Jump to content

Photo

Roster limit


  • Please log in to reply

#1

Posted October 28, 2017 - 07:00 PM

MattLumberjacks

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • 13 thanks
    GM Since: September 2016
170
Rep - Outstanding

I think people have mentioned this idea slightly in other threads, but would it possible to get some sort of roster limit? My idea would be 50 players to match the NHL.

 

The main reason for it is that it would reduce the amount of player hoarding that a team could by hiding salary on affiliates to an amount of players that would contain regular roster players, a backup player or two for each position and some prospects.



#2

Posted October 28, 2017 - 08:51 PM

granpubah

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: January 2017
29
Rep - Helpful

I like it!  given the talent pool I'd go 40 to 45 max for Gold and 50 for the lower leagues.



#3

Posted October 28, 2017 - 09:33 PM

MattLumberjacks

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • 13 thanks
    GM Since: September 2016
170
Rep - Outstanding

It doesn't make much sense to lower it only for gold. It should be kept consistent especially because what would happen if a promoted silver team brought 46+ contracts to the GHL?



#4

Posted October 30, 2017 - 06:55 PM

flowbish1

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: June 2017
12
Rep - Helpful
  • LocationK'ek part au Qu├ębec.

I'm all up for it, great idea. Like mentionned above, somewhere between 40-45 would be good, in my opinion.


Fred Longpre

Riversdale Heroes BHL Clapper


#5

Posted October 30, 2017 - 09:26 PM

Wick Schozen

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • 7 thanks
    GM Since: April 2016
147
Rep - Outstanding

All for a roster limit. 50 I reckon would be too high though, we don't necessarily have to fill an affiliate like an NHL team. 40 would be ideal, 20 active roster players and then 20 that can be assigned. It would make roster spots an asset and something that has to be considered when deciding to sign a player.



#6

Posted October 30, 2017 - 11:57 PM

Steve

    GamePlanHockey Advisor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • 3 thanks
    GM Since: February 2015
158
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationSri Lanka

I don't see that really solving the problem and if anything, it would penalize teams recently promoted more since you'll have at least half a roster that isn't able to compete at the next level (especially if you count prospects).  Why not just lower the Salary Cap and tweak the % that demoted players count towards cap?  You could do one or both in combination.  The difference between keeping a $2M contract for a demoted player makes a huge difference if it is $1M vs $200k against your cap!  You'd be able to keep only 20% (using those numbers) of the current hoarded players.  



#7

Posted October 31, 2017 - 12:48 AM

MattLumberjacks

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • 13 thanks
    GM Since: September 2016
170
Rep - Outstanding

Imo, I don't think that would work as well. If we consider just lowering the cap, that wouldn't have affected the situation Senet got into in Dangles. He had over 50 guys, but kept adding more as there was always somebody that could be sent down and last I checked, while he had over 50 guys, he had over 7m in free space remaining. A different % would make a better than reducing the salary cap difference, but then at a number like 50% I see teams being forced between having some decent backups and a small prospect pool or else a decent prospect pool and some weak, injuries take me out of the competition, backups. I think managers should be able to have a chance to acquire a decent prospect pool and some viable backup players. A lower % than 50% would definitely work, but it'd take some trial and error to get perfect.

 

With a roster limit, we can just check for teams that strike a good balance between the regular roster players, prospects and backup players but don't have an enormous number of players and then decide what the cutoff should be. Looking around at teams, I'm agreeing that a limit of 40-45 guys would be good.

 

I don't think it would at all limit promoted teams from sticking in the new league. If they gave away 1-ways and promotion clauses like candy and are forced to hit the roster limit and still not have a viable team in their new league, then that was bad management in the previous year and they should suffer the consequences of too many bad contracts. If they just barely sign enough viable players, then they'd be in a similar situation to a team that might have a preference of many strong backup players rather than lots of prospects which would be a competitive team. If they didn't give anybody promotion clauses or 1-ways, then they'd basically be rewarded by being able to do what they want in the first season.



#8

Posted October 31, 2017 - 02:59 AM

Matt Krumm

    Professional Scout

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: July 2017
8
Rep - Floater

I like that idea with a roster limit of 40 players.



#9

Posted October 31, 2017 - 05:22 AM

ColoKrabatt

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: August 2017
31
Rep - Reliable

With a roster limit, we can just check for teams that strike a good balance between the regular roster players, prospects and backup players but don't have an enormous number of players and then decide what the cutoff should be. Looking around at teams, I'm agreeing that a limit of 40-45 guys would be good.

 

I'd suggest it could be more specific. I mean total limit for each position, I saw team with seven or eight equal goaltenders... So I think about max limit 3-4 goalies, 14-15 Dmen, 15-16 wings and 8-10 centers. Speaking of 40-45 limit ;)  Or count centers plus wingers totaly as one number. That will bring balance to all of ours squads. Cause someone is hoarding mostly wingers, for example me. :cool:  And then we could decrese salary cap as well. Another idea that hit me in the head while writing this post is that you could send prospects to lower affiliate team without signing contract at first. So he will not be counted to roster limit until he have played game at higer affiliate or frirst team. Like testing if he has potential.
 
In Dangles is the problem that there are not many players so you can't search and chose, but we must quickly take what is avaible now. And this lead us to hoarding. There will be huge salary cap decrease the best solution for few first seasons.

HOWITZER |SHL| OGDENSBURG BEASTS      ALL STAR  

DANGLES |SHL| KINGSTON KINGS


#10

Posted November 27, 2017 - 05:22 AM

Glawing

    GamePlanHockey Support Team

  • Moderators
  • 99 posts
  • 5 thanks
    GM Since: November 2016
51
Rep - Reliable

Hi guys!

 

Thank you for all input about this! This is an issue we are aware of. We are looking into this and will have it sorted someway. 

 

We appreciate all inputs! Keep em coming! =)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users