11-16-2020, 09:17 PM(This post was last modified: 11-16-2020, 09:18 PM by Mazatt.)
11-16-2020, 04:36 PMPremierBromanov Wrote:
11-16-2020, 03:08 PMMazatt Wrote: Personally I'd rather get another shot at being really good in the J than to play 3 minutes a night in the SHL with inactives. I'd sooner demand a trade than get put on the 4th line, I just can't see the appeal of it.
Is it a genuine issue that slow-earning players aren't getting any playing time in the SHL? I keep seeing that idea, but GM's have been very accomodating about trading players if it becomes clear they don't have an easy in on the roster, or making other secessions in order for prospects to make the lineup when comfortable
i mean, if you're not cracking 1,000 I think you'd have a hard time finding a long term home on any team. Also, with how many picks each team gets every season (which is way more than leave the team every season), there's a natural tendency for under-earners to be obsolete pretty quickly. I mean, consider a baseline 20 players at 1,000. You're looking at at least 5 seasons for those players to start to enter regression, at which point they're still useful for another 3-5 seasons.
In that 8-10 season span, a team will have naturally generated up to 10 firsts, 10 seconds, and 10 thirds. That's 30 players that just won't make the cut. Of course, teams aren't set up this way, lots of teams trade assets for players (some like Theo are worth handfuls of 1sts). The point I'm making though is that every team is expected to shed most of their prospects if they have them, and maybe that's not a great thing.
the other side is that IAs are often cheaper than a real player, and when you need a warm body sometimes it easier to secure a cheap 500-699 TPE player than one who is in the next salary bracket. Especially with the new cap.
Lastly, personally, i know TBB has worked with players who want to stay down vs come up ASAP. we have a few who want up as soon as they can, others want to win a cup first, still others want 4 years no matter what (which i get, because i like the J a lot). I don't believe many teams would ruin your J experience by calling you up prematurely, but you're right in that it would be more frequent with 4 lines.
I think the idea of shedding prospects isn't inherently bad. Great teams having to trade prospects (i.e. Buffalo, Hamilton recently) isn't a bad thing. It at worst helps parity as top prospects are moved to different teams and have an expanded role. Using you as an example, going to Tampa Bay not only gives you an expanded role and path to being a #1C, but gives Tampa another top centre to compete with going forward. Conversely, Buffalo recoups draft capital that can be used towards more picks and prospects that lineup with continuing to contend. I guess that only proves that top prospects will always have a spot to play, but I feel it translates to prospects who don't earn as high. As much shit as GM's get for gaming the sim/rules, if they are willing to trade a top prospect, what's the question around if they'll trade a lower-earner? Edmonton had plans to shift another GM to D before a trade came along that opened up a forward spot for Sutton to fill.
Using the numbers you used, 30 picks over a 10 span season could result in too many players for an effective team, however the retention of players in that figure heavily influences how many of those 30 picks are possible to be part of a userbase figure. If we look back to just S52/51 you see relatively lower earners in Hanson, Beibhitzanov, Hroch, JMac N Cheese carving out roles on SHL teams (all below the 1000 TPE threshold)--and they weren't even rookies. Of course, 50% of them are goalies but I feel the bar for being on a team is well below 1000. Even now, Overdoo and I have been called up prematurely to fill roster holes at 500 and 700 TPE respectively, at the time of callup. My point here calls back to about how GM's have been accomodating in the past; there isn't a GM out there who would rather have a 600 IA over a 700 active player. I also can't imagine that the cap would dissuade them from keeping active players. I don't know the in's and out's of the cap but GMs around the league must understand that locker room presence is a big deal, and that their players pay attention to the league, and that signing IFA's for spots that a former player could fill is a bad look for them. I don't know. I just feel that, given how there are lower-earning players currently in the SHL that have a perceivable home for the future, I don't see which user the 4th line is meant to help.
