The case for Expansion
Jul 7, 2020 22:58:05 GMT -5
Toronto Maple Leafs, xx - Former Calgary Flames, and 2 more like this
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jul 7, 2020 22:58:05 GMT -5
Some random thoughts in no order.
1) Every single interested member who we consider active enough to run a second team has a second team. Those who are active enough but don't have a second team were not interested.
2) Bringing in expansion teams to be completely dead teams is a hard-no from me. I have no interest in my favourite player being auto-drafted to a team that can never trade him to me, just so he can retire and never be enjoyed. Especially since I am a staff member and will likely be put in the conflict-of-interest position of having to choose who no-GM teams draft.
3) I would LOVE to expand. But we REQUIRE more members. It's unfortunately that simple.
4) At least one member here is an admin on Hock League. Since the admins of this site are banned from hock league, 100% of recruiting on that site is up to you guys. If anyone knows of other sim sites, let us know.
5) There is no solution to Minnesota Wild's core problem - that okay guys are getting pushed out of the league because of over-saturation. I'm not sure that's a problem though. For me, it's a strategy. I go after guys I like, and if I like a 78, I might have to choose to play him over some 82s. If I feel he is good enough to play on my team, in this league, that's the GM decision I have available and can make.
6) Because we are making people mostly in their prime, over-saturation is inevitable. For example, Tim Thomas. Tim was about a 67 for about 90% of his career, then about a 92 for the other 10%. What this means is since we are not making Tim a 67 then changing his rating, he will be starter-calibre his whole 20 year career here. This is true of MANY, MANY goalies. There is no solution to this other than deleting goalies, retiring them early, bringing them in late, etc. And I'm not sure I see the problem with everyone having 88+ goalies, and 86+ backups. There are still elites who rise up to 92s+ that you can try to trade for. You can still trade names. And you can choose not to draft an 86 goalie if you already have an 88 goalie. Ideal? No. But i don't think I agree that having too many good players is a bad thing.
7) i don't think I agree that having too many good players is a bad thing. There are still elites. There are still retiring players. There are still player preferences. And most of all, I think we have a great mix of different taste among GMs. We have several people after new guys, several after retro guys, several after upcoming picks, etc.
-----------
The closest thing to a solution Mike and I discussed several times though, (that I'm not quite ready for, and I think still requires a couple more members), is if he and I both give up our teams, but then take over a conference. We would try to have fun by trashing each other and competing against the other conference to see who gets the Presidents trophy, Cup, etc. We would run all empty teams in that conference, then obviously give them up if new members came.
Because of how I build teams (collecting guys I like) this isn't necessarily the funnest course of action for me, but it is something that is still kind of on the table, it would allow people like St. Louis to expand into Ottawa (freeing up a very good, open Blues team), and stuff like that.
Future talks, though. Something to keep in the back of our heads for the future. Right now, I'm really loving my half-moldy, half-Colorado Avalanche Oiler squad. But we will see.
1) Every single interested member who we consider active enough to run a second team has a second team. Those who are active enough but don't have a second team were not interested.
2) Bringing in expansion teams to be completely dead teams is a hard-no from me. I have no interest in my favourite player being auto-drafted to a team that can never trade him to me, just so he can retire and never be enjoyed. Especially since I am a staff member and will likely be put in the conflict-of-interest position of having to choose who no-GM teams draft.
3) I would LOVE to expand. But we REQUIRE more members. It's unfortunately that simple.
4) At least one member here is an admin on Hock League. Since the admins of this site are banned from hock league, 100% of recruiting on that site is up to you guys. If anyone knows of other sim sites, let us know.
5) There is no solution to Minnesota Wild's core problem - that okay guys are getting pushed out of the league because of over-saturation. I'm not sure that's a problem though. For me, it's a strategy. I go after guys I like, and if I like a 78, I might have to choose to play him over some 82s. If I feel he is good enough to play on my team, in this league, that's the GM decision I have available and can make.
6) Because we are making people mostly in their prime, over-saturation is inevitable. For example, Tim Thomas. Tim was about a 67 for about 90% of his career, then about a 92 for the other 10%. What this means is since we are not making Tim a 67 then changing his rating, he will be starter-calibre his whole 20 year career here. This is true of MANY, MANY goalies. There is no solution to this other than deleting goalies, retiring them early, bringing them in late, etc. And I'm not sure I see the problem with everyone having 88+ goalies, and 86+ backups. There are still elites who rise up to 92s+ that you can try to trade for. You can still trade names. And you can choose not to draft an 86 goalie if you already have an 88 goalie. Ideal? No. But i don't think I agree that having too many good players is a bad thing.
7) i don't think I agree that having too many good players is a bad thing. There are still elites. There are still retiring players. There are still player preferences. And most of all, I think we have a great mix of different taste among GMs. We have several people after new guys, several after retro guys, several after upcoming picks, etc.
-----------
The closest thing to a solution Mike and I discussed several times though, (that I'm not quite ready for, and I think still requires a couple more members), is if he and I both give up our teams, but then take over a conference. We would try to have fun by trashing each other and competing against the other conference to see who gets the Presidents trophy, Cup, etc. We would run all empty teams in that conference, then obviously give them up if new members came.
Because of how I build teams (collecting guys I like) this isn't necessarily the funnest course of action for me, but it is something that is still kind of on the table, it would allow people like St. Louis to expand into Ottawa (freeing up a very good, open Blues team), and stuff like that.
Future talks, though. Something to keep in the back of our heads for the future. Right now, I'm really loving my half-moldy, half-Colorado Avalanche Oiler squad. But we will see.
