Changing the NHL
- Thread starter Dragao6
- Start date
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Limit contract length and institute stricter max salary rules so players have an incentive to sign new deals more often as the cap rises. Ban NMCs/NTCs. That'll give you a lot more movement, though it won't be good for the game.
Dragao6
Registered User
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
You lost me at hello.
It was great when players stuck to one team - nobody wanted to see Yzerman or Lemieux or Bossy or Richard in another uniform. It was heresy to see Alfredsson in a Wings uniform, and we only accepted Bourque in an Avs jersey because he got a cup out of it, which we collectively decided he "deserved" - if the Kings complete the comeback in the second round, the whole thing looks silly and Bourque looks like a traitor.
Unfortunately, the media machine has decided to make a spectacle out of the trade deadline, and has manufactured "excittement" out of what should be seen as a routine part of professional hockey. It's ridiculous.
New hilarious rule: Whoever makes the most recent trade prior to the first selection of the draft acquires the first overall. The team that acquires the largest singular contract gets the first, the smaller contract gets the 2nd. The clock resets to one minute after each transaction, the following trade must involve more overall money remaining on collective contracts of all players involved to count.
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
Why? I think it's more exciting when you get to know the core of your team well. Noone wants a rotating roster every year. Hell, I'm all for moving the trade deadline to 4am so that everything is done in the middle of the night and there is no nonesense and hoopla about something so silly. No other sports care so much about their trade deadline as hockey.
PurpleMouse
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2014
- 393
- 171
Trades are only exciting in proportion to how often they happen. Blockbuster trades are exciting because they don't happen that much so increasing them wouldn't really increase excitment.
Player familiarity on the whole is good as it helps shape team identity and keeps the fans familiar with who plays for each club. Too much player movement is bad.
Player familiarity on the whole is good as it helps shape team identity and keeps the fans familiar with who plays for each club. Too much player movement is bad.
Rorschach
Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
It's good for young fans for their hometown heroes not to get dealt.
If anything I would get winning teams a cap break.
If anything I would get winning teams a cap break.
It's exciting when teams develop strong cores and then supplement that building process with a modest amount of player movement to flesh out the rest of the roster. Stars remain with their teams for the bulk of their primes. Fans identify with their teams' core players. So I wouldn't be on board with the very basic premise of this thread, which began with, "trades are exciting." Drafting well is exciting, and so is player development following the draft.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Offer sheets are rare because it is frowned upon to do such a thing.
Allowing 1 buyout a year with no negative effects will help but I don't like get out of jail free cards. Teams should have to pay for making bad choices.
Allow teams to retain more in trades and allow teams to have as many such retention on the books as the salary cap will allow. That could help increase trades made. Eliminating no movement and no trade contracts would also help but players would hate it.
