Suggestions to stimulate GM activity

[Sylvanfan]

Well a weak trade deadline....and consensus is what can we do to stimulate activity?

I suppose my number one suggestion is really up the ante for how much you get for winning a playoff round. Maybe if you get 2 million for every round won. Really make it worth your while to win a playoff round and give those teams an advantage going into the next season. If you go to the win the cup you have 8 million right there to keep your team together.

Maybe we need to start using agents only in the offseason or something. Ever since they came about I see less and less trading every year. Maybe it's the Cheese rule adjustments we've tried more than anything. In the old system we were basically forced to lose players, but the tradeoff was that we knew there would be free agents to in the summer to sign. Right now a lot of teams say no to pending UFA's because they fear they'll lose them for nothing. And in a lot of cases these guys get over paid badly in the last year of a contract for an extension. Technically 33% of all players 29 and over should be free agents every year. Knowing that you could only protect one, I think it made teams look to move more guys as opposed to resigning all of them and than keeping them type of thing. I know this would sort of punish GM's who are a bit schrewder with the agents as they tend to trade for a pending UFA, sign him and than deal him off. But I can't be convinced that after 3 full seasons of agents that it's helped create more trading. Not to mention agency turn over has been relatively high and I've found in the past that some agents seemed to be all over the place with things. But again, I don't know if it's a solution or not. Maybe have a full time agent to handle all season long guys who get added to the database, and than let that agent pick the top free agents for himself and bring in summer help for all other UFA's?

Other than that maybe another increase in the Cheese rule. It does appear some teams simply ran out of Cheese room to keep themselves from more deals, although no guarantee they wouldn't have done so if it was more.

Curious to hear the suggestions of others.

[HelloHockeyFans]

I liked Jiri's suggestion in the other thread about spreading out the ratings a bit more.

If we look at my team as an example.

Jaroslav Svoboda is a clown, and should not be 70 OV. Drop him off to like a 60-65 or something... but at the same time, perhaps a guy like Derek Roy should be just a bit higher than 72 OV.

Bump the big time players like Ryan Smyth and Jagr higher (yes, even higher than their 80 and 82 respectively).

Create a bigger gap between the superstars, good players, and the duds. Perhaps this could force GMs to more aggresively pursue "depth" guys (in the range of 70-75), if their current crop of Jaroslav Svobodas are sitting at 60-65OV instead of 70.

I dunno.

But like G UNIT said, fixing the ratings across the board for every player would be a HUGE task.

[JiriHrdina]

Hire dumber Gms.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Hire dumber Gms.

Or go with a Dr. Evil type trigger finger when it comes to GM removal.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Well a weak trade deadline....and consensus is what can we do to stimulate activity?

I suppose my number one suggestion is really up the ante for how much you get for winning a playoff round. Maybe if you get 2 million for every round won. Really make it worth your while to win a playoff round and give those teams an advantage going into the next season. If you go to the win the cup you have 8 million right there to keep your team together.

.

not sure about this...again in our conference the 8 playoff teams have been set for ages, and I don't think that's because the rest of us didn't want our teams to be playoff ready...now go into the next season you are going to load up half the teams with millions more than the other half

I know its easy for me to say this as a GM of a crappy team this year, but in the past the Sabres are usually playoff caliber...but I would say teams (I would hope no matter what their motiviation for playing this game) want to go far in the playoffs already...building in more financial incentive, may just really set back the few teams that are in shambles and unattractive to run as it is

[nyrcrisfer]

It's very tough to say what will or won't increase trading. Sometimes a lack of trading can just be a result of teams being happy with what they have and/or the bad teams not having any vets to sell.

I think one thing that can increase trading during the few days leading up to the deadline is to have the deadline earlier. This year the deadline came with teams having 3-5 games left in the season. Almost all of the playoff races were already decided. All the bubble teams were already knocked out and a lot of the best teams already had what they needed for the playoffs.

But that will only improve deadline day. As for the rest of the season I don't know. Is there really a lack of player movement anyway? I wonder if anyone has the time to assemble a list of all trades for each CPHL season. Has the amount of trades each season really decreased that much, or at all?

