CPHL Currency : Team by Team Asset Analysis

[Knut]

Many GM's have had concerns over the disparity in assets in the CPHL, myself included. I have come up an analysis to try and put an actual figure on this disparity. Download the PDF below to see a team by team report of Currency and for information on how I calculated it.

http://www.filedropper.com/cphlcurrencyanalysis



Analysis:
The Top 5 Teams have 33.30% of League Currency

Minnesota has 9.37% of League Currency

Calgary has 0.10% of League Currency (typo in report)

The bottom 15 teams have 34.60% of the League Currency

Average League Currency is 35.6 (Without Minnesota it would be 33.34)

Other Notes:
The top 5 teams hold 40 picks in round 1 and 2 in 2015 and 2016 for 33.33% of all Picks

The Top 5 teams hold 36 of the Top 75 prospects for 48% of all the List

The Top 5 Have 18 players in their ECHL rosters that currently play in the NHL. Only Colorado and Nashville have players that do the same (2 each).
----------------------------------

Now i know that the GMs with lots of Currency have worked hard to get it. However, it is also creating a situation where there are some very clear have and have not teams. With the amount of future assets (picks and prospects) sitting with such small percentage of the teams it is going to create more problems down the road.

I would like to table three suggestions:

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)

Thoughts ?

[Cheese]

I like this Hesla and your suggestions are very good.
I do understand that there is a desire by GMs to gather these prospects, but at some point in time we need to understand that if they are playing regularly in the NHL we should try to emulate that as close as possible here in the CPHL. For every prospect pulled up it pushes another player out and that means trades which is the lifeblood of this league.
Doing this might also have the alternate effect of putting more value on older players. Currently it is nearly impossible to trade players 30 and over unless they are superstars.

Lots more to chew in your report, these are just a few of my 10,000ft observations, but I agree we need to do something. Looking forward to what others have to say.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Currently it is nearly impossible to trade players 30 and over unless they are superstars.

I tried to give away Gionta, one of the top scorers in the CPHL for free on waivers and there was no takers. Yes he'd be slightly overpaid next year and the year after, but he'd still be a decent 3rd line guy.

[Da_Chief]

Great work. Love seeing reports like this.

First, looks like you missed Weber, Savard and Mitchell for the Flyers. That's about 5 more points. And, Schneider should be 3 points, he's a top 5 NHL goalie. Yes, I want the points.

CG, No one wants Gionta because of his cap hit. You can get players like him for much cheaper so no point in tying up that much money in him.

Cheese, You can still trade players over 30 if they're somewhat decent but if their cap hit ridiculous and you still want the other teams top young players, its easy to see why you can't move players over 30.

Hesla, I agree with you're saying. The top end of the league is stacked. It's hard to trade and bottom teams get no help. I get that we've worked hard to get these guys but at some point as a league we have to figure this out otherwise the problem will get bigger. You're ideas are a start but I don't think they'll be enough. I would implement all 3 though.

Something drastic needs to happen.

[Knut]

An example of where it comes in is with Hossa.

Lots of the teams (even playoff) can not afford to give up the few assets they have to improve their team. So the pool of teams willing to make the deal shrinks drastically. One of the top 3 teams tells me "I need to save my assets" and two others bow out because of the auction. That leaves very few teams to actually deal with.

As for the points. I am not going to make too many changes if it is a point here or there.

[MJK]

Awesome.

Can someone please e-mail me the .pdf, it's blocked at work

coachpenney at gmail.com

[simmer2]

The Isles aren't last!

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hesla

An example of where it comes in is with Hossa.

Lots of the teams (even playoff) can not afford to give up the few assets they have to improve their team. So the pool of teams willing to make the deal shrinks drastically. One of the top 3 teams tells me "I need to save my assets" and two others bow out because of the auction. That leaves very few teams to actually deal with.

As for the points. I am not going to make too many changes if it is a point here or there.

On the Hossa situation:
It's like Jay Feaster when he wasn't willing to keep cap so he didn't get the best return. I think if you would've offered some cap for next year who knows you might've. But it was your choice and stuck with it.

Just teasing you about the points, not going to make a difference.

I would suggest something like a "parity draft" where the top teams get to protect 80% of their assets and rest go in a draft for the bottom tier teams but seeing how some teams have been mishandled before I doubt it'll help them.

I wouldn't mind seeing elimination of ECHL all together. AHL increases to 35 ( no restrictions on positions).

[MJK]

I don't think we want to be doing any kind of 'parity draft', if I was a GM who worked hard to obtain great assets (and I have been there before), I would be pissed off if I lost some.

