CPHL Currency : Team by Team Asset Analysis

[dsavillian]

What about declaring the Wild as the best team, as far as management is concerned, proclaiming them champions of the CPHL v1 and starting a CPHL v2?




On a more serious note though, Cheese seemed to have a seriously difficult time recruiting GMs the last time around. Do you think the wealth gap contributes to this problem?

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by MJK

Well now I am not sure if you are refering to ECHL or CPHL. Either way I have seen 'rebalancing' completely destroy good leagues. This is a very BAD idea.

Well then hit the reset button entirely and find 30 GMs that will be active and engaged in the process.

2 birds, one stone.


I say this as a GM that enjoys the team that I've built.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

What about declaring the Wild as the best team, as far as management is concerned, proclaiming them champions of the CPHL v1 and starting a CPHL v2?




On a more serious note though, Cheese seemed to have a seriously difficult time recruiting GMs the last time around. Do you think the wealth gap contributes to this problem?

No because I can't imagine anyone looking at the league would understand the wealth gap.
We've become more selective too with GMs. We'd rather be picky and try to bring in good ones.
If anything candidate lists have been smaller because we've had less opportunity to join - a more stable GM base means we get less applications because people don't perceive there to be much opportunity to join.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Well then hit the reset button entirely and find 30 GMs that will be active and engaged in the process.

2 birds, one stone.


I say this as a GM that enjoys the team that I've built.

That is for a brand new league, not for the CPHL. It won't work, you will lose a ton of very active, long term CPHL GM's because they won't play the 'new' game.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by MJK

That is for a brand new league, not for the CPHL. It won't work, you will lose a ton of very active, long term CPHL GM's because they won't play the 'new' game.

Obviously it would never happen. It's a pipe dream. Discussion fodder.

I imagine a lot of old time GMs would enjoy the opportunity to start over.

[Hanna Sniper]

Sorry, and I apologize to Ravi (but since you won a cup I'm using your name)

But if teams let Ravi waive in the wind in the offseason and not throw their assets and youth at him as he needs to shed 30M to get under cap there would be huge offseason for other teams to get richer... but offseason after offseason we bend ourselves over and let these teams off the hook. And thats just ONE team, we did it to two and that would have a bigger fix on our league then any rules changes

but lets be honest, we are too weal and will eventually bit by bit let Ravi and anyone else off the hook before the UFA are sent back

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Sorry, and I apologize to Ravi (but since you won a cup I'm using your name)

But if teams let Ravi waive in the wind in the offense and now throw their assets and youth at him as he needs to shed 30M to get under cap there would be huge offseason for other teams to get richer... but offseason after offseason we bend ourselves over and let these teams off the hook. And thats just ONE team, we did it to two and that would have a bigger fix on our league then any rules changes

but lets be honest, we are too weal and will eventually bit by bit let Ravi and anyone else off the hook before the UFA are sent back

Ravi takes advantage of the state of the league very well.

Props to him for it, for sure.

[Knut]

Answers in Bold.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

This is awesome work.
As we think about ways to improve the league let’s make sure we are solving the actual problems.
Before I comment on possible solutions, and there are some good suggestions here, I want to make some of my own observations

- When we look at the top teams, they share some things in common. First – they are helmed by long-time GMs. This is not coincidence. As with any game, the longer you play the better you get. Except for Cheese.

I agree that these are all good GMs, but that doesn't mean it has not created an issue. I got very good at taking older players turning them into assets and flipping those assets for other older players. The market has really dried up on this as a lot of those assets are concentrated with only a few teams. Best we can hope for is to get lucky with a player.


- Those teams are also common in that they trade and trade a lot. They don’t emotionally attach themselves to players – but rather seek to maximize the value of the asset. One of the main reasons I have a ton of chips right now is that in the last 6 months I traded both Crosby and Malkin for a haul of assets. I pinpointed that I felt at this point their value in the league would start to drop – not huge – but enough that I wanted to move on from those players and optimize my return

Sure you optimize your return, but the teams adding now have a player where only 4-5 teams have the assets (or are willing to spend the assets) to acquire. A Team sitting with only a few young pieces is unlikely to part them for only one player.

