|
Post by NJDevilsGM on Feb 24, 2017 2:08:16 GMT -5
If bringing players out late is an issue, could we look at setting a standard by when player must be created? Like by age 23, or by X number of games in the NHL, or by the time they've completed their third pro season in real life?
I think if a player has say 40 NHL games, he likely should be created at the next opportunity to do so.
|
|
WildGM
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 210
|
Post by WildGM on Feb 24, 2017 4:10:06 GMT -5
.... NHL teams actually make money though.... our financial structure clearly does not allow for that...with the average team losing what...12 million...
When NJ had that 3 win season or whatever. They would have had to relocate. Some of the teams in the Western Conference should have 100 million in the bank and be worth billions the way they have performed.
Thus the extremely poorly structured system renders trading assets for money necessary. Which would also be a reality in the NHL...if the league did not fully cover teams that have constantly lost money every year. IE Phoenix, Carolina, Florida...
A realistic financial structure means there is no need to trade draft picks or any other assets for that matter. The more logical move is to get rid of the bank accounts altogether. Or operate in a separate fashion from the sim, which is clearly junk.
Certainly no need for additional rerates. However a guideline of what a player will look like based on nhl production is more than necessary.
How can one 5'10 player who weighs 180 pounds have 58 ck and another of the same size and stature who hasnt thrown more hits have 74 ck. Doesn't make any sense does it...or for a dman who had 50 assists to have lower pa than a forward who had 27...
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Feb 24, 2017 9:02:11 GMT -5
.... NHL teams actually make money though.... our financial structure clearly does not allow for that...with the average team losing what...12 million... When NJ had that 3 win season or whatever. They would have had to relocate. Some of the teams in the Western Conference should have 100 million in the bank and be worth billions the way they have performed. Thus the extremely poorly structured system renders trading assets for money necessary. Which would also be a reality in the NHL...if the league did not fully cover teams that have constantly lost money every year. IE Phoenix, Carolina, Florida... A realistic financial structure means there is no need to trade draft picks or any other assets for that matter. The more logical move is to get rid of the bank accounts altogether. Or operate in a separate fashion from the sim, which is clearly junk. Certainly no need for additional rerates. However a guideline of what a player will look like based on nhl production is more than necessary. How can one 5'10 player who weighs 180 pounds have 58 ck and another of the same size and stature who hasnt thrown more hits have 74 ck. Doesn't make any sense does it...or for a dman who had 50 assists to have lower pa than a forward who had 27... The NHL rerate question is certainly legitimate, but to make those claims I think you need to give specific examples. Don't like adding a "bonus" rerate, or additional PDP's or any type of "incentive" for losing. The point of the game is to win, and we have seen teams intentionally lose far too often to implent something like this. If we are going to add rules along the lines of this thinking, how about we start adding bonuses and perks for the teams that consistently compete?
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim GM on Feb 24, 2017 10:22:53 GMT -5
I think we have a few pieces of potential legislation for the boards to discuss. 1) Will we and when will we be instituting the rule that you are unable to trade cash for picks in the NsHL? I think there is enough legitimate support for the implementation of this particular piece of legislation to merit a league wide study. 2) Now, the idea I made about a third rerate award due to being leap frogged in the draft was pretty specific, however, I will redefine and clarify the point here. In order to receive the third rerate award you must: 1) Possess your first round draft pick 2)Finish last in the league 3)Lose in the draft lottery. However, this could be expanded to simply include teams that finish last in their conferences, it does not have to have any affiliation with the draft lottery. I like the ties to the draft selections as it enhances your reasons to keep high picks, but that's a conditioning issue that good GMs already have. Perhaps its a moot point. And I completely agree with Jack when he says there should be no reward for losing. Which is why my original proposal includes only a last place team, who has their 1st round draft pick, and gets leap frogged by the draft lottery process. And if this is not something that the league wants, you certainly won't hurt my feelings, it was just an idea. I'll never need it.
|
|
|
Post by The_ZeroCool on Feb 24, 2017 12:19:28 GMT -5
I agree with not allowing losing teams to get boosts. Any GM can make trades in this league and turn their fortunes around with the right trade or a clever deal, and pick well in the draft. But back to the main topic. I like Marks idea for the last place team, But making it simple and too the point is perfect... gotta own it, gotta be last, and gotta lose the lottery.
