NHL 14 interest guage, please vote

[Bruins GM]

Hey Dudes,
Ducks and I have been talking about subjects to expand/improve on our GMC community. The problem is that we are unsure if the ideas would create a negative GM experience. Please take a moment to select an answer that would generally interest you.

YOU ARE NOT VOTING ON RULES THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, simply just to guage an interest to see if some ideas we come up with could be good or bad for the league.

[Deleted]

trading deff needs to be adjusted....theres way too many trades going on...maybe do something like limit each owner to maybe making 1 trade per season that cant include superstars...idk

[Deleted]

I've already adjusted the amounts of trades and I'm standing by it.

[Bruins GM]

expanding on option B:

Any player with a 4.5 star or higher potential between the ages of 21-26 (or 20-25) should be deemed a franchise player and cannot be traded. They can be qualified and not matched to receive compensation or they can be released.

Players with a 4.5 potential between the ages designated above are typically considered superstars or stars of tomorrow. As we often do see players just drafted fairly high (sometimes #1 overall) traded, we should still leave room for this, hence players with a 4.5 potential between the ages of 17-20 can be moved. As we often do see players later in their career traded regardless of star/team status, players at the age of 27 (or 26 if you want to have some level of unknown with players yet to reach their full potential) can be traded.


Things this would accomplish: more team identity based games, less trades to process for the commish, friends of GMs joining the league just to ship stars to their friends, then quitting, allowing for a sellable team for a new GM entering the league (See Carolina)


*this could be an example of option B, can be expanded on or improved on based off suggestions*

[Sharks GM]

Jul 8, 2013 15:23:49 GMT -5 twister44 said:

trading deff needs to be adjusted....theres way too many trades going on...maybe do something like limit each owner to maybe making 1 trade per season that cant include superstars...idk

Agreed! My biggest pet peeve is joining a league and seeing that the previous gm Traded away A young superstar player Like A Couture,Skinner,Huberdeau Etc And bascially damaging the team for the new owner.Would love to see this rule implemented for our NHL 14 league

[TampaBayGM]

I'm cool with option B...IF and only if its like the "new GM's" rule we have where they cant trade for a certain period of time...like a 1 season block on "stars"...cause to be honest...unless the dynamics of NHL 14 gameplay are extremely different than 13...I dont want to HAVE to hold onto...(eg/ Kane) until season...3 or 4 when he's finally 26 I'd rather trade him for a player more suited to my style of play

if were talking option B sticking the whole time through (until NHL15)...definitely not cool with it

[Bruins GM]

Expanding on option A:
Incorporate GM hirings and firings. Kinda like how the offline GM is run. It would add to the sense of realism and prevent throwing games possibly. This is probably a bit too hardcore for some people but it would add a different spin on the GMC league. Worth exploring.

Hear me out on this... and bear with me but the below hypothetical situation is an example of what im referring to.

For example, beginning of the season set number of wins/playoff round for each team. Say the hawks gm is the new bruins gm and im the new sens gm. Bruins need to hit 40 wins/make ECF. Sens need 37 wins/make playoffs. Based off what you do and dont do, you get positive and negative points. Points carry over from season to season. Make an arbitrary number of points say +4 or -4 to determine an extension, priority for a new gm role, or firing.

2013-2014 season Boston goes 42-40/wins cup since they hit their win mark (+1) and made the ECF (+1) they would get a point for each. you could even go a step farther saying that since they won the cup they get an additional point. so they stand at +3 at the end of the season.
2013-2014 season Ottawa goes 30-52/no playoffs since i didnt hit either of my win totals (-1) or my playoff goal (-1) i am at -2 at the end of the season. At this point i would be placed on a "hot seat list" due to one more season of not attaining either my win total or season goals, I could reach the -4 firing requirement.

2014-2015 season +3 Bruins have a season goal of 45 wins/make SCF. Say they go 40-42 (-1) again and win the cup final again (+2, 1 for making the cup final and 1 for winning the cup). they end the season at +4 thus reaching the necessary points required for a extension or they can hit the open market. <-- ill come back to this after the second sens season to show how they can relate.
2014-2015 season -2 Sens have a goal of 35 wins/make playoffs. I go 32-50 (-1) and do not make playoffs (-1). i would then again get -2 points added on to the season carry over giving me a total of the necessary -4 for me to be fired.

