Ohio Jones
Game on...
See, we all get screwed!
My point exactly: we ALL get screwed. My issue is not - NOT - with the agents' approach to Kulemin. It's with the system as a whole.
OCCUPY THE HFNHL!!!1!!
See, we all get screwed!
My point exactly: we ALL get screwed. My issue is not - NOT - with the agents' approach to Kulemin. It's with the system as a whole.
OCCUPY THE HFNHL!!!1!!
BTW, what the heck does all this have to do with the fact Setoguchi will be in a Blues uniform next season?
My point exactly: we ALL get screwed. My issue is not - NOT - with the agents' approach to Kulemin. It's with the system as a whole.
OCCUPY THE HFNHL!!!1!!
Sorry, but you are not addressing the issue. You blame the GMs for not wanting to let their RFAs go to market, but you still don't give any justification for demanding that the HFNHL salary match the NHL salary.
Kulemin signed an NHL deal after scoring 30 goals. He is not a 30 goal scorer in our league. Nor will he be next year. And while that 30 goal season will be averaged in for 3 years, that won't make him a 30 goal scorer. Yet that is what it will take to sign him long term. Why? Because Brian Burke signed him to an overpriced deal Douglas can't have cost certainty moving forward?
I like it.
We can all tent outside the Hockey Hall of Fame, which is right by all the bank's head office too, which is perfect given we're protesting the financial inequities of our own hockey world.
Time for the world to take notice.
Maybe the best solution is to increase the cap to 2012/2013 season and go with it. Hopefully, the richer teams would be able to afford their star players with if the cap was say $70M.
...except we don't know what next year's cap is going to be yet, do we? And do we want to add more inflation, when we still haven't addressed revenues? (There's that word again...)
Yes, we don't have next year's cap amount which is similar to NHL where they are signing players without the cap amount. The revenue issue is separate thing to be discussed.
1) What about teams that traded away players that they could have signed if we went backwords. The one player I can think of here is Brad Richards who Pittsburg traded because of his new contract with NHL Rangers.
2) What about players who leave for KHL or other European league while under contract. A prime example is Radulov who left after two years in the NHL while I got only 1 one year out of his rookie contract. If he decides to return than his ratings will be at league minimum...so when do I get the benefit of his 30 goal season like Nashville did in his 2nd year?
Maybe the best solution is to increase the cap to 2012/2013 season and go with it. Hopefully, the richer teams would be able to afford their star players with if the cap was say $70M.
people talking about money problems.....but jokinen make 8M$ in this league....Selanne 8M$ all re-sign has ufa
it,s easy when it's not real money .....
Part of these issues would be solved if we implemented dynamic ratings that were updated at games 20, 40, 60 and 80 (for example). This would result in a players ratings being significantly different by year end. There will be boom's and busts of course, but it would solve some issues with signing rookies sooner, and also for guys like Jagr, who should be a decent contributor at this point in the season, but isn't. And what if Jagr goes back to Europe or retires next year? The whole exercise was for not. Plus, it would add a significant element of realism in terms of not knowing how good your team really is.
I'm personally willing to help make this happen for next year.
Part of these issues would be solved if we implemented dynamic ratings that were updated at games 20, 40, 60 and 80 (for example). This would result in a players ratings being significantly different by year end. There will be boom's and busts of course, but it would solve some issues with signing rookies sooner, and also for guys like Jagr, who should be a decent contributor at this point in the season, but isn't. And what if Jagr goes back to Europe or retires next year? The whole exercise was for not. Plus, it would add a significant element of realism in terms of not knowing how good your team really is.
I'm personally willing to help make this happen for next year.
Regarding re-rates, the current year is always given more weight than the previous year, which has more weight than the year before that. Not sure what we are using, but should probably be something like 50/30/20, or even 60/30/10. This is what would happen by year's end, and is essentially the transformation in our ratings year to year. (I'm actually a believer in a 2 year rating system, but not a huge deal either way). At the 20 game mark, you'd only see a slight impact, but by year's end, the 3rd year will have disappeared off the back end completely, and the last year will have dropped significantly in weight.
I think we can all appreciate how our team would look right now if we could incorporate this year's performance as the primary source of ratings. Would definitely make things interesting.
In terms of delays, this can be accomplished in short order. And to be clear, this would not be a total re-rate. We would completely stay away from any subjective ratings which would only be updated once per year. This is what takes time.
But for the purely quantitative ratings (SC, PA, PH, DU and perhaps even a few others like DF), we would have access to to the stats and turn this around in a matter of 48 hours. Goalies would also be updated. We could even sim a few games while this is happening, given the staggered schedule of game 20 for everyone.
Of note, I have yet to formally circulate this idea or even propose it to the admin team, but there it is.
In reference to my post above about pre-determined ratings on a bell curve, let's assume that there are roughly 25 players on each roster who should realistically have some degree of NHL-level ratings. That means a typical player pool of 850 guys.
The pre-determined bell curve would take the range of effective player ratings - say between 50 and 99 - and distribute 850 ratings on a bell curve within that range. There would be fewer 50s and 99s, and more 70s and 75s. This same curve could be used for all ratings - or at least all ratings where a player's value versus another can be reliably calculated.
The top player in a given category receives a 99. The lowest player receives a 50. Everyone else is distributed within the curve based on where they rank out of the 850 guys.
This approach might accomplish a couple of things: it should help make the true stars of the league stand out, as they would be the guys whose performance falls in the upper outliers in a number of categories. Fair enough. But it should also create a degree of parity in that the bulk of players would generate ratings that are average but useable.
I'm not convinced that all stats should be graded on a curve, mind you, but it would be interesting to explore.
If you rate like this, how do you account for exceptional seasons? There would be no difference between Ovechkin's 65 goal season in 07-08 and Crosby's 52 goal season in 09-10.