Discussion on improving the league.

[Abstract]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Expansion is unlikely to solve for that because expansion rules would probably allow Goffie to protect all those guys.
You aren't going to see movement of the most valuable assets, though by a natural result, the teams with a deeper pool of assets will lose something more valuable.

Appreciate the reasoned discussion, thanks for taking the time to give such detailed responses and I value your past experience.

Respectfully though, doesn't the above slightly negate the concern about free agents on your previous post? If MTL keep all these guys in an expansion draft they won't be able to offer contracts to the prized free agents. Granted, they likely couldn't in a 28 team league either with that roster but I don't see how that would be a negative towards expansion.

And apologies to Goiffe for using Montreal as an example in all this.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Abstract

Appreciate the reasoned discussion, thanks for taking the time to give such detailed responses and I value your past experience.

Respectfully though, doesn't the above slightly negate the concern about free agents on your previous post? If MTL keep all these guys in an expansion draft they won't be able to offer contracts to the prized free agents. Granted, they likely couldn't in a 28 team league either with that roster but I don't see how that would be a negative towards expansion.

And apologies to Goiffe for using Montreal as an example in all this.

Generally it's not the asset rich teams that are competing for most free agents.
The free agents are competed for by the rest of the league, and you'd be injecting 2-4 teams into that competitive pool.

Short-term expansion will have the most impact on the "haves" as they will lose the best assets, but they can afford to do so
Long-term my assertion is that it will have the most negative impact on the collective "have nots" in the league.

[Blaster86]

If you want to expand, you almost have to put everything into a blender and start again. Jiri pointed it out, asset rich teams won't even notice. Asset poor teams are ####ed. Only way to make that fair is blow it all up.

While real life isn't fair, this is a game. A game that's too uneven and only punishing certain people leads to those certain people not playing and then because those teams are so asset poor and stuck in that position you're not going to find new people to play them which is why we don't have a Jets and Bruins to begin with.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Expansion is unlikely to solve for that because expansion rules would probably allow Goffie to protect all those guys.
You aren't going to see movement of the most valuable assets, though by a natural result, the teams with a deeper pool of assets will lose something more valuable.

100% disagree if we do it right. We could see some big name players move around.

Grant I think you are taking a very narrow view of this and not thinking creatively. Use your third eye! Expansion could be very creative and a ton of fun if planned out properly.

Could we see McDavid leave Montreal? It’s entirely possible if this thing is planned correctly and he will survive without him.

All of your arguments so far is ‘it didn’t work before’ and you are using that as a foundation of why it’s not good now. We can do it very creatively, big names move around and help level out the assets in the league.

[MJK]

Asset rich teams will notice if done right and we can get creative to do that. Really, this stuff isn’t that hard and we have already learned many lessons from the past.

[savardandjokinen]

I think expansion would be good for the league trade activity too which lacks at times

[Macho0978]

With max 3-year contracts and a salary cap, a good GM should be able to pull themselves out of any situation in a year or 2. If building for a year or 2 is reason for some to quit, then do we really want them in the league?

If Goffie is stacked because he's a good GM, why are we penalizing him for being good at the game?

The only concern is, if new people come in, make bad trades, stack some GM's and quit that hurts the league. But the league monitors new GM's trades and as long as new GM's aren't trading with 1 GM and only 1 GM I don't see this being a huge issue.

Also, are there any stats on who is winning this league? Is the "Past Champs" page on the website accurate? It feels like a lot of emphasis is put on who has the best-looking young assets and not on who is actually winning? Has someone won it all 2-4 years in a row?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

With max 3-year contracts and a salary cap, a good GM should be able to pull themselves out of any situation in a year or 2. If building for a year or 2 is reason for some to quit, then do we really want them in the league?

If Goffie is stacked because he's a good GM, why are we penalizing him for being good at the game?

The only concern is, if new people come in, make bad trades, stack some GM's and quit that hurts the league. But the league monitors new GM's trades and as long as new GM's aren't trading with 1 GM and only 1 GM I don't see this being a huge issue.

Also, are there any stats on who is winning this league? Is the "Past Champs" page on the website accurate? It feels like a lot of emphasis is put on who has the best-looking young assets and not on who is actually winning? Has someone won it all 2-4 years in a row?

The asset rich teams often have younger cores and those don't win a lot. I've won twice in my history and once in the last decade. Goffie has one cup victory (or two?). Cheese has like 13 or something like that.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Also I can't remember who the hell won it last year.

[Cambam8]

Lots of people online....nice to see

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

With max 3-year contracts and a salary cap, a good GM should be able to pull themselves out of any situation in a year or 2.

I think there are a couple of examples of teams who have executed with a bit more of a longer-view and are transitioning from "have nots" to "haves".
Carolina has been doing this and now has a really good pipeline.
Vancouver is another.

Just takes a bit of patience.
The worse thing that GMs do is deficit spending: trading future picks, caps and all their prospects.

If you are playing the game to build assets, it's a stock market game. Buy low, sell high, try to predict which assets will rise/fall.

If you are trying to play to win the sim, it's a different thing.

