Two Players: The Proposal So Far

[Devise 4,475]

36 minutes ago, ADwyer87 said:

TO DISCUSS: Is there a potential issue here if a GM wants to trade for their other player? Could force opposing GM's hand/acquire for lower than true value of player.

 

how would this work at all?

 

3. GM players

 

Regardless of the above, I believe one GM player must be on the GM's team at all times. Or have their rights owned by the team like Travis Gowecny or Sven Wolf atm. Basically one GM player continued to adhere to current GM player rules. Likewise, you can not take over a team without at least one of your players on board (which should be easier than what it is now anyway).

 

Ewwwwwwwwwww

 

That is how it currently is. You want us to allow a GM to have two players, neither of which is on their own team? Get real.

 

Also keep in mind this is for VHL only, there is no GM rule for VHLM.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

 

That is how it currently is. You want us to allow a GM to have two players, neither of which is on their own team? Get real.

 

Also keep in mind this is for VHL only, there is no GM rule for VHLM.

I know it's not the rule for VHLM.

 

Also I currently think it's a stupid rule, but the BOG doesn't so my points and others don't matter

[Devise 4,475]

1 hour ago, ADwyer87 said:

I know it's not the rule for VHLM.

 

Also I currently think it's a stupid rule, but the BOG doesn't so my points and others don't matter

 

I'd like to hear a counter argument. The "I think it's a stupid rule so that alone is my evidence" part of it is why we don't take that criticism seriously. It makes sense, avoiding bias and each GM gets access to a free player. Most GM's take advantage of that and earn high TPE. This increases parity as well, as each team should at least always have 1-2 top tier players either younger or older. It makes them more attractive to newer draftees, FA, etc. 

 

Where as removing it would make it so if a GM wants to rebuild he could just sell his own player, even in prime years for multiple seasons. Tanking would be easier as you'd then get to have a roster of just scrubs for more seasons. This would make the "super team" idea people say is at risk with two players more of a reality.

 

As far as I'm concerned we have achieved parity by spreading out as many if the good to higher TPE players as possible while still allowing GMs to play a role in how to build your team. Cup winners over the course of the last ten seasons reflect that as well with teams of all sorts of different make ups winning. Sometimes it was the team with elite forwards, or the best goalie, other times it was the better depth that won.

 

 

[scoop 3,447]

1. Restrictions on draft years

 

Agreed on three years apart being a good mark. Definitely not two, but I think four would be alright as well. As for the discussion point, I don't even really understand what you're saying. Of course we wouldn't allow someone to retire their S50 player and recreate for S54 if they already have an S53 player. I don't even understand why any exception should ever be made regarding that rule.

 

2. Two players on the same team

 

I agree with what is laid out here. Can be drafted to the same team, can be traded to the same team, but cannot sign in free agency. If a GM wants to trade for their other player, I would hope they'd give fair value. Obviously it can be a bit tricky, especially if it' an upcoming free agent. I think maybe we just have to trust the GMs on this.

 

However, something I would like to add to this: a player cannot be traded to the team that their other player is on within a year of signing a contract in free agency. And this is for anyone, not just GMs. Otherwise it leaves too much room open for a sign-and-trade where the team facilitating it is getting something for free just to workaround the free agent restriction.

 

3. GM players

 

Agreed.

 

4. Earning TPE

 

Definitely agree with the way point tasks are handled. Each one applies to just one player, and you can do two per week, but not two welfare. Question: do VHL.com articles count for both? I can it either way; I'd like to say no, so long as it doesn't complicate things too much to have people signify which player they want the VHL.com article to go to.

 

As for miscellaneous TPE, I had an idea in the other thread where one player is the secondary player. They would get no miscellaneous TPE aside from player-specific stuff (practice facility, awards, etc). I think if we did go a route like that, making it be changeable on a seasonal basis would be best; weekly I think would be too much.

 

Unless job TPE just counts for both, I don't like the idea of having job TPE split it any way, be it dividing TPE from one or multiple jobs amongst two players. As I said, I think if miscellaneous TPE just goes to one player then it should be on a primary/secondary basis and job TPE isn't player specific, therefore ineligible for a secondary player.

