A few notes...

[Virtual Jarmo]

I think the AHL playoffs are enough to help LE issues.

As of now, I would say there's a 50/50 chance of the AHL playoffs happening. I simply don't get back what I put in. There were maybe three teams that sent lines more than once or twice.

Leadership boosts are certainly a possibility. We did the leadership increases for the older players last season. With younger players, for starters, a lot of them aren't really leaders anyway. For another thing, the best way to deal with that is simply to increase their LE in the draft class like I said.

Has anybody ever really quantified the value of LE?

[CapsGM]

... I just meant that Kamenev was the one who was changed, not Korshkov. Korshkov looks unchanged.

Noticed this as well.

[Brett-SensGM]

Has anybody ever really quantified the value of LE?

This was the very first thing that came to my mind when reading this discussion. I have only ever looked at leadership for a starting goalie and a pro captain... I have gone out in 4 games with a team stacked in leadership and won cups with teams with everyone's leadership in their 50's/60's. Damned if I have ever drawn a direct corelation.

Plus we have the vet bonuses and for the most part leadership grows slow for everyone, so no GM has a real advantage beyond the yearly playoff powerhouses... and even then they are most deserving and the gains are EHM breaking.

I do like the idea of draft edits with slightly higher than EHM generated leadership though.

[Jets GM]

I browsed around Fhockey.com to try and get some insight as to what the consensus was about the impact of LE.

Leadership is good for your captain, it is used in team talks as stated and will be used in determining the affect of these talks on the player. It also helps in big games, not just playoffs but also games leading up to the playoffs. This is all it does.

- Tieio

On what's more important, CON or LE...

LE, it has an affect on playoff performance and winning close games.

- Korolynth

Speaking from my own experience, most of my core players do not have good LE ratings. Seguin, who arguably is the best player in the file, vanished the first 3 games of the ECF only to emerge with 3A in Game 4. In addition, Seguin and Fowler's post-season production did not meet their level from the regular season. On the flip side, Brad Richards, who has been stuck in relative EHEC obscurity the past few seasons, was a dominant force come play-off time with 9G despite only having a 73 Shot.

I don't think it was a coincidence that Bern won all three OT games while also possessing a clear advantage in the LE department.

This is why I think we need to create a system that rewards active GMs with LE boosts. Seguin, who consistently average most TOI of any TB forward, had his LE go from 48 to 49. Furthermore, many of the guys who were in my top 6 F/top 4 D group only developed 2-3 points despite playing 16 playoff games. Imagine how hard it's going to be for a non-playoff team to develop LE, even if they sneak into the playoffs one year.

[CapsGM]

*Edwin Hedberg (36) -- Patrick Seligman (1814) xxxxx

Drafted in 2012.

Wasn't able to find Max Pajpach.

1996 borns that I didn't see on this list but are in the file/NHL CSB:

Ryan Mantha
Travis Sanheim
Ben Thomas
Stefan Loibl

[CapsGM]

Is LE the only attribute that will carry over from the AHL file?

[Calgary.Flames]

I hope not.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I browsed around Fhockey.com to try and get some insight as to what the consensus was about the impact of LE.

Leadership is good for your captain, it is used in team talks as stated and will be used in determining the affect of these talks on the player. It also helps in big games, not just playoffs but also games leading up to the playoffs. This is all it does.

- Tieio

On what's more important, CON or LE...

LE, it has an affect on playoff performance and winning close games.

- Korolynth

Speaking from my own experience, most of my core players do not have good LE ratings. Seguin, who arguably is the best player in the file, vanished the first 3 games of the ECF only to emerge with 3A in Game 4. In addition, Seguin and Fowler's post-season production did not meet their level from the regular season. On the flip side, Brad Richards, who has been stuck in relative EHEC obscurity the past few seasons, was a dominant force come play-off time with 9G despite only having a 73 Shot.

I don't think it was a coincidence that Bern won all three OT games while also possessing a clear advantage in the LE department.

This is why I think we need to create a system that rewards active GMs with LE boosts. Seguin, who consistently average most TOI of any TB forward, had his LE go from 48 to 49. Furthermore, many of the guys who were in my top 6 F/top 4 D group only developed 2-3 points despite playing 16 playoff games. Imagine how hard it's going to be for a non-playoff team to develop LE, even if they sneak into the playoffs one year.

I'm not looking this up, so don't jump down my throat if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure my team had a clear advantage over yours in the LE department as well.

I think LE is hit and miss. Definitely you need to have a captain with very high LE but as for the impact in the playoffs on roster players, for my team, Langenbrunner scored 6 in 40 games in the regular season, and 1 in the playoffs. Brenden Morrow was an absolute beast in the playoffs then too, Mike Fisher had 5 points in the playoffs, compared to 6 in the entire season, so I think it's hit and miss, as is everything with EHM. David Backes was the playoff scoring leader heading into the ECF with 72 LE.

Easiest way to have higher LE is by making the draft class higher, but as Adam said, as young players they aren't leaders, but since LE can't be improved without playoffs, maybe we have to make a conscious effort to give them atleast decent LE. In the mid 60's perhaps as opposed to the low 50's.

