EHM The Blue Line

batdad wrote:No. But he does count for homegrown if he is signed.

ACtually now that I think about it...B72? Does he count to the farm team numbers?

According to your previous answer to one of my questions, Anton Lander does qualify as he was signed immediately after being drafted.

Unless I am misunderdstanding the answer you provided earlier.

Please let me know. I've gone a long ways in the game based on this info and would hate to have to go all the way back to June.

Thanks.

What season are you in? I assume you are in season 2...if you are Lander cannot be a homegrown until season 3. He must be on your roster for 1 year before you can use him.

If you are already in season 3, my apologies.

I just started season 2, so I've misunderstood your previous comment about Homegrown. I think I should be OK, sort of...means I will have to promote Marcinko as my Homegrown for Season 2, and hold off on Lander until next year. May not be such a bad thing, as it gives Lander another year to develop. Means my thrid line is going to be hurting

I am only at October 15 of Season 2, so I will restart from pre-season and nominate/promote Marcinko.

Thanks for the additional clarification batdad!

Yep. That will work fine. You don't even need to go back though. Unless Lander has played 25 games, you are cool. Keep his games low, and get Marcinko up to 50 and all is good.

Sucker Punch wrote:We can trade for unsigned prospects, right?

I thought there was no trading of unsigned prospects, period. In or out.

* No trading unsigned prospects ...period. That means you can't beef up a deal by adding in all of your unsigned prospects that you don't think will ever make the NHL. That also means you can't go and trade for all the best unsigned 19 year olds that every team has drafted and not under contract yet.

Only trading them out is an issue. you can trade for them.

batdad wrote:

* No trading unsigned prospects ...period. That means you can't beef up a deal by adding in all of your unsigned prospects that you don't think will ever make the NHL. That also means you can't go and trade for all the best unsigned 19 year olds that every team has drafted and not under contract yet.

Only trading them out is an issue. you can trade for them.

Good to know, I thought the restiction worked both ways.

From the Challenge 12 Rules:


* No trading unsigned prospects ...period. That means you can't beef up a deal by adding in all of your unsigned prospects that you don't think will ever make the NHL. That also means you can't go and trade for all the best unsigned 19 year olds that every team has drafted and not under contract yet.

Seems pretty clear to me.

This does need to be cleared up, since I have been offered some quality prospects, and rejected the offers since I thought the practice was forbidden,

Crud. In a pickle.

Confirmed a trade on July 14th, but it didn't *officially* go through until the following morning. Do I need to go back?

Here's the screenshot:

July 14th Trade

wHOOPS, Missed that part...Do not trade for unsigned prospects folks. Thank god I have not done it!


As for your deal jbs...no worries. You kept the screen shot.

Thanks. You must have replied when I sent you the PM, so please disregard. Kust trying to CMA.

homegrown players:


( * You must keep them on your roster for at least two seasons from the date he is declared a Homegrown. This means that he must stay on your team for at least the one season after his homegrown season. In that second season he is required to play at least 50 games (2400 minutes for goalies). )

i think it might be a good idea to look over rules on these. as i feel i am in silly seson between 2 and 3 i barely need to plan about homegrown payers exept 1 from last year and another 2 upcoming year.

I think its not a good rule they only need to stay 50 games a year and stay 2 years. It might be better and create a better long term planning and gm strategy wise to enforce homegrown players to stay at clubs longer time.

As a result oriented trade heawy gm i directly thought play bad players 2 sesons and then ship em out. The rule was for sure not ment to be that way.

This is just my thoughts


My suggestion for future challange or mayby change rule to 4-5 sesons with at least 50 game worth play time for homegrown. Trade heawy teams couse just go around the rule and sign super UFAS and trade for good players and then just add home grown players as 7-8d men or 4th lineers with limited playtime and trade or release them after 2 years.2 homegrowns a seson to might be to hard better have 1 per year easier to plan ahead and in long run only 1 prospect per draft need to make it to NHL players.NHL calibere players is rare in future drafts if u have low pick to get.

batdad wrote:wHOOPS, Missed that part...Do not trade for unsigned prospects folks. Thank god I have not done it!


As for your deal jbs...no worries. You kept the screen shot.

Ah, okay. No worries, my offer got rejected anyway.

Not being able to tweak trades with a late round draft pick is a bigger pain than I thought it would be.

Actually, what will likely happen is we will go back to the CORE rosters. Cause the trading in this challenge, including my own game (gotta keep up with the Joneses you know) is absolutely silly and ridiculous. Over half the teams I have looked at have maybe 5 guys left from their original ISles roster, less than 2 years into the game. What NHL team really looks like that?

