|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Sept 3, 2018 9:38:02 GMT -5
But will you be willing to overpay them when your window is open?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Sept 3, 2018 10:35:24 GMT -5
Maybe. I overpaid for Backlund and Leddy, 50% of whom are no longer on my roster, oh wait, that was my point in the first place wasn't it, the unsustainably of over bidding, I'll be damned, look at that
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Sept 3, 2018 10:43:16 GMT -5
Wait, you guys mean overpaying for aging talent isn’t a way to win a championship? I have to be patient and take years to build a team through the draft, timely trades and the occasional UFA to plug a hole rather then find guys to build my roster around? I call for a do-over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Sept 3, 2018 10:58:48 GMT -5
Wait, you guys mean overpaying for aging talent isn’t a way to win a championship? I have to be patient and take years to build a team through the draft, timely trades and the occasional UFA to plug a hole rather then find guys to build my roster around? I call for a do-over. You can build however you want, Jon. That's your entitlement as an owner. Not all UFA's fall under the category of aging talent, especially 26 year old first-line centremen. Older guys can plug holes at a premium for a year or two while prospects evolve. Nothing wrong with that, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Sept 3, 2018 11:00:29 GMT -5
That's funny Jon, but if you look, you guys are not overpaying for aging talent, you're overpaying for every single player on the board. It's simply a fact I felt I would point out, it doesn't need to be defended or explained, I don't care how teams spend money. I have gone all in to win as well, it's just apparent to me that the over bidding is extreme this year. I guess a lot of you think you can be the one team that wins it all, yet you weren't willing to spend draft picks on the gamble so you'll over reach in free agency and that's fine, all I'm pointing out is that it's unsustainable but if you're ok with that fact, then no worries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Sept 3, 2018 11:21:08 GMT -5
That's funny Jon, but if you look, you guys are not overpaying for aging talent, you're overpaying for every single player on the board. It's simply a fact I felt I would point out, it doesn't need to be defended or explained, I don't care how teams spend money. I have gone all in to win as well, it's just apparent to me that the over bidding is extreme this year. I guess a lot of you think you can be the one team that wins it all, yet you weren't willing to spend draft picks on the gamble so you'll over reach in free agency and that's fine, all I'm pointing out is that it's unsustainable but if you're ok with that fact, then no worries. Devil's advocate here, but if that's what the market will bear year in and year out, how is it unsustainable? I'm banking on Leddy coming around in the last couple years I have him, and if I'm wrong and I can flip him for something that serves my future needs while taking on a short-term albatross contract, that's fine. Just about every team carrying one or two contracts they can live without is just normal operating procedure. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Sept 3, 2018 11:26:46 GMT -5
just closely examine how Boston runs his team. Copy that model. It works very well apparently.
Cleveland too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Sept 3, 2018 11:42:06 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, yes, flipping players out because you can't afford to keep them on your roster long term is sustainable. Keeping over priced contracts long term is the part that's not sustainable. There will always be players who are bid up by market value. Look at how many teams bid on Seguin, the definition of market value. If a team feels they can build around that contract as a center piece, he's definitely a great piece. I believe I heard recently that only 3 players have scored 70+ points in each of the last 5 consecutive seasons. Crosby, Backstrom and Seguin! Nope, not Ovechkin. So, should he be at high demand? Absolutely! But you guys keep proving my point by defending your place. If you are overspending to win a cup, that's not sustainable. If you're overspending as a centerpiece to building a championship team, that might be sustainable but you can't pay those inflated prices on two or three players because you'll never be able to fill in around your centerpiece.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Sept 3, 2018 12:58:20 GMT -5
Spooner has a high card because he's very productive in a limited amount of time on ice. He's a bottom six player in the NHL but gets enough ice time to be used as a middle six guy in the G this year. If that is worth 6 million to you, so be it. He's overpaid in the NHL as well but at $4m is a little more realistic. My point was that those prices aren't sustainable on your cap pages and that you'll all be looking to jettison these players, whether it be that you sign them short term (unrealistic that many of these guys would take a short term deal, the older players obviously would), or trade them or waive them next year. The point is that the signings are unrealistic and it makes the sim unrealistic. I am leaning more and more toward arguing for NMC in the G. That will certainly stop some of the overspending issues. If you can't waive or trade a player, you'll think a lot harder about how much he's worth. I fail to see how the UFA moves I have made are unsustainable. After I offer my UFAs their long term deals, I will still have only one player whose contract will be in excess of $6 million in Palmieri, as opposed to the trio of Backlund, Josi, and Hellebuyck I see on your roster. I'll have only one other player in Spooner who will be over 5 million. Spooner is a risk but I happen to think he could be a classic change-of-scenery candidate, and his numbers after moving to the Rangers could be a sign of bigger things to come. After those two, everyone else on my roster will be under the 4 million mark. I have no more targets this offseason, other than the minor league fill-ins that occur every year. Furthermore, I already expect to have over 16 million cleared next year, with another 13 or so likely coming off after 2019-20. With a slew of prospects/ELCs (of which some are expected to get real NHL reps for the first time this season), I'll have younger & cheaper players coming up through the pipeline. I also bought low on some vets that have an opportunity to bounce back so I already have some potential bargains to balance the scales. |