I think Helsa makes some good suggestions but will comment further when I have had a chance to read the report.

[Knut]

Sent it Dave

[Tilley]

I look at the graph in the OP and the top nine teams are GMs that have been playing in the CPHL for a long time. In the 2.5 years since I joined there are 12 teams with new GMs; with some teams having multiple new GMs in that time period (4 teams).

To me it speaks to the experience the established GMs have and the eagerness for a new GM to start a rebuild by trading away established stars or trade picks to try to be competitive immediately. Some teams are essentially gutted when a new GM starts. NYI and Chicago were left with few prospects, limited AHL options, and a poor CPHL team. It's going to take years to build a team from scratch.

Even as a 'have not' team, I would not be in favor of a parity draft. I would rather change ELC to two years to get more players active, forcing GMs to trade away established players to make room or make more B level prospects available via free agency.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Great work. Love seeing reports like this.

First, looks like you missed Weber, Savard and Mitchell for the Flyers. That's about 5 more points. And, Schneider should be 3 points, he's a top 5 NHL goalie. Yes, I want the points.

Why do you want the points? Honestly, what difference does it make? you are 2nd in currency and have no chance to come close to 1st. If anything, adding these points just enforces Hesla's argument even more.

[Swayze11]

This is awesome work Hesla. Lets not ignore what Hesla is trying to propose:
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)

I think these suggestions would help a ton. Forces the rich teams to make tough decisions. The issue (which might not be an issue) is that the top 10 teams are still going to be the ones that will be dealing for these assets. However, it still promotes and enforces trading which has been at an all time low this season.

Something needs to be done, the league is starting to become stale.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Why do you want the points? Honestly, what difference does it make? you are 2nd in currency and have no chance to come close to 1st. If anything, adding these points just enforces Hesla's argument even more.

The question is why don't you want the points.

[dsavillian]

I remember having a discussion either early this season or near the end of last season around granting some ECHLers playable ratings based on draft position. As I argued then, the only correct play (both from a cap and ratings perspective) is to not sign your ECHLers until you have to. I don't know if that contributes to the wealth gap or not.

Some thoughts:

1) First round draft picks can only spend 2 seasons in the ECHL

That is a decent idea, but it those players probably just sit in the AHL until they get a good rating. It does force the NHL club to pay them a salary one season sooner though

2) Once a player reaches 100 NHL games they have to be played on the CPHL roster the following season.

What happens to the AHL in this scenario? There'd be very few rated players on AHL clubs and a lot of capable free agents that would be floating in limbo.

3) Two year ELC's for all first round draft picks (increase the cost to hold them)

I don't mind this one either

There is a common problem with all of the above though: It doesn't solve the problem for 3-4 seasons.

4) Rebalancing draft

I like this idea a lot. Sure it undoes hard work and long term planning, but this is a game right? There aren't many games that don't have an ending or a reset button!

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

This is awesome work Hesla. Lets not ignore what Hesla is trying to propose:
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)

I think these suggestions would help a ton. Forces the rich teams to make tough decisions. The issue (which might not be an issue) is that the top 10 teams are still going to be the ones that will be dealing for these assets. However, it still promotes and enforces trading which has been at an all time low this season.

Something needs to be done, the league is starting to become stale.

I just wrote this line in my response above, but I think it's important to repeat:


I don't think these changes solve anything until 3-4 seasons down the road.


And actually, after thinking about it more, I think there are two additional issues that contribute to the current state of the league:

1) UFA season sucks. There's rarely anyone decent to bid on and all the mediocre players get inflated contracts. Anyone with any value just gets a grid deal and the team that owns them trades them with cheese included when the season starts. Rich get richer.

Example: I have Chara. If I don't plan on keeping him, why would I ever let him go to UFA? I can sign him and deal him off, and the only teams that can pay for him are the teams with assets. There's no competition from the GMs that have tons of cap space but no assets.

2) Half the league is quick to trade their first for pennies on the dollar

I may be exaggerating here a bit, but it seems that every year it's the same story. There are tons of weak deals that involve first round picks and first round picks are the only way that currency gets injected into the league. Can't really mandate a rule around that, but it is something that contributes to the wealth gap

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Hesla

An example of where it comes in is with Hossa.

Lots of the teams (even playoff) can not afford to give up the few assets they have to improve their team. So the pool of teams willing to make the deal shrinks drastically. One of the top 3 teams tells me "I need to save my assets" and two others bow out because of the auction. That leaves very few teams to actually deal with.

As for the points. I am not going to make too many changes if it is a point here or there.

