Roster Reset for NHL 17 . . . Yes or No

If we reset the roster what was the point in having a draft or giving contracts....some teams are trying to build a team for future season then if we reset everything that its was all for nothing why not have no resigns? The people with remaining contracts stay and the rest must go into bidding.i think with no resigns we can have a good pool of talent in bidding

 

If rosters were going to be reset then it should have been decided way before now. People have traded picks to build for future seasons and now all of that will be for nothing. But voting at this point is pretty irrelavant because I already know that the rosters will be reset because there wasn't a unanimous decision in the voting. So they will go for a complete reset then decide what will happen in future releases nhl games so we don't have this problem again ...

 

It would really screw up owners like you and handzus because after several shitty seasons you are bound to have a decent one

 

Season 25 should already be a much deeper bidding pool than 23 or 24 due to a combination of players returning after sitting out summer and all the 3 year deals expiring after the last roster reset.

 

No point. Keep rosters going the way they are.

 

If there's a reset, consider maybe a Protect system such as the one coming up next year for the NHL expansion draft. Allow the Owner and GM to select four other players of their choice they would like to bring into the next bidding so it would give each team six players (includes management.)

That way you get the opportunity to "reset" rosters while the team can still keep players they didn't want to lose

 

This doesn't make sense. I mean it does but your saying let's have a roster reset but let's keep 6 players on each team. Which basically is the same exact thing as not have a roster reset. Actually there would be less people in bidding if you did this because most teams have two or less multiyear contracts but you want them to have more? @Dannyy Briere

 

There should not be a reset. If the idea is to get more talent in bidding, just eliminate resigns, or at least force resigning to be more expensive.

 

Yes, good luck getting quality management to take over shit shows left behind by people that didn't give a fuck. Especially considering that every DP is usually given away as well.

 

Many good reasons to avoid roster resets, and many have already been mentioned above.

I think what made our sim league intriguing at the time -- back in the VHL days, but memorable now -- were the organizational legacies (some good, some bad) which endured throughout. Our newer members are used to roster resets since we had one S19 when the console was supposed to change (but NHL 15 at release didn't have proper EASHL), and then again S22 when the console actually did change. But the unique character and style which each organization brings and develops are a crucial part of what makes our league interesting, consistent and lasting. Wiping the rosters really undermines that.

And it's not just the "legacies are neat" factor. It's that the continuity helps keep mgmt as well as players more committed, and then rewarded for that commitment. Which in turn attracts the kinds of mgmt and players we are looking for.

 

I am not really in favor of a complete reset. There are less drastic solutions that would probably work better than resetting the rosters in terms of refreshing the talent pool/making it easier to take over a broken team (while still providing an incentive for management to return).

Perhaps cutting down on the number of re-sign years teams are given or increasing the re-sign prices are better options? Preventing trades for re-signs would be ideal, in my opinion, but practically impossible to enforce.

 

Doesn't matter because one team will always load up another one at the trade deadline.

 

I'm against resets but your argument isn't very good. We've done this twice it has fixed the issue each time from the prior summer the following season was 100x or 2 were 100x better. Now that could he bc the game is new and then by summer season people are tired of it.

Additionally, to do it like FNP would be kind of cool but at the same time dumb bc it's each season compared to resetting once each game you get to build a team/dynasty for that game title which lasts 3 seasons

 

1.) i don't want it
2.) please read before commenting
3.) This was meant to generate discussion in the forums which it has
4.) i still love you

 

Lets just have no resigns at all this season and just leave the remaining contracts.

 

go back to the ahl

 

Honestly there needs to be more evaluation of trades before being put through. If it doesn't look fair then don't allow it.

 

If we want teams to be more competitive, resetting rosters won't make any difference. It's more on what owners are selected. We give people who don't know the good players from the mediocre players ownership and their teams are not competitive. Owners with less knowledge also get "traped".

 

Whether or not a trade is fair is far too subjective. Where do you draw the line between "slightly lopsided" and "trape" and who draws it? Do we have one person or a small group vote on each trade? Do we let all management vote? Any system of vetoing trades would be so open to being undermined by either bias, lack of knowledge, or both, that it would at best be a waste of time and more likely make things even worse.