 

As for donations, it makes little difference to me which way we go. Same with Top GM reward TPE.

 

 

5. Implementation

 

I like the idea of capping it, but I think instead of a first-come first-serve basis we should do a drawing.

 

I also definitely like no initial expansion. Let's see where we're at after a draft or two. Work toward expanding when necessary.

 

 

Something that I don't think I've seen brought up that I feel we could discuss now: what do we do about carryover?

 

Everyone creating a second player for the first time: I would assume they get no carryover. Would we get the initial 30 TPE or no? Is it going to be based on your last retired player? Let's say down the line I retire Maxwell+another player without recreating. Am I eligible to claim carryover from both of them if I create two future players (three seasons apart, of course)? How would we track which players have/haven't had their TPE carried over?

 

 

 

[scoop 3,447]

9 hours ago, YEAH!stlemania said:

Hmm, I'm coming round on the idea now that I see it in a more clear format. Especially like the restrictions on welfare, makes it more of a reward for those who are contributing Point Tasks. 

 

I will say though that, in a league that covers so many different time zones, I don't think a first come first serve thing is the best approach. The approach to use though would depend on how early you announce that it's happening in advance of it's implementation.

 

A better approach could be if you announced it a full season ahead of it's implementation, offer the 10-15 players who earned the most TPE in that time-frame (annoucement to implementation) the opportunity to create a second player, and then if they turn it down, it gets passed on to the next highest TPE earner in that time frame (e.g. if the highest TPE earner in that time frame doesn't want a second player, it gets passed onto the 11th/16th highest TPE earner in that time frame) until you have 10-15 "second" players. Would give people an extra incentive to be active and posting PT's during that time period. 

Or rather than by TPE, have it be based on player age.

 

For example, if the first wave of players were going to be allowed for the S52 draft, an S49 player could get it while an S46 player doesn't. It could be the case that the S46 player actually retires and recreates (let's say in S54) before they'd be chosen to create a second player, and then they'd have to wait until S57. Is that a bad thing? I don't know. Consider that if the S49 player had to wait until S54 for a second player, it would potentially delay when they could retire their S49 guy and recreate.

 

I'm thinking about it too much though. Maybe simply a lottery would be best.

[scoop 3,447]

9 hours ago, Higgins said:

 

What about this abuse of system: Player 1 signs with Team 1. Player 2 signs with Team 2 and is traded to Team 1 for a low draft pick. A basic circumvention of your rule.

I'm not surprised this came up, but I proposed a rule in my long post above. Disallow a player from being traded to a team with their other player within a season of signing in free agency.

[Da Trifecta 1,902]

7 hours ago, Banackock said:

ON that not though @Da Trifecta

 

You think it's penalizing people by allowing us to donate twice.. yet your idea is to... donate... twice.. Mine is simply with one player, yours being two.. So if they can't afford two with one player.. how will they afford 2 with individual donations to one player..? PENALIZING. 

 

One donation for both players. Not sure where you got confused at.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

7 hours ago, Mr. Power said:

 

I'd like to hear a counter argument. The "I think it's a stupid rule so that alone is my evidence" part of it is why we don't take that criticism seriously. It makes sense, avoiding bias and each GM gets access to a free player. Most GM's take advantage of that and earn high TPE. This increases parity as well, as each team should at least always have 1-2 top tier players either younger or older. It makes them more attractive to newer draftees, FA, etc. 

 

Where as removing it would make it so if a GM wants to rebuild he could just sell his own player, even in prime years for multiple seasons. Tanking would be easier as you'd then get to have a roster of just scrubs for more seasons. This would make the "super team" idea people say is at risk with two players more of a reality.

 

As far as I'm concerned we have achieved parity by spreading out as many if the good to higher TPE players as possible while still allowing GMs to play a role in how to build your team. Cup winners over the course of the last ten seasons reflect that as well with teams of all sorts of different make ups winning. Sometimes it was the team with elite forwards, or the best goalie, other times it was the better depth that won.