To be far with the Hossa example, I know for a fact that you had another team ready to step in and make a push for Hossa but the auctioned ended early. No harm with ended the action early as it's on me for not stepping up sooner but once a deadline was set I played my cards to be the team at the end. The error was on me

Maybe I was the only one but there may have been a couple other teams as well. Not saying my deal would be better then the ducks as thats just a matter of ones own personal values

as for the OP, still looking at it more to form a comment

[JiriHrdina]

This is awesome work.
As we think about ways to improve the league let’s make sure we are solving the actual problems.
Before I comment on possible solutions, and there are some good suggestions here, I want to make some of my own observations

- When we look at the top teams, they share some things in common. First – they are helmed by long-time GMs. This is not coincidence. As with any game, the longer you play the better you get. Except for Cheese.

- Those teams are also common in that they trade and trade a lot. They don’t emotionally attach themselves to players – but rather seek to maximize the value of the asset. One of the main reasons I have a ton of chips right now is that in the last 6 months I traded both Crosby and Malkin for a haul of assets. I pinpointed that I felt at this point their value in the league would start to drop – not huge – but enough that I wanted to move on from those players and optimize my return

My point here is that whatever we do, you may not fully solve the issue because the GMs are on top are simply good GMs who do well in terms of maximizing asset value by remaining active. These GMs also are the type that are
- Drafting often and well
- Signing prospect free agents
- Participating actively on the forums to get free cap

Basically doing all the things you need to do to build and maintain a good team.

Also on the comment that trading is at an all time low – let’s be careful stating that as a fact when we don’t know if it is true. I hear this every season. Trading is at an all-time low. I don’t believe it is. I think trading this season is the same as it has been most seasons. And frankly if you want more trades – trade more. The reason why there aren’t more trades is that some GMs have a warped view on value. If you want to trade, let go of your personal attachment to a player – and trade them.

On the specific suggestions:

1) First round draft picks can only spend 2 seasons in the ECHL
- Don’t mind this idea. Good one to think about. Easy to implement as it just means processing all drafted players with a 2 year contract instead of 3.

2) Once a player reaches 100 NHL games they have to be played on the CPHL roster the following season.
- Conceptually I like this one but execution wise it is a little tricky. Would prefer to simplify and say that any ECHLer with 100 NHL games must be signed to the NHL/AHL. Teams should have the ability to send guys up and down from the AHL at their discretion, except for current waiver rules.

3) Two year ELC's for all first round draft picks (increase the cost to hold them)
- Not a fan of this one. NHL has 3. I think if you do the two above, mainly the first one, you don’t need this one. Having 3 years of a cheap rookie is an important strategic component.

4) Rebalancing draft
- I will fight this one and fight it hard. Maybe I’m biased but this is simply a punishment for teams that have built strong asset basis and have played the game hard and the right way. The GMs at the top of this list include most of our most active and competitive General Managers. Why punish that. Frankly if we do this it would be a massive demotivation to me because basically I would be punished for being a good GM. That’s not what this game is about

When I look at this list I actually see signs of encouragement because teams like New Jersey, Phoenix, Dallas and San Jose are near the top of the list. I would remind everyone that it wasn’t too long ago that these 4 teams were amongst the VERY worst when it came to the quality of their assets. They’ve turned it around by being active, smart and involved.

That’s how this game works. The more you work as a GM – the better you will do.

I’m open to some of the above suggestions but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

4) Rebalancing draft

I like this idea a lot. Sure it undoes hard work and long term planning, but this is a game right? There aren't many games that don't have an ending or a reset button!

Well now I am not sure if you are refering to ECHL or CPHL. Either way I have seen 'rebalancing' completely destroy good leagues. This is a very BAD idea.

[Hanna Sniper]

Ok here's me view on the situation

First props for this information, things like this are great

As for the suggested solutions... I say it does nothing and this is not the problem

The problem is not that these teams have the assets, it is that they make more good moves then bad and reap the rewards of that. The have enough assets to cover their losses when they do make bad trade (which they do)

I see the problem not with those teams and the fact that they have the assets but that teams just throw assets at them over and over.

Great teams and GM's do this
Offeason - sell off players for prospects and youth to get under cap and not loose assets
Pre season- sell off squired youth for their team again and cap

rinse repeat recycle and have become dam good at it.

!^^^^^ this is the problem and we need to make it harder to do this

By adding rules that will cause these players to play in the CPHL faster and push up cap so these team will be forced to move them is not the problem as they are moving them already with the above example. To implement these changes will do nothing to move the assets around