Steve

This will my first season without Bublik (besides the beginnings). Let's see if he was behind the success. Greedy bastard 
 
Good luck to Thetford Mines Pegasus, use him well. He is golden cup pedigree... better than MAF


 

Sucks that overpaying is the way to go. But to leave that aside, the FA pool this year seems super weak. I don't think I will stand any chance in the upcoming season without any proper centers or defenders. Hopefully I'm wrong and can figure something out, but at the moment it seems like 1 season trip to GHL, keep my young guns and hopefully dominate SHL again next season.
 
@Steve yeah that's a steep contract but I had no choice after losing the betting contest on Mirault, Senet and Flores.. Had to get someone in my team.
 
Looking forward to this season nevertheless and will try to do my best to not get relegated.

Hi.  Thanks for your reply.  
Yes: the player was on contract for the next season, and his salary was above the $460 000 that was available in cap-space for that following season. 
 
   If all of the players that are on affiliates have their full salaries counting against the following season's cap: that will make thinks difficult to plan and maneuver.   

There is no must really. Just a matter of design. I thought it would bring some familiarity to the main team and its affiliates. That way when you browse a player's stats you could easily see that the player has been assigned to an affiliate.
 
Let's start out this way. It's no big thing to change the city of affiliates further down the road.

Happy to see Miners and Breakouts back in GHL.  Expect it to be another very competitive season!  
 
Justina - BTW, Faneuf wanted that same contract with me last season, but I couldn't see keeping him on my team until he is 39.  ;-)

Great to see that some things never change on FA. Overpaying players is the trick.

I do agree on unfair. If there is a set age to start rather than a more complex system it cannot be too low otherwise it would be exactly that.
 
Being waiver eligible still defeats the purpose of one way contracts in this game though. While you continuously say that you do understand it you still say things like this in bold.
 
Your farm team is in a lower league. The purpose of a one way contract in this game specific to a promotion/relegation league is to prevent players with such a clause in their contract to be sent down, traded to, whatever to any lower league. That includes farm teams as well as direct lower league teams like SHL relative to GHL. That is how one way contracts work in promotion/demotion leagues. Anders could use a hybrid like what you suggest and I would have no problem with it but it would require a recoding of one way contracts.
 
Maybe you do understand how one way contracts work in promotion/relegation leagues and would rather a hybrid system and you are speaking in terms of that system so me saying that you don't understand it was me misreading what you were saying. If that is the case I do apologize for the error on my part. The way you are saying it makes it look like you are viewing 1 way contracts in this game as the same as 1 way contracts in the NHL when they aren't at all.
 
 
The percentage increase could prevent you from having suitable scratch players (if you send them to the minors or not) and your good young prospects under contract (making sure then get vital playing time and maximize their growth potential rather than sitting in FA waiting to sign to a random team that may not play them a lot) though.
 
As for defeating the purpose outside of prospects it actually doesn't. Look at how many vets go unsigned every offseason. Some of them are of pretty good quality. It more accurately prevents higher ranked teams in leagues from clinging on to players that can play in lower leagues while mostly being useless to the team they are on. Most managers don't have a lot of interest in veteran players anyways thus veteran players signed for depth would likely go untouched. Also all players still under trade restriction would be unavailable for waiver claims obviously.
 
I don't see the waiver system being a hassle too often though to be honest. You are in Biscuit. Look at the Pegasus team in the GHL. They have 6 players on their assigned list that are over 25. 1 is fully capable of playing in the GHL. 1 is a likely good 4th line contributor if used in a specific way. The other 4 are completely useless and dead cap to the team. Pegasus refuses to cut them (they are all on lower league contracts meaning cutting them would be for free) and likely hasn't tried to trade them. Even if they tried most managers don't have the creativity to see the value in trading for more cap space alone with a SHL team rather than demanding up front quality in return. Situations like this is going to be the most common use of the waiver system. A manager promotes and has a number of now useless players in their new league under contract. Rather than cut them for free if they are on lower league contracts and refusing to trade them they hold on to them when they don't need them. In this instance a SHL team would likely be the source of the waiver claim for those 6 players and the GHL team gets some free cap space. A win win.
 
