CPHL Currency : Team by Team Asset Analysis

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I think for the most part we are getting caught up in "good GMs" vs "bad GMs". Lets bring Hesla's proposals back on the table:

1) First round draft picks can only spend 2 seasons in the ECHL
2) Once a player reaches 100 NHL games they have to be played on the CPHL roster the following season.
3) Two year ELC's for all first round draft picks (increase the cost to hold them)

Why would we not implement these?

I gave my thoughts already but to review.
1. I'm open to this
2. Tougher to implement and doesn't account for edge cases where players de-grade in performance. Just need to figure out how to tweak this so it is easily managed
3. Not a fan. This coupled with the 2 year ECHL rule would make drafting young players virtually a waste of time. Right now you can control their cheapness for 6 years max. You are proposing cutting that to 4.

Start with shaving off the ECHL contracts from 3 to 2 and see the impact of that.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I gave my thoughts already but to review.
1. I'm open to this
2. Tougher to implement and doesn't account for edge cases where players de-grade in performance. Just need to figure out how to tweak this so it is easily managed
3. Not a fan. This coupled with the 2 year ECHL rule would make drafting young players virtually a waste of time. Right now you can control their cheapness for 6 years max. You are proposing cutting that to 4.

Start with shaving off the ECHL contracts from 3 to 2 and see the impact of that.

That would go a long way to help. Give you 2 less years to make a decision on a guy. That forces your hand to decide between 2 players on who to move before it plays out in real life. Eg. in 3 years you have to move one of Milano or Honka to gain room, but neither have established themselves yet. A team like Boston can keep re-upping them on the farm.

[JiriHrdina]

Why should I have to take 2 less years to make a decision on a guy. Drafting and seeing guys develop is one of the things I like about this game. So we are making a change to make the game less enjoyable. Awesome.

Every year we see teams bail out of the draft. If draft picks are important then why does that happen? Teams dump picks because they don't want to spend the time researching or picking. That's their choice.

Most players don't make the NHL in 4 years. The very top end does - but basically 2+2 renders the entry contract entirely useless for the vast majority of drafted players.

[Da_Chief]

No more cheese. Thats the solution. Leave the other stuff as is.

[Knut]

That's Fair Grant. Just arguing the other side.

How about all draft picks can only spend 2 years in the ECHL (instead of just round 1). Would cause more 2-5 round guys to be released and boost that pool.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Hesla

That's Fair Grant. Just arguing the other side.

How about all draft picks can only spend 2 years in the ECHL (instead of just round 1). Would cause more 2-5 round guys to be released and boost that pool.

That wouldn't be helpful for picks past 45 due to the fact that most players deeper in the draft aren't remotely close to being ready for 3-4 years. All you would be doing is curtailing teams from being able to rebuild by being able to find those hidden gems later on.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I think for the most part we are getting caught up in "good GMs" vs "bad GMs". Lets bring Hesla's proposals back on the table:

1) First round draft picks can only spend 2 seasons in the ECHL
2) Once a player reaches 100 NHL games they have to be played on the CPHL roster the following season.
3) Two year ELC's for all first round draft picks (increase the cost to hold them)

Why would we not implement these?

Because I don't personally think it solves or aids in solving anything other then limiting roster sizes. So why implement rules that don't accomplish a goal

I fail to see how the poor will get richer just because the rich (and poor) teams will have to play their hand more quicker. Just because they have a large portion of the assets means they will have to give them up. They will sell them to the highest bidder for a cost that will be just as equally beneficial to their teams. Other the a team giving away prospects tell me so I understand how this will change the graph

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Because I don't personally think it solves or aids in solving anything other then limiting roster sizes. So why implement rules that don't accomplish a goal

I fail to see how the poor will get richer just because the rich (and poor) teams will have to play their hand more quicker. Just because they have a large portion of the assets means they will have to give them up. They will sell them to the highest bidder for a cost that will be just as equally beneficial to their teams. Other the a team giving away prospects tell me so I understand how this will change the graph

Trickledown economics, man.

Sorry -- redistribution of wealth, man.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Great discussion so far.

I think changing ECHL deals to 2 years is a good start. You could also increase the rating requirement that a player must stay in the CPHL regardless of age. Change it to 70OV and guys like Seguin, Tavares will never be sent down. Sure you might see a 2nd liner but it at least partially alleviates the problem.

I also think the reason you see teams like the Wild deal mostly with those teams is because those GMs have reasonable values.

Lastly, clearly the key to building a successful team is to trade often. When I joined I had Joe T and no 1st rd pick for 4 years as a bottom 3 team. If you trade a ton and focus on filling a need for a GM, then you can win some deals. Sure you may not hit a homerun every time but if you win each deal by a little bit and make 10 deals a month, it adds up. Not to mention summertime has some great deals but I see the same GMs cheapout and miss out on great additions. Use your cap space wisely, pay a fair amount for a 8-10 mill player who you KNOW will be worth a ton in October when every GM thinks they have a shot to win it all (except Pat).

