1. #13361
    Fluffy Kitten conscript's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Jonesville, Michigan
    Posts
    10,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Irony View Post
    I heard a rumor that in NHL 13 they fixed the GM's AI in franchise mode. I hope not, how else am I gonna trade Filpulla 20+ times for all the players I want.
    No more haxxoring for you. Instead you'll just have to modify the roster before starting lol.

  2. #13362
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Irony View Post
    I heard a rumor that in NHL 13 they fixed the GM's AI in franchise mode. I hope not, how else am I gonna trade Filpulla 20+ times for all the players I want.
    awww poor baby can't cheat anymore?

  3. #13363
    I am Murloc! Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Halifax, NS.
    Posts
    5,818
    It's not cheating, it's exploiting. :l

    Plus stripping the teams with terrible GMs of their only decent players, is fun. Rick Nash for 2 shitty prospects and a second rounder, every time.
    Last edited by Irony; 2012-08-16 at 04:06 AM.

    You can tell WoW changed the MMO for good when players started complaining about the amount of time they sink, into a time sink.

  4. #13364
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Irony View Post
    It's not cheating, it's exploiting. :l

    Plus stripping the teams with terrible GMs of their only decent players, is fun. Rick Nash for 2 shitty prospects and a second rounder, every time.
    i just prefer to clone Datsyuk 18 times and play with that as my team (i forgot how you did that trick) the puck posession was retardedly one sided to say the least. i mean come on. all 4 forward lines is all datsyuk and all 3 lines of defense is all datsyuk? i think i went 82-0. on hard. while only giving up like 30 goals all season long...
    Last edited by AceofHarts; 2012-08-16 at 04:28 AM.

  5. #13365
    TOTALLY NOT
    Banned
    tetrisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,759
    Joe Thornton and Rick Nash are announced to play with Davos in Switzerland in the event of a lockout.
    These mark the first players who are officially done with that.

  6. #13366
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    There is little progress being made in CBA negotiations. From what I have been hearing on the radio, the players are accepting of getting less revenue sharing, but I find it absolutely bullshit that the league thinks they should take revenue sharing out of the players to prop up an extra 1.8 billion dollars to give towards lower revenue teams, it sounds like the league is doing this intentionally to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix for the next several years and operate it with a chunk of the extra revenue that they are taking from the players as a whole. The players are willing to take less in revenue sharing, but not as much as the league wants to cut which is something like 10%, I think the players want 50% like other professional sports leagues in North America.
    What kills me about all this is how owners can bitch about long contracts, then in the next breath go offer sheet Weber 14 goddamn years.

    Wait.. what?

    The sport is slowly becoming too expensive for its fan base to attend, and I'm curious to see exactly when ticket sales start declining because of it. With the average ticket price exceeding $50 now (and the most expensive team over 100), it's getting a bit ridiculous.
    Benevolence is a luxury for the strong - Wrathion

  7. #13367
    That's really not the issue, part of the problem with revenue sharing in the NHL is that the teams with the highest revenue every year are propping up teams in terrible markets with no fans, like Florida, Phoenix, Long Island, Dallas and Columbus. Then you get teams like New Jersey who have no place to play in anymore and are apparently losing money, going out and spending money on salaries like Kovalchuck's, and we turn around and wonder what is wrong with the league. In a salary cap league, teams with huge financial incomes are forced to play by the same rules as the teams who are losing money or not making much profit. If the league didn't have a salary cap, teams with established fan bases would be spending like madmen because they can afford it. It works in baseball, the Yankees can build a winning team just by throwing money at whatever their problems are, why can't we have the same sort of thing in hockey? Or at least have a luxury tax, teams that want to spend over the cap should be allowed to do so and pay the penalty. It seems silly that the rich teams should have to suffer because of the poor teams. Most of the league is pretty healthy for ticket sales and revenue, the markets that are weak are in terrible places.

