HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > General Fantasy Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
General Fantasy Talk Forum for fantasy leagues, mock and all time drafts, and hockey video games.

PPM Part VIII: Sponsor Offers are in for Hockey!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2013, 03:58 PM
  #701
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
I do it depending on Qs. Shooting is taken into account for the in-game ratings for Fwds and Mids but not D. One thing most people neglect is training mid on fwds and D, Off on mids and Def on mids. I know for a fact training these attributes will not improve in-game ratings but will improve in-game performance. I'd like to think that's why my team does so well (especially defensively) and why Tyson Borden is consistently Canada's best CB at the NT level despite an IGR of 31 compared to 35 for another guy.
I've wanted to do this for a while - train the lesser primaries on players, but haven't had the sand to go ahead and do it.

What kind of ratios are you talking?

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-08-2013, 04:25 PM
  #702
old time hockey4
Registered User
 
old time hockey4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 551
vCash: 500
So decided not to upgrade any positions on my team for next season, will just ride with the guys I had this season which got me 6th place in I.1.

Instead just put a lot of cash down and added two triple-floor sections of 10,000 seats each, will bring my stadium up to 55,400 by the end of next season. Expecting to see a drop in performance next season but with a nice upgrade in my sponsors (7 million more per week than last season) and then most likely a big boost next season with a larger stadium I'll be able to retool my team then.

old time hockey4 is offline  
Old
03-08-2013, 08:14 PM
  #703
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
What kind of ratios are you talking?
I started off so that they were 50% total of the primary (ie. for offensive mid: 15-100-35, D-M-O) but slacked off since then. I figure 20% is likely ample. Even if more is better I don't know of anyone else who trains it so it is enough for an edge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by old time hockey4 View Post
So decided not to upgrade any positions on my team for next season, will just ride with the guys I had this season which got me 6th place in I.1.
You had a good showing this year. I got 2 more sections to do myself. Likely going to wait until the last moment to take in as much ChL home game ticket revenue as possible.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 04:08 AM
  #704
suprvilce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 1,388
vCash: 500
Finally got my pull scouted:


Somehow i'm not feeling too optimistic about selling him for decent cash, had him on market for 2 days yet not a single bid. Hopefully it picks up in the last 2 days.

suprvilce is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 06:19 AM
  #705
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
I started off so that they were 50% total of the primary (ie. for offensive mid: 15-100-35, D-M-O) but slacked off since then. I figure 20% is likely ample. Even if more is better I don't know of anyone else who trains it so it is enough for an edge.
I think I'll do something along the lines of that - an edge cannot be ignored!

Quote:
Originally Posted by suprvilce View Post
Finally got my pull scouted:


Somehow i'm not feeling too optimistic about selling him for decent cash, had him on market for 2 days yet not a single bid. Hopefully it picks up in the last 2 days.
With those Q's he should go for some cash, maybe on the last day perhaps.

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 07:16 AM
  #706
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
I think I'll do something along the lines of that - an edge cannot be ignored!
The hardest part is not knowing since it doesn't show up in IGRs but it does impact performance, I have that on record, just keep that info in a close circle. It's only an advantage if others don't know it!

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 08:28 AM
  #707
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug5984 View Post
What are y'alls thoughts on shooting skill for non-forwards in soccer?

I'm currently training 10:2 on my midfielders, which I think is too low, and may be part of my problem with my team not doing so great.

I'm not training shooting on defense, and I'll probably keep it that way.

On forwards I am training 10:7, and I'm ok with that ratio

Thoughts?
For forwards, I like to train 10:9. Some of that may be due to generally getting enough shots on target (team averaged 6.64 ST/M last season ).

For midfielders, it greatly depends on Q's. My projected starting midfielders for next season are set to automatic training at 10:5, 10:4, 10:0, and 10:5.

In other news, SA-15 finished recently and the first practice update since then resulted in this:
PPM_WorldTopPractice20130309.PNG

Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 09:43 AM
  #708
doug5984
Registered User
 
doug5984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Louisiana
Country: United States
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to doug5984
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
Oooo post his Qs when he's scouted. I want to see how he turned out.

