+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: League Media (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=610)
+--- Forum: SHL Media (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=545)
+---- Thread: Are True Rookies Going Extinct? (/showthread.php?tid=52848)
- Merica - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 05:52 PM
So basically you are saying you want the shl to be like youth soccer where every team wins!
Other than the suggestions made by myself and winter, anything else will hurt top end franchises and that shouldn't happen to cater to EXPANSION teams.
Don't ruin the hard work put in by GMs. Its bs.
- Birks - 07-08-2015
But I think expansion draft needs to be done after FA. Because for example expansion team can take an active player and after few days he decides he is going to test FA?!
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 11:52 PM
So basically you are saying you want the shl to be like youth soccer where every team wins!
Other than the suggestions made by myself and winter, anything else will hurt top end franchises and that shouldn't happen to cater to EXPANSION teams.
Don't ruin the hard work put in by GMs. Its bs.
I don't think that is what he was trying to say, Schultzy and I talked about this before and the numbers he brought up where in about the same ballpark of what you and I suggested in this thread.
- Winter is Coming - 07-08-2015
Do most GM's seems to be anti-expansion because it obviously hurts their team in some way?
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 02:58 PM
I don't think that is what he was trying to say, Schultzy and I talked about this before and the numbers he brought up where in about the same ballpark of what you and I suggested in this thread.
If its anything less than 14, it cripples at least 3 teams. Especially if we are forced to protect rookies.
- Pandar - 07-08-2015
I like 8F+4D+1G+Skaters with less than 52 GP+G witth less than 26GP
If a team wants to draft someone who you hsve to expose, you can pay in draft picks on some scale like:
1200+ TPE: 2 1st rounders
1000+ 1 1st rounder and 1 2nd
800+ 2 2nds and a 3rd
600+ 2 2nds
less than 600: 1 2nd.
Granted, I'm new, so I'm not sure what "appropriate" compensation would be, but this gives you free protection for some players, and then insurance on other players.It costs you some of your longer term future to protect your present/near future.
- Mac - 07-08-2015
Not going to quote the post, but my point Merica, was that expansion teams should have at least one decent player available from each team either at forward or defense.
Giving them a bunch of inactive thirds and third pairings is going to cause that expansion team to be unappealing at first. Losing one 500-700 point third liner or second pairing now is only going to make room for draftees coming in and the deficit of talent will be spread among all the teams and hurt each team equally.
They might get more from a place like Minnesota then they would from New England , however Minnesota has the depth and a rookie with two seasons of gain will replace that easily. Is it fair? No, but expansion never is for the best teams.
Honestly don't see a way everyone would say is fair.
- Schultzy - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 06:52 PMEvery franchise would be affected equally. No team will be hurt. And no this shouldn't be like youth soccer because soccer is lame. This should be a growing and expanding hockey league with great parity where any GM can lead their franchise to glory. We shouldn't be expanding just to make weak teams full of trash and condemn them to years of unnecessary struggles. There's a better way.
So basically you are saying you want the shl to be like youth soccer where every team wins!
Other than the suggestions made by myself and winter, anything else will hurt top end franchises and that shouldn't happen to cater to EXPANSION teams.
Don't ruin the hard work put in by GMs. Its bs.
I don't expect any current GM to like it. I wouldn't as a GM. But the time for talk is over. The time for action has long since been here. We've exceeded every prerequisite we set. Time to take the leap of faith. How fitting that it should come just after the last of our previous expansion franchises, won the Cup.
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Winter is Coming@Jul 8 2015, 02:59 PM
Do most GM's seems to be anti-expansion because it obviously hurts their team in some way?
Im for expansion if there is a way for those teams to get 500+ TPE but the teams that actually had to work to build their team get to keep those benefits.
Under my idea the Chiefs still have to give up the most in terms of quality assets. If you reduce it to 13 I lose two more 800+ tpe players. How is that fair?
There is no point in coddling expansion teams so they could have a chance. Why didn't I get coddled when I took over the shit show in Minnesota? Because its dumb, I had less assets then what an expansion team would get with my idea. I was a good GM and acquired assets. That is what an expansion team should have to do, not be gifted 800+ tpe players from top teams and then parity becomes even more wide spread.
