Spartan

I'm fairly sure it'd be occurring before that season, unless I'm misunderstanding the wording. S88 depreciation is S87 into S88.

It definitely doesn't invalidate it, and it shouldn't. We don't want to be forcing every player to bypass the E by suddenly removing any tradeoff between 8 and 9 seasons. Personally, playing like shit in your rookie season is more of a decision driver than the 9th season regression, because as I've demonstrated using my own build as an example and my earning, it's definitely possible to end up with an overall successful player from a stats and individual award perspective. That's why going into the draft, I was fairly clear about what I wanted as a player and made the finals as a rookie. I figured I wouldn't be eligible for a rookie award due to my TPA in comparison to the S80 8 season players. This regression change is moreso for the late career phase of players, has nothing to do with early season TPE/TPA. An extra season of earning + a plethora of weekly and seasonal uncapped TPE are allowing players to earn nearly 300+ more TPE in their careers. Even recent 8 season retirees are finishing in the top 5 of all time TPE, I really don't think TPE availability is an issue at all.

Frankly, it'd just be "do as you please." I have two reasons of saying so. First is the selfish one - I am more than happy to be one of few 9 season career players. I know my own earning capability (which quite a few others in the league can also match or exceed) and I am confident in my ability to plan for success with a 9 season career. I willingly sacrificed a higher peak TPA even before hybrid was a thing, or this new depreciation system was a thing, for the absolute safest peak build that would perform at a fairly high level while also being able to handle any extreme regression changes. There was a chance for a few people who earned well enough to get to play an extra 72 games, I wanted to do so. One more season to (not) win the Continental Cup. Second, which sort of ties into the selfish one but is more from a GM perspective, I know I can give my players and prospects a proper guide on how to handle their career as a 8 season player or a 9 season player. Even if they're less - as a 7 or less season player. As a GM, I am responsible for helping my prospects determine what career length is best, and if someone is thinking about doing a 9 season career, I have personal experience with Nico on how to handle it. If someone wants to do 9 seasons, I will do my best to help them do so. Too many players around the league don't properly prepare for regression now, and I attribute that to the lack of pressure that resulted from the hybrid change. Before the hybrid, everyone banked a full season in advance to prepare for depreciation. Now there just isn't that rush to bank since regression was so light. So yeah if people want to stay down, fine with me. 9 season careers weren't for the figurative "faint of heart" anyways. I don't think anyone was happy with 7% when builds often had 4-5 99 attributes. The math behind the current numbers was designed (and other BoG members can confirm if they'd like) to mimic that sort of pre-hybrid hit but after factoring in TPE inflation with 9 season careers and the spread of hybrid attributes. There really isn't a massive difference here especially when you factor in that Jagr in the final season and when you actually plan your build and regression in advance. If you don't want to put in the planning or effort in advance, that's not a valid reason for the league to drop the 9th season regression percentage.

FISTED ANALLY BY A CIRCUS MONKEY

Forgot to tag @N0HBDY and @Moon @MexicanCow123 as well so you don't process it.

Well you see....there's something called the salary cap. Wumbo makes 3.5, Lindbergh makes 5.5. Warsaw only has 500k in cap space. After factoring in the 50% of each player, Warsaw ends up 500k in the red. Trade is vetoed.

Real reason is that the M Commissioners have demanded a full-time salary and the funding had to come from somewhere. Thank you for my beer allowance buddy.

I have been informed there is no way to currently figure out new depreciation since the depreciation tool on the portal isn't updated yet. So I updated the old hybrid Google Sheet with a tab for depreciation calculations. Go nuts. Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oyj6T5O-bTH-CumYQR-Fe4oFz6cALWjWaRrGNBxNnrQ/edit?usp=sharing Example of my own build in the tool: For the worried aspiring 9-season players, I already have 200 TPE banked for the upcoming regression. Which is already 30 TPE above what depreciation *would* be, and this is without any Jagrs factored in. A Jagr in my 9th season at would save me 67 TPE, so the post regression hit would really just be 285. So 171, 171, 271, 285. Considering you'd be overbanking for each of the first 2 hits, the last 2 are much more manageable. It's really just about making sure your build is 1. efficient and 2. not absurd in spending. Let me know if there are any questions!

