Senior Admin Will 4,604 Posted February 21, 2017 Senior Admin Share Posted February 21, 2017 I'm still on the fence about it, don't have a strong opinion. How does everyone feel about it and for those that want it, how do you envision depreciation/contract structure changing? doesn't seem like it on first thought but it is a big change, would definitely require planning and consideration. 10 seasons would probably be the way to go if anything. There has also been some talk about speeding up the regular season a bit, nothing too crazy but if career length were to increase it might be viable to speed up the regular season slightly. Interested to hear some more in-depth thoughts on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglesfan036 4,583 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Absolutely not, league would become even more stale. Drafts would be worse, and how much fun is it for the rest of the league if the O'Malleys of the world continue to tear it up year after year and win cup after cup. Need to keep the new blood flowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devise 4,475 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, eaglesfan036 said: Absolutely not, league would become even more stale. Drafts would be worse, and how much fun is it for the rest of the league if the O'Malleys of the world continue to tear it up year after year and win cup after cup. Need to keep the new blood flowing. How much worse would drafts actually be? I'd like to see some evidence to support that, because remember there is nothing that is making 10 seasons mandatory for members. I think depending on how you handle depreciation, and I think if we were to do it depreciation would have to hit hard in those final two seasons, the last one especially. I'm not against doing this, there seems to be a group of people in the league who really want to push their players careers past eight. For some it feels like they just get into their prime in season 4 and suddenly it's depreciation and then retirement. I don't know if I'd push my players past eight, I'd have to see when I get there but for those that do, I don't see it as a huge deal. In terms of envisioning how it may look in terms of depreciation and salary, I'd say for a depreciation bracket why not go 1-6 No depreciation (give that extra prime season that value) 7 - 3% 8 - 5% 9 - 8% 10 - 10% As for salary I think it wouldn't be that tough to figure out. We could either add a bracket for the 9/10 seasons, or just extend the veteran status into the 9/10 seasons. Realistically with that hard of a depreciation only a TPE whore would get value out of it. On the plus side this would add some value to the player store purchases targeting depreciation for the players who need it as well. I also think lowering the depreciation for 7/8 by removing 6 and then re adjusting the scale makes the most sense since we'd still encourage people to have 8 seasons careers at most, with just the option to go that 9/10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jericho 917 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 9 hours ago, eaglesfan036 said: Absolutely not, league would become even more stale. Drafts would be worse, and how much fun is it for the rest of the league if the O'Malleys of the world continue to tear it up year after year and win cup after cup. Need to keep the new blood flowing. An O'Malley would get crippled by a harsher depreciation scale, assuming we handle that right. I have no issue with it, but I'd like to see how the league feels about it first. Make sure this is actually what the members want before we implement it. My only stipulation is that you seal the old record books and have a new set for post expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop 3,254 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Devise said: 1-6 No depreciation (give that extra prime season that value) 7 - 3% 8 - 5% 9 - 8% 10 - 10% I haven't really looked too much into what we are looking at for update scale changes, but I'm not sure how I feel about delaying depreciation. While I think longer careers would be nice, I don't think we should necessarily try to tailor a new depreciation schedule to allow a player in their 9th season to be about where a player in their 7th season would be now. I think when I had previously proposed this idea, I was envisioning something like 10% in the 9th season, and 13% in the 10th season. Harsh, I suppose, but that's the price you pay with taking the longer career. I don't think players should be improving all the way until the end of their career if they don't retire early. There should be some period of decline in there. EDIT: Actually, I just went back and found it, and I was even harsher than that. I said 13%, 19%, and 25% for the 9th, 10th, and 11th seasons. For anyone curious to see (what I believe is) the most recent large-scale discussion on the matter, here it is. Edited February 21, 2017 by Streetlite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop 3,254 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) I had also posted somewhere in that thread the idea to disallow banking TPE for players who play beyond eight seasons. Or perhaps we could limit it. Another idea would be to institute a skill cap for players beyond their eight season. Maybe starting in their 9th season, they can't go about 92 in any attribute, and starting in their 10th season they can't go above 85. Just a couple ideas to keep the O'Malleys of the world from remaining as top players, though a harsh 13% in the 9th season and even harsher beyond that should already theoretically take care of that. Edited February 21, 2017 by Streetlite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendrick 4,714 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Nope NotAVHLM-GM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgins 3,617 