Ideas for Season 2 - 2010-2011

[DetGM]

Have you thought about Captain meeting con boost? You can set it so you only get like maybe 5 per meeting with a max.

[TorontoGM]

How about no boosts what so ever. My problem with all this, is that most are out here looking for advantages and ways to get an edge. You strive realism but what's wrong with no boosts at all?

[Virtual Jarmo]

How about no boosts what so ever. My problem with all this, is that most are out here looking for advantages and ways to get an edge. You strive realism but what's wrong with no boosts at all?

I see your point too, Mike. And it's a very good one.

We try to do everything as realistic as possible, but I don't want to mess with the integrity of the league by making all the EHM players as good as they are in real life. It's an imperfect system and a game that is outdated.

No doubt there's some room for improvement, and we'll seriously look at offering rewards for summer activity, but there's no way I'm making over the file by upgrading players to what they seem to be in real life.

Backup goaltenders? Sure, we can look at that. Especially since we'll be instituting a games played policy for goaltenders.

I don't like the captain's meeting CON boosts. I do like finding a way to update the LE and help it grow better. As real-life veterans start to retire in EHM, we'd be losing lots of high LE guys.

It's a work in progress. Keep the suggestions coming.

[DevilsGM]

Sounds good to me so far better imo not to have a bunch of boosts anyways, the LE reward sounds like a useful one though.

[Jets GM]

I know most people don't like boosts or any sort of touching of the gamefile in general, and I am the same way. I've been bothering Adam on AIM about this, I understand that as the gamefile progresses EHEC and NHL will become less and less similar when comparing players talent levels and who is playing in the NHL. Players will come out of nowhere that will suck in-game forever, and others will never play a game but play a top 6 role in the EHEC. The argument I'm trying to make is that this draft class is incredibly top end heavy. Some are saying "its super deep!" and while it is, a decent % of the draft picks are POT boosters (which I bet Adam did on purpose) because it adds that randomness effect where some late round picks become very good NHL'ers. However not everyone of those picks will get a boost, so you'll have some 2nd/3rd rounders not turn out at all just like irl it just probably wont be the same players.

But since this years top end players are going to become such dominant stars in the league, can there not be some reviews in special cases for young players in the gamefile to get a ceiling adjustment that doesn't make the player super human but is a more accurate portrayal of what they will develop to in the NHL and based off how they would have been rated if the league had started 1-3 seasons ago in comparison to the top picks in this years draft. Not just blindly hand out boosts, but if teams that wanted to take the time to nominate 1 player off there roster that qualifies for a ceiling adjustment and present why to whatever staff would be in charge. I don't think the integrity of the gamefile/league is being touched with a system like that, and at the same time it adds more realism (imo).

What the qualifications would be I dunno, something like max 2007 draft and have been a top 10-15 pick? Then you would explain what ceilings you think should be adjusted and why. Players that come to mind for me right away is Doughty with a 80 STH ceiling, Tyler Myers has a 52 SHT ceiling, Kyle Okposo has 80's across the board for OFF. I'm not trying hide the fact I have a player in mind already from my team (stamkos, 75 in CHK and POS) and I dont want to turn this thread into a "Stamkos shouldn't have a 85 ceiling in POS thread!!!!" its just how I feel. I just think in certain cases in makes sense for the ceilings to be adjusted.

[Femur]

i just don't get the argument; help me out. the computer Drew Doughty doesn't stick handle as well as the real Drew Doughty? i don't understand how that is unfair to anyone or has any effect on this draft class. in real life da Hawks beat the 'Nucks in the playoffs but not in the sim; sure i'd love it our game mirrored reality, as i would have the cup and not you, but the game rewarded you for being far better than i at playing the sim. and that is the way it should be.

my two cents...

[Penguin]

Seriously don't touch the file. It's fine. LE boosts and CON boosts only. Plus, a reward to keep prospects in the juniors to develop.

[DetGM]

Great points guys....I would have to rethink my suggestion now. I am in agreement to keep the file the way it is. Upgrading LE is a good thing and nothing more. I have notice that Adam has done a great job with the file to keep everything at bay when it comes to having to many superstars in online league which I have seen a few times.

[Virtual Jarmo]

I'm not trying hide the fact I have a player in mind already from my team (stamkos, 75 in CHK and POS) and I dont want to turn this thread into a "Stamkos shouldn't have a 85 ceiling in POS thread!!!!" its just how I feel. I just think in certain cases in makes sense for the ceilings to be adjusted.

Don't forget that you used a ceiling re-rate on Stamkos at the start of the file and only upgraded his OF ceilings. Even if I were to institute a ceiling upgrades, I wouldn't allow GMs to upgrade players who were already used at the startup of the file.