To me even if there is a small lack of trading it's because of the GM's we have and the fact most GM's always have an eye on next season. Maybe it's harder to make a trade because it's harder to win a trade than it was a few years ago. But is that really a bad thing?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by nyrcrisfer

But that will only improve deadline day. As for the rest of the season I don't know. Is there really a lack of player movement anyway? I wonder if anyone has the time to assemble a list of all trades for each CPHL season. Has the amount of trades each season really decreased that much, or at all?

The history tab might have some of the information, but from the league perspective. The trading was way down this year, I remember previous deadline days the league had to tell everyone to stop sending in deals as the deadline expired. I would have GMs asking for "5 more minutes".... this year it was quite slow...

Not saying thats a bad thing ....

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by nyrcrisfer

I think one thing that can increase trading during the few days leading up to the deadline is to have the deadline earlier. This year the deadline came with teams having 3-5 games left in the season. Almost all of the playoff races were already decided. All the bubble teams were already knocked out and a lot of the best teams already had what they needed for the playoffs.

I think that's a good idea. If the deadline were pushed back to a date when teams still had around 15 games to go, more teams would be in reach of a playoff spot and I think you're right, it would result in more deals as teams scramble to secure their spot or push for that last one.

[OILFAN #81]

I'd have to go with a look at the ratings. As Federline already mentioned, the ratings on most teams out there are too bunched together. Some guys who are 100 pt guys in the NHL are an 81, while other guys who put up 50 pts are between 78-80. As K-Wu mentioned, maybe spreading out the stars from the average players from the duds more will try and get GM's to seek out more depth by getting those average players and minimizing duds on their team.

Also, I like the idea of more of a playoff bonus for teams. Adding more money for winners in each round would give another incentive for GM's to go harder at the deadline.

Dropping the UFA age from 29 to 27 (or 8 years service) would also make more UFA's available and hence more trades.

Those are the ideas I can think of right now.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

I think that's a good idea. If the deadline were pushed back to a date when teams still had around 15 games to go, more teams would be in reach of a playoff spot and I think you're right, it would result in more deals as teams scramble to secure their spot or push for that last one.

The only thing is that you have a long portion of the season where GM's can become even more inactive than they already are. It might not hurt to move it back like say a week so that teams maybe have 7-10 games left after the deadline. But again after trading shuts down I do find that my fun factor goes into hibernation a bit.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The only thing is that you have a long portion of the season where GM's can become even more inactive than they already are. It might not hurt to move it back like say a week so that teams maybe have 7-10 games left after the deadline. But again after trading shuts down I do find that my fun factor goes into hibernation a bit.

Well make the playoffs then

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The only thing is that you have a long portion of the season where GM's can become even more inactive than they already are. It might not hurt to move it back like say a week so that teams maybe have 7-10 games left after the deadline. But again after trading shuts down I do find that my fun factor goes into hibernation a bit.

That's a good point, but if moving the deadline far enough back such that you have 13 of the 16 teams from each conference still close enough to that 8th spot, generates more activity and perhaps more competition with 15 games left in the season after the deals, the league might actually be more exciting leading up to the last day.

The inactivity you speak of (which I actually don't really see in this league) might be the result of the 16 non-playoff teams being determined too early in the season.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Well make the playoffs then

Ouch!

I do agree that the deadline should be moved up earlier so team who are still in the thick of things would be more apt to make deals. The insane contracts do have a factor in some of the inactivity but increasing some of the Cheese might help with that. I think the rating system is fine as it is, major changes here or there doesn't seem right and would probably be too time consuming.

[OILFAN #81]

Just wanted to add, where the heck were some of the gm's yesterday? I'd say out of the 32 gm's on deadline day, about 27 or 28 made themselves available, but 4 or 5 were nowhere to be found at all(1 or 2 didn't even respond to offers proposed).

[Prototype]

I love that there's 2 threads about the same issue...

I think the cap is too high, and the ability to trade cap should be removed.

Is it wrong that we have teams that have 3-4 or more 'superstar' players on their teams? No... they're doing their job. But if you want to incourage trade, you have to make it more difficult to create those teams. Anyone remember the lockout?

And cap isn't traded anymore in the NHL. You have a max, and a minimum. Teams that win make money, and teams that lose have to trim payroll. It's the nature of the beast.