Maybe this is my mindset and my overly-cautious approach to building Nico from the get-go knowing that depreciation was simply too easy to go untouched for a full career, but regardless of 7% or 12% - I know I would have gone up to get 9 seasons vs 8. I definitely could not peak at like 1.5k TPA like some of the 8 season folks, but clearly my 1.15k TPA build was good enough to win a Campbell and a Brooks. In terms of Stolzy sacrifice though, I don't think regression changed anything. Not a single 9 season "straight to VHL" player has won the Stolzy since the hybrid attribute change. But that is something I think was fairly known even before hybrid changes. 9 season careers were designed to allow max earners to play an extra season if they can attain it in pre-draft earning, which is a very small portion of players. Now obviously it's a little more flexible since the cap is 300, but the goal was always for it to be for a smaller portion of members who could truly handle the at the time, 7% regression. It's just changed from 7% in pre-hybrid to 12% in post-hybrid, essentially finding the equivalent percentage under the new system. Perhaps people who aren't willing to tentatively map out a build plan/regression plan will choose to stay down. Or even folks who aren't confident in their ability to maintain their earning for a full career. But having seen your earn rate on Idaho and how its continued on with Frenchman, I really don't think you're going to be in a position where this change is going to screw you over. If you'd like, I can show you some projections to give you some assurance.

On

We've done some projections using current max earners' earn rates and builds to figure out what depreciation levels would be more significant than the %'s we had in place before while also the least excessively punishing to 9-season players. Keep in mind that the 9-season career change and the addition of a 7% depreciation in the 9th season was done under the pre-hybrid system, where players having 4-5 99's in their attributes was common. 7% was considered "harsh" then as well, and the decision to play a 9th season meant having to give up a higher peak TPA build in exchange for a build that would last for all 9 seasons. At the same time, people figured out TPA builds that would still allow them to be quite effective and be considered a top player in the league. This change just adjusts the % values to make more sense in a post-hybrid environment since we didn't change them during the attribute swap. At most, the 9 season players will just have to be a bit more mindful about not spending their TPE pre-first regression as loosely as an 8-season player. I guarantee you though, you'll still be able to have a peak build over 1.1k TPA.

@lidz Come back

I've realized for a bit that I really don't talk about my player....at all. So I'll make the effort to cover Nico in this VHL.com since this has been a bit of an eventful season for him. The hype and expectations for Nico over the offseason was fairly obvious with Nico going off the board in the first round in pretty much every VHFL draft, and then also being listed for various awards on predictions ballots. Vancouver also had high expectations for the team, with youngsters like Svatopluk Puk, Henry Eagles and Dogwood Maple entering their sophomore seasons alongside stars Alexandre Leduc, Biggie Cheese and Brandt Fuhr. On paper, this was one of the most dangerous teams and most considered them to be a playoffs lock - or even a top 2 team in the entire league. Through about the midway point of the season the performance on the ice was extremely shaky. Nico averaged about a point per game and was the top scorer on the Wolves, but a point per game doesn't really lead a team to wins in this era of the VHL. Even though @Frank tried every line combination possible, the results just never came. Vancouver was at a point where missing the playoffs entirely was a possibility. At some point around game 29-30, I reached out to Frank to discuss a player swap, as Moscow was in a similar position where the team wasn't performing to expectations and the first line was invisible most nights. It was a very unique situation in the VHL, as I don't feel we swap identical TPA players at the same position and from the same draft class very often. But due to the similarities in player age and TPA, both teams were willing to try out a simple change of scenery. Quite interestingly, the trade seems to done exactly what both teams hoped. Preobrazhensky: Pearce: Both players went from point per game on their old teams to around 1.22 PPG and have sent both teams into stronger positions in their respective conferences. Vancouver is now solidly in 4th place in the NA with 6 points between them and Seattle in 5th. Moscow is in a race with Warsaw and Davos for the 1st seed in the EU, with all three teams holding the 1st place spot for various periods of time over the past few sims. Personally, I am just glad Nico is playing a bit more like what you'd expect from a 1.1k TPA player. Even other superstars on Moscow such as Tomas Sogaard and Hammar Voss have found their games as well since Nico's acquisition. Now both franchises will wait and see if their new superstars can take them on a deep playoff run.

