CPHL Currency : Team by Team Asset Analysis

[JiriHrdina]

I don't need Howard but for a 30 year old number 1 you should get a few offers. I would question the thought process of some of our GMs if you don't

[JiriHrdina]

Related but I've had less trade talks since we moved off gmail. Is the change helping or hurting trade talk?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Just an example of an issue here. I put howard on the block and the only offer so far is from Cheese. Wouldn't surprise me if that is my only offer.

Is this really a case of top teams having a large chuck of the prospects and can't find a deal because of that or how many 9m 1- way players can teams actual look at honestly to acquire . I'm personalty will have four 8M + contracts and one 7M already for next season eating up over half of my teams cap

I would love to trade for Staal from you but I can't even look at it

edited: did a quick check, theirs a lot of teams sitting at only a couple 8-9M contracts, not as many in my situation.... never mind my response I'm in the few

[Knut]

Teams that Howard is an upgrade in net

Sharks
Blues
Leafs
Wings
Flames
Caps
Lightning Rangers
Stars (although why make a move)

I'll contact all these teams via PM

An issue with dealing a starter is that it is expensive to get one back. It needs to be a home run deal.

[JiriHrdina]

Idea from me:
Do away with cap awards. Weeky cap prizes and end of season cap payouts for awards and playoff wins. Typically it is the good teams that win cap which gives them increased ability to hang on to more pieces. Get rid of it so everyone truly starts from the same place

[Knut]

That seems like a good idea. Ravi has a 10M higher cap than anyone else.

[Caged Great]

With the prospects that aren't signed that were drafted, perhaps what could be done is have sort of like another round of the draft after the actual NHL draft that is ranked via the CPHL standings, where the bottom teams have first right of refusal and you can just waive your pick if you don't want to use it. That way the legitimate bad teams in the league get the first crack at those guys.

So say a team randomly selects some no namer in the 2nd round, the worst team (Pat) gets to choose whether or not to pick him or some other random no namer that was selected in the 3rd round.

It allows them the flexibility to choose the player they want as well if they want to do so.

Those players could hypothetically go to the ECHL as well possibly?

If this is an idea that would be adopted, I could post a list of any CPHL undrafted guys that do end up getting picked following the draft so it would be easier for teams to decide whom to pick etc.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Related but I've had less trade talks since we moved off gmail. Is the change helping or hurting trade talk?

Not at all...Ive had more discussions on Kakao then Gtalk all year

[Cheese]

what about fewer CPHL draft rounds...say 3 or 4 then the rest are free agents offered to non playoff teams (lowest to highest) for 3 or 4 rounds?

Teams out of playoffs by "x" date get additional Cheese Cap?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Idea from me:
Do away with cap awards. Weeky cap prizes and end of season cap payouts for awards and playoff wins. Typically it is the good teams that win cap which gives them increased ability to hang on to more pieces. Get rid of it so everyone truly starts from the same place

That would help significantly as teams would have to be smarter overall with their contracts. There might need to be some adjustments though like compliance buyouts as some teams might have difficulty getting rid of contracts etc.

[Drury18]

So my thoughts as the AHL/ECHL is going to be my wheel house:

Lets play by AHL rules. In the AHL, you can only dress a minimum of one and maximum per game of 6 AHL players who has played 321 professional games in the AHL, NHL or any of the elite leagues in Europe (note that ECHL games do not count against this number). So lets make it that you can only have 6 "vets" on the AHL roster. The AHL also does not have a roster cap, rather only salary based. I think we should only have a limit on the AHL of a salary cap, not spaces. Otherwise, you are REALLY limiting some of these rebuilding teams (myself included) who maybe have prospects over players at this time. And that these players can be trading chips to land some of the bigger guys out there.

Dropping the ECHL to 10 scares the hell out of me if I am going to be honest. At this time, I have 8 guys in my ECHL and 15 picks in the draft. And trust me, I plan on drafting all 15. To be told "Hey thanks for coming to the draft, now get rid of half of your guys while value isn't realized yet" would probably not leave me happy. Especially again, if this is a key piece of rebuilding. Maybe not in the fact of waiting and using the guys but if I get some key draft players, those become trade chips to make my team better. And some better players can go deep and be surprises. It

I also think the trading problem is GM based. I'm not seeing this trading lull the rest of you are. I am getting DAILY trade inquiries and requests and have for the last week, week and a half. And since I started. If there are issues with trading, I would start looking at the GM's who currently have less trades in the entire year then I've managed in a month. If you want to create trading, perhaps institute a quota that has to be reached or you pay in cap to keep players. Want to keep your team as is and hoard players? It's $1M a month unless you make a meaningful (not an AHL swap of nobodies) trade.

[Knut]

^ ie. Get me out from this gionta contract !!

[Hanna Sniper]

I like the direction of these new idea's as it directly helps less depth teams acquire assets

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Hesla

^ ie. Get me out from this gionta contract !!

Actually I'm fine with having him on there as I'll be right around the 75 mil mark and he'll still contribute next year, but other teams have 90+ million and are going to be screwed if it drops to 75 max without cheese.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

With the prospects that aren't signed that were drafted, perhaps what could be done is have sort of like another round of the draft after the actual NHL draft that is ranked via the CPHL standings, where the bottom teams have first right of refusal and you can just waive your pick if you don't want to use it. That way the legitimate bad teams in the league get the first crack at those guys.

