Contracts and trades (and other stuff)

[gillespie]

I've played FHM4 for a while now, and I think the new game is a big step forward towards previous editions. Thumbs up! That said, I still have a couple of concerns regarding the game, especially when it comes to the valuation of new contracts and trades.

Almost every time a RFA is up for a new contract in FHM they end up with a bridge deal – a very rare thing in NHL today. In my recent game William Nylander signed a three year-deal with Maple Leafs worth $ 5,610,000 (1,870,000 cap hit). This would never happen IRL.

Frankie Vatrano is another example, in my game he scored 21 goals (43 pts) when facing a contract renewal. He ended up with a three year-deal with $ 1,730,000 cap hit. A 23-year-old winger in NHL with a season like that would at least get $ 3,000,000 per season, no matter what the expected potential is.

To a great degree, I think the game should reward players with good statistical seasons way more. Carl Gunnarsson had a GR of 69 with the Blues (second best on the team) but was traded during off-season for Marcus Krüger who only played 34 games for Hurricanes (GR 58). Trading your second best player (yes, I know Gunnarsson performed way over his real ability...) for a 4th-line center is only stupid.

I'm playing Canucks as GM only and managed to sign Tavares (4,5 stars) but my coach is playing him as a second line-center, favoring Bo Horvat (3,5 stars) instead. Horvat is a good player but no coach would play him over Tavares.

[JeffR]

We did lower the frequency and increase the cost of bridge deals, but it looks like it could use a little more adjustment. I'll take a look at the settings for performance-based adjustments to contract requests/offers as well.

[gillespie]

Originally Posted by JeffR

We did lower the frequency and increase the cost of bridge deals, but it looks like it could use a little more adjustment. I'll take a look at the settings for performance-based adjustments to contract requests/offers as well.

Great!

[micpringle]

Originally Posted by gillespie

I'm playing Canucks as GM only and managed to sign Tavares (4,5 stars) but my coach is playing him as a second line-center, favoring Bo Horvat (3,5 stars) instead. Horvat is a good player but no coach would play him over Tavares.

I've raised a similar issue here—basically the AI appears to choose players based on the roles it selects for each line, based on the overall tactic. Whilst this makes sense in theory, it does lead to it favouring the role it's chosen over the quality of the players it has available. For example, in your scenario it's chosen a role for the first line center based on the overall tactic your coach is using, and then determined Horvat is better suited to that role than Tavares—i.e. it may have chosen a more defensive role, and Horvat has stronger defensive attributes than Tavares. Whereas IRL the first line would likely be built around a player like Tavares.