 

 

There's been a thread on this before where I expressed my opinion already and it was disregarded, so there's no point in bringing it back up

[Molholt 2,185]

6 hours ago, Streetlight said:

 

Something that I don't think I've seen brought up that I feel we could discuss now: what do we do about carryover?

 

Everyone creating a second player for the first time: I would assume they get no carryover. Would we get the initial 30 TPE or no? Is it going to be based on your last retired player? Let's say down the line I retire Maxwell+another player without recreating. Am I eligible to claim carryover from both of them if I create two future players (three seasons apart, of course)? How would we track which players have/haven't had their TPE carried over?

 

Why would it not just apply to the other player, always? 

 

If you have a player retiring in his 8th season and a player in his 4th season - it applies to that player in his 4th season. It shouldn't have to be applied to a new player, no? If you just run one player it would still function the same, but I figure you just apply it to the 2nd player that already exists. That's how the SBA does it. 

[Higgins 3,618]

GM rule will also be affected

[Victor 11,009]

13 hours ago, Banackock said:

With the amount of people having a second player.. we're only going to raise the cap by 1 Million. Makes much sense to double or ALMOST double the league in player amount, but raise the salary cap by 6%.

I don't know where you're getting that from after reading mine or Higgins' posts. I explicitly said get to at least 36mil and evaluate, with the very real possibility of then going up to 40. Higgins said to evaluate with each batch of new draftees and increase by 2mil at each stage.

 

We can't just take the leap to 40mil because you are thinking from the selfish perspective as GM of a team at the cap right now. Of course you want more space and you will get some - but not so much that you'll get to get all the players you want at the expense of a Stockholm or Davos. Look at it this way - you're at 32mil with 10 actives, so 36mil will give you enough room for 11 actives, certainly while second players are on rookie contracts. By the time they hit prime contracts, the cap will likely be 40mil.

 

which brings me to...

 

10 hours ago, Mr. Power said:

I'm pretty against the idea about all the restrictions preventing players to be on the same team together. I guess I just don't get it. I don't see any example that isn't extreme that would get super abused. Especially if we keep the salary cap balanced.

Your failure to grasp this boggles my mind. The balance of the salary cap is of limited importance here.

 

See here, with a 32 mil cap, Helsinki was able to "draft" Koponen, Hamilton, and Clegane, and trade for O'Malley, Klose, and Stropko. So even in the current VHL cap world, a team can draft three stud prospects and get those three stud prospects' veteran players - e.g. if Draper, Bentley, and Villeneuve were still active at the time. With an increased cap - and the cap will have to increase - you get 6 great players and have room to trade for a shit ton more, plus maybe sign their doubles in FA. This doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination - it literally could have happened if second players existed with no movement restrictions in S45.

 

13 hours ago, Banackock said:

you might as well enjoy a super draft every 8 seasons

Super drafts are great but we don't want artificial super drafts. The VHL can quite naturally get super drafts already with the right mix of good first-gens and a few extra people recreating just ahead or just behind schedule. Whatever happens, second players will just raise the standard of drafts overall.

 

But super drafts are not necessarily a good thing for the league. Say you're a rebuilding Team A and have a load of S52 picks. The S52 draft is announced to be a free-for-all start for second players so there's an influx of 30+ new players. You jizz yourself and build a cup winner in the easiest way known to man.

 

But say you're a contending Team B without many S52 picks. In fact, this is your last shot but you'll only start rebuilding after the S52 draft and focus on S53-S55 picks. You just missed out on the greatest class in VHL history and we won't see another like it til S61. Your rebuild is fucked because you get the typical average-to-decent drafts where even with loads of picks you get 2-3 good prospects. The team that's run away with the S52 draftees combined with an increased salary cap means that Team B has no chance of catching Team A.

 

It would be a completely different situation if S52 was a great draft just because. That's just the luck of the draw. But by artificially making it great, we are creating an extremely uneven playing field and sacrificing continued quality for 8 straight drafts for the sake of one huge megadraft.