2015-2016 offseason. Bruins can take an extension or use their point system to establish priority of availabe jobs (sens/other team open positions). Extension could be something like the amount of negative points needed to be fired increases from -4 to -5 or something. If Bruins change teams they would start again at the +/- 4 point system.
Sens being at -4 would go into the fired GM pool and have to select a team that is currently available or gets replaced by someone waiting in the wings for an open slot.

Team draft pool, either done by random selection or according to career or past season(s) win%. Or it could be done several different ways. This would also include people who take extended breaks but wish to stay in the league like if someone's life gets in the way and they need to "resign" for a couple of months.

Old Dallas GM can be used as an example: Life gets in the way and he has to step down from his current GM position. The next person waiting in the wings can take his team. the season ends and old dallas wants to come back. New dallas GM still has his team and gets to keep it until he gets the required points to try and get a different job (promotion) or gets fired. Old dallas GM goes into the pool of all the other GMs that got fired and a drawing takes place for the order to select teams. Those who reached the necessary points for promotion would be given their choice of team of all available, once promotions are done, you move onto the firing slotted GMs.

Things this will accomplish: a lot still should be ironed out with this but one thing it will do is keep the leagues worthy GMs that can compete staffed and those whose talent level is just not on par with the rest of everyone else either looking to join another league or at the very least not monopolizing a starstudded team but their talent level makes them finish in the basement year after year.

*this idea is a work in progress the above is just an example of how it could look. The concept will remain the same but particulars are subject to change based off everyone’s opinion*

[Deleted]

Um, i'd like to stick with TB personally, but I do like the idea.

[Bruins GM]

Jul 8, 2013 15:43:28 GMT -5 TampaBayGM said:

I'm cool with option B...IF and only if its like the "new GM's" rule we have where they cant trade for a certain period of time...like a 1 season block on "stars"...cause to be honest...unless the dynamics of NHL 14 gameplay are extremely different than 13...I dont want to HAVE to hold onto...(eg/ Kane) until season...3 or 4 when he's finally 26 I'd rather trade him for a player more suited to my style of play

if were talking option B sticking the whole time through (until NHL15)...definitely not cool with it

I see what your saying but after one season we would be back to stamkos toews Kane ovi Crosby Malkin karlsson price quick subban etc all on different teams because the ask back for a superstar is usually another superstar.
How about the compensation functionality of the game we don't even use? Tender Kane and take the compensation. This would allow you to draft replacements and sign other players with the cap you would use on kane. Or don't and be in the unfortunate position of holding on to one of the games best players.

[Bruins GM]

Or to go further into the process and include both ideas... retire or work towards an extension/job opening on a team that netter suits your playing style.

Just snowballing here

[TampaBayGM]

lol...because I havnt kept a 1st round pick in any of my seasons? doing the whole "build through the draft thing" really really doesnt work I'm sorry but look at acker klimchuk or anyone drafted by us in this game...yeah they are 87's 89's 90's....but they are sooooo incomplete...do you really want a top 2 defender with 72 endurance?
or a 1st line center with 80 speed and 75 endurance? I sure as hell dont

the way I see it superstars going to different teams shouldnt matter (precedent was just set with seguin) the problem is superstars going somewhere and someone quitting...if me and Harmonic do another Toews for stamkos type trade next year...and dont quit (which most likely will be the case) who the hell cares?

the problem is someone coming in trading away a superstar and bolting...my idea of a block for X amount of time will not assure someone will stay after trading a superstar I get that...but I personally really really dont give a shit about names in a video game you wont catch me wearing a stalberg or Mcguin jersey in real life...but I sure as fuck will trade for both of them next year if they're even half the players they are for me in this years game ...so if my hands are gonna be tied to trade someone I dont like playing with just because of their name on the back of the jersey...I prolly wont stick around next year

[Bruins GM]

This is what we are trying to gauge here with this. Do people want to try and preserve team identity or have a free open market and by half way through a season be looking like our rosters currently do?

Seguin is a good point... but he is very close to the cutoff. 21 right? Stars we see moved are typically in the later 20s like the bobby ryan deal.

And if we are playing a season then simming the star wont be in that restricted age gap for long... 1 or 2 playing seasons?

[Deleted]

im selecting "B" because i don't want to have to deal with the organization behind GM firings/extensions. Plus, i want the leafs forever!!


I want "B" to be a legit rule to

[TampaBayGM]

I get what you guys are trying to do and its cool just saying for me personally that much restriction will prolly cause me to go elsewhere

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2013 17:58:27 GMT -5 TampaBayGM said:

I get what you guys are trying to do and its cool just saying for me personally that much restriction will prolly cause me to go elsewhere

so you picked "C" then?