this guy plays left wing, and for some reason they list him at center. Maybe instead of adding a position, you can only change a position. Only one per year. A gradual position correction. I took a look at my team when this was suggested. I have four players. I could change Isac Lundestrom from C to L, Andrei Svechnikov from R to L, Mangiapane from L to R, or Sampo Ranta from L to R. Nothing there makes me want to make any changes. Maybe late in the year if someone gets injured?
These polls are just to see what everyone thinks. I'm not in any hurry to change everything up.
I appreciate the comments. Well thought out.
aj
|
|
|
Post by Tyrants on Nov 6, 2021 20:48:31 GMT -7
Right on. This is what the forum is for!
It's good to see so much activity in here recently. Keep it up.
Good Luck guys. Go Tyrants
|
|