[Cheese]

Need some new voices in here, seeing the same guys talking. How about the new GMs? Thoughts?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by I wanna be like Miikka

Great discussion so far.

I think changing ECHL deals to 2 years is a good start. You could also increase the rating requirement that a player must stay in the CPHL regardless of age. Change it to 70OV and guys like Seguin, Tavares will never be sent down. Sure you might see a 2nd liner but it at least partially alleviates the problem.

I also think the reason you see teams like the Wild deal mostly with those teams is because those GMs have reasonable values.

Lastly, clearly the key to building a successful team is to trade often. When I joined I had Joe T and no 1st rd pick for 4 years as a bottom 3 team. If you trade a ton and focus on filling a need for a GM, then you can win some deals. Sure you may not hit a homerun every time but if you win each deal by a little bit and make 10 deals a month, it adds up. Not to mention summertime has some great deals but I see the same GMs cheapout and miss out on great additions. Use your cap space wisely, pay a fair amount for a 8-10 mill player who you KNOW will be worth a ton in October when every GM thinks they have a shot to win it all (except Pat).

It's the red paper clip concept
http://oneredpaperclip.blogspot.ca/?m=1

[devo22]

first of all, thanks to Hesla for the work on the PDF. Missed a couple of players on the Leafs (especially Marko Dano being a pre-ELC NHLer), but in general a very thoughtful analysis. The teams at the top of your table are exactly the teams that I would call "stacked" too, so I think your methodology for this was pretty accurate.

I like Heslas proposals in the OP, especially the part about the 100 NHL games. Also agree with Ravi about the rating requirement, I think it should be bumped up. As for this:

Originally Posted by Hesla

How about all draft picks can only spend 2 years in the ECHL (instead of just round 1). Would cause more 2-5 round guys to be released and boost that pool.

I'm totally against it. I'd be fine with a 2 year restriction for first round picks, but not for all picks in general. As a guy who likes to stockpile later draft picks and use them on project picks (e.g. players going the college route and likely to spend all 4 years there), I think this restriction solves absolutely nothing. GMs having to decide whether to sign a 5th round project pick a year early doesn't help at all.

[Knut]

^ yeah.. i burned through it in about 6hrs going mostly off of memory. 100% accuracy wasnt the goal as in 2 weeks it will be different anyways (trades).

So is everyone behind 1st round NHL picks only having 2 year ELC's ?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Hesla

So is everyone behind 1st round NHL picks only having 2 year ELC's ?

-1

Most of my 1st round picks are still not in the NHL for 5 years ago, I think it's a top 5 solution for picks 15-30

edited: Sick of see Big Ern every second post, once a page is more then a enough. Sorry and will be more aware of that

[Hanna Sniper]

Since I seem to be a negitive shoot down the ideas guy and I don't want to, I'll try and add a solution (which will NOt be popular) but I think will be more effective.

- At any one time no team can have more then 20 ECHL players (15 on their roster and 5 during the draft)

that means 15 current and 5 during the draft. if you want to make 15 picks during the draft then you need to clear out to 5 ECHL'ers beforehand to make room. if teams choose not to use their picks it only helps every team pick early and shortens the length of the draft. Teams that love to draft can still have thier fun but they need to turn over their ECHL to do so. ECHL players hit the league quicker..

[Knut]

^ That may restrict trading as teams do not want to acquire a pick. Also, it is pretty hard to track .

[Swayze11]

In my opinion this point is the most important:
2) Once a player reaches 100 NHL games they have to be played on the CPHL roster the following season.

Its insane that MacKinnon is still in the ECHL. Maybe we need to accelerate the rating system to compensate for this.

[JiriHrdina]

With that change nothing would change. Mackinnon would still be in the cphl this season. It solves for a very thin group of players and wouldn't redistribute an assets of value

[Tilley]

Rather than limit contract length for ECHLers, perhaps reduce AHL rosters from 15 to 10. This allows GMs to keep projects they really want or keep 10 1st rounders. It also limits hoarding of picks, putting as many as 150 additional prospects on the free agent market. It is then ultimately up to GMs to choose wisely.

There is no solution to fix this disparity overnight. When I joined Nigel Dawes was my first line LW and the previous GM had traded away 5 first round picks. I am as active as possible in the trade market, but no one is going to gift me prospects (and I don't expect anyone to) since I have few top prospects. However, I have scoured the free agent market and I'm attempting to acquire 'currency' without giving up my top picks. I believe a significant part of the problem is GMs trading 1st round picks for diminishing assets. Since many GMs last only a couple seasons, they deal in the short term whereas the GMs identified as holding currency are primarily the 'experienced' GMs. I am trying to view my team over the long term and while this may mean short term pain, I feel this strategy is the best for Chicago until I have a suitable stable of prospects that I can initiate more trading.

[JiriHrdina]

Great post Tilley. I think you've hit on some of the more core reasons why the asset gap is created. And those are tough things to manage from a rule point of view.