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

Is LE the only attribute that will carry over from the AHL file?

Yes.

[Jets GM]

I thought the veteran boosts were a one time thing?

[CapsGM]

I hope not.

I'm fine with it. Strength has gone up for some of my players in the EHEC file when it hasn't in the AHL file (due to the AHL playoffs being simmed through pro rosters). The rest of the attributes will go up no matter what.

[SharksGM]

I thought the veteran boosts were a one time thing?

If you look back at the original post, Adam definitely made it sound like they'd happen every season. The only thing I'm unsure of is when the birthdate cutoff is, exactly. June 12th, every year?

Also, it sounds like a lot of GMs are going hog wild with trade discussions. It would be helpful to have a general idea where things are heading for the next offseason, particularly with the cap and contracts. I'm guessing the cap will go up again by 1-2M, and Adam mentioned possible changes to the formula for depth players, but that's all that I'm aware of at the moment.

One thing I will mention is that there is an existing rule for qualifying RFAs that hasn't really come up much yet. I think I used it a while back on Alec Martinez, but I can't remember many other cases. If the cap and formula don't change much, then I will almost certainly make use of it on a couple of players.

Also, the rulebook isn't really clear about what happens if players accept their qualifying offers in-game. I recall Adam just let Martinez sign his, mainly because he's not very good. But as it is, it seems like qualifying offers could be used to get significant discounts on RFAs who would ask for much less in-game than the formula would give. There also don't seem to be limits on the length of a qualifying offer either. In the NHL, it's strictly just a one-year deal, but I don't see anything preventing us from offering 4 years, or 1 year + TO/PO (yet another reason to just get rid of options entirely, IMO).

[Jets GM]

If I understand what Dan is saying correctly, that would save me a couple million dollars. Biggs is asking for $2,400,000 instead of $5,000,000 from the formula. Also, what about guys that are asking for more in-game. Last year Chucko wouldn't except what the formula dictated, so I just used my team option. Are we going to edit the file for these situations? Avtsyn comes to mind, who wants $300,000 more in-game.

I'm sure I'm not the only GM who would benefit from this?

[Montreal Canadiens]

Why would we let you pay Biggs for $2.4 M if the formula contracts make him at $5M.....am I missing something there?

[Jets GM]

Why would we let you pay Biggs for $2.4 M if the formula contracts make him at $5M.....am I missing something there?

If I understood Dan correctly, you can extend a qualifying offer to your RFA's. This qualifying offer is determined by EHM, and in some cases is much less then what the EHEC formula dictates.

In some cases, the player may except the qualifying offer in-game despite it not being for what the formula dictates. Apparently Alec Martinez did this and it was allowed?

[Montreal Canadiens]

I'm pretty sure Alec Martinez is also no good in this file.

If we're allowing people just to qualify RFA's, there wouldn't be much point to the formula and the E5 bonuses, and case in point, I probably would still have Nemeth right now. Not sure how Nemeth only makes $2.85M anyway as I found his contract in the upwards of $4+M.

[SharksGM]

If I understood Dan correctly, you can extend a qualifying offer to your RFA's. This qualifying offer is determined by EHM, and in some cases is much less then what the EHEC formula dictates.

It's not determined by EHM, it's just a minimum of 100% of their previous salary, like in the NHL. A little more if they make less than a million. It's all on page 24 of the rulebook.

In some cases, the player may accept the qualifying offer in-game despite it not being for what the formula dictates. Apparently Alec Martinez did this and it was allowed?

Exactly, but the rulebook doesn't actually say anything about what happens if they accept the offer.

Adam let it slide for Martinez because he wasn't very good at the time, and still isn't that great. It makes sense to allow it for depth players, but it's clearly not the intent to have it apply to all RFAs, even the top tier guys.

[Jets GM]

Maybe we should make a cutoff using the players OA? 70?

Already looking forward to next season. I'm hoping we can iron out what changes are going to be implemented that have been discussed in this thread. I'm already somewhat operating under the premise that depth will be more important, and certain tactics are only going to be allowed on one line.

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

Maybe we should make a cutoff using the players OA? 70?

Already looking forward to next season. I'm hoping we can iron out what changes are going to be implemented that have been discussed in this thread. I'm already somewhat operating under the premise that depth will be more important, and certain tactics are only going to be allowed on one line.

We'll definitely need to begin talks about these issues soon, so we can begin making trades and the UFA period in earnest, and folks can know what structures/strictures they'll be operating under.

[Singin the BLUES]

I am in a league right now that cuts off the AHL at 69OV and goalies for AHL at 72 OV and a max cap hit of 3 mill allowed in AHL. and it does make some things alot harder to do. I am game for anything at all just as long as it is done even, straight across the board with now exceptions at all. That also includes players positions as well. As some ppl in EHM say, that when played out of their EHm assigned positons that their performance goes down a tad, well we have already seen that isnt the case.....so unless there is hardcore proof of a player playing a certain position then it should be a no go and a penalty is done. I have seen Habs Gm do it and also Ana Gm do it.