Is it for the user who loves a team but doesn't have a spot, but also doesn't want to be traded? Is it for the person that hops on, and does tasks once a month? I just can't see the benefit of this move post expansion.
BuT mUh LeAgUe?! HoW wIlL aNyOnE gEt pLaYiNg TiMe.
Shout out to ml002, schultzy, slashacm, tedward!
I I I I
09-05-2018, 10:04 PMBeaver Wrote: Wow look what the PT affiliation has done to our pristine league.
12-19-2018, 12:31 AMBeaver Wrote: I personally blame the PT affiliation for handing out massive amounts of free TPE to all these players, inflating the TPE they're at when they get called up.
11-16-2020, 03:56 PMFlappyGiraffe Wrote: I'm probably in the minority, but I would be fine playing a season on the 4th line to prove myself IF 500-700 TPE was viable to be a 4th line guy.
your not, id be happy to be the goon on the fourth line and i think its a very useful part of the game that we are choosing to ignore because we claim people dont want to be on the 4th line. Yet this poll proves about 40% of the people that answered think it should exist.
Shout out to ml002, schultzy, slashacm, tedward!
I I I I
09-05-2018, 10:04 PMBeaver Wrote: Wow look what the PT affiliation has done to our pristine league.
12-19-2018, 12:31 AMBeaver Wrote: I personally blame the PT affiliation for handing out massive amounts of free TPE to all these players, inflating the TPE they're at when they get called up.
11-16-2020, 10:19 AMst4rface Wrote: Defenders have three lines. Now they have 60 minutes to split between 3 lines which is 20 minutes per line (average). 4 lines will make it 15 minutes per each line (average). Of course, each line will have different amount of ice time and there's possibility that 1st line defender will play in 4th line aswell, but there's a chance of opposite too. Rules might say that defenders can't play in multiple lines or 4th line is for IA. Based on possibilities and rule changes - I think there will be defenders who have less ice time.
a 4th forward line would keep defenders at 3 pairs, like the NHL. So we're adding 3 players per team, not 5 players.
Yeah, but that’s still 3 players. It’s cool, but maybe not for now...? I don’t know. It’s more a question for GM’s.
11-16-2020, 04:36 PMPremierBromanov Wrote: i mean, if you're not cracking 1,000 I think you'd have a hard time finding a long term home on any team. Also, with how many picks each team gets every season (which is way more than leave the team every season), there's a natural tendency for under-earners to be obsolete pretty quickly. I mean, consider a baseline 20 players at 1,000. You're looking at at least 5 seasons for those players to start to enter regression, at which point they're still useful for another 3-5 seasons.
In that 8-10 season span, a team will have naturally generated up to 10 firsts, 10 seconds, and 10 thirds. That's 30 players that just won't make the cut. Of course, teams aren't set up this way, lots of teams trade assets for players (some like Theo are worth handfuls of 1sts). The point I'm making though is that every team is expected to shed most of their prospects if they have them, and maybe that's not a great thing.
the other side is that IAs are often cheaper than a real player, and when you need a warm body sometimes it easier to secure a cheap 500-699 TPE player than one who is in the next salary bracket. Especially with the new cap.
Lastly, personally, i know TBB has worked with players who want to stay down vs come up ASAP. we have a few who want up as soon as they can, others want to win a cup first, still others want 4 years no matter what (which i get, because i like the J a lot). I don't believe many teams would ruin your J experience by calling you up prematurely, but you're right in that it would be more frequent with 4 lines.
I think the idea of shedding prospects isn't inherently bad. Great teams having to trade prospects (i.e. Buffalo, Hamilton recently) isn't a bad thing. It at worst helps parity as top prospects are moved to different teams and have an expanded role. Using you as an example, going to Tampa Bay not only gives you an expanded role and path to being a #1C, but gives Tampa another top centre to compete with going forward. Conversely, Buffalo recoups draft capital that can be used towards more picks and prospects that lineup with continuing to contend. I guess that only proves that top prospects will always have a spot to play, but I feel it translates to prospects who don't earn as high. As much shit as GM's get for gaming the sim/rules, if they are willing to trade a top prospect, what's the question around if they'll trade a lower-earner? Edmonton had plans to shift another GM to D before a trade came along that opened up a forward spot for Sutton to fill.