 

12 hours ago, Da Trifecta said:

Jobs to both. Donations to both. Maybe you could get more people to donate that way.

 

My slightly different suggestion would be that $20 donation rewards go towards both players. You can also donate another $10 per player (so another $20 in total) which are limited to just that one player.

 

7 hours ago, Streetlight said:

Or rather than by TPE, have it be based on player age.

Just to clarify, I believe YEAH's suggestion is to calculate TPE in that specific season. So if it was implemented in S51 or whenever, the top 10 TPE earners of just S51 get first refusal. It would require to be tracked separately.

 

7 hours ago, Streetlight said:

Agreed on three years apart being a good mark. Definitely not two, but I think four would be alright as well. As for the discussion point, I don't even really understand what you're saying. Of course we wouldn't allow someone to retire their S50 player and recreate for S54 if they already have an S53 player. I don't even understand why any exception should ever be made regarding that rule.

Yeah I probably overthought that bit.

 

7 hours ago, Streetlight said:

a player cannot be traded to the team that their other player is on within a year of signing a contract in free agency. And this is for anyone, not just GMs

 

As for carryover...

 

Same as it is now IMO - you can use one player's carryover once, after they're retired. So all second players start at 30 TPE. When you have two players, if you get tired of having two and retire one without making another, the carryover of that retired player can be used whenever but only once.

 

25 minutes ago, ADwyer87 said:

There's been a thread on this before where I expressed my opinion already and it was disregarded, so there's no point in bringing it back up

could you at least link the thread? I'm clearly in long post reply mood and feeling very liberal in general so maybe there's something which can be used from that.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

@Victor you would have to ask @Molholt, he's the one who posted the thread and I'm not sure where it is, I don't see it in Suggestions and Complaints.

[Devise 4,475]

46 minutes ago, Victor said:

I don't know where you're getting that from after reading mine or Higgins' posts. I explicitly said get to at least 36mil and evaluate, with the very real possibility of then going up to 40. Higgins said to evaluate with each batch of new draftees and increase by 2mil at each stage.

 

We can't just take the leap to 40mil because you are thinking from the selfish perspective as GM of a team at the cap right now. Of course you want more space and you will get some - but not so much that you'll get to get all the players you want at the expense of a Stockholm or Davos. Look at it this way - you're at 32mil with 10 actives, so 36mil will give you enough room for 11 actives, certainly while second players are on rookie contracts. By the time they hit prime contracts, the cap will likely be 40mil.

 

which brings me to...

 

Your failure to grasp this boggles my mind. The balance of the salary cap is of limited importance here.

 

See here, with a 32 mil cap, Helsinki was able to "draft" Koponen, Hamilton, and Clegane, and trade for O'Malley, Klose, and Stropko. So even in the current VHL cap world, a team can draft three stud prospects and get those three stud prospects' veteran players - e.g. if Draper, Bentley, and Villeneuve were still active at the time. With an increased cap - and the cap will have to increase - you get 6 great players and have room to trade for a shit ton more, plus maybe sign their doubles in FA. This doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination - it literally could have happened if second players existed with no movement restrictions in S45.

 

Super drafts are great but we don't want artificial super drafts. The VHL can quite naturally get super drafts already with the right mix of good first-gens and a few extra people recreating just ahead or just behind schedule. Whatever happens, second players will just raise the standard of drafts overall.

 

But super drafts are not necessarily a good thing for the league. Say you're a rebuilding Team A and have a load of S52 picks. The S52 draft is announced to be a free-for-all start for second players so there's an influx of 30+ new players. You jizz yourself and build a cup winner in the easiest way known to man.

 

But say you're a contending Team B without many S52 picks. In fact, this is your last shot but you'll only start rebuilding after the S52 draft and focus on S53-S55 picks. You just missed out on the greatest class in VHL history and we won't see another like it til S61. Your rebuild is fucked because you get the typical average-to-decent drafts where even with loads of picks you get 2-3 good prospects. The team that's run away with the S52 draftees combined with an increased salary cap means that Team B has no chance of catching Team A.

