Paul T

Endurance is definitely an issue with my team and one of the 3 main weaknesses that I can point to right off the bat. That problem stems from my early perception that it didn’t matter all that much. It has especially impacted me with goalies. I seem to manage it well with forwards and Dmen by regulating their ice time, but endurance being a cause of my late season struggles is an interesting suggestion that could very well be true. The only thing I’ll say is that in earlier seasons, my team had better endurance and we still collapsed. Season 1 for example, my top line endurance was 99, 99, 99 and my goalie that season was 95. They all still disappeared late season and into the playoffs.

Move over Cutter!

Yeah my team is interesting to say the least. It could very well be that we are just overperforming in the first part of the season and coming back down to earth in the 2nd half, but the pattern is alarming and especially the first round playoff exits, only winning 1 game in each series. It seems to be a team thing rather than a specific player thing. I am in an interesting spot right now, though. Sitting in first place with no chance of relegation allows me to test certain line combos or focuses out prior to the playoffs. If they work, great. it would be cool to finish 1st. If they don't, then I drop down to 4th/5th and get a better draft pick, which would guarantee I get one of the top 20 players that I am targeting. It's a win/win right now. I don't really care who I play in the playoffs because to this point I haven't been successful as the 2nd or 5th seed and there is no team in the top 8 in the East that I feel confident about more than others. In looking at your team, I see 3 weaknesses. And take the "weakness" with a grain of salt because I feel like your team is top 5 in Cage, with an argument to be made #1 overall. First, as you said, would be your goaltending, specifically your backup goalie. And it also appears that Baudoin being anxious has had an impact in the playoffs, but maybe that's just the small sample size we have so far. In Biscuit, a nervous goalie won back to back titles and the team that won wasn't among the best. Second, I noticed the spirit of a lot of your C and F is low. Who knows how much this even matters, but I suppose it can be considered a weakness, especially defensively. Refusal to back check, etc. It doesn't impact Scott because he's just a scoring machine, but others could potentially be playing better defense if they had higher spirit. Third, some of your defenders are small, so other team could potentially be overpowering them. Shilling, Gemmell and Sharshin are all great players, but small in comparison to most players. This all being said, I think you can pin point multiple weaknesses on every team - some more than others. My team has 3 glaring ones that I could name off the top. After the reset teams were meant to have weaknesses. Personally I think it's fun to work around those weaknesses. One thing I liked about your reddit post was the comment "easy to learn/difficult to master". That is not only true, but a very good thing as it prevents the game from becoming predictable and boring.

Outshot and controlled possession against both Mango and Bodmin. Rome gave us probably the worst beat down of the year... didn't show up.

Looks like my late season struggles are real. Now 1-3 in the last quarter of the season and we've been shut out 3 times. That's some cold offense right there! And I only scored 3 against the Dragons because Peek played his backup.

To all the GHL managers who may relegate this season - and to the SHL teams who don't promote - stick it out! There is a 16 year old 88 overall defenseman in the Russian juniors who will be eligible for the draft NEXT season. He'll be what, 92-93 by the time he's 18. If that's not incentive, I don't know what is.

Peyton was great too! No denying that. I really enjoyed that rivalry.

Oh - and going back to a discussion that hasn't been had in quite some time. Roster Limits!!! I have always felt for GHL level it should be 30. Maybe offer a bit more leeway for the lower leagues, but I can't imagine why any GHL manager would need more than 30 spots. This would be the ultimate measure against hoarding players and creating a larger FA pool. 6 C - 11 F - 9D - 4G = 30 players. Easy peasy. You can even get creative and do 7C and 12F and 2G, the options are endless.

Just re-read this part and I see what you're saying. Personally, I think the problem is contracts. Players are signing way too cheap. I had hoped that the release would have solved that - for example, players in the 90s should sign for 6M+. I see some signing for less than 3M, which allows managers to hoard (along with potentially getting a team of all 90+ players, but that's another topic). If hoarding is keeping other managers from getting players, then it seems like an effective tactic to be honest. I personally don't agree with it because having too many players on your roster, especially on one way deals, will kill your confidence as those players would become anxious - and having too many salaries prevents managers from splurging on those top tier players. I think if the contracts were fixed it would solve a lot of this.