What about if a team gets promoted and then demoted again? I would rather not hold onto most players I brought with me in that situation. I would rather do either what Erzac did recently in Biscuit (brilliant job by him although I do think he did slightly over do it) via trade what you will lose via the one way clause due to demotion for the best that you can get in two way contracts that will be on your team for at least another year if not more or go at it mostly from scratch. History of watching what is available in FA certainly shows that there won't be a lack of good FAs to go after.
 
 
How high would it be? Too low and you can't have any depth in case of injuries. Too high and it is irrelevant.

Yeah, true if player cost like 50% we would think twice.

If the reason is to prevent people from hoarding players on their farm teams, then perhaps the minor league contract should just simply count for more than the 10% it currently does to the primary team.  Hoarding isn't "free", it still costs 10%.  However, if it were 25% (pick any number higher than 20%), then I think it would be hard for a manager to hoard.  (3-4 farm players equal 1 primary contract).  That's not exactly hoarding.  Plus, I like the idea of having fluid and experimental lineups.  If I have to worry every time I send down a 24+ old player about waivers, then it defeats the purpose of having the farm team for anything other than prospects who already play in appropriate level leagues.  
 
I'm not 100% against waivers, I just haven't yet been convinced how it would be more fun than hassle in our leagues.  

The reason I like the idea was because it would allow for the same experimentality that you like, but not let the top teams get too far ahead by hiding top players others might covet. That's also part of what was going through my head when I suggested that waivers should be clauses. Making a player unclaimable would give managers a safety in their mind that they can play a guy more games but would obviously come at a higher cost.
 
Now that I think about it, the cost wouldn't be that much if you plan on demoting the player. Maybe the percent of salary that counts towards cap could be increased with a players age. Ex: 18-22 year olds in minors take 10% of cap, 23-27 year olds take 20% of cap, etc. Maybe after it could also go back down after a certain age. Another option could be to include the percent of cash that a player will earn should he be sent down to the minors. But that might start to clutter contract screen and I do like the games simple design. I'm just spit-balling ideas here.

If the reason is to prevent people from hoarding players on their farm teams, then perhaps the minor league contract should just simply count for more than the 10% it currently does to the primary team.  Hoarding isn't "free", it still costs 10%.  However, if it were 25% (pick any number higher than 20%), then I think it would be hard for a manager to hoard.  (3-4 farm players equal 1 primary contract).  That's not exactly hoarding.  Plus, I like the idea of having fluid and experimental lineups.  If I have to worry every time I send down a 24+ old player about waivers, then it defeats the purpose of having the farm team for anything other than prospects who already play in appropriate level leagues.  
 
I'm not 100% against waivers, I just haven't yet been convinced how it would be more fun than hassle in our leagues.  

If the reason is to prevent people from hoarding players on their farm teams, then perhaps the minor league contract should just simply count for more than the 10% it currently does to the primary team.  Hoarding isn't "free", it still costs 10%.  However, if it were 25% (pick any number higher than 20%), then I think it would be hard for a manager to hoard.  (3-4 farm players equal 1 primary contract).  That's not exactly hoarding.  Plus, I like the idea of having fluid and experimental lineups.  If I have to worry every time I send down a 24+ old player about waivers, then it defeats the purpose of having the farm team for anything other than prospects who already play in appropriate level leagues.  
 
I'm not 100% against waivers, I just haven't yet been convinced how it would be more fun than hassle in our leagues.  

Fuck that's painful to read

Simple, make possible to send 1 way contract player in AAHL if they clear the waivers. Otherwise if a two way player need clear waiver, it ridiculous and I totaly disagree.

Sounds like you need to work on your penalty kill eh?

It's depending on the player's level and reputation. But since the last update they're more willing now if their overall is in the lower 80's and below  
They will go to the new parent team after the trade. It's up to the new team if they want to keep the player or assign him to the affiliate.   
:thumbs up:

As of now, no you can't sign a player directly to the affiliate. You must have enough space to sign the player to your own roster first. However, this may change. But basically I believe it's more realistic if you actually have enough space on your team to sign the player.
 
You can still let the player play in a different team and league during the prospect years. But then you can't choose in what tactic he will develop. By assigning him to your affiliate you ensure that his training style and game experience will develop according to your preferences and tactics.
 