I understand the flaws of EHM. Game-gen ceilings are terrible. That's why I did the draft class myself. The draft is very deep, but you notice its deepest position is defensive defensemen. These guys aren't going to be real superstars. They'll be guys with 50 OF and 80 DF. Sure, if Connor Brickley hits a double POT boost, he'll be unbelievably awesome. When I had the POT boost players in mind, I didn't really know what the percentages are. I knew how it happened, but I didn't know the frequency with which it happened. I also didn't know that you get a chance at one each year of their initial contract. Still learning on the job.

Here's the thing. If we had started this league back in 2007 and I made the draft class, we'd be running into the exact same problem that's being talked about here. There'd be some guys who still weren't good enough and some guys who were too good. When Petter Granberg POT boosts, he'll probably be one of them, as an example. It was my first time making a draft class, and certainly, I kept everybody's complaints about EHM-gen ceilings in mind. If they're low, a player's attributes drop at an alarming rate. There's nothing wrong with everybody getting a good player in the first round. Unrealistic? Maybe.

My overall goal in creating the draft class was to force people to scout. Force people to think. Force people to do their homework. I don't know how many times someone has come to me on MSN and said, "I have 3 guys in mind and I can't decide." or guys searching for POT boost players. I tried to keep in mind little intricacies of the game. No system will be perfect. With a draft class, there's a good chance that nothing mirrors real life. Taylor Hall could be the next Alexander Daigle. Ryan Spooner could be the next Brad Boyes. You just never know.

Plus, I think another thing that this draft will do is make people value their draft picks more. It goes in cycles in the NHL. Sometimes, 2nd rounders are passed around with no hesitation. Other times, GMs hold them close like family heirlooms. Will next year's draft class probably be less "top-end heavy"? Probably. Will it be less deep? Probably not.

Is it wrong that Tyler Myers has shit OF ceilings? Yes. Is Drew Doughty a superstar defenseman who is underrated in the game? Yes. Would Martin Hanzal ever put up 85 points in a season? No. Is Duncan Keith at 68-75-75 a crime? You bet it is.

There's realism to a point and then there's too much realism. Messing with the file we've had for a year and not being able to make all things even is something we can't do. Sure, I upgrade Stamkos's ceilings to make him 90 OF and 80 DF. How many other teams have a player who I can instantly make that much better? If every team had an equal player that could be upgraded, maybe it would hold some merit. But, it's going to benefit some far more than others. And that's not right.

Would it be fair to touch a 5th-7th rounder for each team? Sure. Because they're still unknowns. I'm not saying I'm doing that, it's just part of the point. Is it fair to adjust LE based on a kid playing WJC? Or, assuming I get the AHL playoff problem figured out, give the AHL kids an LE boost? Absolutely. That's realistic. You learn to be a leader playing in those pressure situations.

To touch the file at this point would be unfair to some teams and more beneficial to some than others. That's not what we're about.

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

There's nothing wrong with everybody getting a good player in the first round. Unrealistic? Maybe.

My overall goal in creating the draft class was to force people to scout. Force people to think. Force people to do their homework. I don't know how many times someone has come to me on MSN and said, "I have 3 guys in mind and I can't decide." or guys searching for POT boost players. I tried to keep in mind little intricacies of the game. No system will be perfect. With a draft class, there's a good chance that nothing mirrors real life. Taylor Hall could be the next Alexander Daigle. Ryan Spooner could be the next Brad Boyes. You just never know.

Plus, I think another thing that this draft will do is make people value their draft picks more. It goes in cycles in the NHL. Sometimes, 2nd rounders are passed around with no hesitation. Other times, GMs hold them close like family heirlooms. Will next year's draft class probably be less "top-end heavy"? Probably. Will it be less deep? Probably not.

Amen, especially the bolded part. I like deep (or even "deep") drafts, larded with semi-decent prospects and potential boosters in later rounds. It mirrors as best as possible with EHM the decisions real-life GMs have to make about how to build teams -- drafts or trades? Or build now and try to grab a single good pick each year? Maybe not realistic in the strictest sense, but neither are most things that occur in online leagues (number of trades, Martin Hanzal, etc).

[Virtual Jarmo]

Amen, especially the bolded part. I like deep (or even "deep") drafts, larded with semi-decent prospects and potential boosters in later rounds. It mirrors as best as possible with EHM the decisions real-life GMs have to make about how to build teams -- drafts or trades? Or build now and try to grab a single good pick each year? Maybe not realistic in the strictest sense, but neither are most things that occur in online leagues (number of trades, Martin Hanzal, etc).

Exactly. And take most teams around the league. Their prospects got shafted with game-gen ceilings and have no trade value, let alone value as a NHL player.

