Food for thought: ECHLers, ELCs and Playable Ratings

[dsavillian]

This is for discussion only. I am not suggesting that we change this immediately or that it is better or worse than what we currently have. Nor do I have all the specifics worked out. I just want to have a discussion and earn that sweet sweet POTW money.

We were chatting at lunch about prospects and how it's a shame that first round NHL draft picks don't usually get to play a CPHL game until 3 years after they are drafted.

Generally speaking, the correct move when signing a prospect is to wait as long as possible so that you can keep their cap hit : ratings ratio as good as possible for as long as possible. I feel that this might cause some GMs to have an aversion to prospects ("why would I want to wait 3 years when I can just get players that can play now") or the treatment of prospects as currency only. I also think that it is a shame that a top prospect that makes the NHL in their first or second year after the draft can't be used (effectively) in the CPHL at the same time.


We discussed a system that would grant playable ratings to ECHLers based on their position in the NHL draft. Additionally, this base rating would be used as their baseline for re-rates going forward. If a first overall pick ended up *not* making their NHL team, their rating would drop the next season. Additionally, if a top pick made the NHL and lit it up (won rookie of the year or something), their rating would improve from the baseline and could have an immediate impact on their CPHL team.

A good example of this is Alex Galchenyuk. He's into his 3rd NHL season but is still stuck in the ECHL because it's the proper move from a team management perspective (and his rating is only a 63!)


I think giving a playable baseline rating to say, the top 15 NHL picks, would increase the value of first round picks, increase the value of prospects, add some strategy around signing players early and add additional strategy around the 2nd+ tier UFAs. It would also open up the ECHL system to more prospects and eliminate some of the garbage AHL signings that shouldn't be necessary.

Obvious downsides are that it becomes more complicated to re-rate players after their baseline and what to make the baseline stats (you'd have to weight them on their junior stats which can obviously be heavily skewed). UFA costs would also be lowered which may be a bad thing? Not sure.

I'll post more thoughts later, but I wanted to get the conversation started!

I know some other leagues do this already, so I thought it would be an interesting conversation to have.

[Slava]

How do you deal with say a prospect like Nurse from last years draft who still isn't NHL ready though?

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

This is for discussion only. I am not suggesting that we change this immediately or that it is better or worse than what we currently have. Nor do I have all the specifics worked out. I just want to have a discussion and earn that sweet sweet POTW money.

Get off the Fence! What you are proposing is better and should be implemented yesterday.

Seriously though I think this is a very interesting idea that would make prospects more interesting for every team (IMO), especially mid-level to asset poor teams who can now keep a top end prospect AND be a better sim team at the same time, as opposed to selling them off for immediate sim relevency. It also allows hoarders to hoard more! lol

good post, but you're not getting money for it

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Slava

How do you deal with say a prospect like Nurse from last years draft who still isn't NHL ready though?

I think their rating would drop, which would be one of the gambles.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Slava

How do you deal with say a prospect like Nurse from last years draft who still isn't NHL ready though?

As most defenceman take longer to develop, you would wait.

[Slava]

I just don't love the idea that because the player is a top 10-15 pick then they are rated say 62ov and yet might never set foot on the ice in the NHL. Then you have actual players rated 61ov.

[Da_Chief]

I dont like the idea of giving top 15 prospects a playable rating...it increases the values of top 15 picks and drops the value of other picks.

Teams that want to hoard will hoard.

If you want to eliminate hoarding then get rid of ECHL, expand AHL rosters and that way players who are capable of playing will be called up since they are already signed.

No ECHL but AHL limi increases from 24 to 32.

[TurdFerguson]

I don't see this as having anything to do with hoarding. It about making a top prospects sim relevancy a shorter path. Changing the decision from a "now or later" one into a "now and later".

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just don't love the idea that because the player is a top 10-15 pick then they are rated say 62ov and yet might never set foot on the ice in the NHL. Then you have actual players rated 61ov.

Obviously if they never play an NHL game they'd lose their rating entirely. I imagine it could work such that if they didn't play I the NHL in their first year after the draft, they would drop a similar amount to someone that played a season overseas.