 

It would be a completely different situation if S52 was a great draft just because. That's just the luck of the draw. But by artificially making it great, we are creating an extremely uneven playing field and sacrificing continued quality for 8 straight drafts for the sake of one huge megadraft.

 

 

My slightly different suggestion would be that $20 donation rewards go towards both players. You can also donate another $10 per player (so another $20 in total) which are limited to just that one player.

 

Just to clarify, I believe YEAH's suggestion is to calculate TPE in that specific season. So if it was implemented in S51 or whenever, the top 10 TPE earners of just S51 get first refusal. It would require to be tracked separately.

 

Yeah I probably overthought that bit.

 

 

As for carryover...

 

Same as it is now IMO - you can use one player's carryover once, after they're retired. So all second players start at 30 TPE. When you have two players, if you get tired of having two and retire one without making another, the carryover of that retired player can be used whenever but only once.

 

could you at least link the thread? I'm clearly in long post reply mood and feeling very liberal in general so maybe there's something which can be used from that.

 

Sure. But that is no different as you even mentioned to how teams our built now. What is the difference what member represents what player? At the end of the day, the purpose of the salary cap is to prevent teams from being able to load up on very high TPE players and that is it. They can only fit so many of them. They have to structure their player salary based on age, depth, total TPE, team need. That will remain the same with two players. If your saying that is broken because look how many "top members" this club has, they are so loaded. The reality is they aren't. Sure they have some top prospects, but either way by the time they acquire said players a bunch of them will only be able to stick around for a couple seasons. So they'll have to go out and use assets to build their roster after they retire anyways. 

 

I should be clear that I am perfectly fine with free agency restrictions preventing members from somehow finding a way to sign both their players to the same team in an off-season. Although even then that will be highly unlikely. With the mandatory four season gap, you'd have to wait 3 seasons until any second player of yours is eligible to be a UFA. By that time, assuming your first player was in his 4th season as you created your second, your second player is in their 7th season. So the "benefits" of said signee are no different than the example you listed with Helsinki getting O'Malley for two seasons really. All that needing to line up perfectly as well is going to be a pretty rare thing. Most members won't just FA with every player either, just because. 

 

My actual issue is any rule that explicitly prevents X player from joining another team because they have a player of theirs on it already. Even if we have FA restrictions, a player can still be traded/drafted regardless of the member they are. But the GM rule, stating that players would not be able to have more than one GM member player per team ever is absolutely silly. I'm not saying said team should get two players for free with the GM rule at the same time. But I think we should keep the GM rule where a team gets a free player provided the GM in question only creates one player at a time. (Allows a choice to GM's.) Where as if they create a second player all of their players could go anywhere, including their own teams. But they'd have to draft, trade, FA them. The give/take this would provide on if you choose to have a single player as a GM or not would be interesting. Because if you choose to go single, as you recreate your player get's auto to your club. However unless you retire you can't trade that player. Where as if you create two, sure you don't know when/if you'd get one of your players, or both. But the plus side is if you decide to rebuild, or re-tool or whatever you can leverage your own player as the asset they are. Although you do have to waste picks/fa/trades on them to acquire them. I think it's a good balance honestly. 

Edited May 21, 2016 by Mr. Power

[Da Trifecta 1,902]

I love everything you said in that @Victor. Like it hit the nail on the head.

[scoop 3,447]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

I should be clear that I am perfectly fine with free agency restrictions preventing members from somehow finding a way to sign both their players to the same team in an off-season. Although even then that will be highly unlikely. With the mandatory four season gap, you'd have to wait 3 seasons until any second player of yours is eligible to be a UFA. By that time, assuming your first player was in his 4th season as you created your second, your second player is in their 7th season. So the "benefits" of said signee are no different than the example you listed with Helsinki getting O'Malley for two seasons really. All that needing to line up perfectly as well is going to be a pretty rare thing. Most members won't just FA with every player either, just because. 

