Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

JJO81

Members
  • Content Count

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 "You're a bum, Rock"

About JJO81

  • Rank
    Lurker
  1. Excellent return from you guys, many ideas. I'll start with the least likely ones since otherwise it'll get buried. Relocation and or resuscitation of old franchises. Not the biggest deal, but I'd love to be able (if the team fulfills certain criteria) to be able to move a team if I wanted to. Perhaps the most illogical movers could be blocked (Original 6 etc) or then not, it's a game. No-one's looking. I'm just a nostalgic, but relocation could be a nice touch. The market/fan interest/whatever is used to determine ticket sales and such for teams needs a recalibration. I'll give you an example. The men kind enough to make the most current NHL roster also have the New York Islanders moving from Nassau Coliseum to Brooklyn quite correctly. However, also the number of empty seats per game moves with them, even though the capacity of the Brooklyn arena is significantly smaller than Nassau's. That seems very illogical. So whereas I pulled 15-16 000 to Nassau in the first season when I wasn't even doing so well, now I'm averaging around 13 000 in Brooklyn. This after I've won the Stanley Cup. What I mean to say is that success doesn't seem to impact ticket sales much, but also that it appears with arena moves and such the empty seats figure correlates with arena size rather than actual attendance figures. The teams income on NHL TV rights is well off the new deals. The correct figure is around 20 million US dollars per year these days I believe (my income is 9 mil per) and there are local TV deals on top of that of course. My Islanders keep losing about 15-20 or so mil per year and the board needs to inject new money at least once per season. Wouldn't be quite as necessary if the tv figures reflected the new deals. The local deals could play like FM kit sponsorships, make a deal for a few years related to market size, fan interest, attendance etc. Especially if and when annual fiscal results affect budgets, these could be corrected. The player-manager (and board request) conversation system needs more depth. As with old CM/FM games the players are stuck as numbers and letters. The interaction could mirror those of more modern FM games as there really isn't much now that affects GM/coach/player relations other than winning or losing. Now you can send big time prospects, established NHL players with big contracts who clear waivers etc to the minors with no backlash at all. The salary cap and salaries in general. The cap never moves, which of course creates issues a few years down the road. I've got Anaheim putting Corey Perry and LA Kings putting Anze Kopitar and other on the block because of accumulating salaries during the offseason before the third season. This has a two-sided effect. Star players and those who develop to that seem to get their big paychecks which of course is correct, but at the same time many other young NHL players are very easy to retain at ridiculously low costs. A few examples. I've had Danny DeKeyser score 114 points in two seasons from the blue line and was able to tie him to a four year contract paying him 3 million dollars per year. I've been able to tie down young, talented players to similarly cheap and quite long deals on many occasions. I'm not sure how the engine determines what a player asks for (CA/PA or more likely reputation), but perhaps if you'd somehow be able to glean additional information from players of a similar age and CA/PA in terms of how they have played and what they're being paid. Of course as a GM I don't mind being able to retain future stars on the cheap, but it's a bit off base. In general it seems like there are very few legitimate mid tier free agents and most either get paid huge salaries or optionally something between 1 and 2 million. The 3-5 million tier seems a bit light. It's still very easy to package players and assets to get better ones. In 2½ years I've added half a roster of young future stars and many top picks (I nabbed the draft picks to draft McDavid AND Eichel by targetting the most likely lottery teams before the start of the first season). You can still hire big name NHL coaches as assistants when they're free agents. Right now in year three of a game I have eg. Claude Julien and Joel Quenneville as assistants. I doubt that would happen. Of course there are some HC's who need to take a step down, but not the biggest names I'm sure. Conversely I'm surprised you cannot hire an existing NHL coach as your National Team (USA or Canada) head coach for eg the World Championships if they are out of the playoffs. That could be a possibility, as that does happen in real life.
×
×
  • Create New...