 
Maybe we need to increase the cap a bit instead. But as @EXXEO mentioned, it's a matter of strategy. Some teams may choose to sign only established players to their main team leaving very little budget to the affiliates while others may want to have large base of talent playing within their organisation.
 
But I totally get your point, as of now almost no team has any space left under the cap. But then you're not supposed to fill the affiliates from top to bottom with your own players. That's why the affiliate signs its own players too.
 
Thanks for your input and suggestions!
 
 
Thanks for the report! I'll have a look at this as soon as possible!

I'm ok with the 10%. If there was no budget cost then people could fill two teams full of their own prospects with no regard to finances. In the long run, 10% of a players contract is very doable but some teams will need to make adjustments with the new systems in play. Let's say you want 6 prospects to go into each of your Affiliate teams and let's assume that we are talking GHL budgets. If you have 12 guys with $1 Million contracts that calculates out to a grand total of $1.2 Million in Affiliate costs (nearly the price of one decent player).
 
I think it also depends on Manager style. Some may want to take the long approach and pick up a lot of young, developing players to build a pool while some Managers may prefer the win now strategy. Either way, I feel Like the 10% contract cost is a good trade off.

A pre release of the affiliate teams feature has been made on the UAT today! Check below for more info. Please report back any bugs to this topic (not the bugs section). Have fun!
 The pre release contains the followingAffiliate leagues AAHL, AAHL 2 and AAHL 3 (new) Create up to two affiliate teams. Affiliate team levels Professional, SemiProfessional or Amateur. (Eligible levels depend on your team level) Affiliate teams will be using the same tactics as your own team. Assign and recall players to your affiliates. Only players with two way contracts (not having the one way contract clause) may be assigned. Salary cap impact. Assigned player’s salary will only count as a tenth against your team’s salary cap when assigned. New user setting on how to display assigned players on your roster. Assignments and recalls generates transaction logs  Other improvements and bug fixesThe previous AMHL and AMHL 2 (American Minor Hockey Leagues) has been renamed to USMHL (United States Minor Hockey League) to not be mixed up with the AAHL leagues. Simulator improvements to fix the delayed simulation problems.  How to get going with affiliate teamsCreate and view affiliate teams by using the Action menu on your team page Assign/Recall players by using the Action menu on that player’s page

First off, it's currently the playoffs and so you shouldn't be able to trade anybody anyways. If you can, that's a bug and should be reported. Second off, because I know trades can happen on the last day of the season, you still need to worry about your cap hit this season for trades. The players might only be on your team for half a day this season, but the salary still matters. You need to clear cap space by either trading away more salary (which is probably harder) or by releasing players. Only then will any trades be able to go through as long as it is the last day in the season.
 
Free agents are a bit different in that as soon as the regular season ends, the free agents won't be able to join you team until next season, so they don't have to worry about the current seasons cap.

Nice to see these types of stats!
 
When it comes to SHL, there's a really close battle for the top 2 spots between three teams, Pinehurst Miners lead with 109 points, Buckingham Breakouts are second with 105 and Lake Viking Bulldogs are breathing just few points behind at 99. Really interesting to see which teams make it to GHL. (Hope it's mine and then one of the other two lol)

BHL Clapper has now had two instances where a team was taken over for one day, traded away assets, and then abandoned. In both cases, assets were traded to the same target team.
 
I think that it would make sense to impose a 10-day trading freeze with any team that has just been taken over. You don't have to bother with an IP search to determine if this is the same player or not. Maybe there are two players colluding? Who knows. Putting a small time delay just makes it more annoying to try to take advantage of the system.
 
It won't get rid of this issue, but it may possibly cut down on it's occurrence.

I'm not in Clapper, but I would definitely report the teams involved. Anders should be able to take care of those user(s).

I'm sitting here watching the finals and wanted to resurrect this thread. I really would love to see a full depth chart option where you could set your backup and even shootout lineups and 4v4 lineups. Thoughts guys? Go Preds!

Also, I think this shows the true difficulty new teams coming into the GHL from SHL face trying to be competitive.  Had you run these numbers on Day 1, I guarantee Pegasus and Heroes would have been much lower averages.   Maybe it is too much to expect newly promoted teams to be competitive in Season 1, but this really quantifies the uphill battle they face on Game 1.