A “newbie” GM’s response to the rules.
More than fair. Anaheim has Monahan in the ECHL, NJ has Grigerenko, Pittsburgh has McKinnon and Forsberg. Too many NHL players are being hidden for free in the ECHL and I don’t agree with that at all. I believe this will start to eliminate it. I may possibly have the 1st overall or very close to that pick this year and potentially have a kid whose a full time NHL'er next year. I should be forced to sign and play him by 2016-17. No reason not to with the grading system. That and this will encourage more players into the lineup and therefore creating more assets that can be moved and used to build teams. All positives.
I think this is fair. And it’s optional, don’t want to make another pick then don’t. For those of us who do want to use the opportunity to build up our AHL/ECHL teams through picks, this is great. It is a plus to anyone rebuilding or finally giving some attention to a prospect cupboard that might not be well stocked or was poorly stocked. I’m actually most looking forward to this. There's hope for my AHL team yet.
Those complaining about this and how it’s messing up their budget really are foolish. It’s like saying you are going to plan our how to pay your bills next month because you might win lotto 6/49. The money wasn’t yours, was never yours, you really have no reason to be upset.
I think rewarding improvement over continued domination is going to help some of the lower level teams where there is a huge payroll gap. I’ve seen teams with $89, $90, $100M payrolls. I have $60M. A $40M gap is far too excessive to have in this league. It makes it next to impossible for a team like the Sharks to get ahead when already prosperous teams just keep getting richer and in UFA could outbid me with pocket change. If you want to attract new GM’s to take over some of the poorer teams, the league needed to start showing that there would be a way to improve the team while not being trampled by others. I’m glad some of you have spent years on your team, but that doesn’t give you the right to pretty much squash new GM’s due to it. It needs to be as fair as possible to both sides. One side having $100M because they have a great team and just keep winning awards and another having $60M and slowly improving the team but not getting anything for it isn’t it. I really think rewarding improvement over just being the best is a great way to keep the balance. Even the best teams can still get better and at 100,000 a point, it's still a good amount of money.
Seems more than fair. There are a few nameless GM’s who like to overrate their pending UFA’s to bleed out youth from the other team. This will stop that. I’m very happy about this. It sounds long overdue as well.
I also have difficult decisions to make. Maybe I don't have any star players, but I have depth guys coming up. I need to make decisions on them now. Hearing the “rich” teams complain that this ruins their plan doesn’t gain any sympathy from me. We will all have difficult decisions to make. I believe this will also be a way that the teams that are in a lesser fiscal position or maybe planned ahead to free up cap (what a concept hey?), will now actually have some quality UFA’s to bid on. I’ve been told by a few GM’s that the UFA market is usually anemic and don’t plan on rebuilding through that. This now changes that and I think will be a great improvement to the league so that those in the rebuilding stage can become more competitive a little quicker. We will get a little more choice in UFA, that's never a bad thing.
Maybe some teams have to readjust their plans. Oh well, keeps the league active. If I had to count the number of times I had to readjust my plans because a deal came up that made me better, but used a piece I hadn’t planned to let go…well I’m not sure I even know where to start. My plan was to build around Turris and Saad. Then Howard came along. Well crap, now to Plan B. You need to be flexible as a GM. A good GM can overcome these things and still run a successful team.
Again, seems fair. Although I will admit I planned on doing this with a few players and even did it with Pirri earlier in the year to free up money so I could land someone else. There’s 0 reason I should have Pirri in the AHL though. I do bounce a few low level guys between NHL and AHL when I need to fill a spot and I think this rule will still allow me that, but guys who are over a certain rating are playable and should be played. Again, it stops people hiding talent in the AHL/ECHL while having a full talented roster as well. It will get more assets moving and allow rebuilding teams a few more options. It’s definitely a positive.
I think I just heard a choir of angels. I love this one, I think this is the one where we will feel most impact and not to repeat myself, but where players in the AHL/ECHL will become more valuable and get more moving around. There is no reason why Sean Monahan and Nathan McKinnon should be in the ECHL. Both could have very usable ratings in the SIM right now and should be there. And I think this may also alleviate the goalie situation and maybe get a few more backup goalie options going because there’s been a few guys this year who have come in and stole games and could maybe be a low 70’s goalie when they are just showing as 60’s.
PS, I know I picked on Anaheim and Pittsburgh twice. I have no issues with either of you, you just had players that fit my example.