CPHL Currency : Team by Team Asset Analysis

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

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

I have been in leagues where you can't trade cap. They restrict teams so bad, its a horrible idea.

[Hanna Sniper]

could force more guys to the AHL as well, guys like Pitkanen and his 7M cap hit are useless in our game just for the fact I don't have the 5m to give a team for me to be able to trade him

[Knut]

I think you need cap flowing to keep interest level up.

Let's concentrate on ideas to help assets flow without having to redraft/give them away.

I have submitted some ideas... Anyone else have any other ?

Some more rash ideas. I want something constructive to come of this.

10 ECHL spots instead of 15 ?
You can only have 1 player in your ECHL that is playing in the NHL ?
Lower rating restriction on AHL ? If he is rated above 62 He has to be up with the main roster ?
Teams starved of assets get first crack at UFA's ?

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

could force more guys to the AHL as well, guys like Pitkanen and his 7M cap hit are useless in our game just for the fact I don't have the 5m to give a team for me to be able to trade him

Compliance Buyouts ??

[Hanna Sniper]

I fail to understand we you think restricting the picks and ELC will balance assets (I may be wrong, I honestly don't understand)

It's just going to force teams to have their current value rolled into fewer pieces... trade their 10 silver coins for 2 gold coins. In the end there will be a lot more silver throughout the league but a shortage because all the gold is stashed in the same bank accounts as before but now rather then gold and silver they only have room for gold

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

I fail to understand we you think restricting the picks and ELC will balance assets (I may be wrong, I honestly don't understand)

It's just going to force teams to have their current value rolled into fewer pieces... trade their 10 silver coins for 2 gold coins. In the end there will be a lot more silver throughout the league but a shortage because all the gold is stashed in the same bank accounts as before but now rather then gold and silver they only have room for gold

Trickle down effect. More Silver in the league means the hoarders can hoard their gold, while allowing for more teams to make moves. It also makes the teams at the top have to make decisions on players earlier.. that would mean more Silver turning into gold if a team makes a shrewd pick up.

Right now a Team can draft someone and wait 3 years in the ECHL and 3 years on an ELC before they decide if he is worth a bigger contract.

[MJK]

The word of the day is: Jettisoned

Gold jerry, GOLD!

[Hanna Sniper]

Ok I can see what you may be saying,

Rich teams can still be the Maple Leafs and Rangers of the NHL and have McDavid and whatever on the ECHL but there will be more prospects of interest spread around that teams would be able to flip them in deals for Hossa where as seen there wasn't many dance partners because teams like myself were not interested in moving the 1 or 2 they currently only own

So in reality, you are not trying to lessen the gap but rather force these teams into higher ends prospects that will quick get huge $$ forcing thier hand more quickly and therfore giving them less assets to collect. With assets they can't collect will now allow the rest of the league to function

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hesla

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.

Yes and no. Honestly there are some teams that I can't make deals with because they simply ask for too much. Every time.
The teams listed above that I deal with are in part because they have assets but I believe moreso because those are teams that actually assign appropriate value to their players and are willing to deal.

Or in other words I'm not disputing the pattern, but rather the cause of it.

[JiriHrdina]

A lot of teams starved of assets have gotten that way by "going for it". Hesla - not to pick on you - but you are a guy that most of the time in your CPHL career has prioritized going for it over the long-term. Nothing wrong with that. But in the long-run it erodes your asset base.

Despite the fact I have all these assets - I have 1 cup to show for it in over a decade.

My point is you aren't going to solve for GMs having a different approach.

Again, we've seen teams with few assets become teams with lots of assets. How? By taking a long-term approach for a period of time, focusing on maximizing the assets they do have, and by being really active.

It isn't impossible. It isn't easy. But we have several examples that show GMs can do it.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

A lot of teams starved of assets have gotten that way by "going for it". Hesla - not to pick on you - but you are a guy that most of the time in your CPHL career has prioritized going for it over the long-term. Nothing wrong with that. But in the long-run it erodes your asset base.

Despite the fact I have all these assets - I have 1 cup to show for it in over a decade.

My point is you aren't going to solve for GMs having a different approach.

Again, we've seen teams with few assets become teams with lots of assets. How? By taking a long-term approach for a period of time, focusing on maximizing the assets they do have, and by being really active.

It isn't impossible. It isn't easy. But we have several examples that show GMs can do it.

That's true.. I tend to go for it .. But I have in the past been able to move higher priced older players for young assets and could have changed course at any time. Cheese is the same way. The guys offered up for those guys are way less than in the past (even vs. when i was in the league with Washington). The league is changing, that is fine. I just fear for the longevity of the league though. This is not a selfish exercise for me. I kicked around the idea of just quitting instead of doing this work. I want this league to be successful.

One Reason is did the Hossa auction was to try and establish a price for what i thought was the top rental on the market. I wanted teams out of the playoffs to be able to pick up firsts and top 75 prospects for their rentals to get the assets flowing. Instead I got some backlash from the teams with the most assets. A late first and Bluechip is nothing for your Currency but can start a new direction for teams out of the playoffs, with aging vets and not much to show for in assets.

There is not enough liquidity in the market to allow most of the teams at the bottom asset wise to be able to do a slow build (unless you are talking really slow). Where is the infusion of young talent going to come from when 48% of the top prospects and 33% of the top picks are sitting on just 5 teams. The 15 bottom teams best assets are those teams worse assets. How can that change hands ? That is what i want to know.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I have been in leagues where you can't trade cap. They restrict teams so bad, its a horrible idea.

It wouldn't affect you, might hamper teams that do look to make trades.

If you can make it work with 93 mill cap (which it essentially ends up being) then you should be able to do it with 75 mill cap with salaries rolled back and grids adjusted.

