IneffableLeafs

@Steve Add salary to trade negotiations. Assuming that you can only loan players without a 1-way clause, salary would be minimally affected. One option would be to let the lower league team take on the entire salary, i.e. an entry level deal, or a bridge contract. (Of course, the salary would be lowered as it always is if you go down a league)Another option would be to let the salary be split. Ex. Contract is worth $100,000. GHL team pays $75,000, SHL team pays $25,000. This is in case there are cap issues with the loan.A third option would be to let the higher league team keep their salary, and essentially loan the player for free. So the SHL level team pays $0 salary to the player.Or all three of the above options?I had previously suggested this a looong time ago. This would certainly be a feature that may convince me to play this game again. This feature would also encourage human-human interaction a lot (cause I know this forum loves that). This could also make or break a manager's reputation within the world. Should I loan to this manager again? Will it be worthwhile? Will this manager rot my prospect on the bench? If loan's did come out, it would be interesting to see one manager that solely develops prospects for other teams, that takes a whole bunch of players on loan and gives them 20 minutes a night or hard training with pp and pk time. Think of the CHL, or if you get my soccer reference, Ajax. I'd definitely be on board with that.

It's Season 2 Danglers, and my goal is to stay in the SHL after promotion from the BHL. What are everyone else's goals for now? (General Chat)

My Predictions: Season 1. Horn Lake 2. Larson 3. Hawkeye 4. Wildwood 5. Cuba City 6. Sellwood 7. Urbancrest 8. Montmorency ---------------------------- 9. Pinewood 10. Wolfe 11. Cedar Rapids 12. Wynyard ---------------------------- 13. Molson 14. Blenheim ---------------------------- 15. Portland 16. Jolly As for the playoffs, I think Hawkeye will take it over Horn Lake in the finals. No one will go down in the relegation playoffs. The top 5, as I've called them the past few seasons (Larson, Hawkeye, Horn Lake, Wildwood, and Cuba City) are all stacked, and experienced. They shouldn't be displaced at the top. If they are, they shouldn't miss the playoffs. Last season, Urbancrest was pretty much the 2016-17 Toronto Maple Leafs, unexpectedly finishing 2nd with Bonnier (Matthews) leading the team in goals, and some excellent goalkeeping from McCready (Andersen). I wouldn't expect them to miss the playoffs. Sellwood has a lot of tall, strong players, and they are very underrated. I have them finishing 6th. Me finishing 8th may be a stretch. I think 6th to 8th will be very close, with teams missing the postseason by 3-6 points. Pinewood and Wolfe are both good on paper, but time will tell if they can realize their potential. Cedar Rapids is regressing, and Wynyard shouldn't finish in the playoffs despite a high power ranking. A lack of veterans will be their Achilles heel. Jolly should finish dead last, by far, while the remaining teams will likely be scrapping it out to avoid 15th. Players Top Goal Scorers Audrick Pipe (Cuba City) Espen William Renshaw (Wildwood) Carl Nadeau (Sellwood) Top Point Getters Oliver V-G (Larson) Zain Gracie (Horn Lake) Alexander Bodrov (Cedar Rapids) Top Goaltenders Bernardo Del Grosso (Horn Lake) Chris McCready (Urbancrest) Cornelius Chao (Montmorency) "Calder" Candids (Or Rookies to Watch) *** I didn't include rookies in the minors © Christopher Audette (Montmorency) © Sam Cardy (Wynyard) © Waltteri Anttila (Sellwood) (G) Bronson Brayford (Horn Lake) (F) Ivan Handlir (Pinewood) "Norris" Trophy Candids George Gales (Larson) Milan Frost (Larson) Harun Kucera (Horn Lake) Rory Grigg (Hawkeye) Luka Berger (Wolfe) Breakout Player of the Year Candidates (Guys I think will break out) Joen Jacobsen (Horn Lake) - I'm expecting 50-60 points Hanus Kubacky (Wynyard) - Probably 45+ points Espen William Renshaw (Wildwood) - Despite putting up 17 goals and 44 points, I think he can go 30-30 and 60 points. Emeric Dagneault-Laprise (Larson) - In his first full season, I won't consider him a rookie, but the sky's the limit on a stacked team. Please don't slam me over this, these are my honest predictions.

The question is if I can finish anywhere near my projected finish. Nice post Matt! (However, you did miss Hawkeye's overall average height)

We're beginning the next season in Fishbowl.... And I started with a shutout loss...

