EHM The Blue Line

I like to go for guys with a higher Determination because they tend to be more likely reach their potential and maybe do better. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's the player's potential (hidden stat) that really has the most effect. I usually see what my scout says about the player and then go from there.

bruins72 wrote:I like to go for guys with a higher Determination because they tend to be more likely reach their potential and maybe do better. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's the player's potential (hidden stat) that really has the most effect. I usually see what my scout says about the player and then go from there.

Saranis: In addition to the post above, I'd like to share my way to draft good players. Assuming you have good coaching and scouting staff, IMHO drafted players with a higher determination,consistency and work rate combined with above average hidden attributes and a high player potential tend to achieve greater results . To make it simple: if you don't like editors you can just rely on how many lines your Head Scout consistently put in his report on a specific player. Better players get more voluminous and extensive reviews. You might want to start from there. The next step is to evaluate their determination, consistency and work ratings - that leads to developing a franchise player sometimes. However, there is a trap there. In some cases, players don't have a high enough potential rating or close to reaching it and will eventually turn into a bust (all the tools, no toolbox players ). And it takes time to figure that out. So, you really have to find players with all those things combined(!).
The bottom line: I use a 3-Whale Strategy to draft top class guys: High Attributes (particularly Det/Cons/WRate)+Hidden stats/Extensive Reviews+Player Potential ....and my farm team is fully loaded with top young guns for years to come.
I hope it helps

From what I've seen, Work Rate and Determination don't make a player, but they can certainly break one. I haven't seen any prospect with too low of either pan out. And they don't even play to their full ability, so, they're doubly bad.

On a sidenote, anyone ever seen any huge, hulking Chara-sized forwards? One of my dreams is to get a 6-foot-7+ power forward that can play. Handzus and Sundin are both 6-foot-5, but according to a quick search, that's it. Every draft year, if I can't find anyone who I like in the seventh round, I'll just make a random pick on some hulking forward who has decent-to-good numbers and hope he doesn't stink. So far, I've always ended up looking stupid, but, I can dream. Anyone ever seen a good-to-decent forward that size, though?

I personally don't pay much (read: "any") attention to players size, and not even sure if / how much it affects their play.

Does anyone here really know for sure if a players' size affects the game, or is it just a decorative stat, and we should only pay attention to their physical stats, in this case strength and speed, which are affected by their size in real life? Anyone?

(Heh... accidentally posted this to the wrong thread first... good thing I can delete my own posts... )

I think small players get knocked off the puck a bit easier. Kariya drives me insane in EHM, because for all his puck handling skills, I always see him losing the puck when he goes 1-on-1 with a defenseman. Usually, I think, because the defenseman flattens him. Though, it's been a while since I've played one of my saves with Kariya. Which is what makes me want a forward that size.

Edit: Well, and, because then I'd have a 6-foot-7+ power forward to brag about.

But that could also be caused by his low strength, which is eight.

If there is a small guy with strength 20, would he also lose the puck as easy as a small guy with low strength?

I've never heard any confirmation that size alone would have any real effect on the game, other than effecting to what value the players strength and speed have been set.

I'm pretty sure I saw Graeme Kelly (or some other SI guy) state that size really doesn't have an influence in the game.

I always look at work rate, determination, consistency, and anticipation when drafting. I also weigh season stats heavily. Having a high average rating means they are truly dominating the league that they're in, however you have to be careful which league. I find that players that dominate in european and russian juniors have a harder time translating that play to the pros where players in the Canadian juniors play better. If the player is posting a solid rating in the euro/russian men's leagues, grab him.

In my challenge game I'm the 2010-2011 season. I've got a couple defensemen that are regulars in my lineup now that people might want to try and grab in the first season. I take my time with them and let them develop but I think these guys are worth it. Danny Syvret is in his second full season with the Blackhawks. He had callups in seasons past but for the most part spent his time with my AHL affiliate. Now he's a good 2-way defenseman with really nice physical abilities. In his first full season with the team he had 51 points in 82 games. The other guy is Kristopher Letang. He was left with his junior team in 06-07, then spent two season in the AHL before joining the big club. He won the Calder in his rookie season with 52 points. He's more of an offensive defenseman. He's not the skater that Syvret is but he's a better shooter.

Another guy to keep an eye on is Chanse Fitzpatrick. He's a guy I used to always sign for my farm teams in past games. He's got good strength, along with high aggression and bravery. I just picked him up as a throw-in on a trade this season (2010-2011) to replace an overpaid 4th liner I was getting rid of. He's still got the tools for being a fighter but he's also developed some nice defensive skills.