  8. #13368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    That's really not the issue, part of the problem with revenue sharing in the NHL is that the teams with the highest revenue every year are propping up teams in terrible markets with no fans, like Florida, Phoenix, Long Island, Dallas and Columbus. Then you get teams like New Jersey who have no place to play in anymore and are apparently losing money, going out and spending money on salaries like Kovalchuck's, and we turn around and wonder what is wrong with the league. In a salary cap league, teams with huge financial incomes are forced to play by the same rules as the teams who are losing money or not making much profit. If the league didn't have a salary cap, teams with established fan bases would be spending like madmen because they can afford it. It works in baseball, the Yankees can build a winning team just by throwing money at whatever their problems are, why can't we have the same sort of thing in hockey? Or at least have a luxury tax, teams that want to spend over the cap should be allowed to do so and pay the penalty. It seems silly that the rich teams should have to suffer because of the poor teams. Most of the league is pretty healthy for ticket sales and revenue, the markets that are weak are in terrible places.
    No, I much rather have a hard cap than have the Leafs turn into the Yankees where we need to just go out and buy a Stanley Cup. If we win it while I'm alive, I much rather be happy that we actually did a real job of earning it. That being said, I do wish the Salary Cap was higher and teams that are bankrupt aren't placed on some sort of retarded pedestal. New Jersey at least has a history in the NHL so I'm more sympathetic to them staying, but Phoenix can GTFO.

    Personally, I'd like to see a real competitor emerge in North America at this point, supported by current NHL players, and put Bettman in his place. Players would be able to hold out until Bettman caved in to every single one of their demands.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetrisGOAT View Post
    Joe Thornton and Rick Nash are announced to play with Davos in Switzerland in the event of a lockout.
    These mark the first players who are officially done with that.
    I wonder if we'll be able to get those games here.
    Last edited by Greeney; 2012-08-16 at 11:00 PM.

  9. #13369
    Quote Originally Posted by Greeney View Post
    No, I much rather have a hard cap than have the Leafs turn into the Yankees where we need to just go out and buy a Stanley Cup. If we win it while I'm alive, I much rather be happy that we actually did a real job of earning it. That being said, I do wish the Salary Cap was higher and teams that are bankrupt aren't placed on some sort of retarded pedestal. New Jersey at least has a history in the NHL so I'm more sympathetic to them staying, but Phoenix can GTFO.
    Well, the current way to build a dynasty is to purposely tank several seasons to get your hands on high draft picks and hope that you can assemble a core of highly skilled young players to build around. Not pretty, not pretty at all, especially for fans who have to suffer through this. Detroit went through this in the 80's. Pittsburgh too in the 90' to 2000's. The Oilers right now. I mean the Leafs would easily have the money to actually acquire the players needed to at least be a contender, but you cannot and I can only imagine how frustrating that is.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "the big help the small". If that doesn't happen take a look at the spanish soccer league, the two richest teams basically compete for the cup among themselves and everyone else is "also ran" with almost literally no chance of ever getting their hands on the trophy. They can just spend so ridiculously much money on players that they finish first and second almost every year, the last few years by a mile. That is something I never want to see in the NHL. I like equal opportunities, and I'm also a supporter of a team that recieves revenue sharing (Nashville).

    But in my opinion there has to be a way for teams that actually earn a shitton of money to be able to put it to use. A soft cap with a (severe) luxury tax might be at least worth a shot, but I do not see that coming. Not with Booettman at the helm.

  10. #13370
    Quote Originally Posted by Anassi View Post
    Well, the current way to build a dynasty is to purposely tank several seasons to get your hands on high draft picks and hope that you can assemble a core of highly skilled young players to build around. Not pretty, not pretty at all, especially for fans who have to suffer through this. Detroit went through this in the 80's. Pittsburgh too in the 90' to 2000's. The Oilers right now. I mean the Leafs would easily have the money to actually acquire the players needed to at least be a contender, but you cannot and I can only imagine how frustrating that is.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "the big help the small". If that doesn't happen take a look at the spanish soccer league, the two richest teams basically compete for the cup among themselves and everyone else is "also ran" with almost literally no chance of ever getting their hands on the trophy. They can just spend so ridiculously much money on players that they finish first and second almost every year, the last few years by a mile. That is something I never want to see in the NHL. I like equal opportunities, and I'm also a supporter of a team that recieves revenue sharing (Nashville).

    But in my opinion there has to be a way for teams that actually earn a shitton of money to be able to put it to use. A soft cap with a (severe) luxury tax might be at least worth a shot, but I do not see that coming. Not with Booettman at the helm.
    I don't think that will be fair. Leafs, Canadiens, Wings, Flyers, Rangers, Blackhawks, Bruins and Canucks would be in too strong of a position compared to any other teams, with the exception of Pittsburgh until Crosby and Malkin retire and they risk going into bankruptcy leading to a lockout.