Also, new PR in soccer (replace Stimulators with Le Royal)
SM



Again, probably over paid but I'm happy with it- I always assume a player will drop so if he doesn't then it's just lagniappe

This is the other SD I bought a couple weeks back, instantly the best player on my team to take over for the weakest starting position.




As far as training other primaries- on my midfielders I typically do 20%, juggle it around a little for qualities but that is my base line. I do not train midfield on forwards or defense though, and that is something I should consider doing. I also need to bump my shooting up on some of my mids and even forwards

doug5984 is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 03:39 PM
  #709
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
Any interest in revisiting my penalize the top teams OTR plan?
I should point out that the top teams are now at a point where only OTR can increase sponsorship offers (assuming they've won their league). Other teams should be able to make up (some) ground by investing in their stadiums or HR facilities.

If I remember your plan correctly, it was based on reducing OTR by a higher percentage for teams that placed higher in the league standings.

Based on the sponsorship offer discussions over the last couple of days, it seems that OTR plays a more significant role in sponsorship offers than we thought and league finish plays a less significant role in sponsorship offers than we thought. The idea of tiered OTR drops would then lead to teams concentrating more on non-league, competitive matches and potentially dropping league matches intentionally in order to avoid having a larger OTR drop. I'd like to avoid providing incentives for teams to finish lower in the standings.

I still think a better way to handle this situation is to lower the impact of OTR on sponsorship offers. This could be done by adjusting the coefficient associated with OTR or some kind of structured algorithm to adjust OTR for the sponsorship offers formulas.

An example algorithm with OTR as actual OTR and sOTR as the OTR used for sponsorship offer calculations:
If OTR < 500, then sOTR = OTR
If 500 <= OTR < 600, then sOTR = 500 + (0.75*(OTR-500))
If 600 <= OTR < 700, then sOTR = 575 + (0.50*(OTR-600))
If 700 <= OTR < 800, then sOTR = 625 + (0.25*(OTR-700))
If 800 <= OTR, then sOTR = 650

Feel free to adjust those numbers, they've been provided to show an example. The usefulness of this algorithm would vary based upon how the OTR values are currently used in the sponsorship offer calculations.

Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 04:12 PM
  #710
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
I should point out that the top teams are now at a point where only OTR can increase sponsorship offers (assuming they've won their league). Other teams should be able to make up (some) ground by investing in their stadiums or HR facilities.

If I remember your plan correctly, it was based on reducing OTR by a higher percentage for teams that placed higher in the league standings.

Based on the sponsorship offer discussions over the last couple of days, it seems that OTR plays a more significant role in sponsorship offers than we thought and league finish plays a less significant role in sponsorship offers than we thought. The idea of tiered OTR drops would then lead to teams concentrating more on non-league, competitive matches and potentially dropping league matches intentionally in order to avoid having a larger OTR drop. I'd like to avoid providing incentives for teams to finish lower in the standings.
I would think the incentive to finish first would outweigh everything else. If not, then that's fine. But the sponsorship reward for finishing in first should make up for the harsher OTR drop. if someone still insists on dropping to 4th in the standings to save some OTR, then good. Someone else got to win a title.

I still love this idea.

Quote:
I still think a better way to handle this situation is to lower the impact of OTR on sponsorship offers. This could be done by adjusting the coefficient associated with OTR or some kind of structured algorithm to adjust OTR for the sponsorship offers formulas.

An example algorithm with OTR as actual OTR and sOTR as the OTR used for sponsorship offer calculations:
If OTR < 500, then sOTR = OTR
If 500 <= OTR < 600, then sOTR = 500 + (0.75*(OTR-500))
If 600 <= OTR < 700, then sOTR = 575 + (0.50*(OTR-600))
If 700 <= OTR < 800, then sOTR = 625 + (0.25*(OTR-700))
If 800 <= OTR, then sOTR = 650

Feel free to adjust those numbers, they've been provided to show an example. The usefulness of this algorithm would vary based upon how the OTR values are currently used in the sponsorship offer calculations.
That's crazy if that means what I think it means. You're devaluing the OTR above 500, right? I literally just thought of a similar thing this morning while responding to the Q&A thread at PPM. But I hadn't thought of it before. It was just a seedling, so I didn't want to post it. I saved the post to go back to it later.

