EHM The Blue Line

Please take a minute to consider how I phrased that question. You should vote on the tam you think makes the best platform for a Challenge, not your favorite team or the team you think you'd do best with... that's not what it's about. The system is to Challenge everyone to take a team that needs help to make the promised land. By taking on teams that we might not know as much about you learn a lot about the game and the players in the game that you can then take back to your "legacy" game.

So who do you think makes the best Challenge team? Feel free to make your arguments here! BTW - Chicago is still in the running but since we just finished Columbus in the same division they won't be in this poll.

Voting for the Thrash.

I voted for the Thrashers.

I voted for the LA Kings. I thought the Coyotes might be a little too easy. I could just trade away their overpaid talent and build them up. I had no interest in controlling the Leafs. I just don't like them. Of course, I'll still play them if that's who the challenge team is. I just won't vote for them. I've played as both the Panthers and the Islanders before. I'm not looking to do them again. So it came down to the Kings and the Thrashers. I figured the Thrashers had a couple big names that might be too easy to work with, so the Kings won out.

I voted for LA Kings as well.

I like that the Thrash have a budget limit but I think that even so LA are more of a task than Atlanta so I went with LA too, though I always wait a while before posting my vote

All you have to do with the thrashers is trade for Patrick Marleau...

I voted for Atl, but now am thinking maybe LA. Can we artificially restrict the LA budget so that it makes it even harder?

batdad wrote:I voted for Atl, but now am thinking maybe LA. Can we artificially restrict the LA budget so that it makes it even harder?

I don't see why not right? The only problem with that is that people don't tend to read the messages I think and would just see LA and go for it then we have to tell people they need to start over and they get all with us and then Calv will have to go all on them But I like the idea yes.

Ooh, I so want to see Calv go all copper.

Come to think of this a little more, we could actually set a fixed limit for first and then second year Challenges, set a Challenge Finances Limit of say 36 mil no matter the team?

Hmmm...that could be fun

Minstrel wrote:Come to think of this a little more, we could actually set a fixed limit for first and then second year Challenges, set a Challenge Finances Limit of say 36 mil no matter the team?

Would make things more challenging and more of a level playing field, i.e. when it come to the second season

Minstrel wrote:Come to think of this a little more, we could actually set a fixed limit for first and then second year Challenges, set a Challenge Finances Limit of say 36 mil no matter the team?

I like the idea but I wonder how it would work with some teams? I'm guessing there are some teams that we'd have a serious hard time trimming that much off the payroll. I'm all for trying it but I can see some folks having some serious problems.

Anything to make it harder...

I think I remember that only one person won the Stanley Cup with the Capitals in challenge 1.1 (Minty!). So far, with the Blue Jackets, 3 out of 9 won the Stanley Cup in the first season...


Come to think of it, maybe we are all getting a lot better, and that's what is going on with all of the Stanley Cup wins?

If possible, we should do a challenge where you take over a "new" team in the league (replace some NHL team with a created team) with NO players and NO prospects. You'd be signing AHL'ers on your team for the first season, but you could sign, draft, and trade to make your team better until you've gone from a 6 win season to a Stanley Cup contender. That would be an interesting challenge to try sometime.

Krieger99 wrote:If possible, we should do a challenge where you take over a "new" team in the league (replace some NHL team with a created team) with NO players and NO prospects. You'd be signing AHL'ers on your team for the first season, but you could sign, draft, and trade to make your team better until you've gone from a 6 win season to a Stanley Cup contender. That would be an interesting challenge to try sometime.

Wouldn't this take serious database editing? I don't know if I'd want to screw with my db like that just for a challenge. If SI ever adds a league expansion feature to the game, that would be much easier to pull off.

bruins72 wrote:

Krieger99 wrote:If possible, we should do a challenge where you take over a "new" team in the league (replace some NHL team with a created team) with NO players and NO prospects. You'd be signing AHL'ers on your team for the first season, but you could sign, draft, and trade to make your team better until you've gone from a 6 win season to a Stanley Cup contender. That would be an interesting challenge to try sometime.

Wouldn't this take serious database editing? I don't know if I'd want to screw with my db like that just for a challenge. If SI ever adds a league expansion feature to the game, that would be much easier to pull off.

Running Multiple Databases

That way, you can keep your original database and also have the new database.

There would be other problems with this approach as well, firstly that I don't know if people want to play a team that would be deisitned to come in last for a year just to make it to free agency. Secondly you'd never make it over the salary floor, you'd probably get fired, and people would end up having to clog their team with a roster of washed up vets nobody wanted to sign and are still available as FA... and we'd also have to have people download a database to play and a lot of the beauty of the Challenges is they are "out of the box" compatible. So, the idea, in execution, I think would have issues. If a group of people wanted to document it as a story thread that would be cool but I'm not sure if it's an idea suited for a formal challenge.

Back to the Finance Limit question though; I think we raise the second season limit by 2 mil just to compensate for being able to sign your players to new contracts, but I think from seeing Columbus that 36 seemed like a reasonable amount to build a solid team, even have some big contract superstars.

Krieger99 wrote:
Running Multiple Databases

That way, you can keep your original database and also have the new database.

Yeah, I've run multiple databases before. I'm just kind of iffy on running a database that's been modified like that. It sounds rather extreme.

I am finding the challenge hard at the moment so I wouldn't want a too harder of a challenge. I am not really good at having to get my budget down but if that was the next challenge I would always be willing to give it a go.

Currently in my Blue Jackets game I can't see me even winning it let along getting into the play-offs.

We definitely will be having a TBL salary cap, as a bit of a challenge. We will require feedback from you guys to see hows it's going. It's meant to be challenging, but not too difficult!

Any ideas about what our self-imposed cap will be?

timmy_t wrote:Any ideas about what our self-imposed cap will be?

Hmm... I wonder if one of the Admins has said anything about it in the thread already?

Anyone but Toronto, that's all I ever ask.

In this case, Phoenix.