A guy you might want to go after in the 1st season is Ilya Nikulin. He's a Dman playing for Kazan and the Thrashers have his rights but never seem to bother signing him. After a year of playing, he develops into a Shaone Morrison/Ossi Vaananen type guy, basically an excellent stay at home 2nd/3rd line d-man that is nice and cheap.

Another guy that looks to have solid attributes is Rory Walwyk (i think thats how you spell it) Hes a low level prospect....I think at the rangers...sorry im not on my EHM pc right now, but he looks really solid, you can get him for a low pick...or wait till seasons over and they wont sign him.

I guess you meant left defenseman Rory Rawlyk, no?

Yeh thats the one Rory Rawlyk, he looks to have very decent attributes, has anyone else came across him? If so what did he turn out like.

I have him... He is playing his rookie season in season 4, but not with a lot of icetime, being mainly my n°6-7 defenseman. He is doing okay though and looks pretty reliable on the third pair and on the second PK unit. My scouts say he is just a fringe player, but i find he provides some nice depth, even if not outstanding.

He may be better in your game though

IN EHM there are dozens of defensemen who look like rubbish, and scouts tell you they will not develop at all. Rory Rawlyk is one of these. Columbus has 2 or three (Trevor Hendrikx, Marc Methot, Ole Kristian Tollefson). They are just the proof that attributes are not everything .Guys may have something to them that make them able to play at a higher level than the attributes show.

True. And on the other side, some players with high attributes are sometimes absolutely rubish. The only truth is on the ice, and nowhere else!

Does anyone else find that with most prospects you draft and develop that by the time you are ready to use them as regular players in your lineup, they become expensive and you have to start paying them the same as you would pay a FA player of that calibre?

Part of my problem may be that my preference is to run 2 scoring and 2 checking lines, and you can seldom develop a checking line player, because usually defensive attributes develop later. That means that unless a guy is capable of being at least a full time 2nd liner, I won't call him up. With goalies, it's even worse, because except for exceptional talents (Hasek, Kolzig regens), they typically need 2 years of junior, 2 years of ECHL/AHL and maybe 2 more years as a backup/platoon starter before they are ready for regular duty, by which time you either have given up on them or have to give them a starter contract.

It all makes me wonder if there may not be that much point in developing prospects and if it's a viable strategy to just mortgage the draft to win now, at least for the first 3-4 years. The draft gets noticably stronger from 2010-on, so it may be better to just dump all your picks into getting guys signed long term with reasonable contracts at first. The 2007 draft has lots of late round gems, but the next two drafts are very barren unless you want to trade up for Tavares. Come to think of it, in all the dynasties that I have played, other than obvious high round picks like Tavares, Gagner, Esposito, Couture, and of course the well known Ryan Wilson that can randomly be anywhere from an average D-man to a superstar, no one from the 2007-2009 drafts has ever made an impact for me.

I haven't had yet big issues with prospects demands... I usually offer the minimum qualifying offer on long term deal early in the season. Obviously, they refuse it. But they are qualified and i'm sure to keep their rights. Then i'm waiting until they demand for something i agree to pay them. If they don't, i just let them hit the RFA market, where barely no-one will try to sign them on an offer sheet. And all of a sudden, they become reasonable. That's how i re-signed Tuomo Ruutu for 2 years at 3.4M$ per season, instead of the 1 year - 5.5M$ he was asking. Two years later, he asks for 5.4M$, but this time he deserves it... and most important, he ends UFA this time...

Just make them understand who's the boss, and you'll be fine

I agree with Shad. If you give in you are boned. In the original db I had Michalek (Milan) in 2010 want a 2 year deal at 6.0 mill. And that's just foolish. So beginning of traing camp he was asking for a two-year deal at 4.34 that's reasonable, I've let a lot of guys go rfa. esp. if they're making their demands based off of AHL play.

Yeah, it might be that I let my preference that I have everyone I know I want to keep that is a pending UFA or RFA locked up before training camp get me hosed. Part of the reason for doing that, is I have had pending RFAs (Malkin and Kopitar are two that always seem to do this) demand to be traded in the middle of the playoffs because they haven't been given their new contract yet. Whether you refuse their demand or put them on the block, they still play the rest of the playoffs unhappy which often causes you to lose. One thing that I have noted with that however is that Canadian and American players will never demand new contracts during the playoffs, it's a European player thing, so you can let Canadian players go RFA. I guess the game feels that Canadians actually understand the glory of the Cup while Europeans only care about money or something.