Definitely agree with everything you said, rain. I just understand the mentality behind managers finding comfort in signing their own players. Many might think the current roster is good, they just need 1-2 more pieces to make it all work. Season 3 FA was a great example for me. I placed a 2nd/3rd line player on waivers to go after Rackley in FA. That plan didn't work out and I lost the player to waivers, having my worst season so far. But overall you are right. I think the FA market will continue to get better each season. In S2 it was awful. Got a little better for S3 and this past season there were plenty of players there for signing. As new players continue to pour in, more players will become available - managers will start doing exactly as you said above in hopes of signing "better" players and improving their teams. Just a bit limited at the moment. I think we are a few seasons away from the FA pool being really good. In terms of trading, I think there are a fair amount of moves made each season. Almost every manager has made a trade or two at this point. But trading is tough in general. You need to find a fair balance and also offer something that the other manager needs, taking into account team tactics and cap space. If you find value in a player on another team, chances are that manager also values that player and it will take a bit to move them. I thought the trade between Cedar and Slaughter was a great example of a fair trade benefiting both teams. I also think the trade between me and Cedar was a benefit to both teams. Cedar got the younger, better, bigger player on a cheaper contract, so on paper it looks lopsided, but I was up against the cap and it provided me some breathing room to make moves in case of injury... and it provided me positional balance in that I now have a C who can fill in in case of injury - and I already had depth at D. I needed to move Obeng after this season anyways and Kozak is a great example of a player that will walk without a contact next season. I've offered quite a few trades for G this year as well to no avail - and some of the offers I thought were really good, but can understand why they were rejected.

Agree - but I'm totally fine with it I think there are basically 3 reasons for this. First, managers don't like giving up assets for nothing. There's an entitlement attitude in that if you sign the player they are worth something and can be used as a trade chip down the line... and there's some truth to it. Second, there's comfort in re-signing your own players where you can somewhat dictate the terms of the contract vs. having to rely on free agency and trying to outbid other managers or get lucky. Third, as we are only 4 seasons in, the free agent pool has been thin, so it goes along with point 2 in that there is comfort knowing your roster is filled. This one will start to change in the next few seasons as the FA pool becomes bigger.

As a Pats fan, I disagree. One can simply point to Belichick's stats as a head coach prior to Brady to prove this incorrect.

Hey Admins I have what should be a relatively minor, yet simple suggestion. I know this has been brought up a few times before, but the wording on the Team Achievement page can be a bit misleading (i.e. Playoff 2, Playoff 3, etc.). Path: Team Stats > Team History > Achievement The labels that seem OK are: Promoted, Saved by Playoffs, Missed Playoffs, Relegated by Playoffs, and Golden Cup winner (although I would capitalize "Winner" to emphasize it The ones that can use updating are: Playoff 2, Playoff 3, Playoff 4 & Playoff 5. My suggested updates are: Playoff 2 = 1st Round Playoffs Playoff 3 = 2nd Round Playoffs Playoff 4 = GHL Semifinals (to my knowledge, Playoff 4 only appears for GHL playoffs and none of the lower leagues) Playoff 5 = GHL Cup Finalist (Playoff 5 only appears for GHL playoffs and indicates a loss in the finals) *I was originally going to suggest that Playoff 3 = Quarterfinals, but that would only apply to GHL. I think my suggestions above would be accurate for every league level.

it's crazy when stuff like that happens. Today was a weird game as I rarely get dominated like that. The bright spot is my backup, Pohl, might be the answer in net. I think he just joined the Vezina conversation

I did some research on my trends, splitting by the season into 4 quarters and calculating the # of wins (regulation + OT/SO) during those periods. The first thing I noticed is that my Win % over the last 20 games of the season hovers around 50%. Not great for a team with a consistent winning record and who typically holds a 1st place spot at some point during each season. Season 1 started amazing as I won my first 20 games. It dipped below .500 in Q2, then rebounded in Q3, only to collapse again in Q4. Season 2 was pretty consistent Q over Q, but there is a major dip at the end heading into the playoffs. Season 3 was relatively consistent all the way through, however there was a significant dip in Q3 that I wasn't ever able to recover from. Season 4 is trending downward. Data for Q4 is incomplete, but I'm off to an 0-1 start and I'm guessing I will win approximately 7-10 games over the final 19. Average wins per period. Q1 = 14.5 Q2 = 12.5 Q3 = 12.0 Q4 = 9.5

My problem is the late season collapses (when I referred to each team having their unique problems). There may be a good reason for it, but not one that I've been able to identify yet. Or maybe it's random... not sure. Someday I'll figure it out. But you are right about my goalies in general. Amick's endurance is awful - and he's my scapegoat that I love to call out publicly - but he plays well enough in general and my backups have always been solid enough to stay afloat. My goal this past offseason was to do exactly as you said and get a G that could split time, but my offers came up short and I had limited cap space so settled for Pohl, who immediately started decreasing. His reflexes have declined 6 points this season already. When I traded for Amick it was right after Erzac won the Cup in S1. He did it with a dominant goalie who has very poor endurance and played him in almost every game with no negative impact. I pick up on things like that and started to assume endurance for goalies was overrated, but that has been proven wrong (for the most part). Amick is similar, minus the athleticism. The game can be misleading sometimes, but that's my own fault for assuming something to be true with a limited sample size. As in real life, players can have good and bad seasons, leaving managers guessing, but preventing the game from becoming predictable and boring.

It is funny how each team seems to have their own unique problems and it's relatively consistent over multiple seasons. Probably not an ideal scenario unless you are developing a goalie, but have you considered signing some scrub to play in the affiliate to act as a 2nd backup? When Amick needs a rest, which is often... and I mean OFTEN lmao, I'll recall Loiselle to play backup in case of goalie pull so that Amick doesn't get thrown into the game. Even some 78-79 guy for like 400K. For what it's worth, the last place Alligators beat me earlier this season when they started their 78 overall goalie. It was a glorious moment for both teams.