Take John Carlson: 80, 89, 80, 80, 67, 80. With 78 POT.
Mikael Backlund: 85, 100, 85, 80, 75, 80. With 78 POT.
PK Subban: 90, 80, 144, 80, 80, 80. With 78 POT.

Those guys are all over the league. Having a deep draft to give some teams a little bit of prospect depth is well in order given what EHM did to some guys who will be pretty good NHLers.

But everybody's dealing with the same issues.

[Montreal Canadiens]

PK Subban is absolutely horrendous in this file and I have no idea why.

[Penguin]

PK Subban is absolutely horrendous in this file and I have no idea why.

It kind of pinches my heart too because PK is my favorite, but there will never be a perfect file, as mentionned above!

What do you guys think of doing rounds 4-5-6-7 of the draft on the chatter?

[SharksGM]

PK Subban is absolutely horrendous in this file and I have no idea why.

I'm pretty sure it's because most of the ratings were done well before the start of this season. Some players come and go and that just isn't a part of EHM.

I guess I'm ok with not having any more pot or ceiling boosts, but I still think something eventually needs to be done about goalie prospects. Skater development has its twists and turns but goalies are just boom, wait a couple of years and prospects reach their potential in every rating. Soon enough we'll just have a homogeneous mass of goalies that can be completely described by two numbers - pot and con. Of course since I'm complaining about it I have no solution in mind.

Actually I think the more pressing issue would be to do something about small salary, long term contracts to young players. I've done it, you've done it, we've all done it but it's kind of abusive to lock up your top young players for 6 years or more by signing them before they get near their ceilings. To that end I would at least suggest lowering the UFA age by 1 year every year until it's 28 or so.

[CapsGM]

Actually I think the more pressing issue would be to do something about small salary, long term contracts to young players. I've done it, you've done it, we've all done it but it's kind of abusive to lock up your top young players for 6 years or more by signing them before they get near their ceilings. To that end I would at least suggest lowering the UFA age by 1 year every year until it's 28 or so.

Yeah, that defies realism too with the real-life UFA age being so low. Even with the 30% raise, the young guys can easily be locked up long-term for a bargain price.

[NashvilleGM]

It's already too late to address the UFA issue. Way too late.

[Virtual Jarmo]

It's already too late to address the UFA issue. Way too late.

The only plausible solution that I can think of would be to limit contracts of players under 25 to two or three year terms or something. Because there's nothing we can do about the 30% raise rule or the long-term cheap deals now. Some teams benefited greatly, some teams didn't benefit much, and some teams could really be hurt by a new rule.

I thought it was going to work out better than it did. Financials are hard to balance in EHM v. real-life.

[Femur]

Commish: the biggest, nay ONLY mistake you ever made with this league was setting up this complaint box for the peanut gallery.

take it from me, being the man is a thankless job. i have never done anything on this scale, but i have run fantasy leagues before, and even worse, have been on my homeowners association board. benevolent dictatorship is the only way to fly. once you get more than (say) 5 different voices chiming in, you can guarantee that somebody is gonna be unhappy on pretty much any issue.

[NashvilleGM]

Bah everything is going pretty well so far. About the contract issue, you can always lower up the salary cap if you see that teams are managing too easily to get under it.

I just thought that the 30% rule was not tough enough. Forcing a 20-30% raise per year would of been something to work with I think.

Anyway, not that big of a deal anyway. Real life GM's always find something to work with (except Chicago, and soon LA), so do we.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I mentioned from the league start that having no limit to contract offers was a bad issue, but i've abused it just like everybody else here so nothing much can be done now.

I mean, there are 80/80 players signed to 7 year deals at less than $1.5M per season.

[Jets GM]

Commish: the biggest, nay ONLY mistake you ever made with this league was setting up this complaint box for the peanut gallery.

take it from me, being the man is a thankless job. i have never done anything on this scale, but i have run fantasy leagues before, and even worse, have been on my homeowners association board. benevolent dictatorship is the only way to fly. once you get more than (say) 5 different voices chiming in, you can guarantee that somebody is gonna be unhappy on pretty much any issue.

No one is saying that they even put 10% of the amount of time into there team that Adam does into the league, however not being open to discussion and ideas sounds kinda dumb to me.

[Bruins]

I mentioned from the league start that having no limit to contract offers was a bad issue, but i've abused it just like everybody else here so nothing much can be done now.

I mean, there are 80/80 players signed to 7 year deals at less than $1.5M per season.

Yeah, guilty as well. The players association can kiss my ass.