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I like the 8 season career but I also like the option of a 10 season career... I'd love to continue with players longer but I also like creating new players. So I don't know is my response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Tortorella 2,653 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Only if the regression is strong enough that the only reason to do so is sentimental value. So basically no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Admin Will 4,604 Posted February 22, 2017 Author Senior Admin Share Posted February 22, 2017 Jericho's right this is probably one of those things better talked about in public forum, I'm gonna move it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,401 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Just ban Green. Problem solved @eaglesfan036 NotAVHLM-GM, der meister, TheLastOlympian07 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissioner Beketov 8,639 Posted February 22, 2017 Commissioner Share Posted February 22, 2017 13 hours ago, Fire Hakstol said: Only if the regression is strong enough that the only reason to do so is sentimental value. So basically no. This. Even at 8 seasons players are becoming less and less relevant, anything past that they would be borederline useless and purely for sentimental value. I'm all for the sentiment but it fucks up our records and still creates the possibility (although unlikely) of creating one unstoppable player. I think 8 seasons is plenty, no reason to go above that. NotAVHLM-GM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corco 1,124 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Make it a very expensive option in the player store STZ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevo 760 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Let's rather have eight seasons for everybody, meaning prospects that stay down in the VHLM don't lose a year of VHL eligibility. Corco, gorlab and Molholt 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molholt 2,183 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, stevo said: Let's rather have eight seasons for everybody, meaning prospects that stay down in the VHLM don't lose a year of VHL eligibility. Suggested this what feels like 1000 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STZ 5,280 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Corco said: Make it a very expensive option in the player store This is the only thing I would support. Like if you had to save all your money, and not buy anything to come back from depreciation. Id rather see other changes than this one.. Corco 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastOlympian07 2,388 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 i think that should be the biggest change if anything. like how the SBA works. if a prospects doesnt reach the 175 tpe plateau or what they shouldnt be draft eligible or whatever because they arent vhl ready. they shouldnt be punished by wasting a year of their potential VHL career by staying in the VHLM. also #TLOFORBOG Molholt and Corco 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Admin Will 4,604 Posted February 22, 2017 Author Senior Admin Share Posted February 22, 2017 20 minutes ago, STZ said: Id rather see other changes than this one.. Post em' up in suggestions then boi Also I could probably get behind not counting 1 extra VHLM seasons against your 8 seasons. And not because John Locke.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop 3,254 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, Will said: Post em' up in suggestions then boi Also I could probably get behind not counting 1 extra VHLM seasons against your 8 seasons. And not because John Locke.... Because soon enough there will be no VHLM! Will 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STZ 5,280 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 21 minutes ago, Will said: Post em' up in suggestions then boi Okay.. Rule #1: Lets stop allowing grown men to create 16 year old female hockey prospects.. #stayinthekitchen #justcurious #creepy der meister, Corco, Kendrick and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastOlympian07 2,388 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 17 minutes ago, STZ said: Okay.. Rule #1: Lets stop allowing grown men to create 16 year old female hockey prospects.. #stayinthekitchen #justcurious #creepy @Streetlite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop 3,254 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, STZ said: Okay.. Rule #1: Lets stop allowing grown men to create 16 year old female hockey prospects.. #stayinthekitchen #justcurious #creepy u fukr tbh though I don't get it, what's creepy about it? what are you curious about? Edited February 22, 2017 by Streetlite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STZ 5,280 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 33 minutes ago, Streetlite said: u fukr tbh though I don't get it, what's creepy about it? what are you curious about? I'm curious whether you play better on or off your period.. maybe strength and check should go up once a month... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendrick 4,714 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 41 minutes ago, STZ said: I'm curious whether you play better on or off your period.. maybe strength and check should go up once a month... I was thinking that discipline might go down based on period cravings as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STZ 5,280 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, Kendrick said: I was thinking that discipline might go down based on period cravings as well. Also a year of Mat Leave shouldn't count towards their career count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.ed69a7260a477fcf4feead7a0e4b7506.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now