On top of that, you would have to change the value of OTR. I never put much thought into this part, so it's very raw, but you should get the idea.
0-100 OTR is worth $8 each
101-200 is worth $13
201-300 is $15
301-400 is worth $10
401-500 is worth $7
501-600 is worth $5
601+ is worth $1

The $ values are just placeholders to show how the value changes.


Mine isn't quite as elegant

Did you just think of that today? That's crazy if you did.

tujague is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 04:31 PM
  #711
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
An example algorithm with OTR as actual OTR and sOTR as the OTR used for sponsorship offer calculations:
If OTR < 500, then sOTR = OTR
If 500 <= OTR < 600, then sOTR = 500 + (0.75*(OTR-500))
If 600 <= OTR < 700, then sOTR = 575 + (0.50*(OTR-600))
If 700 <= OTR < 800, then sOTR = 625 + (0.25*(OTR-700))
If 800 <= OTR, then sOTR = 650

Feel free to adjust those numbers, they've been provided to show an example. The usefulness of this algorithm would vary based upon how the OTR values are currently used in the sponsorship offer calculations.
Pretty good idea. I did a simulation to show how tiered OTR gain would induce teams to want to promote (OTR gained is a function of the other team's OTR ratio to yours). I could modify my simulation script to take this into account and see if there is a more normalized effective OTR (sOTR) that sponsors would see reducing the financial disparity.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 10:13 PM
  #712
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Owners nabbed me a 4* 15.8M/week media deal. Can't really complain there.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 10:39 PM
  #713
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
I would think the incentive to finish first would outweigh everything else. If not, then that's fine. But the sponsorship reward for finishing in first should make up for the harsher OTR drop. if someone still insists on dropping to 4th in the standings to save some OTR, then good. Someone else got to win a title.
The sponsorship reward for finishing 1st should make up for lower OTR. I'll see if I can get FC Corona's sponsorship deals for comparison and see if 1st with 686 OTR makes more than 2nd with 715 OTR.

Quote:
That's crazy if that means what I think it means. You're devaluing the OTR above 500, right? I literally just thought of a similar thing this morning while responding to the Q&A thread at PPM. But I hadn't thought of it before. It was just a seedling, so I didn't want to post it. I saved the post to go back to it later.

On top of that, you would have to change the value of OTR. I never put much thought into this part, so it's very raw, but you should get the idea.
0-100 OTR is worth $8 each
101-200 is worth $13
201-300 is $15
301-400 is worth $10
401-500 is worth $7
501-600 is worth $5
601+ is worth $1

The $ values are just placeholders to show how the value changes.


Mine isn't quite as elegant

Did you just think of that today? That's crazy if you did.
I've had the opinion for a long time that the coefficients would be the best to change, however changing the input into the formula could work well. This all depends on how OTR is applied in the sponsorship offer calculations. OTR may not have a truly linear relationship with sponsorship offers (although I assume it does).

I like the OTR system as a way to measure a team's success, with more recent success more heavily weighted. The problems relate to how it is applied in the calculations.

Using a basic progressive "tax", without calling it a tax, may be the solution. With the numbers I provided, it hits the highest OTR teams hardest, medium-high OTR teams somewhat and does not affect what I would think is the majority of players. I think its important to minimize the effect on those teams who are trying to catch up in facility and stadium development to the highest OTR teams (which should have max stadiums and many of the facilities maxed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
Pretty good idea. I did a simulation to show how tiered OTR gain would induce teams to want to promote (OTR gained is a function of the other team's OTR ratio to yours). I could modify my simulation script to take this into account and see if there is a more normalized effective OTR (sOTR) that sponsors would see reducing the financial disparity.
I think that a simulation with reasonable assumptions about the sponsorship offer calculations would be beneficial. That would provide an excellent opportunity to determine an optimal set of "tiers" and "adjustments" for OTR calculations.

Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 11:03 PM
  #714
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
VIP lounge deals push me up to ~69.02M. Going into the off-season, I was hoping for 70M. Unfortunately, I currently only have 16.5M and I wouldn't be surprised if its more than a couple of months before I make any purchases.

Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 08:23 AM
  #715
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
VIP lounge deals push me up to ~69.02M. Going into the off-season, I was hoping for 70M. Unfortunately, I currently only have 16.5M and I wouldn't be surprised if its more than a couple of months before I make any purchases.
MONTHS!?!?! That's 8 weeks at 69M, call it 40M profit. Planning on spending a quarter billion on a single player?!?!?!

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 08:39 AM
  #716
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
The sponsorship reward for finishing 1st should make up for lower OTR. I'll see if I can get FC Corona's sponsorship deals for comparison and see if 1st with 686 OTR makes more than 2nd with 715 OTR.
Hopefully he shares. It would be some interesting data. Even if more OTR nets a better sponsor deal, I still think winning the title would be priority number one.

Quote:
I've had the opinion for a long time that the coefficients would be the best to change, however changing the input into the formula could work well. This all depends on how OTR is applied in the sponsorship offer calculations. OTR may not have a truly linear relationship with sponsorship offers (although I assume it does).
I guess I never realized what you meant. I thought you just wanted to change the overall value of OTR. Which seemed pointless to me because it would hurt younger teams as much as older. And we would be in a worse situation where the young teams could never afford to build anything. I like this idea very much. It could be an interesting place to start.

I'd still expect that an attack on top teams' OTR will be necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
VIP lounge deals push me up to ~69.02M. Going into the off-season, I was hoping for 70M. Unfortunately, I currently only have 16.5M and I wouldn't be surprised if its more than a couple of months before I make any purchases.
I cracked 45M. Barely. Eff me. Time to start buying players for reals.

tujague is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 09:02 AM
  #717
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
I think that a simulation with reasonable assumptions about the sponsorship offer calculations would be beneficial. That would provide an excellent opportunity to determine an optimal set of "tiers" and "adjustments" for OTR calculations.
I defend my MSc on Tuesday and am off to Houston on Saturday for a week. Sometime between then I'll get started on the sim.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 10:59 AM
  #718
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
Hopefully he shares. It would be some interesting data. Even if more OTR nets a better sponsor deal, I still think winning the title would be priority number one.
I've sent him a message. We had exchanged sponsorship deals in the past, so I think he will respond.

Edit: His media is about 1.7M/wk more than mine (both of us had 5*). His VIP (although I think he rounded) deals look to average about 32k/wk more than mine. His general ended up at 1* for about 1.1M/wk less than mine (4*) and about 2M/wk more than my day 1 1* offer.

I think its safe to say that the extra OTR more than makes up for finishing 2nd.

Quote:
I guess I never realized what you meant. I thought you just wanted to change the overall value of OTR. Which seemed pointless to me because it would hurt younger teams as much as older. And we would be in a worse situation where the young teams could never afford to build anything. I like this idea very much. It could be an interesting place to start.
I think what I communicated was that the coefficient on OTR needed to be reduced. That money would have to be made up somewhere for newer teams. I'd prefer this solution though.

Quote:
I'd still expect that an attack on top teams' OTR will be necessary.
I'm not sure why it would be necessary. Are you concerned that they have high OTR or that they have high sponsorship offers due to high OTR?

The key is to set the equations in the appropriate manner. With some research, we should be able to determine the appropriate limits. Then, we'd have to decide whether the figures would work for all seasons or do the limits need to change each season.