For full clarity, my jobs are VHL GM, VHLM Commissioner, Updater and Financier. I used to have VHFL and WC Commissioner until I got M Commish and decided to get some things off my plate so that I wasn't overwhelmed with things. Realistically though, I only feel like I have two jobs as a GM and Commish. Those are really the only two positions where I log in to the league and feel that there are some responsibilities I need to take care of. Updater is fairly more lowkey since I can just do it for an hour a week and clear quite a few, and financier is really just adjusting salaries after depreciation and then approving trades every so often. In terms of your points about holding jobs, I think people should just recognize their own time commitment to the VHL and decide if they'd like a specific job or not. There's a weird aura around jobs, that people feel they need to have them. I enjoy being a GM to scratch my sports management itch, and being a commissioner gives me the ability to assist with back-end things like opening training camp, setting draft boards, a lot of admin things that take some work off the Blues plates. But I also joined during the COVID pandemic and was able to give a lot of time to the league when I started, which allowed me to become a M GM within a season of joining. I highly doubt I'd have gone at that pace if I joined the league today. I refuse to hold any jobs in any other league for similar reasons, I simply can't hit an activity level that I feel is sufficient. If people are able to earn 8, 10, 12 TPE a week just from doing tasks in 30 minutes a week, that should be more than fine.

1. I certainly think he could do it, he's been playing really well for us recently. I think we're also playing some of the bottom 2 teams in the EU a decent number of times to end the season so it could be close! 2. The standard in the VHL is always to be the best team, and that's certainly within our sights as well. We're in 3rd place now, just a point behind Warsaw and just 7 points behind Calgary with 2 games in hand. It'd certainly be nice to have home ice advantage through the playoffs. 3. I enjoyed the hype of watching the USA vs England game for about the first 30 minutes, but it was a bit of a snoozefest after a bit. Disappointing, and I haven't really watched many other games either. 4. I'd honestly like to play volleyball or badminton. Both are two of my go-to fun/casual sports to play with friends and I think it'd be really fun at a pro level. 5. Fanta is probably my top option, followed closely by Dr Pepper. Stewart's Orange Cream Soda though has to round out the top three there. 6. I had a few morbid ones at first but I'll go with James Harrison's pick six in the Super Bowl against the Cards. I bet the stadium was absolutely electric for the longest pick six in Super Bowl history.

One of my stretch goals as M Commissioner is to make the M GM's lives easier, which we've tried to do by increasing their pay and changing up the waiver system. We're still working on ways to improve it to help reduce burnout and maybe even make it more of an appealing role for veteran members who would just like to help new members without the stress of forum pitches. We have seen a bit of renewed interest from some veterans in regards to positions in the future, so as long as we do continue to have interest, I doubt we even consider any avenue involving mentors/paid assistants.

The issue with job pay splitting has always been the ability to abuse the system and feed TPE to friends or players on the team. When we still have plenty of candidates willing to do the M GM job after increasing the pay and removing some of the time sink components in regards to waivers, there's no reason that we should be paying other people to do the M GM's job. I still think that an AGM holds their role for the learning experience and to show their ability to hold a GM position in the future. If people feel like volunteering a little bit of time to serve as a teams unofficial mentor/guide, they're still free to do that.

But what happens with new candidates, as Tate seems to be?

IIRC there were no interviews sent out in general. I don't think there have been interviews used for a period of time. Also I disagree that the line was that long, in fact I think that every qualified candidate at the time he was hired has already received a VHL GM gig. IR, Kaleeb, Thad, Moon, N0H, maybe even Acyd(?) have all been on the wait list recently and have gotten their turn. None of them seemingly went IA after Frank got the position. I genuinely do think the hires have been a lot better recently. And I'd still request that these sorts of concerns get reported using the incident form that we're trying to make more folks aware of. They obviously can't sit on their own conduct reviews so it's your best shot at oversight. Something else I've sort of learned since I joined BoG and some staff roles is that moderation can be influenced by the BoG if there are valid arguments and decisions made to shape the direction of moderation. Otherwise the mod team as a whole is given leeway to do what they feel is appropriate with the Blues signing off as needed. I wouldn't really put any agenda on a single mod, but if you've got a concern about specific moderation policies, I think sending a BoG member a formal writeup for discussion would be the best way to go about it. You get more non-mods with a platform discussing your points.

It is admittedly easier to push back on things when you're not the one being accused

If you could provide those please, we could always have some internal discussions to fix/tweak hiring processes. We've changed them over the years as public feedback asks for different hiring processes and transparency, but I would need more specifics here since none of the examples provided yet really fit the "toxic" aspect. Or even the retention portion with Frank considering he was a phenomenal M GM and has proven himself to be the right hire with his GMotY award.

But there are no examples that are relevant. If your only potential examples are from the past and not the present, clearly current hiring processes aren't making the same mistakes. You can't just tell the world that we've got toxic people in jobs and then not support it at all. I gave you the option to inform me in DMs because obviously I don't intend to put people on blast. As someone who hires others, I think it'd be appropriate to be informed if we're hiring presumably poor candidates.