/\ And away we goooooooooooooooooo. Collapse commence. Like clockwork. On a more positive note, my draft pick will be a bit better. I've put about 8 hours of research into it so far, so not totally unhappy about that. Who I play in the 1st round is a moot point considering I just lost to what would be the 1 vs. 8 matchup. Come aloooooong and ride on a fantastic...Slide Slide Slippity Slide...ain't no valley low enough for mountain high

I wonder if Season 4 will turn out like the others?

Yeah, I wish it would lock as well. However, canceling a pending contract is risky if you intend to keep the player as they will tend to ask for more, especially if they have improved. I wouldn't recommend canceling contracts, except in your case if the player has been agreed to in a trade. There would be no harm in doing it in your situation.

You don't buy what assessment? Money is a huge aspect of this game. I'd have to assume this stuff is intended given that players have a hidden "greed" value. It even states in the help files that players can become unhappy with their contracts. I'm not sure why a player becoming unhappy with a cheap contract would be surprising to anyone, tbh. Again, there needs to be some strategy around signing players. If you are going too cheap on a long term contract then a player becoming unhappy should absolutely be a risk. Second, the situation you presented above doesn't even really describe the assumed bug. The player is "happy". He would also like to discuss a new contract, which you can next season. I doubt his performance has been impacted by his contract situation. Even if they get concerned there isn't much impact. If it seems like his performance has suffered it is probably another factor. Players go through random slumps. But my main point here is that there should always be a risk of a great player on a cheap contract becoming unhappy even if the player agrees to the contract. It almost always means that the player wasn't given exactly what they asked for, so if they were low-balled, then there should be a risk of this happening and can be easily avoided by giving them a better contract upfront. I've had it happen to my players before too.

Agree on your first point, but I really feel like the wording is just off here. There's many scenarios in this game where the wording is slightly wrong. The wording means that contract is too cheap and once the new season opens up, you will be able to offer an extension to make him happy. As for the actions, there's plenty of things you can do besides waiting it out. Cut him. Try to trade him. Ignore it. There is an extreme benefit to having star players on your roster for very cheap, why shouldn't there be a penalty if things go wrong? I still think if you are signing a player to a long term contract you need to be aware that this situation may eventually present itself if the salary is too cheap. There needs to be some type of benefit to shorter contracts and some type of strategy in signing players. To me that's the biggest aspect of this game. I think this is somewhat eluded to in the help files. ### Contract happiness At first the player will be happy with his contract but this might change depending on certain situations. The current contract happiness can be found on Transfer tab on the Player page. An unhappy player will have a worse game performance so it’s wise to keep your players happy. ### Contract negotiations When offering a contract to a player he will first let you know of his demands, both salary, contract length and contract clauses if any. You then have the possibility to either offer the exact demands or to edit the offer to your likings. Once you have decided what to offer use the Make offer button to send the offer. My two thoughts on the above. First, Concerned players don't impact performance. It's more of a warning. Only when the player gets unhappy are they affected. Second, players give exact salary demands. It's well known that most players will accept lower than their demands and I'm guessing that most managers do this. But it should be a risk that managers take in getting into bad contract situations with certain players. I don't think this is a bug. I think the game is working as intended. But maybe the wording is misleading. Maybe it should just be changed to "Player is unhappy with his contract".

I guess I'm probably the wrong person to answer. I'm a fan of anything that adds complexity, strategy or a challenge for managers to the game. I love when players reject offers and make random decisions. To me, this is one of those scenarios. I think players are signing for way too cheap right now. I know that some managers try to offer the lowest possible salary that the player will accept at the current time, and I also do to a point, but I also look at league averages and if the player will eventually be a star, I try to offer a little more so that I don't run into this issue. I'm not sure if I would consider this a bug as it penalizes managers who didn't forecast correctly and went too cheap. I don't know if anything has changed with Cage, but I did have this same scenario in Biscuit. I had a player that was concerned the entire season because of this exact issue and he ended up leading my team in goals. To what point performance is affected is unknown. I remember discussing this a few years ago in the chat and it was determined that recognizable impact didn't occur until the player was Unhappy. Concerned was more of a warning.

Yeah, I've had that before. You just need to wait out the season and offer the extension the following year. The player is happy, though. How do you know it is impacting their game performance? It's tough to tell without know the overall of this player and when the contract was initially offered/original term.

How does a player ask for a new contract? Edit: I don't think I am misunderstanding it. The original post said Players that will have 2+ years left on their contract are "Unhappy/Concerned because they would like to discuss a new contract". I think it just means that the player is unhappy with their current contract because it's too cheap for their rating level. It is probably more of an issue with the game wording. Either way, the player is unhappy with their current contract because it's too cheap.