An example of limits changing each season:

Start with the league average OTR (lgOTR)
If OTR is greater than lgOTR then
If OTR <= 1.1*lgOTR then sOTR = lgOTR + (0.90*(OTR-lgOTR))
If OTR <= 1.2*lgOTR then sOTR = 1.090*lgOTR + (0.75*(OTR-(1.1*lgOTR)))
If OTR <= 1.3*lgOTR then sOTR = 1.165*lgOTR + (0.50*(OTR-(1.2*lgOTR)))
If OTR <= 1.4*lgOTR then sOTR = 1.215*lgOTR + (0.25*(OTR-(1.3*lgOTR)))
If OTR <= 1.5*lgOTR then sOTR = 1.240*lgOTR + (0.10*(OTR-(1.4*lgOTR)))
If OTR > 1.5*lgOTR then sOTR =1.250*lgOTR

This could also be done for teams below lgOTR, or their sOTR could be equal to their OTR. For reference, our league's average OTR is currently 554.22.

Again, these are just examples and would need to be tested prior to implementation. Part of the testing would be the find the right combination of "tiers" and "taxes".


Quote:
I cracked 45M. Barely. Eff me. Time to start buying players for reals.
Good luck with buying players. I was looking at forwards for a while before buying H. Young. I'll probably be looking at forwards again this season and will probably end up buying a ridiculous price for one.


Last edited by Obryantj: 03-10-2013 at 11:07 AM.
Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 11:00 AM
  #719
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
MONTHS!?!?! That's 8 weeks at 69M, call it 40M profit. Planning on spending a quarter billion on a single player?!?!?!
The short answer is yes. I'll evaluate my team after CL drops and determine what positions I need to target and whether to target prospects or stars. If its stars, a quarter billion probably won't be enough. If its prospects, I could probably grab a couple for that price.

I'd like to target quality rather than quantity at this point. I want to keep my player fees and transfer fees fairly low.

Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 05:58 PM
  #720
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Okay, OTR plays a huge role. Consider this:

Me: 569 OTR, 3rd I.1, lvl 13 HR, 100% Marketing, ChL Qualified = 18.7M/W GS

Friend: 584 OTR (+15), 4th I.1 (-1), lvl 13 HR, 96% Marketing, ChL Qualified = 21M/W GS

It would appear a measly 15 OTR is enough to warrant nearly 40M/season more in GS payouts.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 08:55 PM
  #721
tescosamoa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
vCash: 500
Lost the League cup final 5-1 ( 1-1 after 90 )

tescosamoa is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 11:29 PM
  #722
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tescosamoa View Post
Lost the League cup final 5-1 ( 1-1 after 90 )
That's insane! Four goals in extra time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
I've sent him a message. We had exchanged sponsorship deals in the past, so I think he will respond.

Edit: His media is about 1.7M/wk more than mine (both of us had 5*). His VIP (although I think he rounded) deals look to average about 32k/wk more than mine. His general ended up at 1* for about 1.1M/wk less than mine (4*) and about 2M/wk more than my day 1 1* offer.

I think its safe to say that the extra OTR more than makes up for finishing 2nd.
But he doesn't have the title. I think that is a lot better than a few extra dollars at this point.

Quote:
I think what I communicated was that the coefficient on OTR needed to be reduced. That money would have to be made up somewhere for newer teams. I'd prefer this solution though.

I'm not sure why it would be necessary. Are you concerned that they have high OTR or that they have high sponsorship offers due to high OTR?
I want to tear down the teams who keep winning everything. I want winning back to back titles to be something to celebrate. It's not in this game. Not even close. It happens all the time in every single league. I think that's stupid.

And I'm including my team in this. I know I haven't won anything in a while, but I've also put zero effort into improving my team until the past month. I've done the bare minimum to stay in the top 5. I went two YEARS without buying a starter and im still a top team? its beyond ******** that that little bit if success early on has kept me so far ahead of everyone else. I don't like it. I think it makes the game less than it could be.

Or maybe I'm just getting bored of these games. I've left my HA team on autopilot for a while now. PPM hockey doesn't do much for me either.

Quote:
Good luck with buying players. I was looking at forwards for a while before buying H. Young. I'll probably be looking at forwards again this season and will probably end up buying a ridiculous price for one.
I've added a couple for a bit over 100M each. I don't have the balls to go for big money yet, but I'll get there eventually. The players I just added will be slight improvements on the field, but are also much younger. I still might need a CM. I might play today's purchase there, but his current build is for an SM. well see if I care enough to do something about it.

tujague is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 10:23 AM
  #723
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
How did the CL drops treat everyone? I'm assuming it's over by now.