Using the numbers you used, 30 picks over a 10 span season could result in too many players for an effective team, however the retention of players in that figure heavily influences how many of those 30 picks are possible to be part of a userbase figure. If we look back to just S52/51 you see relatively lower earners in Hanson, Beibhitzanov, Hroch, JMac N Cheese carving out roles on SHL teams (all below the 1000 TPE threshold)--and they weren't even rookies. Of course, 50% of them are goalies but I feel the bar for being on a team is well below 1000. Even now, Overdoo and I have been called up prematurely to fill roster holes at 500 and 700 TPE respectively, at the time of callup. My point here calls back to about how GM's have been accomodating in the past; there isn't a GM out there who would rather have a 600 IA over a 700 active player. I also can't imagine that the cap would dissuade them from keeping active players. I don't know the in's and out's of the cap but GMs around the league must understand that locker room presence is a big deal, and that their players pay attention to the league, and that signing IFA's for spots that a former player could fill is a bad look for them. I don't know. I just feel that, given how there are lower-earning players currently in the SHL that have a perceivable home for the future, I don't see which user the 4th line is meant to help.
Is it for the user who loves a team but doesn't have a spot, but also doesn't want to be traded? Is it for the person that hops on, and does tasks once a month? I just can't see the benefit of this move post expansion.
I would disagree fundamentally that its not a bad thing that we have such bad retention. It's great that players can play nigh 20 seasons, but removing 3 forward spots from every roster means that we are retaining 54 fewer players than we could, not to mention utilizing a core aspect of the sport we are trying to emulate. I would love for casual players to have a spot on a roster or a team who is excellent at drafting (like buffalo) could really flex their picks. As it stands, a team like buffalo basically just doesnt draft forwards for the last couple of seasons if they want to keep them.
and locker room presence goes both ways. We can capture more players on a team with a 4th line than we could without. If you want to talk about making a LR good by having actives over inactives, how about more actives total? It's a roll of the dice a lot of the time. Why not just add more dice?
11-16-2020, 09:17 PMMazatt Wrote: I think the idea of shedding prospects isn't inherently bad. Great teams having to trade prospects (i.e. Buffalo, Hamilton recently) isn't a bad thing. It at worst helps parity as top prospects are moved to different teams and have an expanded role. Using you as an example, going to Tampa Bay not only gives you an expanded role and path to being a #1C, but gives Tampa another top centre to compete with going forward. Conversely, Buffalo recoups draft capital that can be used towards more picks and prospects that lineup with continuing to contend. I guess that only proves that top prospects will always have a spot to play, but I feel it translates to prospects who don't earn as high. As much shit as GM's get for gaming the sim/rules, if they are willing to trade a top prospect, what's the question around if they'll trade a lower-earner? Edmonton had plans to shift another GM to D before a trade came along that opened up a forward spot for Sutton to fill.
Using the numbers you used, 30 picks over a 10 span season could result in too many players for an effective team, however the retention of players in that figure heavily influences how many of those 30 picks are possible to be part of a userbase figure. If we look back to just S52/51 you see relatively lower earners in Hanson, Beibhitzanov, Hroch, JMac N Cheese carving out roles on SHL teams (all below the 1000 TPE threshold)--and they weren't even rookies. Of course, 50% of them are goalies but I feel the bar for being on a team is well below 1000. Even now, Overdoo and I have been called up prematurely to fill roster holes at 500 and 700 TPE respectively, at the time of callup. My point here calls back to about how GM's have been accomodating in the past; there isn't a GM out there who would rather have a 600 IA over a 700 active player. I also can't imagine that the cap would dissuade them from keeping active players. I don't know the in's and out's of the cap but GMs around the league must understand that locker room presence is a big deal, and that their players pay attention to the league, and that signing IFA's for spots that a former player could fill is a bad look for them. I don't know. I just feel that, given how there are lower-earning players currently in the SHL that have a perceivable home for the future, I don't see which user the 4th line is meant to help.