So say a team randomly selects some no namer in the 2nd round, the worst team (Pat) gets to choose whether or not to pick him or some other random no namer that was selected in the 3rd round.

It allows them the flexibility to choose the player they want as well if they want to do so.

Those players could hypothetically go to the ECHL as well possibly?

If this is an idea that would be adopted, I could post a list of any CPHL undrafted guys that do end up getting picked following the draft so it would be easier for teams to decide whom to pick etc.

Yeah this could work. Basically do a secondary draft in the forums for all the guys not picked. Reverse standings with the option to pass.

However I want to underscore something here - ALL teams had a crack at these guys last summer. And two teams submitted offers. Why?

We have ways that teams can improve their asset base right now that for some reason teams aren't using.

I'm open to making changes, but if we are, I'm also going to be asking for a commitment from GMs to be more active and use the mechanisms that exist to improve their team.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Cheese

what about fewer CPHL draft rounds...say 3 or 4 then the rest are free agents offered to non playoff teams (lowest to highest) for 3 or 4 rounds?

Teams out of playoffs by "x" date get additional Cheese Cap?

On the draft - I think we could dump the 5th. Very few GMs participate in the 5th and the value of those picks is negligible.

Would not want to lose the 4th. For those of us that love the draft, this is still a fun round, and we shoudn't take something away that active GMs enjoy.

More importantly 4ths are often included in deals as a sweetener or way to balance out the values in the trade. So I think they are important trade chips.

[Slava]

I'm torn on this whole issue of changes. I like the idea, and things can always improve. I guess I look at Florida, Columbus, Phoenix as examples of teams that built up and in different ways, from not a lot.

At the same time though I know I have asked about players only to hear I have nothing of interest, or maybe that the only assets that the other GM will look at is a first or my good young prospects, or best roster players. This is how teams get depleted; look at the ask for Hossa this week of a 1st and blue chip prospect. He's a UFA, 35 years old and by the third year a grid will likely be untradeable. Not picking on Hesla, but that was a public process. I think that we are starting to see a point where some players are just out of reach for some teams. Unfortunately the only real cure for that is time so that you have firsts and seconds or good youth. That means a few years of losing, for the most part, and thats why we are seeing this disparity.

At the same time I agree with Jiri when he says every GM has basically the same options. If you go for it and fail then why should the league bail you out? You tried and now deal with the ramifications of going all-in. That might take a while.

[TurdFerguson]

Anything that helps in the distribution of talent and makes the road for ####ty teams to become competitive in all for. Any major changes that seing cap, awards or cheese should be planned well in advance as I'm sure they would unfairly handcuff some teams if they happened to quickly.

Great discussion. I'd be in favour of increasing the depth capabilities at the echl and ahl levels while at the same time making it harder to keep NHL caliber players (no matter the age) in the minors. Force teams to get them up in the cphl and you'll force them to make room, one way or another.

[Tilley]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah this could work. Basically do a secondary draft in the forums for all the guys not picked. Reverse standings with the option to pass.

However I want to underscore something here - ALL teams had a crack at these guys last summer. And two teams submitted offers. Why?

I think a reveral draft with the option to pass may be beneficial. Maybe requiring GMs to indicate their intention to participate 3-4 days prior to the secondary draft would be ideal so we aren't waiting around for a no-show GM.

To answer Jiri's question, I did not sign any additional picks following the 2014 draft as all the picks that I viewed as worth signing were already selected in the CPHL draft. I agree that this is an easy way to increase a team's assets and there should be more than two teams participating. I intended to sign players, went through the list of drafted/non drafted players, but chose to not offer any contracts.

I think Drury18's idea of a salary cap limit rather than a roster limit in the AHL could work. It allows teams to have many cheap long-term prospects or bury a couple overprices vets on 2 way contracts. I would maintain the rules regarding number of forwards, defensemen, etc.

I also agree with eliminating the cap for year end awards. They are a way for the rich to become richer as the successful teams have the best players, get extra cap for having the best players, allowing them higher payrolls than the majority of other teams. I would not eliminate the awards as I enjoy identifying the players/teams/GMs that have had a successfull season. I would simply remove the cap aspect of it.

One aspect of this 'currency debate' to keep in mind is that this is a single data point in a long season. Both Minnesota and Philadelphia had veteran lineups and chose to make multiple moves to get younger and add picks. The value system that Hesla used places higher importance on young prospects and early round picks. Had this analysis been completed earlier in the season, the results may have been different. Chicago, for example, had a couple high round picks that I traded to strengthen my current CPHL roster. Had I not made those trades my currency value would be higher (probably middle 10), but I would also be in the bottom five in the CPHL instead of challenging for a playoff spot.

[Flickered Flame]

I haven't read the entire thread but I am going to just throw some ideas out there.

1. No in season capabilities of adding cap as a reward (POWs, POMs, etc.)
2. Reduce the draft to 3 or 4 rounds
3. Lower the ECHL roster to 10 spots
4. Have players reach UFA status at a younger age
5. Increase the amount of cap that can be traded per team per year. Even an additional 2 million. What I've noticed is teams often max out in their cap (18 mill) early in the season. Those teams have a tougher time making deals happen.
6. This might be more work for Grant and the admin team but rather than basing re-rates on 3 year, go on a year by year basis. There are a lot of players who have one really good NHL season and then fall off the map but those guys are still good in the CPHL for several years after they drop off. Would this then allow the high end, top picks to get immediate ratings rather than waiting for them to have ratings.

Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head. I will add more once I give it more thought.