+- 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)
- Eggy216 - 07-08-2015
All this talk about hurting the existing teams seems strange to me. Yes, you're going to lose some good players, but you're protecting whatever your best assets are. I agree with the idea of protecting 15 players, you protect your top players and a couple of rookies you don't want to lose, and the expansion team has a rough year until those players properly develop. Plus, you create the expansions before the SHL draft and those new teams get high picks in that draft to get started.
It has to be done this season, before the draft, otherwise it's just not going to work.
Pretty sure I've re-iterated a lot of points already made but just wanted to get my two-cents in before going back to just lurking.
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Winter is Coming@Jul 8 2015, 03:06 PM
Well, 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.
Umm the lowest TPE player on my team besides a goalie is 792.
- Eggy216 - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 06:06 PM
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.
You're losing two of your lower tier players out of 20, and other teams are subject to the same issue as you. Doesn't seem like that huge of a problem IMO. Yes it sucks as a GM to lose the players you wanted, but it has to happen. Look at the NHL, it's probably going to happen there in the next few years as well.
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Eggy216@Jul 8 2015, 03:08 PM
You're losing two of your lower tier players out of 20, and other teams are subject to the same issue as you. Doesn't seem like that huge of a problem IMO. Yes it sucks as a GM to lose the players you wanted, but it has to happen. Look at the NHL, it's probably going to happen there in the next few years as well.
My lower tier players again are 792 and 800+ tpe.
I am content with losing those two.
I shouldn't then have to lose an 850 and 860 tpe players as well.
- Winter is Coming - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 06:07 PMAnd you are not the only team I assume that would lose someone active with a decent amount of TPE. The numbers I used before were just random. :lol:
Umm the lowest TPE player on my team besides a goalie is 792.
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 9 2015, 12:06 AM
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.
Holy shit you are really obsessed with that youth soccer argument aren't you :lol:? Not wanting to condemn expansion rosters to years of being absolutely horrible does not equate socialism and participation ribbons for everyone...
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Winter is Coming@Jul 8 2015, 03:09 PM
And you are not the only team I assume that would lose someone active with a decent amount of TPE. The numbers I used before were just random. :lol:
Again i am good with losing a 792 and 800 tpe guy. I am not interested in losing two more 800tpe players.
- Winter is Coming - 07-08-2015
Maybe teams lose players based off a capped total of TPE? Say a team cannot lose more than 1500 total TPE or some number the head office would decide. Would help the teams who have more players with higher TPE that they might lose.
- Winter is Coming - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 06:10 PMRefer to my idea above.
Again i am good with losing a 792 and 800 tpe guy. I am not interested in losing two more 800tpe players.
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 03:10 PM
Holy shit you are really obsessed with that youth soccer argument aren't you :lol:? Not wanting to condemn expansion rosters to years of being absolutely horrible does not equate socialism and participation ribbons for everyone...
It absolutely does. I had to take over a team that will be worse than an expansion team. I turned it around two seasons. Why didnt I get to pluck a player or two from each team to make it fair? Or get a compensatory pick? Because its dumb and being a GM should be a challenge.
- BasedMinkus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Winter is Coming@Jul 8 2015, 03:10 PM
Maybe teams lose players based off a capped total of TPE? Say a team cannot lose more than 1500 total TPE or some number the head office would decide. Would help the teams who have more players with higher TPE that they might lose.
I am okay with this.
- Eggy216 - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 06:10 PM
Again i am good with losing a 792 and 800 tpe guy. I am not interested in losing two more 800tpe players.
I figure you'd probably have X players left available to be drafted. Once one is taken you can protect one additional player. Once two are taken you can't lose any more players to the expansion draft.
I think that's how the NHL plans to do it, right? Or am I crazy?
Also I'm too lazy to do the math, so I may be off on those exact numbers and how they'd translate to the SHL.
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 9 2015, 12:06 AM
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.
I guess I should be more selfish in this whole discussion, the 15 protections numbers is actually perfect for Seattle if grimmsters calculation is right, I never would have expected us to be forced to expose so little for the expansion draft :lol:.
- Winter is Coming - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 06:12 PMYay! Someone likes my idea! :D
I am okay with this.
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 9 2015, 12:11 AM
It absolutely does. I had to take over a team that will be worse than an expansion team. I turned it around two seasons. Why didnt I get to pluck a player or two from each team to make it fair? Or get a compensatory pick? Because its dumb and being a GM should be a challenge.
No, because you weren't an expansion team.