Suggestion to boost trading

[Swayze11]

Simmer and I were talking about a way to boost trading and he mentioned that there is another sim league out there that only allows you to keep 1 UFA, the GMs choice. I think this is a great idea and I think we should really consider this and there is a ton of things I can explain to back it up.

With only allowing 1 UFA re-signing this will make GMs more active with their teams, trading, and player management. For example I would have to chose between a Willie Mitchell or a Craig Anderson this year which is a pretty hard decision (debatable). This would allow the bottom feeders to go out in the UFA market and grab a few guys who they can trade or keep for their rebuilding process. This also makes the CPHL a lot more realistic like the NHL, where we did see Chara, Gaborik, Pronger, Bouwmeester, etc. on the open market to any bidder. This also allows the bottom feeders to be a lot more competitive instead of watching their team suck for 3-4 years while they wait for their ECHL team to develop into CPHL players.

This will benefit trading a ton because teams will start to think about which UFA they are going to keep and therefor trade their other UFAs to contenders or teams that want to use that specific player as their 1 UFA. This will also lower the prices for UFAs which should be the case at the moment but its not because teams can keep all their UFAs if they really want to. The term "rental player" does not exist in the CPHL because they can re-sign them at their choice.

The UFA batches at the moment are terrible. The fact that Aucoin was a top UFA last season is kind of pathetic compared to the NHL with Bouwmeester, Sedin sisters, Gaborik, Havlat. I just think this will level the playing field. I hate seeing a CPHL Calgary Flames team be in the bottom 3 every single year where thats not the case (debatable) in the real NHL. Now I understand you dont build a team through free-agency but thats not the point of this new system, its to give the Flames, Islanders, etc. a better and faster chance of being competitive. This is my 1st full season in the CPHL and I hate being at the bottom I cant imagine how it would be if I am there for the next 3 years, it would just not be fun.

Another thing Simmer and I discussed is how this would help with cheese room. Most teams would have cap space therefore cheese room would not be a big issue like it currently is. I count 7 teams (NJ, COL, BOS, NAS, PIT, WAS, LA) that are restricted of trading because of cheese room and we are only in week 8 of the WHOLE SEASON. Theres 7 teams that wont be trading or will be making very minor trades which is never fun. Those specific teams are rebuilding or contending teams which typically are the ones that would be making the most trades out of anyone. You can debate that this is bad cap/cheese management but when the flood gates open GMs cant help but to make 3-4 trades within the 1st week.

Well theres my suggestion, feedback is always needed. The thing with this system is it has to be implemented now, not next year, not next off-season it has to be now because teams prices are just way to high right now and this will lower them. I am not saying that im the perfect GM and all my prices are extremely reasonable. This would lower my trade price for Willie Mitchell just because I have no problem giving him a grid, but if I know I have to let him walk either way then hes got a 1-way ticket out of Colorado.

[flambers]

This is the way it use to be done (few years ago), don't believe it had a large impact one way or another.

[Da_Chief]

Aight, gotta put in my 2 cents into this whole no trading thing...

You don't need to force it, trades will happen. Look at me for example, I've been "blacklisted" as some suggest yet I've still managed to make trades. I don't know how but I've done it. I guess the "blacklisting" isn't out in full force yet.

As for as "keep 1 UFA", bad idea! if you have the money than you should be able to keep the guys want to keep.

For good or bad, the league has evolved where trading is minimum. If you look hard enough, you will find a deal.

I think we had this discussion last year too...it got nowhere and I think it is fine as is.

Just to add to this, I loved the agents back in the day, sure some of them played favorites but it added another realistic element to the game.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Aight, gotta put in my 2 cents into this whole no trading thing...

You don't need to force it, trades will happen. Look at me for example, I've been "blacklisted" as some suggest yet I've still managed to make trades. I don't know how but I've done it. I guess the "blacklisting" isn't out in full force yet.

As for as "keep 1 UFA", bad idea! if you have the money than you should be able to keep the guys want to keep.

For good or bad, the league has evolved where trading is minimum. If you look hard enough, you will find a deal.

I think we had this discussion last year too...it got nowhere and I think it is fine as is.

Just to add to this, I loved the agents back in the day, sure some of them played favorites but it added another realistic element to the game.

Thats not realistic though. If that was the case, Bouwmeester would still be in Florida, Gaborik would still be in minny, I can go on forever. The UFA batches are SOOOO brutal that it does not help a bottom feeder team whatsoever. You can say its a bad idea because your a contender, this allows bottom teams to play ball with the contenders.