 

So maybe your older player signs with the team your younger player is on. In your scenario, it actually lines up perfectly to have exactly what you think wouldn't be a problem to happen.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Streetlight

[Victor 11,009]

First off, handy tip time! If you highlight some text in a post, a "Quote this" button comes up so you can quote only the part of the post you need! Like so...

 

5 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

Even if we have FA restrictions, a player can still be traded/drafted regardless of the member they are. But the GM rule, stating that players would not be able to have more than one GM member player per team ever is absolutely silly.

whoa whoa whoa when did I say anything different? All I said was we should crack down on forcing your way onto your other player's team. Apart from that...

 

18 hours ago, Victor said:

Draft

Second player can be drafted to the team of the first player BUT NOT if the user forces other GMs to pass on him.

Free Agency

Under no circumstances can a user choose to sign with one of their players to the team of the other.

Trades

No restriction for trades - GM's discretion

 

The only thing I mentioned in terms of GMs was that will anyone have trust issues if GMs trade for themselves? i.e. if they want their 2nd player and trade for them, do we care if someone potentially could lower that player's market value?

 

i.e. GM 1 tell GM 2 that GM 1 wants to trade for GM 1's second player who is on GM 2's team. GM 1 also says that GM 2 should trade him GM 1's second player for a discount price or GM 1 will simply retire his second player.

 

 

 

Also, to clarify, no restrictions on two GM players on teams have been proposed. I said, one GM player HAS to be on the GM's team. Not ONLY one GM player has to be on the GM's team.

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Streetlight said:

So maybe your older player signs with the team your younger player is on.

 

And? Gets them for...2 seasons. Then you retire. And it all starts again. What am I missing here? As an example, Member A is good friends with Member B. Member A is on Team 1. Team 2 really needs Member B, and he is hitting free agency soon. Member B decides to join his friend Member A, on Team 1. Team 2 is disappointed. 

 

Whats the difference? There is none. The Salary Cap prevents unbalanced teams from happening, and the free agency/contract rules prevent players from abusing FA to such a degree that it would make a team built all by FA. It's not like teams haven't tried to load up via FA before, and they weren't all that super. 

[scoop 3,447]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

 

And? Gets them for...2 seasons. Then you retire. And it all starts again. What am I missing here? As an example, Member A is good friends with Member B. Member A is on Team 1. Team 2 really needs Member B, and he is hitting free agency soon. Member B decides to join his friend Member A, on Team 1. Team 2 is disappointed. 

 

Whats the difference? There is none. The Salary Cap prevents unbalanced teams from happening, and the free agency/contract rules prevent players from abusing FA to such a degree that it would make a team built all by FA. It's not like teams haven't tried to load up via FA before, and they weren't all that super. 

What? No. Okay, let's say that the season difference has to be 4+. I'll just use myself as an example. So I have S50 Diana Maxwell. I create S54 Peanut Butter. In S54, Maxwell is a free agent and Peanut Butter gets drafted to Vasteras along with S54 Solas Newguy and S54 Dangles Newguy. Wouldn't you know it, Maxwell, Theo Axelsson (solas), and Asher Donovan (Dangles) are all free agents that season. We could all sign with Vasteras. Maxwell, Axelsson, and Donovan would all potentially have four seasons left in their careers at this time.

 

I'm not saying it's the most likely of scenarios, but we've definitely seen teams (particularly Helsinki) draft three stud players in the same draft. Now imagine if they had in-their-prime players to just sign over and join them.

 

EDIT: And the difference is that it's not just friends. It's literally yourself that you're dealing with. And because the three new draftees were just drafted, they are going to be relatively cheap for three seasons.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Streetlight

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, Victor said:

First off, handy tip time! If you highlight some text in a post, a "Quote this" button comes up so you can quote only the part of the post you need! Like so...

 

whoa whoa whoa when did I say anything different? All I said was we should crack down on forcing your way onto your other player's team. Apart from that...

 

 

The only thing I mentioned in terms of GMs was that will anyone have trust issues if GMs trade for themselves? i.e. if they want their 2nd player and trade for them, do we care if someone potentially could lower that player's market value?