[CapsGM]

Amen, especially the bolded part. I like deep (or even "deep") drafts, larded with semi-decent prospects and potential boosters in later rounds. It mirrors as best as possible with EHM the decisions real-life GMs have to make about how to build teams -- drafts or trades? Or build now and try to grab a single good pick each year? Maybe not realistic in the strictest sense, but neither are most things that occur in online leagues (number of trades, Martin Hanzal, etc).

Exactly. And take most teams around the league. Their prospects got shafted with game-gen ceilings and have no trade value, let alone value as a NHL player.

Take John Carlson: 80, 89, 80, 80, 67, 80. With 78 POT.
Mikael Backlund: 85, 100, 85, 80, 75, 80. With 78 POT.
PK Subban: 90, 80, 144, 80, 80, 80. With 78 POT.

Those guys are all over the league. Having a deep draft to give some teams a little bit of prospect depth is well in order given what EHM did to some guys who will be pretty good NHLers.

But everybody's dealing with the same issues.

Yeah, that's definitely true. For each John Carlson or P.K. Subban, you have guys that will be a lot better than they are in real life. Dmitri Kugryshev for example, once developed, will have the second best offensive ratings for my forwards even before I had his ceilings boosted at the beginning of the season.

[TorontoGM]

Are we gonna allow "weak teams" to bid on players who normally in EHM aren't interested in signing with them?

[Virtual Jarmo]

Are we gonna allow "weak teams" to bid on players who normally in EHM aren't interested in signing with them?

UFA bidding is wide open. I assume that's the question.

Highest total salary gets the player.

[SharksGM]

How about adding a subforum for people to post depth charts and cap totals? That way we can count cap hits from the players' contract at the start of the season rather than new extensions. Also it should make the cap system more transparent and make for less work for whoever's verifying the numbers. It would make it easier to add bonuses to cap hits like the NHL does, which is something that we ought to do sooner rather than later.

[Penguin]

How about adding a subforum for people to post depth charts and cap totals? That way we can count cap hits from the players' contract at the start of the season rather than new extensions. Also it should make the cap system more transparent and make for less work for whoever's verifying the numbers. It would make it easier to add bonuses to cap hits like the NHL does, which is something that we ought to do sooner rather than later.

Good idea.

Question for Adam!
Does the contract rule still apply to UFAs?
For example: 30% raise of the previous contract if it was under 1,500,000$.

Do players have to accept the contract in the game for them to sign or you enter it through the file?

[Virtual Jarmo]

Good idea.

Question for Adam!
Does the contract rule still apply to UFAs?
For example: 30% raise of the previous contract if it was under 1,500,000$.

Do players have to accept the contract in the game for them to sign or you enter it through the file?

No and no. Highest total salary bid wins. Signing bonuses are irrelevant, so don't bother with them.

We'll figure out a tiebreaker policy, but I'm pretty sure we'll go with previous season's order of finish. Try to achieve a competitive balance, so the worse team from the previous season would get said player.

[CapsGM]

Another UFA question: Is there going to be a maximum on years offered to the older players? I'm talking about UFAs in their late 30's getting 6 year offers instead of 2-3 to lower their cap hit, and the offer wins due to total salary. It'd be pretty unrealistic to see guys like Rob Blake signing another long contract at this stage in his career, even with the retirement roll system in place. But it can be remedied easily by following the rules of the NHL (i.e. a player 35+ signing a multi-year contract will have his salary counted against the cap even if he retires before the contract ends), or simply setting a contract length restriction (i.e. players 35+ can only be offered three years maximum, 38+ can only be given two, 40+ = one year deals, etc).

[Virtual Jarmo]

Another UFA question: Is there going to be a maximum on years offered to the older players? I'm talking about UFAs in their late 30's getting 6 year offers instead of 2-3 to lower their cap hit, and the offer wins due to total salary. It'd be pretty unrealistic to see guys like Rob Blake signing another long contract at this stage in his career, even with the retirement roll system in place. But it can be remedied easily by following the rules of the NHL (i.e. a player 35+ signing a multi-year contract will have his salary counted against the cap even if he retires before the contract ends), or simply setting a contract length restriction (i.e. players 35+ can only be offered three years maximum, 38+ can only be given two, 40+ = one year deals, etc).

Haven't talked about a contract length restriction, but if the player were to retire, then the contract would still count against the cap.

[Penguin]

Let's say no one offers for Rob Blake and I offered 400k for 5 years. Does that mean I get Blake at that price?

[Virtual Jarmo]

Let's say no one offers for Rob Blake and I offered 400k for 5 years. Does that mean I get Blake at that price?

Given the rules in place, yes. But you pay 400k each year after Blake turns 42.

Again, we may re-evaluate some things about free agency. Including the very real possibility of lowering the salary cap based on the ineffectiveness of the 30% rule.