Keep in mind that there are European teams that have a much higher reputation than lower leagues, so the Russians, Fins, and Swedes get first dibs on the GHL and SHL rejects. That logic you said makes sense, and I was able to do it. I signed an 84 overall goalie in Dangles who no one wanted at the time for $1 mil and 1 year. However, at the time, reputation was messed up in Dangles. To be honest, I've never really tried what you're saying before, but I think it's a good idea.

I agree, it is an opportunity to experiment in Dangles, being a fast league, we would be able to see the effect of no computer trading more quickly. I think it could be beneficial, but also detrimental. On the good side, you've got more human-human interaction, which in theory would increase the realism of the game. And to add, I don't think you'd ever see an unbalanced trade again (unless it's a cap dump). On the bad side, it's another feature (such as changing player numbers to an all star feature) that will be gone, at least from the one world. Some managers wont like this inability to trade with some teams just because they have no human manager. In theory though, if we did try this out, I think the pros would outweigh the cons. The different dynamic and other benefits would outweigh a couple of disgruntled managers. Therefore, I'm in for trying this out.

Hey Danglers, I'm managing in this world too! I'm managing the Regals in the BHL, so I'm open to any offers (especially discounts)! Since the world is just opening, I predict it should be a close season in every league, but we shall see.

Well, I guess I'm speaking more from personal experience with drafting then, because I'm usually shopping my picks, but it looks like most are against it for more prospects. 3 rounds of picks is a good enough compromise for the server and for mad-drafters. For now, at least. Thanks for the feedback!

Okay, so this may be a bit weird of me suggesting this, but there is plenty of reason behind removing 3rd rounders. One, a third round pick always has players that are meant to be drafted to the next lowest league. For example, a BHL third rounder could be useful as an IHL pick. Second, they seem to cause a lot of confusion at the draft table. It would be a lot simpler is the format was: (GHL 1st, GHL 2nd, SHL 1st, SHL 2nd, and so on and so forth). Third, there are currently 240 picks, which means that you could say, roughly every season, at least 240 players are generated, and will eventually be drafted. But you also have to take into account that the game randomly generates players around the conclusion of the season (those new players on the FA list with no history? Yeah, that's them). Further, every time someone mismanages their team and a player is "signed in the last minute before the game", those players are newly generated as well. But then looking at the prospect rankings, there are almost 290 ranked prospects. So in total, you have almost 400 players generated every season, and roughly 100 retire per season (using Fishbowl data here). Statistically speaking, that means that the net players generated per season is about +300. Now, I don't know how databases work, but based on Anders' wishes for a new server, this ahould undoubtedly be causing server strain and the game to be slower, which I know a lot of us hate. Think about this long term though, it's only 80 less players generated per season, but let's assume that drafted players play till they're 37. About 19 season in the human competition. In the span of one generation, that's about 1500 3rd rounders, many of which will never turn out, at least for the team that drafted them (which is the whole point of drafting players, right? To have them turn out for your team!). I'd say that's a pretty big waste of 1500 draft picks, and space in the database, which I'm guessing would make the game faster. To sum up the above: GPHM is generating a lot of players, which is contributing to a slower server, and removing third round picks in all 7 leagues (I'm including Mitts as part of the 7) would drastically help make GPHM faster. Based on the facts and figures, every season in every game world, the game adds roughly 2100 players to the database, which logically speaking, should be slowing down the game. Fourth, this is more personal experience, but I've never had a 3rd round pick pan out for me. The best 3rd round pick I ever made (I believe at SHL level) peaked at a 77 rating... On a BHL team. By the time I checked, my team is already in the GHL. Making that pick (and all other 3rd rounders before it) useless. Fifth, if you remove all 3rd round picks, it may not have the biggest impact on higher leagues, but it would make lower leagues MUCH more appealing. I'll try to explain this point below: Here is the current draft structure, and average ratings of the players ranked in that round in square brackets (again Fishbowl data): GHL 1st round -> 1st - 16th [85] GHL 2nd round -> 17th - 32th [81] SHL 1st round -> 33th - 48th [76] GHL 3rd round -> 49th - 64th [72] SHL 2nd round -> 65th - 80th [70] BHL 1st round -> 81th - 96th [66] SHL 3rd round -> 97th - 112th [63] BHL 2nd round -> 113th - 128th [62] IHL 1st round -> 129th - 144th [60] BHL 3rd round -> 145th - 160th [58] IHL 2nd round -> 161th - 176th [55] LIHL 1st round -> 177th - 192th [59] IHL 3rd round -> 193th - 208th [53] LIHL 2nd round -> 209th - 224th [55] LIHL 3rd round -> 225th - 240th [52] I didn't bother counting the other 23 players. Now, as you can see, a 72 overall will not be of use in the GHL, A 63 overall will not be of use in the SHL, and so on. Now, remove 3rd rounders from the equation: GHL 1st round -> 1st - 16th [85] GHL 2nd round -> 17th - 32th [81] SHL 1st round -> 33th - 48th [76] SHL 2nd round -> 49th - 64th [72] BHL 1st round -> 65th - 80th [70] BHL 2nd round -> 81th - 96th [66] IHL 1st round -> 97th - 112th [63] IHL 2nd round -> 113th - 128th [62] LIHL 1st round -> 129th - 144th [60] LIHL 2nd round -> 145th - 160th [58] Gone (But you could leave a few) -> 161th - 240th Now, you won't see much difference from the tops of both tables, but look at the bottom. A BHL 1st rounder goes from 66 OVR to 70. An IHL 2nd rounder goes from 55 OVR to 62. A LIHL 2nd rounder goes from 55 OVR to 58. You can read the data how you want, but for lower league managers, this is huge. They are getting players that are 4 times better than they would have with 3 picks. This way, in any league, almost all teams would be able to sign and play their first round picks in at least a small role. Now, those are all the reasons I can think of for removing the 3rd rounder. If anyone can think of a reason for not removing 3rd rounders, I want to see some feedback. Anyways, I think this was my longest post ever, hope you all take this into consideration.