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Sept 3, 2018 13:54:53 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, yes, flipping players out because you can't afford to keep them on your roster long term is sustainable. Keeping overpriced contracts long term is the part that's not sustainable. There will always be players who are bid up by market value. Look at how many teams bid on Seguin, the definition of market value. If a team feels they can build around that contract as a centerpiece, he's definitely a great piece. I believe I heard recently that only 3 players have scored 70+ points in each of the last 5 consecutive seasons. Crosby, Backstrom and Seguin! Nope, not Ovechkin. So, should he be at high demand? Absolutely! But you guys keep proving my point by defending your place. If you are overspending to win a cup, that's not sustainable. If you're overspending as a centerpiece to building a championship team, that might be sustainable but you can't pay those inflated prices on two or three players because you'll never be able to fill in around your centerpiece. Scotty, I believe Seguin at 11 and change for the next 6 years is sustainable, and still gives me the flexibility to build a competitive team, especially when I have players like Kuznetsov locked up for an identical term for less than half that amount. Two core players at under 17 M is a great head start for my club as we rebuild, with room to add next season when the likes of Jumbo and others come off my books. All about striking the balance... |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Sept 3, 2018 14:34:57 GMT -5
Spooner has a high card because he's very productive in a limited amount of time on ice. He's a bottom six player in the NHL but gets enough ice time to be used as a middle six guy in the G this year. If that is worth 6 million to you, so be it. He's overpaid in the NHL as well but at $4m is a little more realistic. My point was that those prices aren't sustainable on your cap pages and that you'll all be looking to jettison these players, whether it be that you sign them short term (unrealistic that many of these guys would take a short term deal, the older players obviously would), or trade them or waive them next year. The point is that the signings are unrealistic and it makes the sim unrealistic. I am leaning more and more toward arguing for NMC in the G. That will certainly stop some of the overspending issues. If you can't waive or trade a player, you'll think a lot harder about how much he's worth. I fail to see how the UFA moves I have made are unsustainable. After I offer my UFAs their long term deals, I will still have only one player whose contract will be in excess of $6 million in Palmieri, as opposed to the trio of Backlund, Josi, and Hellebuyck I see on your roster. I'll have only one other player in Spooner who will be over 5 million. Spooner is a risk but I happen to think he could be a classic change-of-scenery candidate, and his numbers after moving to the Rangers could be a sign of bigger things to come. After those two, everyone else on my roster will be under the 4 million mark. I have no more targets this offseason, other than the minor league fill-ins that occur every year. Furthermore, I already expect to have over 16 million cleared next year, with another 13 or so likely coming off after 2019-20. With a slew of prospects/ELCs (of which some are expected to get real NHL reps for the first time this season), I'll have younger & cheaper players coming up through the pipeline. I also bought low on some vets that have an opportunity to bounce back so I already have some potential bargains to balance the scales. That's exactly how you're supposed to build, I never said you specifically were building an unsustainable roster and maybe others aren't either, maybe it just appears that way with all the high bids. Spooner might have a chance to play up the line up this year as well. By the way, Hellebuyck makes under 6 as well so only two players currently getting over 6 in NY. I think 2 or 3 making that money is sustainable so if you're keeping it at that, you're probably ok. My estimation is most teams are able to spend maybe 70 million TOPS on the pro roster. I guess my point is that these contracts equate to a lot more given the lower cap here so the fact that we pay guys over what they make in the NHL is tough to swallow and I think it's going to be tough to sustain. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Sept 3, 2018 19:01:47 GMT -5
Round 6 posted, round 7 open.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Sept 4, 2018 8:19:39 GMT -5
Hey not sure if this has been brought up but discrepancy between UFA bidding and Cap Space. Shows that I have .42 mil in cap space but in the UFA bidding shows as having 1,575,750.00. Not sure what the difference is but just want to let people know in case they are basing everything off of UFA field, Hartford already in negative cap space with 6 players to sign, Might be his phantom contracts allow him more space though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Sept 4, 2018 9:04:26 GMT -5
Hey not sure if this has been brought up but discrepancy between UFA bidding and Cap Space. Shows that I have .42 mil in cap space but in the UFA bidding shows as having 1,575,750.00. Not sure what the difference is but just want to let people know in case they are basing everything off of UFA field, Hartford already in negative cap space with 6 players to sign, Might be his phantom contracts allow him more space though. In my case it's been my detailed spreadsheet files keeping me in line (plus the 2.46 million in savings I'll be recouping after contracts are signed). I have noticed that discrepancy as well though, my cap space on the UFA bidding page shows as still over 4 million, I don't imagine that is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Sept 4, 2018 9:36:48 GMT -5
I will have to review this when I get home. Not sure where the difference would.be coming from.
|
|