 

i.e. GM 1 tell GM 2 that GM 1 wants to trade for GM 1's second player who is on GM 2's team. GM 1 also says that GM 2 should trade him GM 1's second player for a discount price or GM 1 will simply retire his second player.

 

 

 

Also, to clarify, no restrictions on two GM players on teams have been proposed. I said, one GM player HAS to be on the GM's team. Not ONLY one GM player has to be on the GM's team.

 

Ah that is fair, then perhaps I was misreading based on the discussions. My bad, I thought the proposal was that a GM can only have one of his players on his team at a given time. 

 

As far as your example, all GM 2 should do is bring it to the attention of the Blue Team that GM 1 is threatening to retire his player to change value. Or jesus post it publicly. You think any of us will want to play for GM 1 again if he does that? That isn't just a dick move it's as classless as it gets. I mean how many people here have threatened to retire their player, and had it work out for them in terms of having a long productive career in the VHL? I feel like we hurt the depth of options available to players and GM's by instituting a rule just so a very very select minority don't try to do something that is unlikely to happen anyways. The same goes with FA. If a member wants to join a team, why stand in the way? 

 

Why if I decide to go to FA with one player can I choose any team, with any sense of bias I want. But suddenly when I have two players, I can choose any team except for the team my player is on. I'm not saying I'd only want to have both my players on the same team. But again, it doesn't really allow as much room for flexibility. It's not like a team is going to literally get every second player ever for zero draft picks/trade assets, and just by FA. That simply wouldn't be possible based on team needs at a given time, the amount of second players there is going to be put into the system with the gap. It's all going to be so controlled that it's essentially just creating more regular players. The only thing I'd be fine seeing is restrictions for going to FA with both players to the same team in the same off-season. If a team drafts someones first player 1OA and then 2 seasons later said members second player in season let's say 8, last season, is testing FA. I see zero reason why that player shouldn't be able to play on a team with their other player. The team in question still had to pay a 1 OA for the second player, and the first player still had his own career with his own choices. I don't really get how the interfere in a way that makes it unfair. 

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Streetlight said:

What? No. Okay, let's say that the season difference has to be 4+. I'll just use myself as an example. So I have S50 Diana Maxwell. I create S54 Peanut Butter. In S54, Maxwell is a free agent and Peanut Butter gets drafted to Vasteras along with S54 Solas Newguy and S54 Dangles Newguy. Wouldn't you know it, Maxwell, Theo Axelsson (solas), and Asher Donovan (Dangles) are all free agents that season. We could all sign with Vasteras. Maxwell, Axelsson, and Donovan would all potentially have four seasons left in their careers at this time.

 

I'm not saying it's the most likely of scenarios, but we've definitely seen teams (particularly Helsinki) draft three stud players in the same draft. Now imagine if they had in-their-prime players to just sign over and join them.

 

EDIT: And the difference is that it's not just friends. It's literally yourself that you're dealing with. And because the three new draftees were just drafted, they are going to be relatively cheap for three seasons.

 

True but even in the Helsinki case the Titans had to trade players/assets to acquire so many top picks in one draft. The other thing to consider, if Victors plans are correct in how we implement, the goal is to try to create good drafts year to year, or as many as possible. Not just one "super draft". Thus, having multiple high picks in one round is unlikely to yield the similarly broken results you mentioned with Helsinki. And even in the case that it does, and a team acquires that many picks, each drafts quality should be higher with more players and second players at that joining the league each season. So the impact those players have on all joining the same team really isn't that high. I mean in the Helsinki example they were able to repeat, but they couldn't win three in a row. So it's not like, even in the current structure of what they did that it was all that unfair or dominating. 

[scoop 3,447]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

Why if I decide to go to FA with one player can I choose any team, with any sense of bias I want. But suddenly when I have two players, I can choose any team except for the team my player is on. I'm not saying I'd only want to have both my players on the same team. But again, it doesn't really allow as much room for flexibility.

Is the flexibility of being able to have two players not enough that this one restriction is an issue? It's a precautionary measure and one that I think is fair and not too limiting.

