|
Post by darren on Oct 23, 2009 16:22:33 GMT -5
Five or six years would be too much, Tavares making a million in our league after his third NHL year would be ridic. Four year rookie contracts from here on sounds good. But I think I'll hike them all up a touch.
As for me trying to protect my own team, really I could care less about signing all those guys mentioned to sweet deals. I've got Ribeiro wasting away on my fourth line making 4.4 mil. All I do is hand over UFAs to improve other teams and not sign a single one for myself. I just got a little concerned that in the first year of this new cap, nearly all the teams are well over 50 mil already.
|
|
|
Post by gmdetroit on Oct 23, 2009 16:45:59 GMT -5
Indeed...
Having a 59OV Zach Boychuk in my farm with ratings like 71SP and 67SK, when he might be one of the fastest hockey player in his junior days, let him in the prospect list until he achieves something in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by darren on Oct 23, 2009 17:51:48 GMT -5
True enough, maybe from now on we shouldn't create rookies who play less than 10 NHL games.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 23, 2009 19:52:27 GMT -5
Ya i have like 4 of these stupid guys on my farm and more than wasting a 2 yrs of contract it just screws up my farm team a lot. We should just delete any of these guys under like 64 or something right now and add them to the prospects... what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by squeaky on Oct 23, 2009 20:07:48 GMT -5
True enough, maybe from now on we shouldn't create rookies who play less than 10 NHL games. I might even go higher. 20-30 games seems fine to me, you just want to weed out the guys who haven't played a full season.
|
|
|
Post by jonmilley on Oct 24, 2009 9:35:51 GMT -5
It's no problem to omit rookies who haven't played x number of games from the ratings when they're being done up. I guess we should just decide what "x" is.
Because of the limited minutes they play, even if a rookie has a lot of GP, it doesn't mean they're playing a ton. Looking at rookies GP last season, Brassard salvaged a decent rating (76) in only 31 GP, but he was basically CBJ's number 1 centre so he saw a lot of ice. Lots of rookies who played more games didn't rate out nearly as well.
Some other notable rookies and their GP and OV rating:
Brunnstrom - 55 GP, 73 OV Bogosian - 47 GP, 75 OV Goligoski - 45 GP, 75 OV Giroux - 42 GP, 73 OV Moller - 40 GP, 65 OV
I think I'd be in favor of having a rookie season be the one in which a player plays over half a season (41+ games). Any less isn't likely to produce anything close to a useful player - and lots of rooks played more games and still suck, I just picked some notable names.
|
|
|
Post by squeaky on Oct 24, 2009 10:14:47 GMT -5
It does make sense that some rooks will be shitty too. I could get behind a 41 game number.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 24, 2009 11:19:27 GMT -5
i could get behind the team having an option on these guys in the minus 41 range. IE you're sending the stiff to the ECHL if he's not good enough for your farm
|
|
|
Post by darren on Oct 24, 2009 11:50:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to have it as a team option. We just need a number that applies across the board.
The reason I said 10 was because it covers those guys who come in for their 9 free games and get sent back to junior... as well as guys who get called up for just a few games. Those are mainly the players I wanted to weed out.
I'm not sure how many rookies played between 10 and 41 games. But the reason I'm reluctant to have it as high as 41 is some players on the cusp may play a couple of season in that range and never be created.
Take Pacioretty for example. Last season he played 34 games. It's conceivable that he plays under 41 again this year too, he looks like he should be in the AHL still. It wouldn't sit well with me that he'd have that many NHL games under his belt and still not be created in our league.
If we go higher than 10 I'd prefer something like 20.
|
|
|
Post by squeaky on Oct 24, 2009 12:32:50 GMT -5
I assumed we were talking career games, not games per year. So Patches would get created after this season, even if he gets sent down tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by markovforpm on Oct 25, 2009 13:39:53 GMT -5
I think 20 games is totally a solid #..... any guy who has played more than 20 games is either a guy who is gonna be a bona-fide player OR someone you know is probably not gonna matter anyways...... I think 20 games ia a good guage..
|
|
|
Post by helsinkigm on Oct 25, 2009 18:21:36 GMT -5
Although, at least I think so, my team has it's share of bluechippers on the farm/prospect list, I think paying market rate for young players is the way to go. That said, I also agree that players shouldn't be created unless they have played a certain amount of games in the previous NHL season. In my leagues the number is 35 NHL games. It makes it easier to get an accurate read on a guy statistically. Also, I, for one (not sure how the rest of you guys feel about this), would really like a rookie of the year award added to the league where players 25 and under and having played less that 25 IHL games the previous season would be eligible. It would just be a matter of saving the previous seasons team scoring and checking the half dozen or so players that might be eligible on each team to see if they have played too many games or not prior to the next season starting. Just me, but I think it would really add to the league and give the re-building teams something to shoot for.
|
|
|
Post by darren on Oct 25, 2009 20:24:37 GMT -5
41 career games sounds fine to me, so long as that doesn't make things more difficult for Jon when he is doing the ratings.
|
|
|
Post by jonmilley on Oct 26, 2009 11:10:55 GMT -5
There's no easy way to do a career games thing, unless somebody wants to start keeping a list of players with career GP. I haven't been able to find those stats in an easily digestible form.
Here's what I'd propose:
-Future entry level deals go up to 4 IHL seasons.
This is an improvement because we'll be signing these guys to their second contracts based on new ratings, since the contract will expire over the summer instead of halfway through an NHL season as per the 3 season deals.
-Entry level contract pay scale goes up - I'd say to a max of 1.25-1.5 million, somewhere in there.
I think the scale was a bit low anyway, and especially if we're getting a bonus season, these guys need to cost more. Plus, actual NHL ELC's can actually be pretty pricey with bonuses, etc.
-Players who play less than 20 NHL games in the rookie season do not get created in the subsequent ratings.
Why 20 games? Well, I think NHL players get 10 games before their entry level contracts kick in. NHL ELC's are 3 years - we'd only be getting 2 NHL seasons, so it makes sense that the threshold is a bit higher to get that contract to kick in.
|
|
|
Post by darren on Oct 26, 2009 11:23:25 GMT -5
Sounds good.
|
|