Will probably happen that way.
- Winter is Coming - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Schultzy@Jul 8 2015, 06:02 PM
Every franchise would be affected equally. No team will be hurt. And no this shouldn't be like youth soccer because soccer is lame. This should be a growing and expanding hockey league with great parity where any GM can lead their franchise to glory. We shouldn't be expanding just to make weak teams full of trash and condemn them to years of unnecessary struggles. There's a better way.
I don't expect any current GM to like it. I wouldn't as a GM. But the time for talk is over. The time for action has long since been here. We've exceeded every prerequisite we set. Time to take the leap of faith. How fitting that it should come just after the last of our previous expansion franchises, won the Cup.
It seems most GM's are against it which I understand, because it hurts all teams equally, but I get the sense that a high chunk of the members in the league want it, and understand why it needs to occur. I am not even applying for either of the positions, so I am unbiased on this issue. :lol:
- Merica - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Schultzy@Jul 8 2015, 06:02 PM
Every franchise would be affected equally. No team will be hurt. And no this shouldn't be like youth soccer because soccer is lame. This should be a growing and expanding hockey league with great parity where any GM can lead their franchise to glory. We shouldn't be expanding just to make weak teams full of trash and condemn them to years of unnecessary struggles. There's a better way.
I don't expect any current GM to like it. I wouldn't as a GM. But the time for talk is over. The time for action has long since been here. We've exceeded every prerequisite we set. Time to take the leap of faith. How fitting that it should come just after the last of our previous expansion franchises, won the Cup.
How do you plan on "equally" affecting every team? Very interested in hearing that explanation.
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Winter is Coming+Jul 8 2015, 11:59 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winter is Coming @ Jul 8 2015, 11:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do most GM's seems to be anti-expansion because it obviously hurts their team in some way?[/b]
Seems like but I don't really blame them, it's only natural for them to feel like that when you basically tell them: "Hey look we have this great new idea for the league and all it will cost you is two players and a few spots in future drafts!" It's not surprising that some of them don't particularly like that but that's why I think this is something that GMs shouldn't get to decide
<!--QuoteBegin-Josh@Jul 9 2015, 12:01 AM
If its anything less than 14, it cripples at least 3 teams. Especially if we are forced to protect rookies.[/quote]
15 just feels very generous towards the current teams imho, but as I said, I'd probably be fine with giving people the choice between 15 and 13 + rookies.
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Schultzy@Jul 8 2015, 03:02 PM
Every franchise would be affected equally. No team will be hurt. And no this shouldn't be like youth soccer because soccer is lame. [b]This should be a growing and expanding hockey league with great parity where any GM can lead their franchise to glory. We shouldn't be expanding just to make weak teams full of trash and condemn them to years of unnecessary struggles. There's a better way.
I don't expect any current GM to like it. I wouldn't as a GM. But the time for talk is over. The time for action has long since been here. We've exceeded every prerequisite we set. Time to take the leap of faith. How fitting that it should come just after the last of our previous expansion franchises, won the Cup.[/b]
So you want to make it youth soccer. Not everyone should have a fair shot out the gate, they should have to work for it.
Why don't we not have a championship game anymore? Just give everyone participation ribbons.
Don't screw over teams to increase parity.
- Winter is Coming - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Merica@Jul 8 2015, 06:05 PMWell, most teams would be bumped in the draft by a slot or two, and lose a semi-active member. Not like three teams are going to lose a 1000 TPE player, and the rest are going to lose a 500 TPE one.
How do you plan on "equally" affecting every team? Very interested in hearing that explanation.
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 03:05 PM
Seems like but I don't really blame them, it's only natural for them to feel like that when you basically tell them: "Hey look we have this great new idea for the league and all it will cost you is two players and a few spots in future drafts!" It's not surprising that some of them don't particularly like that but that's why I think this is something that GMs shouldn't get to decide
15 just feels very generous towards the current teams imho, but as I said, I'd probably be fine with giving people the choice between 15 and 13 + rookies.
Ya I like the choice. Because no offense but the work I put into this team shouldn't be gone because I have to give up two more 800+ tpe players.