|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Nov 23, 2013 13:45:38 GMT -5
I don't follow? If you are implying I'd be gaining something from that please explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by John-Michigan on Nov 23, 2013 15:10:51 GMT -5
Draft process needs overhaul but don't have a suggestion as of now
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Nov 24, 2013 8:49:08 GMT -5
ahh, I see another valuable 4th round pick has just been part of a trade. I shall have to break it down and see what the total value is. At first glance, someone with 2nd round picks probably would have trumped this deal....have to wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex-Edmonton on Nov 24, 2013 10:00:45 GMT -5
What makes me laugh about this whole post is.....Just so you know I got it Phil It is comical that you are STILL going on about the 4th and 5th round picks I traded for. Again they were to lose a player. No extra players of value were added or removed. All I did was lose a contract. Now be a good boy and find another bone to chew on!
Wow!!!
BTW since the deal I am 0-0-2
pretty good considering what my team was doing!!
Now go suck a lemon
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Nov 24, 2013 10:48:58 GMT -5
I believe Phil was referring to the New York-Detroit trade, which by the way, he knows nothing about, except for the fact that another goalie changes hands without Cornwall being involved. Over 30 pm's were exchanged before this deal was final so someone throwing a 2nd in the mix wouldn't have made a difference if John had decided to advertise my offers publicly and make trade talks a circus act. When this happens, and I'm not saying you're wrong, it turns me off to the process and I will most likely walk away from discussions. You have a right to try and get all you can in trade talks but I think this approach does more harm than good. The deal with Detroit was a hard working deal and was a good back and forth between both managers to come to the pieces that each of us wanted involved. I'd break the entire thing down to show how good deals are arrived at but it's none of your business because it was good business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Nov 24, 2013 11:44:30 GMT -5
Shoulda, woulda, coulda, but ya didn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Nov 25, 2013 9:57:11 GMT -5
Another 4th rounder moved. WTF is going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Nov 25, 2013 10:13:21 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of having an age restriction for MIN contracts. If a player isn't drafted in the NHL they can still be signed. I would be more interested in seeing the contracts for draft picks lowered, especially later rounds. But Glenn has already said that will just lower the salary cap as those prices are taken into account when determining it. Changing the rules so that younger players would only be able to be drafted would make the draft picks more valuable. My thoughts are we want to make the simulation as close to the NHL as possible. Right now, for one reason or another, some teams see zero value if draft picks and therefore trade all of theirs away. As the draft is an integral part of the NHL, anything that could be done to increase the values of these picks (so that everyone would keep and use them) should be considered. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Nov 25, 2013 10:30:26 GMT -5
Absolutely, I hold draft picks as highly valuable but some here definitely do not. I am all for whatever can be done to increase the value in our sim. I think that considering things like decreasing the contract amounts of the picks and using age as a determining factor for free agency could help us get closer. The 75% resigning value and the 'prospects' are both great but I really think Phil was onto to something when he, I and Glenn were speaking on google plus this summer. Right now if a guy comes off his elc with a 17-14 card, we are almost forced into paying him more than he is worth to keep him long term. As Phil pointed out, there must be a way we can work this out a little more realistically. Using age for determining what type of free agent these guys are may allow us to sign bridge deals as we see done in the NHL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Nov 25, 2013 10:46:19 GMT -5
Agreed  |
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Nov 25, 2013 11:24:06 GMT -5
yea its tough, Sucks I have to pay Strome 1 mil next year for what currently projects to be an AHL card. But still think its worth it to hold these guys and would take a player like strome and hold him til hes good any day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Nov 25, 2013 11:39:58 GMT -5
yea its tough, Sucks I have to pay Strome 1 mil next year for what currently projects to be an AHL card. But still think its worth it to hold these guys and would take a player like strome and hold him til hes good any day. Yes but what happens if Strome's elc expires and he still has the same 'minor league card'? This is where the problem is in my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Nov 25, 2013 11:45:23 GMT -5
I agree that would be bad, but the only other option seems to let them be prospects til theyve played a minimum # of NHL games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Nov 25, 2013 11:54:43 GMT -5
Or keep them rfa's until they reach age 27 as the NHL does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Nov 25, 2013 12:20:10 GMT -5
so you could have a star player at 1 mil til theyre 27 seems wrong, maybe if their second contract after bidding etc only takes them to 26 then Id agree but having a guy like Hall for an extra 4 years at 1 mil seems like too much of an advantage.
|
|
