EHM The Blue Line

I enjoy this challenge but it looks like it's probably a bit too easy with this few restrictions. For the next one maybe add a restriction to the number of trades? I like that we can trade for any age but it's too easy to revamp the roster completely right now. Several people have won the cup in the first season. We have time to figure out the specifics though

Peter_Doherty wrote:I enjoy this challenge but it looks like it's probably a bit too easy with this few restrictions. For the next one maybe add a restriction to the number of trades? I like that we can trade for any age but it's too easy to revamp the roster completely right now. Several people have won the cup in the first season. We have time to figure out the specifics though

I'd have to agree. The first season is challenging but after a few trades and draft picks the 2nd becomes less so.

However, I'm also not a big fan of "build through the draft only" strategy. Especially, when I can't trade/draft the players I want.

The Bruins (trade 29+ players) and all american Rangers are the two challenge format I liked the most. Even though the US Rangers ended in many simliar teams/trades.

Yeah, i like that we can trade for whoever we want and trade away whoever we want, just think we need to add more restrictions to make it harder, like X amount of trades per year etc.

I agree with the limit on trades.

I do like the limitations on UFA signings and would like to see that continue.

Same, i just want more limitations, mostly on the trades, just not age limitations.

That makes sense. Of course, I'm still struggling early in season 1 of this challenge but I do see the point you guys are making. Maybe we can come to some kind of consensus on a number? How many trades should we be allowed?

I thought to myself "how many trades do NHL teams make in a year/season?" (for some "baseline data" of what's realistic/reasonable)
I used this website http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/team_list to look at the number of trades made in 2015-16 and 2014-15

I went from July 1st 2015 June 30th 2016 and then July 1st 2014 to June 30th 2015 (the number in brackets is 2014-15)


2015-16 (2014-15)
Anaheim 5 (13)
Arizona 12 (8)
Boston 3 (8)
Buffalo 2 (11)
Calgary 9 (4)
Carolina 7 (6)
Chicago 13 (9)
Colorado 8 (6)
Columbus 2 (8)
Dallas 4 (6)
Detroit 3 (2)
Edmonton 8 (9)
Florida 10 (7)
Los Angeles 6 (2)
Minnesota 3 (5)
Montreal 10 (8)
Nashville 9 (2)
New Jersey 8 (3)
NY Islanders 3 (8)
NY Rangers 5 (8)
Ottawa 7 (3)
Philadelphia 2 (4)
Pittsburgh 8 (6)
San Jose 4 (11)
St. Louis 4 (5)
Tampa Bay 2 (5)
Toronto 11 (10)
Vancouver 7 (8)
Washington 5 (3)
Winnipeg 2 (6)


So looking at the number of trades NHL teams made over the last two seasons

• the highest number of trades in a season was 13, the lowest 2
• teams made an average of 6.3 trades per season
• the most combined trades over the two seasons was 22
• nine times out of a possible sixty were 10+ trades made in a season (15% of the time)
• eight of thirty teams made 10+ trades in a season (27% of the teams); only the Leafs did it in both seasons

My gut instinct is 3 trades per season, but maybe that's not enough. We need few enough to make it challenging while still have enough so that we don't have to build solely through the draft.

bruins72 wrote:That makes sense. Of course, I'm still struggling early in season 1 of this challenge but I do see the point you guys are making. Maybe we can come to some kind of consensus on a number? How many trades should we be allowed?

Instead of limiting the number of trades why not just limit the number of total assets traded in a season?

We're already limiting the number of assets in each deal. If we start limiting total assets traded (both incoming and outgoing) then there's an awful lot more to check to make sure people are staying within the rules. Also, that makes more room for people to make errors.

That's some really good data from Nino. Looking at that, I think 5 might be a good number, maybe 4 if we really want to make it tough. Since just over 6 was the league average, 4 or 5 would be just a bit less.

Suggestion for next challenge, to win SC with Montreal but all players must be born in Quebec

LOL! I've thought about that one before. It's always a possibility.

Any news on the next challenge?

Thought the last one was great

No news yet. I'm kind of waiting for the next roster release.

bruins72 wrote:No news yet. I'm kind of waiting for the next roster release.

Yeah, when will that be released?

Manimal wrote:

bruins72 wrote:No news yet. I'm kind of waiting for the next roster release.

Yeah, when will that be released?

Haha.

Manimal wrote:

bruins72 wrote:No news yet. I'm kind of waiting for the next roster release.

Yeah, when will that be released?

I have no idea but the one thing I do know is not to bother the update crew asking when it's going to be ready!

So the new version of the DB is out. Does anyone have any suggestions for a team to use for our next challenge? I'll try to get one going before Christmas if I can.

How about Canucks? They seems to be a challenge with their aging team core and few bad contracts? We could use a rule where no one can get rid off Sedin Bros. separately

We kind of did that not long ago. It was one of our youth movement challenges. We had to trade everyone 25 or older before the start of the first season.

Looking at the NHL standings we've got Buffalo, the Islanders, the Avalanche, and the Coyotes all in the bottom of their divisions. We've used all of these teams in a challenge at some point. The most recent of those was the Sabres but that was back in 2013.

The Coyotes have some young talent that can be developed. They start out with an okay goalie and a pretty nice group on defense. I don't think this team would be high on the difficulty scale but could be some fun. Notable players: Ekman-Larsson, Goligoski, Domi, and Doan.

The Sabres have decent goaltending and some good defensemen to start. They've got some good forwards too. I think you could make 2 good lines for scoring with this team. Similar to the Coyotes, not super high difficulty but could be fun. Notable players: Ristolainen, Kulikov, Eichel, O'Reilly, and Okposo.

The Avs have stronger goaltending than the first two teams. They've got decent defensmen but they're older for the most part and unlikely to improve much (with a couple exceptions). They've probably got 2 decent scoring lines but they're a mix between 30+ year old vets and youngsters. Notable players: Landeskog, E. Johnson, Duchene, and MacKinnon

The Islanders have similar goaltending to the Avs, better than the first two teams. Their defense looks pretty solid. I could definitely work with them and not need trades there. Their forwards have a mix of youngsters and veterans. Notable players: Tavares, Ladd, and Leddy

Beyond these teams we could possibly look at Toronto and Nashville.

Challenge titled Save Avalanche? or Avalanche back to top?

Minnesota. You have to ride out Suter and Parise's contracts.

I'd choose Arizona. Overall the hardest challenge.

CJ wrote:I'd choose Arizona. Overall the hardest challenge.

Arizona are quite solid imo. Granted, I haven't yet checked the new rosters but their youth and D were pretty good last time around.

How about the Senators? Devils?

bruins72 wrote:So the new version of the DB is out. Does anyone have any suggestions for a team to use for our next challenge? I'll try to get one going before Christmas if I can.

I really enjoyed the last challenge and I'll play whatever team you guys decide on but if you do start it before Christmas can we have a little extra time to play? My house is about to get really full and I've got a lot to do, I won't even be able to really start playing until after the New Year.