I dont want to call out any GMs but this does in fact force trading. The Canucks have not made 1 trade all year, im not saying its a bad thing because if Sandra is happy with her team then so be it, but if this system was implemented she would lose Campbell or Vokoun if she wanted to "leave her team be". This would force her to trade one of them or let them walk if she was not in a playoff position.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Thats not realistic though. If that was the case, Bouwmeester would still be in Florida, Gaborik would still be in minny, I can go on forever. The UFA batches are SOOOO brutal that it does not help a bottom feeder team whatsoever. You can say its a bad idea because your a contender, this allows bottom teams to play ball with the contenders.

I dont want to call out any GMs but this does in fact force trading. The Canucks have not made 1 trade all year, im not saying its a bad thing because if Sandra is happy with her team then so be it, but if this system was implemented she would lose Campbell or Vokoun if she wanted to "leave her team be". This would force her to trade one of them or let them walk if she was not in a playoff position.

She'd lost one of them but after the season is over, she would the window of opportunity to find a team who doesn't have a player worthy of a tag. So in the end you'd have most trades still being made at the end of the season instead of during the season.

As for as me being contender, its been proven that teams can rise from mediocrity and become contenders. That was obviously done with trading but like I said before if you look hard enough you will find deals.

As for as you example wih Boumeester/Gaborik etc. there is only one way to add players feeling and that is with agents. If this rule was in the NHL, than Gaborik would still be in Minny.

Basically you want a franchise tag, like the NFL.

[Slava]

First let me say, its great that you guys put your heads together to try to come up with something to increase trading.

I guess I'm kind of on the fence about this suggestion. I don't really have any major UFA's coming due this season so it really makes little impact here. Sure I stand to lose Jagr for nothing....but I've been trying to move the guy for months and no one is particularly interested at his price anyway. While this might help to move some bodies around the league I'm not sure that you'll see large assets moving for UFA's either.

Seems to me a case where at the deadline a guy looks at Jagr (to use my own example) and says "I could use him for the run and then I know he is done, so how about a 5th". I'm screwed there....I have no real option to re-sign him, and my return for losing him is now a 5th! Might be a little extreme, but seriously I don't know how exaggerated that is?

Also about the teams not having a lot of cheese room- in my case this was by design. If I could do this over I would've moved Jagr and kept a better piece to trade with little/no cheese room left. That being said I was slashing the budget hard here; I had some high priced players here and well before the season began I knew that my cheese room was going with them to get myself under the cap and have money going into next season.

All of this being said, people just have to be somewhat creative when trading. I could still move Jagr (to use that example again). Sure he has a $10 mill price tag, but that just means I take something decent and an expensive bag of pucks back. There are plenty of bad contracts out there, and with some creativity these things will get done. People have been very busy this fall. I am hopeful and expecting that once christmas gets closer and people have a little more time then we'll see them on CP a little more and more deals will be made.

[Goffie]

I think comparing the UFA system in the NHL to the CPHL is like apples to oranges. In this game players are a rating and have no outside influences on where they sign. For example Gaborik left Minny because he wanted to not because they couldn't afford him. I think that grid contracts are restricting to the cap enough as is and if a GM is good enough to balance cap and keep the team that they want then they should be rewarded by keeping as many players as they want.

My team for example is not that well setup cap wise that I can keep a strong team all year, it goes in cycles trade good vets away for youth to get back under cap after the season ends and then gradually ship that youth off for better rated players as the season goes on to build for a playoff run. I think the cap and the grid contracts does a good enough jobs at promoting the movement of players that we don't need to restrict resigning numbers.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Slava

Seems to me a case where at the deadline a guy looks at Jagr (to use my own example) and says "I could use him for the run and then I know he is done, so how about a 5th". I'm screwed there....I have no real option to re-sign him, and my return for losing him is now a 5th! Might be a little extreme, but seriously I don't know how exaggerated that is?

It is exaggerated, I would like to see CPHL trades reflect NHL trades, where we see a decent rental player (64-68 OVR) go for a 2nd/3rd. That is an ideal NHL trade.

[Sylvanfan]

We've had this proposed or suggested before. Whether it be sign only one UFA or in the old days when we had agents ban extensions for UFA players. I think it would probably slow trading down myself in terms of pending UFA's moving, but what it might do is allow some of the bad teams to turn things around faster as they could improve their teams a fair bit in the summer.

If this rule was to go into place you might be looking to trade one of Mitchell or Anderson, but that also impacts every other team who will also have UFA players too and chances are the offers for the player will get worse as 3 or 4 teams will know you have to move the player and they're the only destinations for you.

This is a league that wants to have trading and our current rules more or less make it so that you either trade, or you wait a long time for your drafting to emerge at the CPHL level.

Every year trading seems to go down and there is discussion about how to fix it. I personally think it's a product of more stability with most CPHL teams. Many GM's have had these teams for multiple seasons now and maybe like where they're at.

But it's a good thing to get ideas out there. So good post Pat.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

If this rule was to go into place you might be looking to trade one of Mitchell or Anderson, but that also impacts every other team who will also have UFA players too and chances are the offers for the player will get worse as 3 or 4 teams will know you have to move the player and they're the only destinations for you.