The first two are needed 100%. I normally use my Moto G4 + to play, and its pretty annoying. The other ideas outlined are pretty good too.

@blowfish you should just go up to the BHL. The added cap space when used properly can get you into 1st or 2nd, it's possible, but difficult. At the very least, you should build your newly promoted team up to a mid table level in season 1. As for my season, I'm sitting in 1st in the BHL, with a pretty mediocre team. My team confidence has been fantastic, leading to fantastic results.

As Matt said, I'm not entirely sure what effect nervous and lazy have on games, but from my experience: Nervous and lazy players tend to be inconsistent/streaky when it comes to putting up numbers. Lazy players develop much slower than say, an ambitious or purposeful player. And as said above, nervous players kill your winner's instinct. To be honest with you, I tend to try and avoid players that have bad traits, but I will put the occasional lazy or arrogant or anonymous player in my lineup, because too many green traits I find kill your confidence, winner's instinct, and results, regardless of player ability (believe me, I've had a full team of heroic players, and it does not work, period).

I've brought this topic up before, and maybe I can add to it in this thread. Based on Paul's 16 teams, its possible that national teams will only consider managers from teams equal or greater than their prestige. For example, Canada and the United States would be both extremely highly reputable teams, and your team rep would need to be at least honoured in GHL to be considered, and I guess you'd have to be considered World Class yourself. Moving down to Russia and Sweden, they both would only consider GHL managers with teams reputed in the green, and you would have to be at least successful. Then to Finland and Czechia, any GHL manager would suffice, but must be minimum successful. And Slovakia and Switzerland would consider any successful manager in the GHL or SHL. Once you get to worse teams such as Italy, Austria, or Denmark, they would consider almost any manager. The only issues I see now with the proposed national teams is how long managers are able to stay on the teams (in order to give others a chance to manage). Maybe one or two World Tournaments? As well as how the national teams would choose a manager. Maybe you would have a window, such as silly season, and you can apply to national teams that you are eligible to manage, and at the end of silly season, the national team chooses a manager (probably with the highest reputation in terms of themselves, and team they manage currently). Another issue is games between national teams. How often would they play, before the "World Tournament"? It would have to not get national managers bored, but at the same time be a realistic amount. What you could have is something like the IIHF World Championships, where they play some sort of round robin, and then there is a knockout round. Instead of relegation, the last two finishers make the knockout stage (cause there would be 16 teams?). Instead of 7 games, they could maybe play 30 "season" games. I think a competition like this would be awesome, but my guess is Anders will need to get better servers in order to support even more games.

Hit 'Start Date' on the forum page (to the right of recently updated). It should work on mobile and desktop