Don't use all of your cap before the season starts. I don't think any professional league allows trading of cap either. Another thing is to do NHL style, retain some salary (up to 50%) like the NHL and make deals that way.

If you want to make a trade you will figure it out, I was at +18 at cheese at one point and then -15 and now back to +10 i think. If it's Pat then you will keep saying you want to trade but put an enormous price tag on your players and you'll never make a deal.

You want to spread talent? force teams to play within $75 mill cap. You will see trades cause teams have to shed salary and teams that have space will benefit. And you can't just load up again, the point Doug is trying to make. It will force ECHLers to get signed faster cause you need them now not 2 years down the road.

I'm proposing it and it's gonna hurt me but imo it can help the league.

[Hanna Sniper]

I think a lot of the change of focus has been pushed to the youth over the veteran. When I joined the league veteran's were in big demand because their experience resulted in victory's and young players and prospect only had vale for those rebuilding.

Now it is much easier (not 100%) for a young rebuilding team to be powerful. The Value of a vet player. In the past teams would eventually want to win and therefore need to bring in the vets but thats no longer. Vets are still the easy road to wins but is not sustainable bacuse the majority of the league hold youth so valuable

[Knut]

^^ Will it though ? You would need to do compliance buy-outs of guys that are on overpriced deals.
After a flurry of deals, most teams will be at or near the cap and then trading would slow down a crawl and a rebuild would take even longer as no one would be able to take any high priced salaries.

[Hanna Sniper]

Sorry for keep on adding i enjoy these types of discussions way too much, but one last point one the same subject but way different

We can't allow a team like myself to send Tavares, Seguin, Ellis down to the farm once the watchdog is leashed so I can have an extra 20M cap space to take players from teans that need to be able to improve

Allowing those players down is a loophole that can be explored by the wrong people. A guy that has Tavares and seguin should not be able to use them as a loophole. I refused to do that last season and I hope the league prevents me this year because I will.. i died on that sword last year and I plan of using it against other this year

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hesla

^^ Will it though ? You would need to do compliance buy-outs of guys that are on overpriced deals.
After a flurry of deals, most teams will be at or near the cap and then trading would slow down a crawl and a rebuild would take even longer as no one would be able to take any high priced salaries.

I have to agree with Grant above, trading has not slowed down. If you want to make deals you will. I had a high priced roster after the summer and i sold it all only to buy other stuff. If you want to deal you will go find it.

I have traded with teams that don't often trade, not going to name those teams but if you seek them out trades will happen.

So not enough trading? is a bogus excuse if you ask me.

The real problem lies with what you initially posted, top heavy teams. Make us make tougher decisions by eliminating something that helps us so much.

[JiriHrdina]

A few other thoughts, starting with the value of veteran players dropping
- I think this is in part a reflection of the NHL. It has become a younger man’s game – many of the star players are peaking earlier and at younger ages. This is not reflecting player value in the CPHL.
- More importantly, I think a big factor is that Gms are not confident that adding a highly rated vet will improve team performance. I had a number of really good vets that I traded off – when I had those vets I at one point was 4th last overall. I traded them all and since then my team has been performing consistently well. So I’m not as willing to trade good assets for a vet for fear that it either doesn’t help, or could actually disrupt the chemistry I seemed to have found.

To some of your points Hesla, I think there are ways to accelerate an organization turnaround. But you aren’t going to do it trading 36 year olds even if it is a guy like Hossa. As an asset, his value has already diminished. That being said, I like the deal you made because you acquired a guy in Sven who’s value is at an all-time low. It could go lower, but if the change in organizations turns him around – it could be great. Gillies is a guy that I think as an asset will rise in value as he turns pro.

More broadly, the approach needs to be moving assets off before they diminish too much in return for assets on the rise. This is why I hold on to prospects until I think they have got enough value. I don’t often trade prospects I just drafted, because I like them, and think as they move forward their value will advance with their development. If I look at your team I see certain assets I would move now and expect good return. Trevor Daley is having a career year – could hit 20 goals – that’s the kind of guy I would look to move to replenish the organization. I would look to move Howard for a younger goalie+ other assets. I would move your aging vets yes, but the guys you really need to move to re-build your asset base are the guys still in their prime years.

Are you going to get the absolute top prospects? Probably not – but guys like Perlinin and Bigras you’ve acquired of late are really good assets to start to re-build a new foundation from.

[MJK]

Not to toot my own horn but in my 10 or so years playing this game, I was the GM of two teams, the Panthers and the Jackets.

I took the Panthers with no previous GM experience who were coming off a CPHL record low in points and within 1 year was in the playffs and within 2 years was 1st in the Eastern Conference.

I then 'took some time off' and came back as the Jackets GM. They were also in rough shape but within 1 year back in the playoffs and ever year after in the top 10 of the league with 1 cup final showing.

If a GM is willing to put the time in the play the game, they can turn a team around in no time.

[Knut]

^ Daley is in Washington but I get your point. I am not trying to make this about me. You pretty much just revealed my plan. However, I may be able to move up in assets but it is likely at the expense of another middling team. I want more than just me to build up.

If rules change so that you can't sit on those prospects as long it makes your Decison on who to trade more difficult thus a late bloomer may fall to team instead of sitting on your ECHL and then AHL roster for 6 seasons.

NHL has 2 years then back to draft for CHL and euro drafted players. And 4 years for NCAA. Maybe make it 2 for CHL/Euro and 3 for NCAA. If a guy plays 60 NHL games he need a contract for the next season. Finally maybe you top guys make a concerted effort to buy some pending ungridable ufas from low asset teams using your lowest quality assets. Redistribution draft with getting the be fit this year and not having to eat cap space for next

[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?