CPHL Currency : Team by Team Asset Analysis - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

devo22 · 03-12-2015, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tilley

Rather than limit contract length for ECHLers, perhaps reduce AHL rosters from 15 to 10.

you mean ECHL instead of AHL, right? Other than that, I agree with most of your points.

Tilley · 03-12-2015, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

you mean ECHL instead of AHL, right? Other than that, I agree with most of your points.

Yup, sorry about that. Too much typing on a tablet. I propose reducing ECHL rosters from 15 to 10.

Knut · 03-12-2015, 08:34 PM

Yeah. ECHL to 10 I am on board with

Caged Great · 03-12-2015, 08:56 PM

If you reduce the ECHL from 15 to 10, would it be possible to increase the AHL from 24 to 30.

That way you can scour the various leagues and sign players that are actually free agents. It would give teams more flexibility to add talent than reducing the amount of guys that they can have in total.

Teams that are rebuilding need as many darts to throw at the dartboard as possible, and reducing the # of spots would likely be a hindrance.

Slava · 03-12-2015, 09:00 PM

If we're going to try to increase the development and have assets moving a little faster in general, is it ridiculous to suggest a mid-season re-rate as well? To me a piece of the issue is that we know some younger guys have no playable rating at all until they've had a bare minimum of one good season, often two. Take a player like Gaudreau who is obviously going to be good; it might spur the owners of these guys to consider signing them sooner if they're playable sooner.

DropIt · 03-12-2015, 09:35 PM

Im on board wit hreducing the ECHL rosters to ten, but as far as this whole issue is concerned, I think it just comes down to getting out what you put in to it.

I also have to echo Hanna's point that teams shouldnt be letting other teams off the hook for salary mistakes, and make them pay for poor choices. In hand with this, selling teams need to do a better job dictating the prices around the league to buyers.

JiriHrdina · 03-12-2015, 09:38 PM

I'm not sure I get what limited ECHL to 10 will do. I'm not going to give me my quality ECHLers - I'll sign them to the AHL and keep them there instead and release my 5 lowest quality AHLers.

So what does it accomplish?

JiriHrdina · 03-12-2015, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

If we're going to try to increase the development and have assets moving a little faster in general, is it ridiculous to suggest a mid-season re-rate as well? To me a piece of the issue is that we know some younger guys have no playable rating at all until they've had a bare minimum of one good season, often two. Take a player like Gaudreau who is obviously going to be good; it might spur the owners of these guys to consider signing them sooner if they're playable sooner.

Couple things here
- If we re-rate a bunch of players up, then similarly we should re-rate a bunch of players down. Guys struggling or not in the NHL at all.
- It is a lot of work to do re-rates. Our biggest off-season task. Doing it mid-season would not be trivial.

Slava · 03-12-2015, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Couple things here
- If we re-rate a bunch of players up, then similarly we should re-rate a bunch of players down. Guys struggling or not in the NHL at all.
- It is a lot of work to do re-rates. Our biggest off-season task. Doing it mid-season would not be trivial.

No, I hesitated posting this because I have no doubt it's a huge amount of work! I just assumed that (if adopted) some guys would have lower ratings. I think that would perhaps open a spot here or there for some of the younger guys to come in sooner as well.

Maybe it's not practical though, given the amount of work and fact that it would be in the middle of everything else.

JiriHrdina · 03-12-2015, 09:52 PM

^It actually also risks really messing up the league mid-season. If teams have found good chemistry between players it would put that at risk, even if their players are going up in rating.

Appreciate all the ideas though. Not throwing cold water on them - just commenting on some of the challenges with them.

Slava · 03-12-2015, 10:03 PM

^ although if one of those teams that was screwed up was Dallas this year I think we could get enough votes to pass it!

Knut · 03-12-2015, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm not sure I get what limited ECHL to 10 will do. I'm not going to give me my quality ECHLers - I'll sign them to the AHL and keep them there instead and release my 5 lowest quality AHLers.

So what does it accomplish?

You have 5 less spaces to work with and one less year to evaluate your first rounders (with the 2 yr ELC on first rounders).

Not sure it is the best answer as it hurts teams trying to build too.

Knut · 03-12-2015, 10:12 PM

What about the next players like Sekac, lehtera etc Maybe when one of those guys is coming in teams can submit bids based on things like "playing time".

Hanna Sniper · 03-12-2015, 10:13 PM

With only ten spots that is roughly last seasons draft and the current seasons draft. Preety much means if you retain your picks then the ECHL is for one year development only

Is this really a good thing?

JiriHrdina · 03-12-2015, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesla

What about the next players like Sekac, lehtera etc Maybe when one of those guys is coming in teams can submit bids based on things like "playing time".

I hold no advantage over any team to get those players. No one does. Any one could have signed those guys for nothing more than the price of the contract.
Those type of things are not healthy changes because it demotivates those GMs that are the most active, to remain that active.

Another example - every year after the draft those players drafted in the NHL but not in the CPHL are up for grabs as free agents. This year that included guys in the 2nd and 3rd round.

Two teams submitted offers. Wild and Philly.

Where are all the teams that need more assets? These were free assets and we allowed plenty of time to submit bids.

Seems to me that teams aren't taking full advantage of the opportunities we already have. Are we trying to re-balance things or just make the game "easier".

Knut · 03-12-2015, 10:21 PM

I think 2 year ELC on first rounders and having to sign guys that play in the NHL in their first year will do more than limiting ECHL size.

Grant would have to sign Mueller, Lindholm, Jones, Domi, Drouin and Wennberg this offseason and Reilly and Dumba last offseason. That would take 1-2 yrs off of the years required before a contract bump. That is 8 less AHL/NHL spots available.

JiriHrdina · 03-12-2015, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesla

I think 2 year ELC on first rounders and having to sign guys that play in the NHL in their first year will do more than limiting ECHL size.

Grant would have to sign Mueller, Lindholm, Jones, Domi, Drouin and Wennberg this offseason and Reilly and Dumba last offseason. That would take 1-2 yrs off of the years required before a contract bump. That is 8 less AHL/NHL spots available.

Yeah actually this already is happening with me. Last summer I signed Maatta 1 year early and Milano who had 3 years left. And I nearly signed Reilly.
So it can push people through the pipe faster.
But I don't think it will cause a big immediate impact.

Hanna Sniper · 03-12-2015, 10:29 PM

I would also have needed to sign Jankowski last year and will have burned through 1 year of a 2 year entry level contract at the end of the current season

edited.... his first contract for a 50ov I would need to give him a raise on his 1.8M contract because his OV isn't rated yet

Knut · 03-12-2015, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I hold no advantage over any team to get those players. No one does. Any one could have signed those guys for nothing more than the price of the contract.
Those type of things are not healthy changes because it demotivates those GMs that are the most active, to remain that active.

Another example - every year after the draft those players drafted in the NHL but not in the CPHL are up for grabs as free agents. This year that included guys in the 2nd and 3rd round.

Two teams submitted offers. Wild and Philly.

Where are all the teams that need more assets? These were free assets and we allowed plenty of time to submit bids.

Seems to me that teams aren't taking full advantage of the opportunities we already have. Are we trying to re-balance things or just make the game "easier".

You are right. Draft is brutal time for m as it falls on my kids birthday weekend.

Just throwing out ideas here. Seeing what will stick.

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.

Knut · 03-12-2015, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah actually this already is happening with me. Last summer I signed Maatta 1 year early and Milano who had 3 years left. And I nearly signed Reilly.
So it can push people through the pipe faster.
But I don't think it will cause a big immediate impact.

Not immediate, but it would mean harder decisions and hopefully some trickle down.