GM Rant

[looooob]

Originally Posted by flambers

The other item to consider is do the OV's matter at all...... . Some of the internet site have people that claim OV's are missleading and do very little.

Its the individual attributes that really count....

No idea if this theory is true or not....

good point, I'm just using OV as shorthand for player rankings, I agree looking at players strictly by OV is dangerous (spoken as a GM of a 10th place team

[Prototype]

It's funny, cause I was heading into the deadline not expecting to make many moves. I think it was the blog I was writing that got me more into the deadline, and thus made more trades.

I'm happy with the deals I made, for the most part, and I look forward to the next chance I have to Blog. I'd even welcome some inside info from the other GMs to how their talks are going. Get a little more Bob Macenzie up in there.

[nyrcrisfer]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I do think there are some other factors though that limit movement, including
- ratings are clumped. Teams didn't have a need for Jan Hrdina (for instance) because pretty much everyone has guys like that on their fourth line already

Yep, even the bad teams aren't lining up to trade for 70-73OV veterans. Those guys are dime a dozen and sometimes the only thing that can give them value is a cheap contract.

But what can you do about ratings? They're already spread out a good amount I think. In order to be an effective player in the sim you need to be at least 70OV. If a guy plays in the NHL than I think he should be rated at least 68-70OV. Maybe it's possible to increase the top players? But doing that might make them less likely to be traded and cause fewer trades.

Also those who mentioned GM longevity have a good point. There are a ton of very good GM's in this league and a ton that have been around for more than a season. Most of us have a "plan" and stick to it. Although it can hurt trading a bit overall it's a good thing.

[Prototype]

Are we really talking about stimulating more trades at the deadline? Are we so down on the last day of the trade season that we need to change things to get more trades made?

Seriously, it's being made to sound like the league is about to crumble. I'm fine with what happened yesterday. I'm pretty sure I talked to each and every GM, except maybe 2 or 3, about who was available, and who they were interested in.

Ask the updaters if yesterday was a slow day, I'm sure they'd think so.

Is the system perfect? No... but is it broken... no. If you want more activity, be more active. If you said no to three or more offers yesterday, then you know why there wasn't many trades yesterday. We're shrude, and we want the best deal for the team we've invested time into. We're no longer thinking 1 year down the road, we're all thinking long term now.

This isn't a Yahoo pool...

I don't think we should be downing on the league because there wasn't any blockbusters yesterday... we all followed Sutters lead, if we couldn't get it early, we weren't getting anything...

Can someone help me off my soapbox?

[Knut]

I dont even really look at OV anymore... I look at the other ratings and trying to see how the peices fit together. Try to get PA and SC guys... and try to get Dmen that have good PC and PA as well as DF.

To me the ratings need to be looked at as well.... also some of the rediculous contracts.

The hardest part about dealing this year was to work with the contracts. There are so many rediculous contracts out there. Amonte is a perfect example... if he were a two million dollar a year player instead of a 7.33 million a year player i think he would have a lot of suitors.

Problem is that once a player has been given a large contract, it is of not much incentive for an agent to go for anything lower. I wonder if having a set range of contract values based on age and ratings would help things. For instance have a max salary for a 35 yr old on the downside of his career... so eventhough Amonte makes 7.33 million now, his next contract hte max he can make is 4. Takes some of the fun out of negotiations, but it would make players more affordable and to me would stimulate trading.

I have two players at 10 million.. Naslund and Chara, and i know that to move one of them i am going to have to a take a deal that is less than what he is worth in the offseason. Why would a team trade for a 80OV dman at 10million, when they can have two 78 guys at the same price??

[Sylvanfan]

At times I do wonder if your 10 million limit is too easy a number for GM's to throw at a player to keep him? In the NHL you can go 20% of your teams cap. If our maximum salary was 13 million would we all be lining up to throw 13 million at our top player to retain him? I think too often teams gave a less than deserving player top dollars because by doing it, it took the negotiating out of the process and made it easy.

I talk to a few GM's and often I hear well that salary is okay for my team because I need that player....but in the grand scheme of the league there are a lot of 71 type defenceman with 70 ratings for PA, PC, and DF so why did you need to pay that guy 3 milion when you could have found a similar guy for 850k? I think GM's need to think beyond their team at times and ask themselves does this player produce for what he's making in the grand scheme of the league?