But I agree teams shouldn't be punished for being good at the game.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If someone can volunteer to take point on that I'm 100% on board.
I don't know how to do it myself.

In sure Cam can help on this.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Any committee needs to have a balance of people who are both advocates for expansion and those that have hesitancy for valid reasons.
Because those advocating aggressively for expansion are not sufficiently, to this point, and in my view, acknowledging the concerns let alone providing answers on how they can be addressed.

Meaning in my view the committee should be not led by someone who is strongly opposed (e.g. me) or someone who is strongly for (e.g. Dave/Cheese) but rather someone who has a more balanced view of things considering pros and cons.

The question the committee should first begin with is IF we should expand and more fully explore the pros/cons, including short-term and long-term ramifications (my view is that it would be fun short-term and damaging long-term)
And then if the answer to that question is yes, then figure out what that might look like.

You don't have a ton of statistics sitting on a server to make long term or short term predictions.

[TurdFerguson]

I'm all for a bit of an asset re-distribution, whether that includes the addition of new teams or not. For as long as I've been in this league the #1 challenge we have had (from my perspective) is GM retention on the bottom 1/3 of the teams. It is a revolving door, and it only makes the asset distribution problem worse. The story usually goes like this:

- GM comes into the bad team, isn't prepared for the 2-3 season turn around and tries to turn the ship around by selling the most valued assets (futures) for sim assets (wins)
- the strategy doesn't work because they don't have enough future assets to get competitive and the sim is the sim.
- GM gets bored of losing, has minimal future capital, and has exhausted the strategy.
- GM leaves mid-way through the season.
- New GM comes into a worse off team...and tries the same thing
- rinse and repeat.

Meanwhile...who reaps the fruit of the failed season? The asset rich teams who could afford to lose some ratings for futures. Suprise, another top 5 pick!

Personal attachment to players aside, I don’t see how a redistribution could be anything but good for the long-term game unless some of the core GMs just quit because they feel punished for their commitment to building what they have. That is where the conversations died last time this subject came up 4ish years ago.

I think the overall health of the league is better with more asset parity. I also recognize that the "rich" teams are generally the ones with long-standing GMs - not a coincidence. Giving away assets feels like punishment for a job well done but it might also get some teams out of the auto-pilot mode on roster construction, which could be a fun challenge (I've noticed myself falling into this mindset).

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Also I can't remember who the hell won it last year.

It's easy to forget traumatic experiences, it is nature's way of ensuring you can keep moving.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Cheese

You don't have a ton of statistics sitting on a server to make long term or short term predictions.

Sorry I don't understand this point.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

It's easy to forget traumatic experiences, it is nature's way of ensuring you can keep moving.

Wait was it you?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Part of this comes down to do we want to solve the asset disparity issue or expand? My view is expansion does nothing to solve the former, and only makes it worse.

If we want to solve the broader asset issue, there are a bunch of ways to come at that. Conceptually I think any redistribution needs to be paired with other changes that prevent GMs from widdling their asset base to nothing. Otherwise you will end up in the same spot some time in the future.

I think some of the changes we made in the last 4 years helped but not enough.

There's a myriad of options:
- When a GM of an asset weak team leaves, that team is offered to veteran GMs who can takeover that team and move X assets from their current club.
- New GMs of asset weak teams are given a compensatory pick at the end of each CPHL draft round. Those picks cannot be traded, they must draft a player (note that we have 28 picks in our draft per round, lower than the NHL draft, so these "slots" could be used to help weaker clubs)
- Teams may only trade 1st round picks from the current year. 1st round picks from future years may not be traded
- Teams may only trade half the cheese for the following year. E.g. you can trade up to 18M now, but we could change it so you only can trade $9M for the next season going forward.

Just spit balling. But you need to somehow prevent the deficit spending that teams choose to make. Asset weak teams get their because of decisions they make. What sucks is when a new GM has to take those teams over because they inherit a mess they didn't create.

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Wait was it you?

maybe it was all just a dream.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think there are a couple of examples of teams who have executed with a bit more of a longer-view and are transitioning from "have nots" to "haves".
Carolina has been doing this and now has a really good pipeline.
Vancouver is another.

Just takes a bit of patience.
The worse thing that GMs do is deficit spending: trading future picks, caps and all their prospects.

If you are playing the game to build assets, it's a stock market game. Buy low, sell high, try to predict which assets will rise/fall.

If you are trying to play to win the sim, it's a different thing.

But I agree teams shouldn't be punished for being good at the game.

Another good rule to protect GM's is you can't trade picks more than 2 years out. Once again, this really helps any GM pull themselves out of a bad situation with patience.

With that being said, I do believe there is a place in this league for GM's to expose the league by winning with highly rated vets. The league on average has a lot of GM's that focus on hoarding 1st round picks, top prospects, young star RFA's and are always focused on building of their assets.

I bet there are a few GM's who managing their teams by using the top picks and prospects to add highly rated vets and cheese yearly and win at the game with lessor teams on paper. I have never been in a sim league but in many keeper drafts where some GM's win by picking up the 30-35 year olds that are scoring just as much as the 20-25 year olds.