|
Post by FlyersGM on Mar 2, 2017 19:39:11 GMT -5
So then we're debating wording. sub out asset for tool, same difference. It's an 'asset' 'tool' 'item' whatever that benefits your team. The debate is if it should be tradeable. I'm fine if it is or isn't for the record. But if it isn't and because we're mirroring the NHL is the only reason then that standard should go for picks for cash type deals as well shouldn't it? I personally think it's great we try to mirror the NHL but we should also accept the fact we can't do so within the sim as it is now. We can't trade cap space for example as was pointed out earlier in the thread, something NHL teams can effectively do when they retain salary in a trade. Maybe we should note what we can't mirror and discuss options to find an alternative. Well, my initial reasons for making cash for pick deals not allowed was not because of NHL. I posted the reason why before. However, we are also limited on things we can do because of the simulator. STHS does not have an option that would allow the sim to retain salary for players and adjust the cap accordingly, etc. and I don't think anyone should have the responsibility of keeping track of this either. So for some things our hands are tied for reasons out of our control.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 2, 2017 19:54:04 GMT -5
There is no debate on this. NHL re-rates, and PDPs, are NOT tradeable.
We've mentioned this already, but that would be like NHL teams trading training camps, development camps, or practice time. We don't have to worry about mirroring the NHL in this regard because it is a complete non-issue. When I use the word "asset" as it relates to our league, I am talking about tangible pieces (players, draft picks, cash) that can be traded. Player development tools (NHL re-rates and PDPs) are not, as it relates to our league, assets. They never have been, and they never will be.
I will again say that it makes no sense to me to allow a team, or teams, to have more or less access to those player development tools.
I don't mind debating whether or not to allow cash in trades (for picks or in general). There have been good points made.
When it comes to trading NHL re-rates, that makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Mar 2, 2017 23:45:15 GMT -5
Geez GORBS!!!! It really has been a long time since you had a Tim Horton's Ice Cap.
|
|
|
Post by The_ZeroCool on Mar 3, 2017 7:38:52 GMT -5
There is no debate on this. NHL re-rates, and PDPs, are NOT tradeable. We've mentioned this already, but that would be like NHL teams trading training camps, development camps, or practice time. We don't have to worry about mirroring the NHL in this regard because it is a complete non-issue. When I use the word "asset" as it relates to our league, I am talking about tangible pieces (players, draft picks, cash) that can be traded. Player development tools (NHL re-rates and PDPs) are not, as it relates to our league, assets. They never have been, and they never will be. I will again say that it makes no sense to me to allow a team, or teams, to have more or less access to those player development tools. I don't mind debating whether or not to allow cash in trades (for picks or in general). There have been good points made. When it comes to trading NHL re-rates, that makes no sense at all. Well said sir. In our league these are items used to help develop our players that is it. Like the Commish said, we use them like development camps, training camps, practice time for the players. Since the NHL has many means to do what they please with their players to make them better, we do not have the luxury. So as the Fathers of this league have allowed us to "aid" our players during certain periods of the season. I think it is perfect the way it is. the PDPs and re-rates make it seem like the players went in the development camp (PDPs) and came out a lot better which is what usually happens. Also, one of your players has a great season (NHL re-rate) and becomes better because of that great season. I do not mind cash to be in trades. I made a bunch of trades for some cash (most were with players and prospects). I used that money to sign players in the UFA market because of a depleted roster (players leaving for europe), signing bonuses for players, and the rest general funds.
|
|
|
Post by NY Islanders GM on Mar 3, 2017 13:37:36 GMT -5
I'm late to this and just catching up now but this was a very interesting discussion. I know Sean as a newer GM a year ago mentioned to me the possibility of trading re-rates and on the surface one can go "oh great idea!" But then as you start to dig further you realize that it's not a great one after all. To me, when it comes to them, they are use it or lose it assets as it is. They shouldn't be traded as an 'asset.' In the NHL, some teams are better than others when it comes to training camps or development of players. So really these are tools for the GMs to use to develop their players/teams...or to not use if they aren't paying attention to the point where they loose them. The idea of the re-rates is to use 2 of them each year, and if you really don't have 2 of them then trade for one! Or expand your vision with them. I have always viewed these differently than others. A re-rate doesn't need to be some OMG WOW HOMERUN player every time. I used my 2 this past year on Jordan Martinook and Oscar Lindberg. I wasn't going to give up insane assets to trade for a 'better' one, and I needed to fill out checking line roles with players. I knew these two would be perfect and they have not disappointed in their roles, and I didn't have to spend 3 million per in free agency on some aging vet to fill the roll. Instead I was able to take the money saved and sign a more valuable player in Koivu for a scoring line role. But I know there will be years where I'll have decisions that will have greater impacts than guys like this, like this upcoming summer but this is where we can really let some creativity fly. In regards to the cash for pick trading, I don't have a problem with this. The NHL has opened their horizons more to moving money around in deals. And listen, when you really break down some of these trades, smart GMs are using those rules to essentially trade picks for money (Steve Yzerman just essentially traded away $5M next year for a 7th rounder and a lesser valued 4th). And while it's a completely different league, the NBA allows pick for cash trading because it's a way for the well managed