Is it for the user who loves a team but doesn't have a spot, but also doesn't want to be traded? Is it for the person that hops on, and does tasks once a month? I just can't see the benefit of this move post expansion.
I would disagree fundamentally that its not a bad thing that we have such bad retention. It's great that players can play nigh 20 seasons, but removing 3 forward spots from every roster means that we are retaining 54 fewer players than we could, not to mention utilizing a core aspect of the sport we are trying to emulate. I would love for casual players to have a spot on a roster or a team who is excellent at drafting (like buffalo) could really flex their picks. As it stands, a team like buffalo basically just doesnt draft forwards for the last couple of seasons if they want to keep them.
and locker room presence goes both ways. We can capture more players on a team with a 4th line than we could without. If you want to talk about making a LR good by having actives over inactives, how about more actives total? It's a roll of the dice a lot of the time. Why not just add more dice?
I don't mean to suggest bad retention is a good thing, moreso that I read prospect shaving as prospects being moved around the league/dropping off. Those that drop off to inactivity are bad, but those who are traded offer more depth around the league. It also feels like a false idea that we could retain 54 more players through 4th lines. In my uninformed opinion I view most issues of retention starting at the SMJHL level with getting engaged in the league before going into the SHL. You could have 54 more people retained, but only if every single 4th line roster spot is filled by a player that was going to be IA if not for getting the limited ice time and impacted associated with 4th lines. It's impossible to tell but I would have to assume that the majority of people who go IA would not be impacted by that change.
I'm of the firm belief that you don't have to currently be on the team to be a part of the locker room. I've done my effort to try and be around Edmonton as much as possible before being called-up, while not forgoing Carolina. That won't be the same for everyone, especially people who earn at a 4th line level who may have limited time, but I'd imagine all locker rooms give prospects the same access as the regular player. Having a 4th line won't increase the amount of dice in play, I don't know how to fit it within the dice analogy but it makes the table bigger but not in a way that meaningfully increases the number on the die. We have to examine the payoff of 4th line viability given; how many people can it help retain, what is the impact on cap restructuring to fit more players (as well as the given impact that the greater cap could lead to teams running a 4th line fo IFA's 1 minute a night in exchange for using more cap space on top end talent), and a hell of a lot more I can't think of. Given the limited amount of players this would benefit is limited off fo my basic knowledge, the payoff cannot be super high given the risk of abuse
11-16-2020, 10:07 PMPremierBromanov Wrote: I would disagree fundamentally that its not a bad thing that we have such bad retention. It's great that players can play nigh 20 seasons, but removing 3 forward spots from every roster means that we are retaining 54 fewer players than we could, not to mention utilizing a core aspect of the sport we are trying to emulate. I would love for casual players to have a spot on a roster or a team who is excellent at drafting (like buffalo) could really flex their picks. As it stands, a team like buffalo basically just doesnt draft forwards for the last couple of seasons if they want to keep them.
and locker room presence goes both ways. We can capture more players on a team with a 4th line than we could without. If you want to talk about making a LR good by having actives over inactives, how about more actives total? It's a roll of the dice a lot of the time. Why not just add more dice?
I don't mean to suggest bad retention is a good thing, moreso that I read prospect shaving as prospects being moved around the league/dropping off. Those that drop off to inactivity are bad, but those who are traded offer more depth around the league. It also feels like a false idea that we could retain 54 more players through 4th lines. In my uninformed opinion I view most issues of retention starting at the SMJHL level with getting engaged in the league before going into the SHL. You could have 54 more people retained, but only if every single 4th line roster spot is filled by a player that was going to be IA if not for getting the limited ice time and impacted associated with 4th lines. It's impossible to tell but I would have to assume that the majority of people who go IA would not be impacted by that change.
