CPHL Currency : Team by Team Asset Analysis

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tilley

I think a reveral draft with the option to pass may be beneficial. Maybe requiring GMs to indicate their intention to participate 3-4 days prior to the secondary draft would be ideal so we aren't waiting around for a no-show GM.

To answer Jiri's question, I did not sign any additional picks following the 2014 draft as all the picks that I viewed as worth signing were already selected in the CPHL draft. I agree that this is an easy way to increase a team's assets and there should be more than two teams participating. I intended to sign players, went through the list of drafted/non drafted players, but chose to not offer any contracts.

I think Drury18's idea of a salary cap limit rather than a roster limit in the AHL could work. It allows teams to have many cheap long-term prospects or bury a couple overprices vets on 2 way contracts. I would maintain the rules regarding number of forwards, defensemen, etc.

I also agree with eliminating the cap for year end awards. They are a way for the rich to become richer as the successful teams have the best players, get extra cap for having the best players, allowing them higher payrolls than the majority of other teams. I would not eliminate the awards as I enjoy identifying the players/teams/GMs that have had a successfull season. I would simply remove the cap aspect of it.

One aspect of this 'currency debate' to keep in mind is that this is a single data point in a long season. Both Minnesota and Philadelphia had veteran lineups and chose to make multiple moves to get younger and add picks. The value system that Hesla used places higher importance on young prospects and early round picks. Had this analysis been completed earlier in the season, the results may have been different. Chicago, for example, had a couple high round picks that I traded to strengthen my current CPHL roster. Had I not made those trades my currency value would be higher (probably middle 10), but I would also be in the bottom five in the CPHL instead of challenging for a playoff spot.

I totally agree with this bolded section. I think that in some ways we're solving for a problem that we think exists, but this study doesn't prove it does. Its probably a case of confirmation bias because the results were largely known before we saw the numbers. I don't mean that as any disrespect to Hesla or Swayze at all because I think its awesome that GMs do these types of things and we have these discussions!

[Knut]

All it was meant to be was a snapshot to get discussion moving. To be honest though. How much would it really change the distribution ?

Regardless. I called it currency because it is what you can use to buy things. Certainly there are flaws but it shows how teams near the top can just buy whatever they want, while other teams can not even bring in an RFA Aged 2nd liner.

[Tilley]

My comment was not intended as criticism, but merely context. I think this is a valuable assessment that needs to be completed multiple times. It has been an excellent starting point for discussion to attempt to balance the currency in the league.

It has been pointed out previously, but you cannot paint all GMs with the same brush. Some have utilized currency to build their CPHL team, others have squandered it away. Some are still paying the price for mistakes made with previous GMs and trying to build again. I'm certain no GM is intentionally trying to handcuff their team, only making moves that have short term and long term consequences.

One rule that may be implemented is that a team can not trade their 1st round pick in consecutive years. This is borrowed from the NBA as teams like the Knicks would trade away their first round pick every year if they could. It is almost like saving GMs from themselves to maintain currency.

[Knut]

^ more directed at Slava who is over complicating the matter.

I am not out to save low asset teams. I just think the deck is stacked against them right now to recover.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Flickered Flame

I haven't read the entire thread but I am going to just throw some ideas out there.

1. No in season capabilities of adding cap as a reward (POWs, POMs, etc.)
2. Reduce the draft to 3 or 4 rounds
3. Lower the ECHL roster to 10 spots
4. Have players reach UFA status at a younger age
5. Increase the amount of cap that can be traded per team per year. Even an additional 2 million. What I've noticed is teams often max out in their cap (18 mill) early in the season. Those teams have a tougher time making deals happen.
6. This might be more work for Grant and the admin team but rather than basing re-rates on 3 year, go on a year by year basis. There are a lot of players who have one really good NHL season and then fall off the map but those guys are still good in the CPHL for several years after they drop off. Would this then allow the high end, top picks to get immediate ratings rather than waiting for them to have ratings.

Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head. I will add more once I give it more thought.

The rating suggestion is an interesting one that I've thought of myself.

[devo22]

I think we also have to be careful not to make changes for the sake of making changes. For example, does limiting the draft to 4 rounds really change anything? Because it doesn't in my opinion. Tons of 4ths and 5ths get released and bolster the UFA pool anyway, so I highly doubt this has any effect on the distribution of assets.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by devo22

I think we also have to be careful not to make changes for the sake of making changes. For example, does limiting the draft to 4 rounds really change anything? Because it doesn't in my opinion. Tons of 4ths and 5ths get released and bolster the UFA pool anyway, so I highly doubt this has any effect on the distribution of assets.

Yeah, we've gone off in about 12 different directions.


Perhaps it would be a better idea to focus on one issue at a time and focus on a smaller number of suggested changes.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by Flickered Flame

6. This might be more work for Grant and the admin team but rather than basing re-rates on 3 year, go on a year by year basis. There are a lot of players who have one really good NHL season and then fall off the map but those guys are still good in the CPHL for several years after they drop off. Would this then allow the high end, top picks to get immediate ratings rather than waiting for them to have ratings.

THIS!

I would like to get a little more behind this and I will throw out an example I think all of us could probably agree is a situation where year by year is more accurate then 3 year.