teams (San Antonio, Golden State) to get cash to pay for over the (soft) cap yet winning rosters from poorly managed ones who can't seem to ever set themselves in a direction (New York, Brooklyn). So if a GM wants to get a few thousand in cash to re-sign a guy, go after a guy in UFA, or tuck it away for a rainy day and doesn't want a physical prospect? Well that should be their prerogative. I personally don't value the cash that much, it's not a practice I engage in, but I have 0 problems with others doing so. In a related discussion, the finances can be tough but this is what they are meant to be, in my opinion at least. In real life pro sports, you'll be hard pressed to find any owner who states they are here to make money. It is very difficult to do that in this field, and if anyone is trying to make money in the sim then that's fine. Some teams have, and good for you. Me? I always deplete and replenish to the same levels, my finances. It's just how I've chosen to operate. I pay closer to $60M to get the team I want and understand it will cost me about $15M per, but a $15M I make back through attendance and playoff bonuses. Yes, it requires more tinkering with NsHL-AsHL rosters, ticket prices, etc, maybe moreso than would be experienced in real life (no team changes ticket prices for every game in a season, typically), but it's a price I'm willing to pay to keep my yearly budget in tact. In the NHL there are individual teams who have trouble staying afloat. Big markets in major cities will always make money no matter how good the record; smaller ones will have a harder time and this is why many teams have short ownership lifespans. It's a short term investment for them. That's my very long winded .02
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 3, 2017 14:03:28 GMT -5
Geez GORBS!!!! It really has been a long time since you had a Tim Horton's Ice Cap. Ain't that the truth! I could go for a Cap right about now.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Mar 3, 2017 18:05:24 GMT -5
I don't drink coffee ever, but to stay awake on a night shift I will have a small ice cap.
|
|
SJSharks
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 472
|
Post by SJSharks on Mar 4, 2017 10:05:28 GMT -5
Go for the gusto, Ron. Have a large iced cap. Then you'd be up for 2 days. haha.
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryGM on Mar 4, 2017 16:03:12 GMT -5
I've read most of the posts and waited till now to give my 2 cents worth.
There have been many seasons in which I had more than 2 re-rateable players and would have loved to have a 3rd or 4th, other seasons in which I only had one re-rateable player and wasted not using one, or used it on a farm player. But that's part of the beauty of this league. Everyone has the same opportunities, disadvantages and so on.
I am against the trading of any rerates, pdp's or a bucket of pucks. The only advantage any of us should have, is managing, trading and drafting better than any other GM.
And eating 6 atomic wings without having to dip them in milk before eating them, right Cherni?
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim GM on Mar 6, 2017 14:18:32 GMT -5
If you read my idea on the third rerate it says this: In order to receive it you must first possess the first round selection that you have while finishing last and have been leap frogged by the lottery process. It does not reward you for finishing last, it rewards you for being "leap frogged" by our lottery process, which, in my opinion is an imperfect process. It would also help increase parity, IMO, which is never a bad thing for competition. There is no reward for finishing last. There is no "yeah, you finished dead last trophy" and we CERTAINLY aren't getting in the business of every one gets an award around here. It is the competition that makes it the most fun and, quite frankly, we are all adults and aware that each year there are 8 teams making the playoffs from our conferences and we want to be among them. In the unlikely event that a guy's team craps the bed, finished dead last in the league, while the GM still has their first round draft pick and then goes on to miss the first overall selection because of a draft lottery, then yes, I propose this ruling gets considered. I am not a draft historian, however, perhaps someone can look and see when the last time the team who had the first overall pick actually had their draft selection. It's been awhile..... And again, its only an idea....You aren't going to hurt my feelings if this idea is dead on arrival. Just an idea..... From a standpoint of cash for trades. It is well laid out why you should never do it. It is well laid out why this hurts your team in so many ways to do so. We are all adults and, in this league, you are allowed to make bad decisions. With that being said, I will go along with whatever the group says on this and support the leadership of the league with a decision. Personally, I won't do it..."EVER.....EVEN IF THERE IS A FIRE!!!" And one last thing...Sometimes what we do in the NsHL is just plain better than the NHL. The NHL doesn't do everything right....and quite frankly, neither do we, we just try to put out the most realistic simulation environment that we can, pull 30+ great people together and have a heck of a good time doing it. Mission accomplished....not to be too George W. Bush here.....
|
|
|
Post by NJDevilsGM on Mar 6, 2017 17:00:38 GMT -5
The last team to have their own pick and miss the first overall due to the lottery pick was I think myself in 2015. You leapfrogged me Mark (with I believe EDM's pick) then flipped the pick to Calgary on draft day.
As the loser in that situation I still would say I wouldn't have wanted an extra rerate. To me the 'reward' if you will of finishing last should be a high pick. The system is already geared towards rewarding losing in that manner, giving the worst team the best pick (or a very high pick if they lose the lottery draft). If you elected to deal your own first that's on you as a GM, the system shouldn't have additional help. Frankly speaking, if you were the worst team in the league and dealt your own first, I doubt heavily if one more rerate would do you any good anyway. It'd be like putting a cork in the Titanic and expecting it to float.
While I am in favor of trading rerates I wouldn't be in favor of giving out additional ones just because a team is bad. And that's coming for the team that over the past three years could have benefited the most from them.
|
|