Quote:Originally posted by r1c3bowl22@Jul 8 2015, 02:38 PM

Not this again....lol

Quote:Originally posted by Mac@Jul 8 2015, 02:44 PM
There is a discussion going in the PT forum about 400 TPE cap for juniors and raising the starting TPE to 250 to offset the disparity.

155 -> 355 (195 point gap)
250 -> 400 (150 point gap)

Lot's less disparity and active juniors will be comparable to senddowns at seasons end. We are going very in depth with the discussions on how to curb inflation and how to ensure the most competition in both leagues between all players and looking at all possible pros and cons of it.

It is massively on the pro side, as there are few cons that are legitimate.

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 11:32 AM
Okay so this is how I thought an expansion draft could work... I tried to make sure that no team has to lose more than a few assets and that the strong teams have to give up slightly more than the weak ones, but not too much.

- 12 round expansion draft, so on average every existing team would lose two assets
- Players with 52 SHL games or less are automatically protected (lower number for goalies, like 6-10 I'd say)
- Each team gets to protect a certain number of players, the exact numbers are subject to change but I was thinking 1 goalie, 4 defensemen and 8 forwards
- Each teams 2nd round picks in the two upcoming drafts are also available in the expansion draft. A team can chose to protect 2nd round picks as well, but they have to give up two player protections per pick.
- No team can lose more than two players and three assets in total (like two players and a pick)

I think this would make for a fair system. Weaker teams would probably be able to protect most or all of their actives whereas deep teams might have to leave a few good players unprotected, but they can't lose more than two of them. The second rounders serve as an element to balance things out and would face weaker teams with an interesting decision when they have to decide if they rather give up an early 2nd or leave a decent player or two unprotected.

Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 08:46 PM


Giving up draft picks are dumb.


one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards.

Then the teams have to build the rest through the draft and inactives to start.

Quote:Originally posted by Merica@Jul 8 2015, 04:45 PM


Wait you want to INCREASE the amount of TPE players start with?

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 12:03 PM


Teams would probably be able to protect too much with these numbers you suggested, that why I think the pick-thing would be a nice addition. The picks aren't really a big loss for the teams but could be a nice addition for the expansion squads and alsso face current rebuilders with some interesting decisions, or else they likely wouldn't have to give up anything and teams with lots of picks in the upcoming drafts would have a huge advantage over those that had lots of picks in the recent past, but integrated those players into their rosters already.

I really think the numbers would work well, the existing teams would lose 1-3 assets, the expansion teams would come out of the expansion draft with 12 assets + their GM + their picks in the upcoming draft to maybe not be a competitive team, but an active team right away.

Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 09:20 PM


If you keep a total of 15 players on your roster (including goalie), you still lose 1-3 assets.

Like hypothetically I could lose Sullivan, Reinhart and Winters. A team that gets those players is receiving two 700+ tpe guys and an effficient back up goalie.


You can look at this with all teams:

Hamilton:  Krumins, Mars III, Grimm or a prospect (3)
Minny: Sullivan, Reinhart, Winters/Jaskaitis (3)
Rage: Holtby, Bartenberry, White (3)
New England: McDonald, Vysock, Sparks Lightning (3)
Toronto: Swerin, Luther, Noah Jackson (3)
WKP: Pajari, Cezar Jr, Ask (3)
Cal: Verminski, Czonka, Kladno (3)
EDM: Ponsen, Paurs, Smirnov (3)
LAP: Shelter, Sexbang, Modano (3)
SEA: Miller, Osgoode, Parker (3)
TEX: Granger, Gauthier, Gibbon (3)
WPG: Bullis, Hackert, Clark (3)


it is entirely possible with the numbers I suggested.

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 05:20 PM
That's a totally different discussion though Mac, any chance you could have it in a seperate thread?

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 12:25 PM


I guess we have a different point of view regarding how good the pieces teams have to expose to the expansion draft should be. Because just going by the list you provided, there's barely anything useful in there, almost all these players are either inactive, about to retire or very longshot prospects...

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 04:25 PM


I guess we have a different point of view regarding how good the pieces teams have to expose to the expansion draft should be. Because just going by the list you provided, there's barely anything useful in there, almost all these players are either inactive, about to retire or very longshot prospects...