Also if I remember correctly, when I first came to this league, St. Louis won the cup and went on a re-build before winning the season? correct me if i am wrong on that fact...and When Roger won it with Buffalo he had a low salary (50 million +/-), so winning and making money at the same time is possible. For a team in the NsHL to make money you need to be clever in who you trade for and get lucky with the sim. Don't always need to have a 60 million team salary with your team to win!
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim GM on Feb 24, 2017 13:18:03 GMT -5
Additionally, the financial system in the NsHL is a very complex one, however, has been very reliable for GMs who know how to balance their finances.
It is a whole lot easier to lose $12 million a season in the NsHL than it is to make $12 million a season, however, I operated a team with a relatively small stadium (17,147), medium market, and close to $60 million in payroll over 10 seasons and only lost a total of $3 million. And that was missing the playoffs one year and only making it into the second round of the playoffs one time during that decade. When you add ticket revenue, the endorsements, parking, and everything else that the league grants teams from a standpoint of yearly "entitlements" (for lack of a better term), losing $12 million in one season is done because the GM has done an EXTREMELY poor job with his team. He has done a poor job maximizing his ticket prices. He has done a poor job maximizing the percentage of filled seats (which incidentally leads to bigger endorsements). He has done a poor job of having personnel on his team with grossly over-market salaries. He has probably not drafted well. As a result he has no youth to inject into his team and has to rely on the open market to fill gaping holes in the lineup at an absolute premium of price. And, to boot, he is probably losing more than he is winning and misses the playoffs and instead of being proactive, sits on the sinking ship while it heads to the bottom.
The challenge of this simulator is both putting a product on the ice that is competitive, but doing so every single year while at the same time while the GM and the organization is being financially solvent. To simulate the NHL financial experience precisely is impossible with our simulator restrictions, however, with the amount of teams who are financially "well off" and those who have challenges seem to be within reasonable comparison to the challenges of the NHL.
To conclude, if a team is forced to sell draft picks to remain financially solvent here in the NsHL, and they have been a GM for longer than 1 year, they are doing MULTIPLE things incorrectly that have lead to this "selling of one's body for money moment." No offense to those who have done this is the past, however, if you have to be selling your future to pay the fiddler now, you are extremely poor at fiscal management and do not fully grasp the financial challenges that the NsHL presents to its GMs. Recognizing that is the first imperative step. Additionally, that GM needs to realize that they should have taken steps to fix the problem yesterday and to get on it. Our fiscal system works extremely well and is designed to ebb and flow. If GMs are not interested in taking on the fiscal challenges and being smart from a business standpoint, then they are, not only missing out on half of the fun of this league, but they are not grasping the complete essence that the NsHL was created upon. And that is to provide GMs with as realistic of a environment as possible within the constraints that the league has (website, simulator, etc.). To me, its a beautiful thing how they work together and work together so well, however, it does NOT happen by accident. There is a LOT of thought put into it by a LOT of you.
If there is ANYONE....and I MEAN ANYONE...who needs advice on how to maximize your revenues and turn your team around financially, please feel free to email me anytime. It will be totally, absolutely, and 100% confidential, I promise you. I would be glad to help.
Every single GM here is responsible for their own organization and the financial challenges and on-ice success of the NsHL. There are no excuses. If you have been a GM for longer than 6 months, your team can be making money, competing, and be successful. There is NOTHING broken about our financial system other than the fact that it is impossible to completely emulate the NHL's model. We are doing something extremely great here and doing the next best thing, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Feb 24, 2017 23:45:47 GMT -5
Mark, I really like your idea of giving an extra re-rate if the team that holds first overall loses the lottery. Normally, I'm not a fan of consolation prizes, but this makes sense, considering how many times we have actually seen the last place team lose the lottery. If I had a vote, I would nominate this order and vote in favour of it.
|
|
WildGM
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 210
|
Post by WildGM on Feb 25, 2017 0:26:34 GMT -5
I have no problem admitting that I came into the league with about 15 million in the bank and that is routinely where I sit at the start of every offseason.
However, every year that 15 million covers less and less. And I have never been more cash conscious or cash "aware" lets say about spending.I also have changed my ticket prices probably close to 40x over the past few seasons trying to maximize attendance..in what is not exactly a realistic science...
I really dont see how rewarding last place makes any sense. If you lose the lottery, I mean...its a lottery. Every move you make as a gm should be with the intention of in some way making your team better. It really does not seem like some teams have had this is mind the past few seasons.