My point here is that whatever we do, you may not fully solve the issue because the GMs are on top are simply good GMs who do well in terms of maximizing asset value by remaining active. These GMs also are the type that are
- Drafting often and well
- Signing prospect free agents
- Participating actively on the forums to get free cap

All points I agree with. You guys are great GM's, but that does not eliminate the issue.

Basically doing all the things you need to do to build and maintain a good team.

Also on the comment that trading is at an all time low – let’s be careful stating that as a fact when we don’t know if it is true. I hear this every season. Trading is at an all-time low. I don’t believe it is. I think trading this season is the same as it has been most seasons. And frankly if you want more trades – trade more. The reason why there aren’t more trades is that some GMs have a warped view on value. If you want to trade, let go of your personal attachment to a player – and trade them.

Could be right. It just seems slower than usual heading down the stretch run

On the specific suggestions:

1) First round draft picks can only spend 2 seasons in the ECHL
- Don’t mind this idea. Good one to think about. Easy to implement as it just means processing all drafted players with a 2 year contract instead of 3.

2) Once a player reaches 100 NHL games they have to be played on the CPHL roster the following season.
- Conceptually I like this one but execution wise it is a little tricky. Would prefer to simplify and say that any ECHLer with 100 NHL games must be signed to the NHL/AHL. Teams should have the ability to send guys up and down from the AHL at their discretion, except for current waiver rules.

3) Two year ELC's for all first round draft picks (increase the cost to hold them)
- Not a fan of this one. NHL has 3. I think if you do the two above, mainly the first one, you don’t need this one. Having 3 years of a cheap rookie is an important strategic component.

4) Rebalancing draft
- I will fight this one and fight it hard. Maybe I’m biased but this is simply a punishment for teams that have built strong asset basis and have played the game hard and the right way. The GMs at the top of this list include most of our most active and competitive General Managers. Why punish that. Frankly if we do this it would be a massive demotivation to me because basically I would be punished for being a good GM. That’s not what this game is about.

I never proposed a re-draft. While it would be fun, I do not agree it is right course of action. I think a better way to spread the assets around is for the teams near the top to overpay for some assets from new GMs. You still get something from it, but it does get some assets flowing to the bottom

When I look at this list I actually see signs of encouragement because teams like New Jersey, Phoenix, Dallas and San Jose are near the top of the list. I would remind everyone that it wasn’t too long ago that these 4 teams were amongst the VERY worst when it came to the quality of their assets. They’ve turned it around by being active, smart and involved.

[B]It is impossible for all GM's to do the strategy. A few could pillage prospects/picks from other bottom teams but that wouldnt really solve the issue\. Currently it would take 4-5 years perhaps to build up this asset base. Picks are also being hoarded at the top. How do they extract those picks from the top teams without spending the best assets.
That’s how this game works. The more you work as a GM – the better you will do.

I’m open to some of the above suggestions but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

[JiriHrdina]

Answers below (shortening the string).

I agree that these are all good GMs, but that doesn't mean it has not created an issue. I got very good at taking older players turning them into assets and flipping those assets for other older players. The market has really dried up on this as a lot of those assets are concentrated with only a few teams. Best we can hope for is to get lucky with a player.
GRANT: I actually don't really understand this point. What are you saying here?

Sure you optimize your return, but the teams adding now have a player where only 4-5 teams have the assets (or are willing to spend the assets) to acquire. A Team sitting with only a few young pieces is unlikely to part them for only one player.
Grant: Sure and that's up to them. Re-build the asset base slowly - it can happen. We've seen it happen.

It is impossible for all GM's to do the strategy. A few could pillage prospects/picks from other bottom teams but that wouldnt really solve the issue\. Currently it would take 4-5 years perhaps to build up this asset base. Picks are also being hoarded at the top. How do we extract those picks without the top teams without giving up an asset.
Grant: You seem to think that picks is a big part of the issue. But let's be honest, one of the main reasons picks are horded is because not all GMs care about picks. And I would also say that drafting well is an under-rated skill. We can't force GMs to care about the draft or invest the time into researching it to make good picks. One of the reasons teams at the top can get picks is because some teams simply don't value them as highly as we do. That's not on us. Look at what teams like Philly and Pitt constantly do - which is trade for picks not this draft but the following draft. I wish I had the discipline to do that strategy because you can get a 2016 pick WAY easier than a 2015 pick but in the long-term it is worth about the same. This is the core if what we are talking about here - which is maximizing asset value.

