Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 "What we've got here is a failure to communicate"

About dbfinch

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sigh. 1. Like I said, two of them have played a total of four NHL games between them, and the other one is in his rookie year as a bottom pairing defenseman. The two UFAs are not veterans; they are 27 and 26 (again, I had already mentioned the age of one), which is basically entering the prime age for NHL forwards in terms of production. One is coming off winning the Rocket, Conn Smythe, finishing top three for the Art Ross and being runner-up for the Hart. The other has been listed as one of the top 10 centres in each of the last three seasons by the game itself. All stuff I've mentioned in
  2. Way ahead of you! http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/446686-1-0-2-Crash-when-trying-to-view-transactions-gt-draft-picks No mention of either player. I assume it just comes down to the fact I'm already over the cap for next year (albeit only by 2m, but still over) which is fine, but if that is the case, surely my RFAs should be similarly limited. I certainly shouldn't be able to sign three RFAs to contracts totalling 34m if that is the case!
  3. Except one of them (Kristopher Moon) is on my roster and would count against the cap. He's played in all 41 games so far this year. So that argument falls flat. Not to mention that, with regards to the two who are still in the AHL, whilst it is technically true it's a very weak defence for what is clearly an issue in the game. Sure, if I leave those two in the AHL and there salaries don't count against the cap, but to say there is no reason for the board to limit such salaries is ridiculous. I can state three reasons just off the top of my head: 1) It is illogical. They aren't worth anywhe
  4. I'm not arguing that the board don't (or shouldn't) have the power to limit what I can spend. Nowhere have I implied that the board should let me spend what I want. And for the record I don't even mind moving the two pending UFAs if there is no money to re-sign them. But what I am suggesting is a bug is the fact that they're willing to let me spend literally tens of millions on RFAs who haven't cracked my NHL roster, yet limiting what I can spend on UFAs who are actually key members of my roster. I've actually saved my game and simmed through a bit just to highlight this point: Pending UF
  5. Like I said very clearly, this isn't just the board isn't limiting salary to what they think the players are worth. They're allowing me to offer over 10 million to RFAs who haven't even played a single NHL game - well over their value. The only two players they are limiting the salary on are the two pending UFAs. One of them (Kielbratowski) is coming off a season where he won the Rocket, King Clancy and Conn Smythe trophies, was Hart trophy runner-up and finished third for the Pearson and Art Ross trophies. Posted 87 points (47 goals) and was a mainstay in my top two lines, and is only 27 year
  6. This is a new one to me, at least in terms of how the bug itself is showing up. I've two pending UFAs who, upon trying to negotiate a new contract, I'm finding the board is limiting what I can offer them to the salary they're currently receiving. It doesn't matter if I change their team status or try and offer them more or less years, I can't go above what they're already receiving. Now I thought this might be because I'm 2.2m over the cap for next year - and perhaps it is, although I'm still under my player budget - but once I reached December 31st and got the 'expiring contracts' news item,
  7. Heh, I'd never even noticed that. Although of course now that my eyes have been opened to it, I have to question how I'd failed to spot it! Having given it a quick Google, JamieLiverpoolfan is correct to attribute its appearance to my using a Mac. Apparently it's a feature of Leopard (the operation system, if you're unfamiliar with what I'm referencing) I was completely oblivious to until today.
  8. You're going to have to expand on that, as I'm honestly at a loss with regards to what you mean! I can't see anything out of the ordinary?
  9. A bravery attribute of 2 seems wonderfully appropriate for a player with the surname 'Coward'.
  10. 9-0, not even a club record. Clearly took our foot off the gas. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as I paid attention to the second half, Roche didn't even come close to an 8th goal. Some of the goals were hilariously bad defending too; Bari kept trying to play the offside trap some 35 yards from the goal and getting it completely wrong!
  11. It's more the circumstances surrounding this that amused me. I'd started the match, then gone downstairs to start cooking some food. Came back upstairs and wished away my screensaver to find I was 7-0 up at half time. Checked the goalscorers, only to find I was wrong to entertain the plural version of that word! Off the top of my head, I can't recall having any one player score more than five times in a single match, let alone seven in one half!
  12. Any other player, I'd bump up his asking price and 'reject all offers', except it'd deprive me of news items entitled: *childish giggle*
  13. I wish I'd known this thread existed back when I had a news item entitled something like "Gay chases Neville". The headline of this article amused me. Probably come up in this thread before but I don't fancy looking through 30 pages to find out! Note that the guy's a "promising goalkeeper", so I didn't just sign him for his name alone...
  • Create New...