+- 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 Mac@Jul 8 2015, 04:57 PM
Why not mix both of them?
Protect 6, expose 6, the rest require two selections to take.
No.
For example, I choose to protect the following six:
Merica
Razin
Stinson
Hawkins
Palat
Creller
This leaves the following players, among others:
James (1372)
Morgan (530)
Ochocinco (700)
Goody (1139)
Ludvigsen (792)
Krivo (722)
No thanks.
- Mac - 07-08-2015
Since you guy can't seem to come to agreeance and BoJo and Merica pointed out a huge flaw in my suggestion for a mix, the only other thing I can think of is each GM have a total amount of TPE among players to make selectable.
Say, 1500 TPE (An absolute superstar or an equivalent total in talent)
5 x 300 point players
4 x 375
3 x 500
2 x 750
1 x 1,500
Or some mix of them.
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 11:00 PM
But that just cripples good teams for no reason.
I have built a great team and I shouldnt have to give up those guys to appease expansion teams when the purpose of expansion teams is so the younger guys get a shot.
I should be allowed to give up a goalie if I am giving up those two players.
Not if we get the numbers right imho. If we allow teams to protect a certain amount of players (be it 1+4+8 or 1+5+9 or whatever) and also auto-protect rookies like I suggested then teams shouldn't lose anything overly valuable. And if they do then it would be a piece that would've been stuck on like their 4th line anyway and that's a loss each team can take.
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 11:01 PM
If 15 is too many then make it so rookies are up for grabs. THat way good playes either go or rookies go to an expansion team and they get a chance to play.
Protecting 15 is reasonable.
Lol so we aren't actually that far apart at all, I suggested protecting 13 + rookies, you suggest 15 that's pretty close. As I said the numbers could still be re-worked anyway.
- Blues - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Mac@Jul 8 2015, 06:14 PMI think this is a good idea, but the number has to be a bit higher than 1500. A step in the right direction, for sure though.
Since you guy can't seem to come to agreeance and BoJo pointed out a huge flaw in my suggestion for a mix, the only other thing I can think of is each GM have a total amount of TPE among players to make selectable.
Say, 1500 TPE (An absolute superstar or an equivalent total in talent)
5 x 300 point players
4 x 375
3 x 500
2 x 750
1 x 1,500
Or some mix of them.
- Nike - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Josh@Jul 8 2015, 05:01 PM
If 15 is too many then make it so rookies are up for grabs. THat way good playes either go or rookies go to an expansion team and they get a chance to play.
Protecting 15 is reasonable.
THIS.
Current rookies and/or overflow from the 15 protected players would be what teams could grab.
After 15 protected players, it's truly teams that have an excess of talent that would lose a bit. But even then, it's likely a 6th D or a 9th F inactive with high TPE. And those are the teams that should be losing a player or two to make room for rookies to win SHL roster spots.
- Mac - 07-08-2015
12 would be ideal, I think .
Protected.
8/9 top 6 forward
3/4 top 4 defenders
Starter
- Merica - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Mac@Jul 8 2015, 05:22 PM
12 would be ideal, I think .
Protected.
8/9 top 6 forward
3/4 top 4 defenders
Starter
It's not ideal for teams that stand to lose very good players.
- .bojo - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Merica@Jul 8 2015, 05:23 PM
It's not ideal for teams that stand to lose very good players.
I think 15 would be a better number if we were to go this route.
That's still a pretty damn good team. Plus it's not like FA's aren't going to be interested.
- Mac - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Merica@Jul 8 2015, 07:23 PM
It's not ideal for teams that stand to lose very good players.
It IS for an expansion team.
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
I kinda like fewer protections but auto-protecting players with 52 games or game less (that's what I protected 13 + rookies), but 15 should be fine as well, it's probably harsher for a lot of teams though than 13 + rookies would be.
- Merica - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by Mac@Jul 8 2015, 05:26 PM
It [b]IS for an expansion team.[/b]
Your point being what, exactly?
- RomanesEuntDomus - 07-08-2015
Please don't let this turn into another Mac vs. Merica thing... Please don't let this turn into another Mac vs. Merica thing... Please don't let this turn into another Mac vs. Merica thing...
- grimmsterj - 07-08-2015
I like 15. Just using Seattle as an example:
CoC (1580)
Kylrad (1232)
Koskinen (1234)
Winter (992)
Mckeil (854)
Nikitin (1001)
Leo (1034)
Flamel(875)
Brojled(938)
Bodnar(847)
Manning(812)
And younger guys
Ziepens (S23) (467)
Karlensons (S22) (673)
Bursyuk (S22) (748)
Urbowicz (S21) (583)
This leaves:
G - Osgoode (423)
Parker (590)
Miller (496)
Pomery (414)
I know Seattle is a little higher in TPE than other teams but this seems pretty fair to everyone.
- Merica - 07-08-2015
Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jul 8 2015, 05:29 PM
Please don't let this turn into another Mac vs. Merica thing... Please don't let this turn into another Mac vs. Merica thing... Please don't let this turn into another Mac vs. Merica thing...
It isn't. I'm civilly disagreeing.