[CapsGM]

I have seen Habs Gm do it and also Ana Gm do it.

[Singin the BLUES]

Hey, i didnt bring it up when i played ANA........i am just bringing it up as a whole.....why the hell should a GM be able to play a player as say a C when he has never played C in his life except for maybe a one game stint in preseason( like Fisher)........although he didnt play C

[Montreal Canadiens]

That's the rules I followed, sorry you weren't a fan.

[Singin the BLUES]

Playing a player in a position that was an experiment in the preseason is not a vaild point IMO.....total BS....but whatever the commish allows ATM i guess has to go....but that was a total shot in the dark period.

[SharksGM]

folks can know what structures/strictures they'll be operating under.

I can tell you I definitely won't be operating under any stricture from that heathen council of Nicaea.

[Edmonton Mike]

Managers, you can use this for now. Copy and paste your numbers in from your roster page. Remember that goalies and players going to arbitration will not be using this method. "DEFAULT" means the player gets what they're asking for in EHM.

I'll try to have it pull from the roster pages automatically.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Something's off with how the program calculates base salary, no? Or I'm a dumb fuck, which is a possibility.

I'm trying to get a year ahead salary cap wise and see what's what. I entered Luke Schenn's numbers and I'm getting $6,150M as his new base salary. See, Schenn would fall under the 77-79 bracket (66OF, 92DF) and his actual salary being $4,1M, he'd be set for a 25% increase. 4,1 X .25 + 4,1 brings me to a $5,125M base salary, not $6,150M as calculated by the program. It's like it was calculated under the 80-84 bracket.

Another similar situation I noticed is Jared Cowen (50OF, 79DF, $3,1M). Cowen falls under the Tyler Myers Rule but the program doesn't seem to calculate it that way as his new base salary indicates $2,325M, when it should be $3,875M (didn't bother to look at E5's). Looks like it was calculated under the "<70 w/ one 73 OF/DF" bracket while I believe it should have been under the 75-76 one.

Am I wrong?

[VancouverCanucksGM]

Too bad Quinn can't create us something like they have for CapGeek

[Edmonton Mike]

Too bad Quinn can't create us something like they have for CapGeek

Yeah, DIY'd myself one on Excel. Pretty useful when you see the big picture.

[VancouverCanucksGM]

I gotta learn how to use that someday.

[SharksGM]

I'm trying to get a year ahead salary cap wise and see what's what. I entered Luke Schenn's numbers and I'm getting $6,150M as his new base salary. See, Schenn would fall under the 77-79 bracket (66OF, 92DF) and his actual salary being $4,1M, he'd be set for a 25% increase. 4,1 X .25 + 4,1 brings me to a $5,125M base salary, not $6,150M as calculated by the program. It's like it was calculated under the 80-84 bracket.

That's odd, because his DF is (99+91+88)/3 = 92.67, but if you bump his POS down to 90 (DF=92.33), the spreadsheet gives a 5.125 base salary. There must be some wonky rounding going on.

Another similar situation I noticed is Jared Cowen (50OF, 79DF, $3,1M)... Looks like it was calculated under the "<70 w/ one 73 OF/DF" bracket while I believe it should have been under the 75-76 one.

Don't you mean the <75 w/one 78+ OF/DF bracket?

[Edmonton Mike]

Don't you mean the <75 w/one 78+ OF/DF bracket?

Yeah well they're the same.

Makes sense. It calculates CH/PO/HI as it really is (92.667 in Schenn's case, so 93), sending Schenn under the 80-84 bracket. Got it.

Cowen? My guess is Tim forgot to put these guys in the <75 w/one 78+ OF/DF bracket?

[CapsGM]

Don't you mean the <75 w/one 78+ OF/DF bracket?

Yeah well they're the same.

Makes sense. It calculates CH/PO/HI as it really is (92.667 in Schenn's case, so 93), sending Schenn under the 80-84 bracket. Got it.

Cowen? My guess is Tim forgot to put these guys in the <75 w/one 78+ OF/DF bracket?

Yup, Cowen should be in the <75 + 78OF/DF bracket. I've corrected this in the calculator but haven't updated it yet. Thanks for pointing this out.

The Google spreadsheet may have errors. If it's over calculating or under calculating a player, let me know. I noticed that my monetary bonuses weren't referencing the rulebook correctly either.

I'm editing it now to reference the new look roster pages to take date of birth into account age (and alternate position, which is useful as well).

[GM Office Q]

I had that one week where I had some free time a few weeks back so I was able to get the site up, but I haven't had much free time since then. I'll see if I can chip away at a page for the GMCP that resembles this chart: http://www.capgeek.com/avalanche/ Maybe I'll add some sort of manual entry field for buyouts and other penalties that Adam/Pat/Tim can edit. This method also might be useful for keeping track of draft picks, rather than trading them in-game. Maybe I'll add that type of manual editor to the admin's GMCP too and display them on the team pages. Stand by, might take a couple of weeks.

[Calgary.Flames]

That would be amazing.