I got off pretty light. I had 10 drop, but none were of the two season drop variety. Some disappointing drops with guys turning 18, but that's about the worst of it. Even McCready stayed at 4/6 for his 22yo season. He dropped to 5/6 at 16, so I was worried.

Colby Paquet, the oft-injured dman, is now 3/6 at 22yo. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Biggest relief is the two $100M players I bought both stayed at 5/6 for their 20yo season. I was worried about their previous owners possibly lying after all that drama with Pelletier.

-----
I'm looking to add one more Mid today. I'll be happy if I can get him for the same price as the other two. If so, I will have revamped my midfield almost completely. I'd be replacing four older players (23, 24 (sub), 25 & 26 years old) with three 20 yos. So they're a lot younger and each would have at least 100 more OR than the guy they replaced. The one holdover would be 20yo Stamper. A bit less exp/chem might knock me down the standings a bit, but that would be a decent group of Mids for a few seasons

If I can get this done, the oldest players in my starting lineup would be 22yo McCready, Paquet & Hricek. That's two dmen. So I guess I'll have to start shopping for them now.

tujague is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 10:58 AM
  #724
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
How did the CL drops treat everyone? I'm assuming it's over by now.
I was so happy with mine! Had 2 guys drop that weren't 100% guarantees. One was after 3 years of 5/6 the other was a 15 year old 6/6 prospect but one I spend 10-20k on so meh. My stud prospects were spared so happy days!

Looking forward to seeing my updated IGRs after I burned wads of energy last year and just finished two camps. In other news, schedule is much the same as last year. Start with back-to-back home games against Reflex and NKDJ while I wrap up against inactive HL Football. Due to the weird back-to-back home games to start the season I actually have three games in a row on the road mid-season.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 05:34 PM
  #725
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
How did the CL drops treat everyone? I'm assuming it's over by now.
Spicer (G) dropped to 4/6 at age 21 after four seasons at 5/6
Hrebec (SD) dropped to 4/6 at age 23
Mazac (SD) dropped to 5/6 at age 18
Cergel (CD) dropped to 4/6 at age 21 after three seasons at 5/6
Mark (RM) dropped to 3/6 at age 24 after only two season at 4/6
Seay (LM) dropped to 3/6 at age 24 after four seasons at 4/6
Allen (LM) dropped to 4/6 at age 21 after four seasons at 5/6

Overall, not too bad. Four starters dropping doesn't help, particularly Mark droppping after only 2 seasons. I should point out that Mark dropped to 5/6 at age 19 and Seay dropped to 5/6 at age 16. Mark's replacement is already on the roster (Crenshaw). Seay may need to be replaced, with Allen as the intended replacement also dropping. LM looks to be a position I will target (although not as important as CF).

None of my top prospects dropped; including Alaniz staying 6/6 at 17, Holm staying 6/6 at 16, and Young staying 5/6 at 18 (despite being pulled at 5/6 apparently).

Looking at my roster, I have some players that will never play a competitive match for my team and may have some (small) value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
I was so happy with mine! Had 2 guys drop that weren't 100% guarantees. One was after 3 years of 5/6 the other was a 15 year old 6/6 prospect but one I spend 10-20k on so meh. My stud prospects were spared so happy days!

Looking forward to seeing my updated IGRs after I burned wads of energy last year and just finished two camps. In other news, schedule is much the same as last year. Start with back-to-back home games against Reflex and NKDJ while I wrap up against inactive HL Football. Due to the weird back-to-back home games to start the season I actually have three games in a row on the road mid-season.
I was looking forward to the new IGRs as well. After looking at them, it just seems to identify places where an upgrade may be needed. Both positions that stand out have solid, younger players approaching the current starters. I'll be interested to see how the rest of my team does after rebuilding my chemistry from running 2 camps at the end of the season. Hopefully the added chemistry bumps a few IGRs up as well.

Obryantj is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.