That is the exact problem right now, UFA players are not really UFA. I wrote this thread because I would be affected by this suggestion as well, but if this boosts trading I am all for it. My price for Mitchell is quite high and some GMs have first hand experience with offers. If this system was implemented I guaranteed Mitchell would be gone within a week because my price would be a lot lower.

[JiriHrdina]

As others have mentioned this UFA system was tried in the past and if anything it killed the value of pending UFAs.

We actually have more UFA movement now and more interesting batches than other previous rules.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

As others have mentioned this UFA system was tried in the past and if anything it killed the value of pending UFAs.

We actually have more UFA movement now and more interesting batches than other previous rules.

It should kill the value of pending UFAs.... they are not UFAs, we cannot classify them as UFA because we can easily just re-sign them whenever we want.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

It should kill the value of pending UFAs.... they are not UFAs, we cannot classify them as UFA because we can easily just re-sign them whenever we want.

Ok well then I'm missing the point then.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Ok well then I'm missing the point then.

The point is there is no such thing in the CPHL as a "rental player" because UFAs are basically more expensive RFAs because we can re-sign anyone we want. This allows more bigger names in the UFA pool and a more realistic feel to the CPHL because NHL teams can never keep all their UFAs. I guess this system is to benefit the bottom feeder teams more because they should technically have the cap room and they would be able to acquire some bigger names instead of wait 3 years for their team to be competitive.

pending UFA prices are way to high which should not be the case. When trade talks start on a pending UFA they go like this:

GM A - "How about this, this and this for player X"
GM B - "No way, he is worth more then that"
GM A - "But hes a pending UFA"
GM B - "So? he is getting a grid deal regardless"

we would start to see pending UFA prices lower so we would see a 63-66 OVR type player go for a 2nd and 3rd rounder and that would benefit both teams. The one getting the player gets a no risk player for a playoff run and the other team gets 2 picks which will be prospects.

[JiriHrdina]

I don't think it would help much because the "have teams" aren't actually built with a lot of pending UFAs. I would lose one of Alex Ponikarovsky or Johan Franzen. No big deal. I think other top teams would be similar positions.

Under the current system bottom feeder teams still have the ability to acquire pending UFAs before July 1st. Each year I have to dump one or two vets for next to nothing so I can get back under the cap. Look back at what Ryan Smyth went for last year....next to nothing.

Our current cap system ensures that teams can't keep all their players, but if you are a GM of a bottom feeder you have to develop a plan for how you are going to work in, and take advantage of that system.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

The point is there is no such thing in the CPHL as a "rental player" because UFAs are basically more expensive RFAs
.

Sure there is, there was all sorts of UFA players in July.

In my case there is no question, I have rental players that will not be signed to grid deals.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I guess this system is to benefit the bottom feeder teams more because they should technically have the cap room and they would be able to acquire some bigger names instead of wait 3 years for their team to be competitive.

The one thing I notice from the past is that the soon-to-be UFA's didn't help the bottom feeder teams but rather the more creative GM's... which happened to be the GM's the find a way to be a strong team.

it's the same thing as the FA signing period, everyone thinks during the season that the big name FA is going to sign with that bottom team with 15M cap space but come time when it's announced the top player signed with a cup contender and all the other contenders begin reloading.

At the end of the day, any rule will favour the GM's that work the hardest at it and try and make it work regardless of cap space and standings

[Swayze11]

Well by the looks of it this idea has been shot down, its too bad but I still think something needs to be changed.

[Hanna Sniper]

One thing I've noticed is that there's been a change of the guard in the NHL, and you see it's effects here in the CPHL. Young players have been thrown into the mix and found a place... in return youth is rated at par with a lot of vets. Right now a lot of veteran players on teams are like a aging stripper at a young hip club. She could be giving it away and she still isn't going to have any action.

I know this is an extreme, and he doesn't have many fans here but someone like Derek Boogaard who is rated a 54ov (rightfully so) who has played 4 seasons and 215 games.. well you can find unknown prospects that'll never play in the NHL rated higher then him.

I just want to make it clear, I'm not talking about his rating (being high or low) just saying the the demand of a NHL player isn't there because anyone that isn't a fool would rather have a prospect with a slight upside that may never play in the NHL thats rated higher then a NHL player thats rated lower. This isn't about our rating system but rather how young players have taken a bigger role in the NHL and have really made marginal NHL vets pointless to obtain unless an injury comes along for a cup contender.

right now Youth is so more valuable of an asset then even a high end player

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Well by the looks of it this idea has been shot down, its too bad but I still think something needs to be changed.

We are always open to suggestions but at the same time you should keep in mind that long-term GMs have already played with some of the ideas being thrown around. So it's not a case of just shooting down an idea, but moreso passing on what's already been learned.