Now I understand the appeal of drafting a top 5 (top 3) player. But to not have any intent to win, be pretty obvious about that, and then to be rewarded with a consolation prize on top of that. I just dont see it.
The current free agent landscape already favors the same teams...the financial landscape does the exact same thing.
The emphasis should not be how do we help teams recover from themselves.
After all...we do have two teams to develop players. 30 gms with over 100 players to maneuever and work with. But yet the worst team needs another rerate..really...really?
There are already several routes a floundering team can take to produce more wins. To create even more of an accepted losing culture blows my mind.
We are seeing teams at game 40 say..."well I am 4 games back...better pull the old eject button and focus on the draft."
Are you kidding? ... really?
Its pretty easy to sit back and do nothing with your team and hop on the message board wanting additional free passes.
Id like to see more incentives for the teams that grind it out all year and make the playoffs.
Is there going to be an engraved sippy cup too for the team that loses out on the draft lottery...here's your participation ribbon equivalent...you didnt routinely do your lines, have active trade discussions to set yourself up for the future, but youve got a full diaper...so we are gonna help you out. Ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Feb 25, 2017 11:56:07 GMT -5
Terry hit the nail on the head with this one.
I am not lumping every bad team together when I say this, because it is not always the case, but the teams that are at the bottom of the standings stink because of decision(s) that particular GM made. Sometimes you can count 1, 2, 5...10 bonehead moves made. I just don't like this idea "Well, you were finally smart enough to keep your first round pick, you finished last, sorry you didn't win the lottery...so here is another NHL rerate".
It just does not make sense to reward incompetency. If there is an issue with how that team is being run on a yearly basis, maybe there needs to be a change made to the GM, not the NsHL Constitution.
I agree with Terry also, a lot of teams throw in the towel early on and just play for a lottery pick. To put it bluntly: Save the League from the bad GM's, not save the bad GM's from the League...
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Feb 25, 2017 13:54:54 GMT -5
Not a big fan of rewarding the last place team(s). However, if we do it I like Mark's twist that if the last pick got moved then the new team would not get the extra rerate.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Feb 25, 2017 15:46:06 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of a team receiving an extra re-rate, regardless of how they were to receive it. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to our player development tools (NHL re-rates and PDPs) all teams should be given the same amount. I don't think any single team, regardless of the reason, should have access to more re-rates than every other team.
When it comes to trading cash only for draft picks, I do agree that we should do away with this practice. The question Mark raised, when should this be put in place, is a good one. Generally I'm not a fan of bringing in new rules mid-season, but I would support it in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Feb 25, 2017 19:03:57 GMT -5
I would support implementing it asap. Don't think it would throw a wrench in any team's plans.
|
|
|
Post by The_ZeroCool on Feb 25, 2017 22:03:32 GMT -5
I also don't think rules should be added/changed ASAP. Does the NHL just change rules on the fly or do the agree to them mid season and then make changes in the off-season and actually research on them during the season when they agreed in the GM meetings?
|
|
|
Post by avalanchegm on Feb 25, 2017 22:24:48 GMT -5
I'd rather not give a compensatory rerate as has been discussed. If we set that precedent should we then give one to the Stanley Cup final loser, or the teams that finish 9th and just miss the playoffs too? Why not start rewarding teams for succeeding and giving the Cup winner an extra rerate? It's not broken, so let's leave it alone.
I've never had an issue with trading cash for picks. It's an asset, just like a draft pick. Seems I'm in the minority with that opinion and I'll obviously abide by whatever the league chooses but I'd prefer seeing it remain.
Regarding the finances, the system is far from broken. I've been right below the salary cap nearly every year I've been here, only had one "deep" playoff run and still manage to make money instead of simply staying afloat. When I got here I was around 10-15 million in the bank. I find it a challenge and one that I look forward to as part of my duties as GM. Managing your finances is every bit as important as managing your pdps. I would suggest GMS begin looking at free agency not as a "free player" but as trading cash for the player. As stated above, cash (and cap space) is an asset and that's what you're trading for the "free" player you feel like overpaying.
|
|
|
Post by NJDevilsGM on Feb 26, 2017 1:31:31 GMT -5
I also don't think rules should be added/changed ASAP. Does the NHL just change rules on the fly or do the agree to them mid season and then make changes in the off-season and actually research on them during the season when they agreed in the GM meetings? They also consult with all GM's/owners. I agree with letting the board have final say but involving all GM's in deliberations in some form would be appreciated.
|
|