Johnny Gaudreau (I don't own him, I actually had to look up who did to prove this point. Actually not so much look up as confirm Miika had him..) . Right now, he's not even in the SIM. If he was, I assume because of the 3 year rate requirement he'd still be only barely over 50 or so depending the weight they would allow for his college career. He's having a heck of a season, but for him to get anywhere near an accurate rating for his play this year, the Ducks will be waiting 2 more years. I would say based on this year's play, Gaudreau should be more accurately rated mid/upper 60's for next season and be someone that's playable and not sitting in the AHL. There's really 0 reason that Gaudreau should be in the AHL next year on the Ducks, he should be played and have a rating that's accurate to his play this season.

[Knut]

The other league I am in has a 2 year Rerate cycle (60-40) and it works quite well. It would devalue vets quicker though I like it and am on board.

Maybe we need a thread of proposed changes so we can see what is going to pass.

[JiriHrdina]

Just to clarify, the commissioners will take these suggestions and decide what changes we will make. We will continue to get input - but that is where the decision is going to be made.

[Knut]

^ that's understandable. Was thinking more to keep everything in one spot.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Yeah, we've gone off in about 12 different directions.


Perhaps it would be a better idea to focus on one issue at a time and focus on a smaller number of suggested changes.

To be honest, what is the real issue because as far as I'm concerned you can't make a great GM not be a great Gm... changing rules wont change anything. These teams are stacked becayse they worked hard at it. Regardless of any rule change other then a tax... they will contunie to out work everyone else and reap the rewards of they

There's no rule that is going to make them worse and a less committed GM better

Sorry that is the real issue

My team sucks because I suck as a GM and make more decisions that step my team back then forward,n

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

To be honest, what is the real issue because as far as I'm concerned you can't make a great GM not be a great Gm... changing rules wont change anything. These teams are stacked becayse they worked hard at it. Regardless of any rule change other then a tax... they will contunie to out work everyone else and reap the rewards of they

There's no rule that is going to make them worse and a less committed GM better

Sorry that is the real issue

My team sucks because I suck as a GM and make more decisions that step my team back then forward,n

I was with ya until your last line...your team sucks because you havent found chemistry over the course of a season. You have actually built a pretty solid team with some very valuable assets.

I bolded the part I completely agree with.

[Knut]

Just for Comparison's sake. This is the one I just finished up for the NHLSL. The league is 4 seasons in. You can see a similar trend without the group up near the top being clear of other teams. Maybe that would happen with time regardless.

We have 2 year ELC's on all picks.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

To be honest, what is the real issue because as far as I'm concerned you can't make a great GM not be a great Gm... changing rules wont change anything. These teams are stacked becayse they worked hard at it. Regardless of any rule change other then a tax... they will contunie to out work everyone else and reap the rewards of they

There's no rule that is going to make them worse and a less committed GM better

Sorry that is the real issue

My team sucks because I suck as a GM and make more decisions that step my team back then forward,n

I agree with this completely.

^ I can't believe what happened to the Blues in that league. They had an excellent GM to start with and a lot of assets at one point.

[MJK]

All you guys tainting our beautiful CPHL with talk of this other farce leage should be fired.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with this completely.

^ I can't believe what happened to the Blues in that league. They had an excellent GM to start with and a lot of assets at one point.

Could not disagree more with you.

[Hanna Sniper]

One last thing I would like to make a comment on

I don't have a great history of drafting well, but I enjoy it. I pretty much draft 5-7 players a year and pretty much scattered throughout the draft.

As Grant could be a witness, I sit through the draft from beginning to end every season for the last ten or so years... when I no longer have picks, I've watched Grant shave the draft down from 4 hour to just over 2. And every year I see 12-15 guys there for the 1st round and loose about 5 every round it seems till same 4 guys for the 5t round

Every year just before the draft life interrupts a couple GM and they can no longer meet the draft and the same couple teams take all their picks pretty much for free. Get whatever you can rather then nothing. The same 4 GM are running a few other team drafts as well. Its crazy the work they do

Is it really hard to believe that the prospects are piled all in one corner of the league..

I understand not making the draft, then eat you picks then selling them off. Can't be upset that they used our picks and now have propsects

[Knut]

^ Just know every year i am unlikely to make the draft now. In both of my leagues it falls on the weekend of my oldest kids birthday.

This year if i accumulate picks I will try and provide a list.

I do think it is a good idea to a supplemental draft on the remaining undrafted players. That would give another avenue for low asset teams to add a few without really impacting the upper asset teams.

[Hanna Sniper]

No question birthday's a 100% more important, like i said life has a way of getting in the way. It's not as much about the lack of participation but the throw of picks to these guys

Look, I'm 100% in favour of what they are doing and wish them all the success to continue. BUT when they pick 30 picks and can only protect 15, don't go throwing next years picks at them because they need to get down to 15, let them cut 15 from the roster and sign the other 15. This goes back to not giving teams outs to get out of the trouble the creat.

Lowering the number of draft picks from 5 to 4 sounds great if Grant thinks the draft is too long to run and whats to make it easier inputting the new names. but cutting the draft back from 5 to 4 because the other GM's don't have the will power to not dump those picks to them every year and are doing a great job farming those picks.. i don't agree with

Anything changes we make I'm on board for and encourage, if we can help starving franchise flourish then great but make sure that is what we are trying to accomplish and the problem we are tying to solve