I was guilty for acquiring an overpriced guy in Cajanek. 6 million for what amounts to average second line production, doesn't cut it. I should have the spot filled on my roster for 3 to 3.5 million. Same with Manny Legace at 8 million. Yes he's my starting goalie and it's hard to find a better starter for me if I'm moving out Legace to do it. He's a 78 goalie with decent ratings accross the board. But he's a definite step below the top guys, and the difference between a 78 and 81 goalie is huge. It's only 3 points, but for me to upgrade to that next level guy, it's very hard. As a result a guy like Legace rates in the 13-20 range for starting goalies and should have a mid range salary of about 4 million at the most. I also was guilty of some panic with Satan and over paid him to keep myself from losing him for nothing. 6.5 million should have been my limit on him....but I didn't want to put myself in a position to lose a guy that valuable for nothing over a million dollars. Going forward I'm gong to have to get tougher on this type of thing.

[notoepik]

On the OV-Hesla is correct. It is not really meaningful to go by OV, I use it to make an offer, or to shorten the description of the stellar player I am working to trade. But generally speaking, I never use it to decide if I want a player or not.

As I have suggested a couple of times, I personally would prefer the ratings come from an outside source. For the most part those guys that make up sets of ratings use formulas so they are fairly consistant. Sure you always find a player that has a whacked rating for one reason or another, but for the most part they are really pretty good.

[Antithesis]

I'm the exact opposite, Becky, I enjoy the fact that the ratings are created by a group from within our league. I have no issues with this aspect of our league because it's done by a committee rather than an individual, and, every roster package has its share of issues to deal with - at least if we create our own, we can work on those issues ourselves rather than hoping that someone else fixes them.

As for the activity in the league, I wonder if it's a matter of there not being enough of a reward or a risk to not being active. I admit I could certainly post more but I think as far as overall GM activity goes - trading, MSN time, posting, lines, I do pretty well. That being said, there are many, many GMs who never seem to be on MSN, never seem to make trades, and never seem to post. There are also GMs who have mutiple (3+) fines against them for roster issues ... I myself have one so this could be the pot calling the kettle black, but how does this happen?

The rules clearly state what is and is not acceptable in the league, and if I may be so bold, I don't see a lot of it being enforced, then again, a lot of it is probably none of my business whatsoever. I understand there's trepidation at removing GMs for things like what I've commented on, but, if this is done, other GMs certainly could look at the example and say, wow, I better shape up. Currently, it's possible that some GMs in the league look at the example of a GM not doing anything, or getting away with some other violation of the rules (which are very clear) and thinking to themselves, "If they can get away with it, so will I". If that doesn't work, perhaps there could be greater and more immediate reward for being active. To me, participating in the league and its goings-on is reward enough, but perhaps there could be something done in this area.

Hope I'm not out of line in what I have posted, but those are my observations on this issue.

[Noops]

Originally Posted by notoepik

On the OV-Hesla is correct. It is not really meaningful to go by OV, I use it to make an offer, or to shorten the description of the stellar player I am working to trade. But generally speaking, I never use it to decide if I want a player or not.

As I have suggested a couple of times, I personally would prefer the ratings come from an outside source. For the most part those guys that make up sets of ratings use formulas so they are fairly consistant. Sure you always find a player that has a whacked rating for one reason or another, but for the most part they are really pretty good.

I agree with Beck. Takes potential biases out of the rerate process, not say there are any. Also all people involved in the rerate process, do they have the same opinion on what a 76 SC is, what a 74 DF is, etc... Also why would you guys want to spend all that time rating players??? Must take hours on hours.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Noops

I agree with Beck. Takes potential biases out of the rerate process, not say there are any. Also all people involved in the rerate process, do they have the same opinion on what a 76 SC is, what a 74 DF is, etc... Also why would you guys want to spend all that time rating players??? Must take hours on hours.

The short answer - We're not happy with any ratings package I've seen out there.
Ratings are one of the most important parts of a sim league - frankly I don't want to trust it to some external factor.

I understand the need for objectivity. I guess you either trust us or you don't. That sounds pissy and I don't mean it to. But that's what it does come down to.

[MJK]

I like the fact that we use our own rating system. What about getting a committee of dedicated GM's together along with the commish's to do the ratings together in the off season?

