Idea on how to make the league fair for everyone and the teams much more balanced

Also, you could increase the size of a management team to 3 or 4 players rather than just 2 under my system, because all the players would still have a tier value, so it wouldn't make a team overpowered if they had 3 great players all as part of their management team. Then they could play with their friends still while also managing a online team every season together and every season would be an entirely new experience.

 

If there were a season to have a draft it would've been this season.

 

Draft is good rounds 1-15. With the contracts, that can be worked out.

 

or remove all the scum

 

question is simple : Would you play for the oakland raiders? HELL NAAAAW

 

Agreed.

 

Just something out of the blue... but maybe if it were similar to real life, where the Salary Cap would be increased (say 65 Million, for NHL & AHL). Then the Owner picks his GM (NHL) and his GM & AGM (AHL). After that, with the help of his 3 Management partners, they bid on the 30 players needed to fill both NHL & AHL. Then you have pre-season games where the NHL has a certain date & time to send the 15 players they need to to fill the AHL & keep the 15 they want for their NHL. That way, it would help with the salaries (so AHL'ers don't get fucked by having a too high salary & can't be called up due to it).

Again... this is just a thought... could still be tweaked around a bit!

 

1. Combined bidding & preseason camps
Sebby's idea is pretty brilliant. Doing 1-2 weeks of mandatory camps would do a ton to help the league. Parity could increase significantly and players will (on average) feel better about where they end up. Perhaps schedule intersquad games along with exhibitions. I really hope we remember and consider this for next season. I don't think a single combined salary cap like that would work , because player value doesn't scale linearly inbetween leagues. You'd still need an NHL salary cap and an NHL minimum salary (both or either of which could potentially be calculated after bidding). There's probably a good way to calculate what that cap and minimum should be.
However, this idea doesn't really address the issue Pens brings up.

2. Management salaries: use comparables
Pen's idea is clever, but too complicated. The flaw in that solution is that there is a lot of inaccuracy in evaluating everybody, and that will create as many issues as it solves.
However, Pens points out the key problem, that management all have the same salary. There needs to be a way to assign values.
Any system that assigns values before the season is bound to be inaccurate as the value of players changes based on how bidding is going.

An alternative, kinda like NHL arbitration, is to determine comparable players for each manager before bidding begins. 3-5 players at the same position who by some committee (ideally all owners' votes) are similar in value. Then that manager's value at the end of bidding is the average of those players' salaries. Tell each owner who their comparables are, and they can track approximately what salary they will be at. Voila.

 

you were really starting to make sense there pensmann, then you show your true colors by taking a shot at Vancouver. why? had a really good thread going then you became a douchbag .

 

Vancouver is one of the biggest reasons this thread exists. You do realize the only reason they drafted their team the way they did is because they said all good players told them if they bid on them they would refuse to play? This is directly out of the Vancouver management's mouths, and to a degree I don't blame them. I'm on a team almost in the same boat as Vancouver. I'm not taking a shot at them, I'm trying to change things so that what happened to them this season doesn't happen again. How are they supposed to be able to realistically compete if they're not allowed to bid on any of the best players in the game. You can find a few gems in bidding, but an finding an entire team of gems takes a miracle.

 

This is a good idea and would be easy to implement into my idea, all you have to do it change the bid to 3 gold players, 5 silver players, and 26 bronze players per team.

 

They can bid on whoever they want.

 

The NHL arbitration idea is fine I suppose. Wouldn't the most accurate measure of an owner's value be to have all owners put bids on each other and average them out? the average of 29 bids would give a much more accurate representation of a player's true value than averaging 3-5 comparable players. What if one of those comparable players is bid on toward the end of bidding and the team overbids because they have cap space to spare or one of them is a really popular player so he gets bid way up and distorts the owner's value massively. The average of 29 bids is much more accurate than the average of 5.

 

I'm new to this leauge and all so sorry if I overstep my boundaries, but who the hell has the right to say don't bid on me I'm not playing for you? I would have bid on him just to spite him. Sounds like we got some real beauties in here.

 

Yeah they can, then they just have to either blacklist them and get no compensation or trade them to another team, hope the guy they trade for is willing to play and the team they trade to isn't going to trade rape them because they know they have no choice but to trade him, but yes, they can bid on whoever they want.

 

So this is a serious question, and I'm assuming I misunderstand, but your saying if team A wants to bid on Pensman but he says "I won't play for you", so they can't. But if Pensman gets randomly assigned he's more likely to play for team A?

 

Just like anything else, the better you get, the more you think the world should be bending to your whim. The good players here only care about winning. They always win in club, so they don't feel they should have to fight for it in here.

 

For many of these top players the reason they won't play for a new owner is because they don't believe they're as good as owners like lan Morando or cj142 (Who have a 0$ salary cap hit), so they don't want to play for a team who's already way behind before bidding even starts. If they know any owner they play for is going to have the same number of elite players, that excuse is no longer an option.

 

our mgt could have bid on anyone , they made a decision to go the route they did. a top player won through bidding sure would make good trade bait for a couple of good players imo, that being said I gotta come to nickys defense here and remind everybody that his team was projected to finish dead last in the Q last season and I am pretty sure they had a pretty respectable season. I don't claim to have my thumb on the pulse of the lg community but the few "top" players I have spoken with had no problem playing for a new owner. I dunno, maybe I only have spoken to guys who want the league to flourish not just their team. and for the record I do think your system will work with some minor tweaking, good ideas are where progress begins. feel free to use that! lol good luck this season to all!