One more point - every summer I have a massive cap crunch and have to give players away at a pretty good price. So a redistribution of assets does happen but it is concentrated with the veteran players.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

One more point - every summer I have a massive cap crunch and have to give players away at a pretty good price. So a redistribution of assets does happen but it is concentrated with the veteran players.

This is were the problem lays, the veteran players are a declining assets and although you do trade them cheaper it is for youth. Eventually year after year it separates the pool. I'm in a 100% belief that the other half can just as easily do the same but it doesn't mean it's not happening

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

This is were the problem lays, the veteran players are a declining assets and although you do trade them cheaper it is for youth. Eventually year after year it separates the pool. I'm in a 100% belief that the other half can just as easily do the same but it doesn't mean it's not happening

Possible solution to that
- Do not allow UFA rights to be traded. If you have the free agent at the end of the regular season, they become a UFA July 1st unless you re-sign them yourself. The rights can't be traded.

Not sure if that would help or not though.

[Slava]

First, let me say that I think that this is an excellent overview, and really gives us some interesting views of the league as a whole and how it has shaped up. To me though this ranking is good but not without its issues because as a team which is a middling team here I feel like we would've been near the bottom a year ago, and the one fix for that has been time. While I've made some deals and brought a few guys in, some of the players I have here have increased purely because its a year later; there's nothing I could do to increase that value as a GM except wait or make a trade that is better than where the asset stands today.

Its also not a hard and fast methodology where an asset that counts as 2 and one that counts as 1 is worth the same as one that is rated 3. While in terms of points they are equal, using my team as an example no one is dumb enough to trade say Tom Wilson for Duncan Keith (inquire within if you want Wilson for someone equivalent to Keith and we'll make it work though!). It leads to an interpretation issue because the points look crazy out of whack as a result. Is Keith worth the same as my first and John Moore? To make up a 17 point gap in OV, along with everything else I wouldn't make that deal. Obviously then you have issues where two guys rated 1 or 2 aren't equal either, but my point isn't to quibble with the rankings of players or assets, just pointing out that this is an ordinal ranking maybe, but not a ratio ranking. So while I have 33 points, it doesn't mean that a team with 66 is in twice as good a position, it means they are ranked higher but not by proportion.

Lastly, I think that its interesting how the standings compared to this study are so different. So a team that has tried to load up or added for a playoff run is disadvantaged here as compared to teams that are in the opposite spot in the cycle. That is directly related to what I said about the value of a "3" not being equivalent to a "2" + "1" though because while I might trade my first and someone/something for a 2-3 on this metric, it would cause my total here to drop, and the other guy to go up; but when it comes to May hopefully Nashville is still in the mix whereas that other "better" ranked team here is waiting for the draft.

[Hanna Sniper]

I would be more in favour of going back to teams can only resign 1 UFA like in the past

Teams will still pick the youth from the lower teams finding a home for their FA's but it will also drive down the return as teams will have a better selection to find a better deal as only 30 UFA can be re-signed.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Possible solution to that
- Do not allow UFA rights to be traded. If you have the free agent at the end of the regular season, they become a UFA July 1st unless you re-sign them yourself. The rights can't be traded.

Not sure if that would help or not though.

Solve NO, but making the loophole smaller can lessen the damage, even limiting 1 UFA like I mention after you post helps

(for the record I'm not thinking I'm right or wrong, just have a different option on what the problem is. I'm not one to treat the wound but rather attack what cause the wound in the first place and fix whats causing it)

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Slava

First, let me say that I think that this is an excellent overview, and really gives us some interesting views of the league as a whole and how it has shaped up. To me though this ranking is good but not without its issues because as a team which is a middling team here I feel like we would've been near the bottom a year ago, and the one fix for that has been time. While I've made some deals and brought a few guys in, some of the players I have here have increased purely because its a year later; there's nothing I could do to increase that value as a GM except wait or make a trade that is better than where the asset stands today.