Europeans are far from their native country... If the NHL teams don't want of them anymore, they'd like to know it in advance to organize their eventual move from North America back to Europe (new house, etc).

Don't worry, europeans understand the glory of winning the Cup Maybe more than North Americans, as they've got a harder way to reach the NHL.

Then of course, some just want the big bucks. But that's a human aspect, not an european aspect.

However, you initially talked about a prospect issue, and now talk about guys like Malkin and Kopitar... Hem... They aren't really prospects anymore, rather young superstars (especially Malkin) who ask for big bucks because they deserve big bucks. Of course, if you run a team fully loaded of superstars and the likes of Malkin and Kopitar are just prospect for you, then you should think about signing them long term + big bucks and off-load other stars in the off-season to free some cap space and get rid of some of your older guys for high picks or top prospects.

But if they are your top guys and deserve what they are asking for, i see no point to refuse their demand. And if you can't afford it, it's probably that you've mismanaged your team and overpaid other guys. Give the kids what they ask/deserve, they are the future of your team. And get rid of the overpaid/underachieving guys after the playoffs, they just ruin your team.

I am more using them as an example, because they are 2 that seem to hold out every time. In fact, they are particularly irritating because they won't negotiate or even sign a contract before becoming RFAs even if you offer the maximum possible contract value for a key player yet they still become unhappy and start whining about not getting paid during the playoffs, even though they won't let you pay them. Then, you let them become RFAs and they sign a reasonable contract, but usually not before wrecking your playoff run.

However, I have never had both of them on a team and they were just the most obvious examples. That would be my fear with letting players go RFA; that they would become unhappy during the playoffs and cause problems, so I try to get everyone signed long term that I am keeping so I can see next year's planned cap and contract usage and then see who I can afford to keep, who I need to let walk and how much FA money I will have. I have also seen some players ask for one salary if you try and resign them before the end of the season and then increase their demands if you let them go RFA, and if you wait into late August, you also risk them signing in Europe and losing them for a year. One thing that I will do wherever possible is if I have a prospect that I expect to continue to improve significantly is I will try to pay him more than he wants and add an extra year to the contract. It usually works especially well by increasing the salary by like 200,000 per year for each year of the contract. IE, if a guy that you feel will break out big time wants 1.8 mil/yr for 2 years, try offering him a 3 year deal, 2.0 in year 1, 2.2 year 2, 2.4 year 3

One thing im abit confused about

Kaspar Daugavins has just had a 75 point rookie season in NHL on my 2nd line averaging 7.49. Which i think is good yet all my coaching staff say he doesnt deserve to be on the team, that hes not developing into the player we had hoped & maybe its time he moved on ............Its not like ive rushed him either i left him for 2 years in Juniors & 2 years in AHL (each season 82 & 96 points)

Frolik is another 1 ive been progressing with him for like 5 seasons now yet all me staff say hes not ready for the jump to NHL yet :S

I'd say with that if the guy is performing well for you, then keep him where he is at. Its possible he plays better then the stats show. And i think sometimes certain players can fit into a role and preform well, despite not having the tools the coaches feel they should have.

You also have to bear in mind the coaches stats. If you are going to rely on the head coach to tell you who should be on the roster or what line a player will be on, Judging Ability and Juding Potential should be as high as possible. A guy who has a 99 (or 20) rating in coaching forwards or defensemen is going to be great at teaching, but if he has a 35 (or 7)Judging Ability rating, his roster or line combos may be a little wonky. Man Management plays into this too.

Typically, when I look for a head coach, I don't even look at his coaching stats unless his Judging Ability, Tactics & Discipline are all above 75 (or 15). A high rating in Man Management is generally a requisite too. Tactics is generally all my head coach will manage in practice, unless he has a very high (85+) in coaching forwards or defensemen. But for the most part, my assistant coaches are split up to manage the rest of practice.

I rarely ask a coach to pick the roster or line combos. Most of the time when I do, my reaction is "That's interesting...completely wrong, but interesting". Then I do it my way. But I build my teams in a very specific way stocked with a lot of specialists. Players who are good all-around tend to be my depth guys who play 4th line and fill in for injuries. This is much eaiser to so in the NHL than in the lower leagues.