[Victor 11,009]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

GM 2 should do is bring it to the attention of the Blue Team that GM 1 is threatening to retire his player to change value.

Yeah which is why I've left that as a discussion point. I am personally quite fine with just FA restrictions and everything else can be left to the power of commish veto. Like the trading-back-player-within-2-seasons rule I mentioned in the other thread.

 

1 minute ago, Mr. Power said:

Thus, having multiple high picks in one round is unlikely to yield the similarly broken results you mentioned with Helsinki.

Given that S45 draft took place in the current VHL environment, even staggering second players to avoid a super draft doesn't mean we will avoid top-heavy drafts with one team owning a bunch of picks. The Helsinki scenario will remain just as plausible, and IMO moreso in the new VHL.

 

Another few things about FA restrictions, which you so oppose.

 

1. I think picking from 9 teams (at least, with expansion a very real possibility) is more than enough. If you're going to FA for the purposes of trying something new, I don't see why you would want to sign for your other player's team. If you're going to FA to sign for your other player's team well, fuck you.

 

2. I feel like you're underplaying the risk here anyway. S51 draftee can hit FA in S54. S51 draftee can also have a S54 second player according to the 3-season restriction. So S51 draftee can sign with S54 draftee's team and be on the same team for 5 seasons, not 1 or 2.

[Devise 4,475]

Also just as an aside, but something worth considering that I don't think has been brought up;

 

What does this do to both the value of players and the value of picks? Do second round or third round picks change in value? Do players lessen in value, given that there are more of them? Just as a consideration, it'd be good to know what type of effects rolling this out could potentially have on those markets, especially if we are prepared to judge GM's for potentially targeting members they already have on their rosters, second players, and what is "fair value" for those players. 

[Victor 11,009]

Just now, Mr. Power said:

Also just as an aside, but something worth considering that I don't think has been brought up;

 

What does this do to both the value of players and the value of picks? Do second round or third round picks change in value? Do players lessen in value, given that there are more of them? Just as a consideration, it'd be good to know what type of effects rolling this out could potentially have on those markets, especially if we are prepared to judge GM's for potentially targeting members they already have on their rosters, second players, and what is "fair value" for those players. 

That'll be an interesting aspect but not a major issue in actually setting up the ground rules. GMs and everyone will adapt.

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

1. I think picking from 9 teams (at least, with expansion a very real possibility) is more than enough. If you're going to FA for the purposes of trying something new, I don't see why you would want to sign for your other player's team. If you're going to FA to sign for your other player's team well, fuck you.

 

2. I feel like you're underplaying the risk here anyway. S51 draftee can hit FA in S54. S51 draftee can also have a S54 second player according to the 3-season restriction. So S51 draftee can sign with S54 draftee's team and be on the same team for 5 seasons, not 1 or 2.

 

Firstly, it should be at least a 4 season restriction, not 3. As in, that member can create their second player in the off-season/season of their players 4th season in the league. 3 is just short of a gap imo. The last thing we want to see is a member with two good players whom neither have hit depreciation yet, or is just hitting it. Secondly, I honestly think your overplaying the risk. That is to say, even in the most extreme example you can think of, the two players from 3-4 top members example, that team is only BROKEN if they constantly win. I honestly do not believe that would happen. Sure there'd be a chance. But if you don't give people a chance to create a dynasty, whats the point? It should be very hard to do, but it should still be possible. 

 

As for the first bolded part, why is there a stigma against this? Again it isn't really for me personally, as I end up going to all sorts of different clubs even with one player. But if a team is missing one piece, or has a specific need say maybe a young defender or a second line center, etc. What if the markets are all dried up, but you happen to have a member on your team whose second player is hitting FA? Why is it such a big deal if they join the team your other player is on? Not even like broken wise now, but it seems to be an ethical thing, or something along those lines I just don't get. I've always taken the approach with FA that if a member wants to go have fun with any team, it's their right. They created their player, they waited out their rookie contract to hit FA. If that is what keeps them active and going and it isn't some rule breaking/league unbalancing act, what is the big deal?