With a more strict cap than the cheese rule, and the removal of trading of cap, I think that there'll be more parity, and could increase trading to stay under cap, and open up room for UFA.

Just a thought.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Prottotype

I think the cap is too high, and the ability to trade cap should be removed.

Is it wrong that we have teams that have 3-4 or more 'superstar' players on their teams? No... they're doing their job. But if you want to incourage trade, you have to make it more difficult to create those teams. Anyone remember the lockout?

And cap isn't traded anymore in the NHL. You have a max, and a minimum. Teams that win make money, and teams that lose have to trim payroll. It's the nature of the beast.

With a more strict cap than the cheese rule, and the removal of trading of cap, I think that there'll be more parity, and could increase trading to stay under cap, and open up room for UFA.

Just a thought.

Thats always a tough one to digest. No doubt the ability to move cap does allow some CPHL teams to really load up. But the balance should be that most of those teams should be forced into sell mode in the offseason to get back in line. Any team should be wary of trading cap for a future season. Two years ago the Cheese rule was 12 million fixed dollars up or down, and a lot of trading halted because most teams hit that number by January. The next year it was a net and teams lasted most of the year. This year again it was bumped up and for the most part did allow a few more deals to happen.

But I can see the counter arguement that contenders were able to really stack their teams and run away from the rest, and how if the ability to move cap wasn't an option it might make for better races. But I think it would also put a damper on trading. Although maybe it's not the number of trades, so much as the the amount of trade talks thats a bit lacking.

[JiriHrdina]

I have to say I'm really not in favor of moving the trade deadline up. Frankly the playoffs are dull because you can't deal. The game becomes one of just setting lines and watching the sim spit out its drunken results.

[Prototype]

In defense to my idea Syl...

It's too easy to build a team like Daves... no knock on Dave... but there's a great reason why he's at the top of the league, and a good chance he's gonna go far in the playoffs.

I'd rather see more pairity, mroe of a challange to have a better roster than the other guy, whom on paper may have a very similar roster.

I just find it interesting that the CPHL east looked like the NHL west. You pretty much knew who was making the playoffs a month ago... it's all about positioning now.

But I think making it harder to build a super team would make GMs try different players to find chemistry.

[Knut]

To me Proto... some GM's have different ideas about what is fun to them... To Dave it is about saying he is the best, then trying to prove it. To me it is to build a winning team, have a successful rebuild in the offseason and do it all over again. Others have more fun slowly building a contender through Drafting and sucessfully getting young guys that do well in the NHL and rerate well. Diversity is what leads to more deals i think.

To be fair... by eliminating the cheese rule you would effectively have all the teams pressed right up to the max with no room for movement. Therefore, leading to less trading. At least until some of the rediculous contracts are eliminated.

I wonder if maybe there is a league review of contracts signed in the offseason and adjustments/penalties based on signing poor contracts.

To me this season i found that i couldnt make a good deal unless i was taking on extra payroll or giving up a lot of young assets.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Prottotype

In defense to my idea Syl...

It's too easy to build a team like Daves... no knock on Dave... but there's a great reason why he's at the top of the league, and a good chance he's gonna go far in the playoffs.

I'd rather see more pairity, mroe of a challange to have a better roster than the other guy, whom on paper may have a very similar roster.

I just find it interesting that the CPHL east looked like the NHL west. You pretty much knew who was making the playoffs a month ago... it's all about positioning now.

But I think making it harder to build a super team would make GMs try different players to find chemistry.

I disagree.

This is going to sound blunter than I mean it to - but its way easier to rebuild and not deal with the pressure of having the expectations of winning.

I had GMs offering to take over the Sharks this season, because they "needed more of a challenge", even though there teams have not won anything. To be honest, this is not something I understand. I'm not slamming those GMs that made these offers, as I think they were doing so to help the league, but the rationale puzzled me somewhat.

In 3 of the 4 years that the CPHL has been in existance, one man has one the entire thing - Cheese. So clearly the rest of us haven't figured out what it takes to win the big prize yet.

I guess my simple point is - if its so easy to build a superior team - why aren't more teams doing it?