I'm of the firm belief that you don't have to currently be on the team to be a part of the locker room. I've done my effort to try and be around Edmonton as much as possible before being called-up, while not forgoing Carolina. That won't be the same for everyone, especially people who earn at a 4th line level who may have limited time, but I'd imagine all locker rooms give prospects the same access as the regular player. Having a 4th line won't increase the amount of dice in play, I don't know how to fit it within the dice analogy but it makes the table bigger but not in a way that meaningfully increases the number on the die. We have to examine the payoff of 4th line viability given; how many people can it help retain, what is the impact on cap restructuring to fit more players (as well as the given impact that the greater cap could lead to teams running a 4th line fo IFA's 1 minute a night in exchange for using more cap space on top end talent), and a hell of a lot more I can't think of. Given the limited amount of players this would benefit is limited off fo my basic knowledge, the payoff cannot be super high given the risk of abuse
regarding the 2nd paragraph, i think i misunderstood what you were saying before as "no team would have an IFA over a prospect on their active roster" when i think you actually said "no team would have an IFA over no player at all in their system". So I think that point is hardly worth arguing over. Real players are always best, and no team will ever trade a prospect away in favor of a cheap IFA. I just meant that cap-strapped teams have an incentive to keep waiver-exempt players in the minors and use the money elsewhere. A 4th line, imo, would leave more open roster spots for players who dislike the J (or the TPE cap) and would like to make some impact. It opens up a whole new world for sub 700 players in the SHL, where previously it was indeed mostly IFAs filling those roles.
Mazatt![[Image: mazatt.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/mazatt.gif)
![[Image: KhdDH3Q.png]](https://i.imgur.com/KhdDH3Q.png)
![[Image: q4PM2XX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/q4PM2XX.png)
![[Image: blastmeaway.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/blastmeaway.gif)
![[Image: f4IDm9I.jpg]](http://imgur.com/f4IDm9I.jpg)
I ![[Image: specterspp.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/537644128066994197/593600679130431523/specterspp.png)
I ![[Image: czechup.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/454001889063862273/593632736833568769/czechup.png)
I ![[Image: gs89eGV.png]](http://i.imgur.com/gs89eGV.png)
I ![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
![[Image: Capture21.PNG?width=400&height=90]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/472659919678603265/639207463412957185/Capture21.PNG?width=400&height=90)
![[Image: aumy3.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/694020619620188191/1117613605702094918/aumy3.png)
![[Image: zcOwSzN.png]](https://i.imgur.com/zcOwSzN.png)
![[Image: b1AwZLU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/b1AwZLU.png)
![[Image: ezgif-3-597e9990a5.png]](https://im3.ezgif.com/tmp/ezgif-3-597e9990a5.png)
![[Image: premierbromanov.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/premierbromanov.gif)
![[Image: EePsAwN.png]](https://i.imgur.com/EePsAwN.png)
![[Image: sXDU6JX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sXDU6JX.png)
![[Image: eaex9S1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/eaex9S1.png)
![[Image: knight.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/265919569577639946/689559981451903021/knight.png)
![[Image: sigtight.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/265919569577639946/689561548145819763/sigtight.png)
![[Image: 59269_s.png]](https://signavatar.com/59269_s.png)
![[Image: CsnVET2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/CsnVET2.png)
![[Image: wu5MVvy.png]](http://i.imgur.com/wu5MVvy.png)
![[Image: c8B2LE3.png]](https://i.imgur.com/c8B2LE3.png)
| 
| 
![[Image: 41373_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/41373_s.gif)
![[Image: vhY18i8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/vhY18i8.png)
![[Image: 7WSfxIG.png]](https://i.imgur.com/7WSfxIG.png)
![[Image: nBgNUTY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/nBgNUTY.png)
![[Image: pppoopoo.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/pppoopoo.gif)
![[Image: 7925.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/tradingcards/7925.png)