So, enjoy this one cause its the last NHL challenge I will be involved with, without heavy trading restrictions.

Thank yourselves, noone seems to read the part about playing this game as a realistically as possible. Honestly, its got to the point where it is just freaking stupid.

I agree. It's amazing how many teams, just 20 ames into the challenge, have fewer than 50% of the original roster intact.

Salming wrote:homegrown players:


( * You must keep them on your roster for at least two seasons from the date he is declared a Homegrown. This means that he must stay on your team for at least the one season after his homegrown season. In that second season he is required to play at least 50 games (2400 minutes for goalies). )

i think it might be a good idea to look over rules on these. as i feel i am in silly seson between 2 and 3 i barely need to plan about homegrown payers exept 1 from last year and another 2 upcoming year.

I think its not a good rule they only need to stay 50 games a year and stay 2 years. It might be better and create a better long term planning and gm strategy wise to enforce homegrown players to stay at clubs longer time.

As a result oriented trade heawy gm i directly thought play bad players 2 sesons and then ship em out. The rule was for sure not ment to be that way.

This is just my thoughts


My suggestion for future challange or mayby change rule to 4-5 sesons with at least 50 game worth play time for homegrown. Trade heawy teams couse just go around the rule and sign super UFAS and trade for good players and then just add home grown players as 7-8d men or 4th lineers with limited playtime and trade or release them after 2 years.2 homegrowns a seson to might be to hard better have 1 per year easier to plan ahead and in long run only 1 prospect per draft need to make it to NHL players.NHL calibere players is rare in future drafts if u have low pick to get.

Interesting ideas. We made it so that you had to keep them for two years to keep people from trading these players right after their homegrown season. Of course, with the way we require people to have homegrown players every season, if we forced you to hold onto them for more than 2 years, we'd be severely limiting your roster. We'd be forcing you to play an all homegrown team and not do any trading or UFA signings. We don't want to force people to play that way. We like to encourage people to develop their own talent though. We still need to leave that flexibility for people to do things like trade and make free agent signings.

In the past we've had the option to play with a system called No Trade/No Budget. This allowed you to spend as much as your team allowed (no TBL challenge enforced budget) but you weren't allowed to make any trades. Several of us elected to play by this method in the Coyotes challenge. We just felt that with the way we were doing things in this challenge, NTNB wasn't really much of an option because we didn't have a TBL budget due to the differences with the new rosters. If we decide to go back to our older challenge rules, we may decide to change the homegrown system some more.

Well as its an challange everyone wanna do best. The AI teams sometimes undervalue the players they got and human managers take advantage of that without trade restrictions.

The PHO nntb challange was fun as hell. I kept playing that one for 11 sesons with nntb rules after challange was ended on blueline.

I got no problems with trade restrictions. A few suggestions next challange :

*keep homegrown players longer
*max number of trades per seson or use core roosters or both
*exremly limiting UFA signings. those totaly unbalance game and can get kovalchuk for free 3 sesons in.i mean would trachers release him that easy IRL??

*we dont need the harch nntb rules just a few limitations or rules if we dont wanna trade away 90% of team in 2 sesons as batdad clearly stated he doesnt want. Without them most managers will trade alot as its a very fun and rewarding part of the game.

I think the restrictions on UFA signings are pretty solid. Only 2 per season is not alot, and forces you to resign some guys you may just let walk is a good idea, but it may also be leading to the rash of trades to improve the squad.

I would be in favor of more trading restrictions or returning to some version of the older core player rules.

I'm with batdad to an extent. Some of the rosters out there in this challenge are just that...out there.

I wonder if maybe in addition to our current trade restriction we could limit the number of trades per season? Or the number of players traded in and out each season?

actually putting a limit on the # of trades allowed was something we discussed way back. We did not want to do it at the time, because we felt it would take away too much of the GM game. However, I am starting to think it is the only way to get people to stop making 100000000 trades per week without having the mods put in hours of work on CORE rosters and the like.

When I played outside of the challenges - When I still had time to actually play instead of updating - I ALWAYS limited myself to max 5 new players per season (2 from UFA and 3 from trading). Maybe something similar could be interesting for next Challenge.

I think that's a very good idea. I'd even go so far as maybe 2 UFA and 2 from trades. Still, we've also got to cut down on everyone using their dead weight to beef up trade offers. We've got plenty of useless players down in the AHL at the start of this challenge and several unsigned prospects that could then be traded once signed. We'd need to find a way to prevent people from offering 6 of them in addition to a roster player to get the one player they want.

Only allowing ONE player against ONE player trades might be interesting.

If that's too extrem, atleast a two against one limit.