Its also not a hard and fast methodology where an asset that counts as 2 and one that counts as 1 is worth the same as one that is rated 3. While in terms of points they are equal, using my team as an example no one is dumb enough to trade say Tom Wilson for Duncan Keith (inquire within if you want Wilson for someone equivalent to Keith and we'll make it work though!). It leads to an interpretation issue because the points look crazy out of whack as a result. Is Keith worth the same as my first and John Moore? To make up a 17 point gap in OV, along with everything else I wouldn't make that deal. Obviously then you have issues where two guys rated 1 or 2 aren't equal either, but my point isn't to quibble with the rankings of players or assets, just pointing out that this is an ordinal ranking maybe, but not a ratio ranking. So while I have 33 points, it doesn't mean that a team with 66 is in twice as good a position, it means they are ranked higher but not by proportion.

Lastly, I think that its interesting how the standings compared to this study are so different. So a team that has tried to load up or added for a playoff run is disadvantaged here as compared to teams that are in the opposite spot in the cycle. That is directly related to what I said about the value of a "3" not being equivalent to a "2" + "1" though because while I might trade my first and someone/something for a 2-3 on this metric, it would cause my total here to drop, and the other guy to go up; but when it comes to May hopefully Nashville is still in the mix whereas that other "better" ranked team here is waiting for the draft.

@ Victor

I didn't set the rankings to be a trade a 1 and 2 to get a 3 type of thing. I did to set out tiers of value. 3's are way more valuable. There is some arbitrary stuff here for sure but not enough to nitpick here and there. I also banged it out in about 6 hrs.

For Tom Wilson... He is playing Washington on an ELC. You have 1 more year of him in the ECHL then you can sign him to a 3 years ELC at the 1st round grid rate. If you factor in Cap space, there is not much incentive for him to move vs. if he was signed to your AHL allready and needing a new contract in 2 years.

@ Grant. Lets say after his Me and 6 other GM's start doing the long play. We move off the assets for as good of returns as possible. Who is really buying right now ? Hossa had 1 offer in 48hrs on the block, before even being in the Auction. I took a risk that Gillies will light it up and Bartschi will rebound. These guys barely register on your propsect list. Teams out of it do not want to buy. Teams in the playoff mix are either Capped out or are hanging onto their few good assets.

What kind of Cap crunch do you have going into this season ? You have one of the smallest Payrolls in the league and barely anyone that needs a raise.

[JiriHrdina]

^This season I'm in far better shape cap wise. That was intentional because I've never been able to be an active participant in free agency and wanted to try it out.
My comment was about the last 3-4 summers when each year I've had to jettison a lot of good players to get under cap.

[Knut]

I guess the issue that many of us see is that the disparity is getting way too large and willl only get larger with the amount of picks you guys have.

I am not expecting a redraft or anything rash and another aspect of this to be a wake up call for the teams (like myself) struggling with assets right now.

I think something needs to be done or the league is going to wither away. With the amount of assets you have you may start finding it difficult to move pieces outside of the group of GM's holding all the assets.

If you look at your significant deals (not 4/5 picks for schulbs/conditions) over the past year you have made

10 with Philly
8 With Columbus
7 with Pittsburgh
4 with Anaheim
3 with NJ
3 with WIN
and 10 with all the other teams combined.

You are stuck mostly making deals with other teams sitting on lots of assets.

[Da_Chief]

What if we had a roll back on salaries(say 20 percent) and eliminated trading cap?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

^This season I'm in far better shape cap wise. That was intentional because I've never been able to be an active participant in free agency and wanted to try it out.
My comment was about the last 3-4 summers when each year I've had to jettison a lot of good players to get under cap.

While the jettison player is still being move and therefor talent is being spread through the league. The players are being jettisoned to teams that can contain their cap hit for the quality assets the have. Iin return the stronger asset team, although jettson key players to get under cap are still retaining the value buy acquiring assets of value in return

As the players are being Jettisoned around the league the bank account (assets) of the teams are not changing. That only happens we deals are won or loss for either GM

I personally don't have a problem with this and see it as a weakness of my own for not exploiting it myself. I personally don't want rules to change it but I do see that it is an issue.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

What if we had a roll back on salaries(say 20 percent) and eliminated trading cap?

An interesting idea. probably makes trading mid-season extremely difficult.