    I don't mind a degree of revenue sharing to that there are a decent amount of teams in the league, but not when teams like NJ go out and pay Kovalchuk the most ridiculous contract in the NHL or when Minnesota goes out to sign Parise and Suter knowing it will come back to bite them in the ass. If a team can't pay their current player's salaries, they have no business spending the way a team like NJ is spending (again, I like NJ, but the Kovalchuk contract is nucking futs).
    Last edited by Greeney; 2012-08-16 at 11:44 PM.

  11. #13371
    Quote Originally Posted by Greeney View Post
    I don't think that will be fair. Leafs, Canadiens, Wings, Flyers, Rangers, Blackhawks, Bruins and Canucks would be in too strong of a position compared to any other teams, with the exception of Pittsburgh until Crosby and Malkin retire and they risk going into bankruptcy leading to a lockout.

    I don't mind a degree of revenue sharing to that there are a decent amount of teams in the league, but not when teams like NJ go out and pay Kovalchuk the most ridiculous contract in the NHL or when Minnesota goes out to sign Parise and Suter knowing it will come back to bite them in the ass. If a team can't pay their current player's salaries, they have no business spending the way a team like NJ is spending (again, I like NJ, but the Kovalchuk contract is nucking futs).
    The problem with the Kovalchuck contract isn't the money, it's the insane length combined with the option to frontload the money. Same as with Weber, Suter, Parise and so on. If the teams were forced to pay a player the actual cap hit over the full length of the contract I think the lengths of the contracts would severely decrease (because come on, would you pay a 41 year old 7.5 mil a season? Yeah, if he's named Lidström, Jagr or Selanne you might think about it, but that are the only guys of a generation who'd be worth even considering it). Additionally it would reduce a lot of the financial burden at the beginning of the contracts and make players of that calibre actually available even for teams that aren't sleeping on giant piles of money.

  12. #13372
    Quote Originally Posted by Greeney View Post
    No, I much rather have a hard cap than have the Leafs turn into the Yankees where we need to just go out and buy a Stanley Cup. If we win it while I'm alive, I much rather be happy that we actually did a real job of earning it. That being said, I do wish the Salary Cap was higher and teams that are bankrupt aren't placed on some sort of retarded pedestal. New Jersey at least has a history in the NHL so I'm more sympathetic to them staying, but Phoenix can GTFO.

    Personally, I'd like to see a real competitor emerge in North America at this point, supported by current NHL players, and put Bettman in his place. Players would be able to hold out until Bettman caved in to every single one of their demands.



    I wonder if we'll be able to get those games here.
    Sometimes money wins you championships. It works for the Yankees, and I am not necessarily suggesting having no salary cap, but allowing the teams whose ownership's are willing and can afford it, to go over the salary cap to pay players extra money, even if it's only for two or three guys, it turns the league in a different direction. Sure, it isn't fair for the weaker markets, but many of those weaker markets have had years, even decades to build championship teams. Look at Anaheim, they won the Cup and now are lost and plagued with their own problems. Edmonton has been tanking for years, same with the Islanders, and neither has managed a playoff birth in years and both had some pretty strong runs back in the 80's and 90's. Tanking doesn't work effectively and that is hard on the fans, spending extra money to get players wouldn't be such a bad thing to really make the league even more competitive.

  13. #13373
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Sometimes money wins you championships. It works for the Yankees, and I am not necessarily suggesting having no salary cap, but allowing the teams whose ownership's are willing and can afford it, to go over the salary cap to pay players extra money, even if it's only for two or three guys, it turns the league in a different direction.
    I know it does, but my comment was stating I would rather win it with the feeling that my team earned it and not bought it.

    Sure, it isn't fair for the weaker markets, but many of those weaker markets have had years, even decades to build championship teams. Look at Anaheim, they won the Cup and now are lost and plagued with their own problems. Edmonton has been tanking for years, same with the Islanders, and neither has managed a playoff birth in years and both had some pretty strong runs back in the 80's and 90's. Tanking doesn't work effectively and that is hard on the fans, spending extra money to get players wouldn't be such a bad thing to really make the league even more competitive.
    The difference is it allowed a team like Anaheim to win a cup in the first place rather than be a middle of the pack team for decades. A salary cap gives just about every team a chance of making the playoffs. The only teams right now I would heavily bet won't make the playoffs are Islanders, Blue Jackets, and Flames. The Salary Cap brings an important degree of parity to the league.