I don't know how ratings are done for players that miss a year, but I think top prospects shouldn't have to wait 3 years to get a playable rating if they are in the NHL in their first or second season.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

If you want to eliminate hoarding then get rid of ECHL, expand AHL rosters and that way players who are capable of playing will be called up since they are already signed.

if every prospect has to get signed early, then there needs to be a replacement for the current RFA contract system for players coming off of an ELC.


Maybe there just needs to be a ratings system in place that gives first year NHLers a higher boost if they are high draft picks or obviously excel. Galchenyuk should be higher than a 63, for example.

[JiriHrdina]

Not sure what problem we are solving here.
If the prospect demonstrates they are an NHL player they get a playable rating. GMs are choosing not to sign ECHLers that they could sign and play. Frankly I've shifted some of my approach to sign some guys early. Partly because I don't have room, but also if I sign early and then get them to their second contract I'm more likely to have another 3 year "bridge" deal instead of them reaching max RFA dollars for their 2nd deal.

It is all up to the GMs how to manage this. But prospects get ratings for their NHL performance just like all players. Giving a playable rating to a player that has zero NHL experience makes no sense to me.

What problem are we trying to solve here? Why take a part of the GM decision making out of the game?

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

What problem are we trying to solve here? Why take a part of the GM decision making out of the game?

Not necessarily solving a problem (as the title and first line of my post describe). I see it more as an attempt to improve the game that is the CPHL. Eg: open discussion and thought provoking questions and discussion topics.



And FWIW, I'd argue that it is correct exactly 0% of the time to sign ECHLers early in the current state of the league. This change would increase decision making to a non zero value.



I think a top 10 pick, that plays an NHL season immediately should have a reasonable enough rating that the GM has to make a tangible decision to sign him or not. Currently, that decision doesn't exist.

[Slava]

Just think though; someone will sign a whole team of ECHLers and still beat Colorado.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just think though; someone will sign a whole team of ECHLers and still beat Colorado.

[Hanna Sniper]

I say giving a player a rating that never played a game in the NHL is a huge disrespect to the career NHL's that have proven to play in the league but yet have a lower OV then these over rated prospects

After 1 NHL season any draft pick will get an OV,

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Not necessarily solving a problem (as the title and first line of my post describe). I see it more as an attempt to improve the game that is the CPHL. Eg: open discussion and thought provoking questions and discussion topics.



And FWIW, I'd argue that it is correct exactly 0% of the time to sign ECHLers early in the current state of the league. This change would increase decision making to a non zero value.



I think a top 10 pick, that plays an NHL season immediately should have a reasonable enough rating that the GM has to make a tangible decision to sign him or not. Currently, that decision doesn't exist.

But again you are getting into a complete shift in ratings approach. Sample size matters - so a guy gets a playable rating once he proves he can play in the NHL. Everything is delayed 1 year. A young NHLer that break out this year - won't see the benefit of that breakout in the CPHL until next year.

I view that as the core of any re-rating approach. There has to be a delta between the performance and the rating.

[dsavillian]

Sure, that's fair.

In the current ratings system, what does a freshly drafted NHLer have to accomplish in the NHL to earn a rating worth signing him early in the CPHL? Say a 64OV? I think that's a good benchmark given the last UFA crop.

scratch that. Mackinnon is a 68OV with only one year under his belt.


Still sucks that it's not correct in the long term to sign him to the CPHL now though.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

I say giving a player a rating that never played a game in the NHL is a huge disrespect to the career NHL's that have proven to play in the league but yet have a lower OV then these over rated prospects

After 1 NHL season any draft pick will get an OV,

I don't think we have to respect line items in a spreadsheet

And really, this only applies to the small number of players that play in the NHL right from age 18.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Sure, that's fair.

In the current ratings system, what does a freshly drafted NHLer have to accomplish in the NHL to earn a rating worth signing him early in the CPHL? Say a 64OV? I think that's a good benchmark given the last UFA crop.

scratch that. Mackinnon is a 68OV with only one year under his belt.


Still sucks that it's not correct in the long term to sign him to the CPHL now though.

If I were Goffie I would sign him. Adding a 68 player for low cap would give him a better chance at a championship. Next year maybe he's a 70. Not worth waiting

[TurdFerguson]

At the current rate, McKinnon will be lucky to be a 60 next year . Hell you might be giving him the 10% bump on his elc as a sub 60 player.

Get out while you can.