Can this work?

[Flickered Flame]

Originally Posted by MJK

I like the fact that we use our own rating system. What about getting a committee of dedicated GM's together along with the commish's to do the ratings together in the off season?

Can this work?

Not a bad idea imo...if this is possible, I am willing to help out if needed.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by MJK

I like the fact that we use our own rating system. What about getting a committee of dedicated GM's together along with the commish's to do the ratings together in the off season?

Can this work?

Not really. We tried that on two different occasions before, and it didn't really work as there was a lot of inconsistancy even with multiple eyes looking at things.

Perhaps what needs to be determined before hand more than the ratings is the parameters by which they should operate....Things like what should a superstar be, what should a star be, what should a top 6 forward, top 4 defenceman be all the way down to Zach Stortini yo yo player. Than go though and determine where the players fit within those groups. Establish that stuff up front to work from...Than go through and look at individual player ratings.

But it's a lot of work...Trust me on that one. Analyzing 750 NHL guys and than another 700 AHL types....takes a long, long time.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Not really. We tried that on two different occasions before, and it didn't really work as there was a lot of inconsistancy even with multiple eyes looking at things.

Perhaps what needs to be determined before hand more than the ratings is the parameters by which they should operate....Things like what should a superstar be, what should a star be, what should a top 6 forward, top 4 defenceman be all the way down to Zach Stortini yo yo player. Than go though and determine where the players fit within those groups. Establish that stuff up front to work from...Than go through and look at individual player ratings.

But it's a lot of work...Trust me on that one. Analyzing 750 NHL guys and than another 700 AHL types....takes a long, long time.

Yeah, it will definitely be a ton of work... about 1000 players.

It could be done though, if a group of GMs is established, the guidelines are established, and then the players are split into smaller chunks.

Break the task down into smaller pieces and do it over say a year. 1000 players can be evaluated and re-rated if the group were to look at say 20 different players each week and come up with the new ratings.

Just throwin' out some ideas.

[notoepik]

You know, I am not saying the ratings we have are terrible. They are pretty darn good, except for the bunching thing. I was only suggesting something to make the task of unbunching easier, but if the packages out there don't meet the needs of the league, then it is a dead horse.

By the time you get your players done in a year Kev, it will be time to do them all over again, a never ending job.

[nyrcrisfer]

Originally Posted by MJK

I like the fact that we use our own rating system. What about getting a committee of dedicated GM's together along with the commish's to do the ratings together in the off season?

Can this work?

Honestly I think something like this could work, although some say it hasn't in the past. I don't have a problem with our current ratings, but if some GM's want them more accurate than a system like this could work.

I've been here for almost 2 years and I've always been one of the VERY few GM's from the eastern US. Most of our league is based in Canada, particularly NW Canada.

If I was given the opportunity to help out on rating players from my area I'm sure I could do as well or better than the current ratings or any 3rd party source.

Let's say the league rates all the players but if they aren't 100% sure on someone they confer with the GM from that players region... now that's a situation where the ratings would end up as accurate as they could possibly be.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by notoepik

You know, I am not saying the ratings we have are terrible. They are pretty darn good, except for the bunching thing. I was only suggesting something to make the task of unbunching easier, but if the packages out there don't meet the needs of the league, then it is a dead horse.

By the time you get your players done in a year Kev, it will be time to do them all over again, a never ending job.

Why not use a 3rd party rating system and then have teams go thru and see how is out of whack. I think GM's can ask to have player ratings looked at?

[JiriHrdina]

Honestly guys while I appreciate the offer the more people that are involved the more complex and the larger the job becomes.

Ratings are subject which means that no matter what we do, not everyone is going to be happy. But adding more people to the process isn't going to solve that - it will just make the job that much tougher.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Honestly guys while I appreciate the offer the more people that are involved the more complex and the larger the job becomes.

Ratings are subject which means that no matter what we do, not everyone is going to be happy. But adding more people to the process isn't going to solve that - it will just make the job that much tougher.

Yeah, the only thing worse than looking through 1200 players to rate is having to go through 5-6 peoples different ratings of them to make a final descision. In the end it makes for more work.

If anything the blue print for how to rate players maybe deserves GM input, after that gets determined than the actual ratings of the players should be left to one person. At least that's my opinion.