    I'm fine with going over the salary cap as long as it drastically hurts the team in the future. Putting the teams #1 draft pick into a lottery of teams that didn't go over the cap. The focus of the salary cap should be to create a balanced environment; Charging Rogers and Bell a few hundred thousand dollars each won't make a team like the Leafs hesitate at all to go past the cap ever.

  14. #13374
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Greeney View Post
    I know it does, but my comment was stating I would rather win it with the feeling that my team earned it and not bought it.



    The difference is it allowed a team like Anaheim to win a cup in the first place rather than be a middle of the pack team for decades. A salary cap gives just about every team a chance of making the playoffs. The only teams right now I would heavily bet won't make the playoffs are Islanders, Blue Jackets, and Flames. The Salary Cap brings an important degree of parity to the league.

    I'm fine with going over the salary cap as long as it drastically hurts the team in the future. Putting the teams #1 draft pick into a lottery of teams that didn't go over the cap. The focus of the salary cap should be to create a balanced environment; Charging Rogers and Bell a few hundred thousand dollars each won't make a team like the Leafs hesitate at all to go past the cap ever.
    the salary cap hasn't done that much. teams like Detroit are still doing well and teams like Columbus are still doing terrible...

  15. #13375
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    the salary cap hasn't done that much. teams like Detroit are still doing well and teams like Columbus are still doing terrible...
    I don't believe Anaheim or Carolina would have won the Cup without the cap. Columbus and NYI are shit, and will be for a while, please don't use as examples.
    Last edited by Greeney; 2012-08-18 at 04:40 AM.

  16. #13376
    Brewmaster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,487
    I have absolutely no clue about NHL, but I know there's a danish guy on Vancouver Canucks named Jannik Hansen which used to live close to me when he was a child.

    Can anyone tell me if he's just a bench player, a mediocre player, good player or a star in the NHL? As far as I know he's the best danish hocker player.
    Last edited by Werrezer; 2012-08-18 at 11:21 AM.

  17. #13377
    Fluffy Kitten conscript's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Jonesville, Michigan
    Posts
    10,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Werrezer View Post
    I have absolutely no clue about NHL, but I know there's a danish guy on Vancouver Canucks named Jannik Hansen which used to live close to me when he was a child.

    Can anyone tell me if he's just a bench player, a mediocre player, good player or a star in the NHL? As far as I know he's the best danish hocker player.
    Hes a decent 2nd-3rd line winger. He isn't the only Dane though. There's also Mikkel Boedker who was a huge playoff hero for the Yotes last year. Then there's Frans Nielsen who plays for the Islanders. He is probably the "best" Danish player.

    ---------- Post added 2012-08-18 at 07:53 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Greeney View Post
    I don't believe Anaheim or Carolina would have won the Cup without the cap. Columbus and NYI are shit, and will be for a while, please don't use as examples.
    It happens though in every non-NBA sport where parity never has existed. In baseball you have gigantic wealth gaps between the top and the bottom, but that has never stopped it from being rather unpredictable. You've had the Rays have tremendous success. The Marlins have won two World Series in the last 15 years and they spend a woeful amount on salaries. Spending a bajillion dollars improves your odds, but it by no means guarantees you a championship. The Yankees have one in the last decade and I believe they have been the top spending team in every single one of those seasons.

  18. #13378
    The Lightbringer draynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,565
    the Marlins were a binge and purge kind of organization, and they were most definitely on a free agent binge when they won the first championship

    then they dumped all those expensive players for prospects, some of whom contributed directly to the second championship, a year when they also went and got a bit spendy before then dumping everybody again

    so they aren't the best example when we're thinking about organizations that plug along and develop players with consistency rather than manic fervor

  19. #13379
    The Marlins are a bad example since they have basically pulled a more successful version of the Panthers, just with some slightly better than average players

  20. #13380
    These money issues in pro sports are becoming so rediculous.

    Hockey is my most beloved sport - I played it from instructional through high school...the last lockout was hell for me.

    I just don't see why agreements are so difficult to come to - do it for the fans, we need hockey.

    "There are two types of guys in this world. Guys who sniff their fingers after scratching their balls, and dirty fucking liars." -StylesClashv3
    "Elo Hell is where the Ego is greater than the Elo." -Bystekhilcar

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •