Discussion on improving the league.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Finally caught up on all the posts in the thread.

I think expansion would be fun for the short term but as mentioned above I think it will actually worsen the parity in the league. For that reason I would be against it. While activity would be boosted in the short term, a few months later we likely have 2 additional teams, a wider asset gap and then have a hard time replacing those GMs.

I would be ok with relocating 2 existing teams to Boston and whichever other franchise GMs wanted. I think that should be the main focus at the present time as well as getting the league to have the website developed to allow lines to be submitted via our phones or Macbooks. Once we sort out those 2 options I would then look at expansion.

I do think we should allow experienced GMs to switch to a vacant team of their choice if it is a low asset organization. I think the big question should be, can they be allowed to take a few assets with them to the new organization.

[CMPunk]

As a former GM and a guy with no real vested interest in the league, I have a few suggestions to possibly balance things out.

1) I like the suggestion of changing up the RFA/UFA grid. Maybe make them age based as well as increasing the max salary to say $12 million.

2) Limit the special conditions on trading draft picks. No only does it get confusing figuring them out, it also feels like your getting super nit picky on some of the stats. I'd limit it to a max of top ten protected for the next season.

3) I suggested this one in the past, but I'd limit the amount of cheese you can trade. I'd either reduce the total amount from $18 million to say $10 million, or limit it to just sending it for the current season. You really shouldn't have a $30 million dollar cap disparity in the league. Maybe change it to a max cap of $90 and a minimum of $70

4) this one might be tough, but I'd change it so that if a draft pick is playing in the NHL, you have to sign him off your ECHL team by the end of the season. Too many good players being hidden down there for two to three years. If they are in the NHL, then they should definitely get a playable base rating, nothing fancy, but worth it to at least dress.

5) if a team wants to relocate to an existing NHL city, then why not? It's only graphics that need to be changed I imagine. Heck if a team wanted to relocate to Halifax, let them, I can't see it as being a big deal, as long as the divisions balance

Anyways, just a view from the outside.

[Jiri Hrdina]

^Excellent suggestions.

[Macho0978]

I like the ECHL suggestion. Once they play or lose their rookie status they must be signed.

I also like grids based on age. Another suggestion (what I thought it meant when I started) is RFA1 equals first contract after ELC. RFA2 equals contract 2 after ELC and so on. Each scenario escalates in value? Might be hard to track but another angle on players contract values as they age.

I still think we should have separate grids for 35+ too.

It might also be a good idea to implement these changes and see the impact and if changes go well decide on expansion the following year? It seems to be a split amongst people who have responded if we should or should not?

[Jiri Hrdina]

On the ECHL side we did reduce the contracts from 3 to 2 years for all players drafted in the first round of the CPHL. That solved some of the hoarding element but not all of it. A further tweak there might be helpful.
Something as simple as if a player has a OVR of X or above they must be signed from the ECHL.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

On the ECHL side we did reduce the contracts from 3 to 2 years for all players drafted in the first round of the CPHL. That solved some of the hoarding element but not all of it. A further tweak there might be helpful.
Something as simple as if a player has a OVR of X or above they must be signed from the ECHL.

I like that idea as well. Good enough to be on your roster type OV you should sign them. What that OV is I guess is the question? 70 OV?

[devo22]

love the input. Just my opinion, I don't like 2) and 3) purely because I think those could lead to fewer trades. We've already restricted trading conditional picks anyway and I think that works, but I don't think putting further restrictions in would have a positive effect in any way. I also like the cheese margins as they are, but I understand the argument for closing the gap a bit.

as for ECHLers having to be signed if they hit a certain rating, I'm not sure it'd have that much of an impact. A 1st rounder is on a 2 year ECHL deal anyway, so for him to have a playable rating as an ECHLer, he has to make the NHL as an 18 year old. How many of those are there every year? We're probably talking about a handful of players every year. I don't have a problem to force them to be signed after that one year, but I don't think it'll change a lot in the grand scheme of things.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by devo22

love the input. Just my opinion, I don't like 2) and 3) purely because I think those could lead to fewer trades. We've already restricted trading conditional picks anyway and I think that works, but I don't think putting further restrictions in would have a positive effect in any way. I also like the cheese margins as they are, but I understand the argument for closing the gap a bit.

as for ECHLers having to be signed if they hit a certain rating, I'm not sure it'd have that much of an impact. A 1st rounder is on a 2 year ECHL deal anyway, so for him to have a playable rating as an ECHLer, he has to make the NHL as an 18 year old. How many of those are there every year? We're probably talking about a handful of players every year. I don't have a problem to force them to be signed after that one year, but I don't think it'll change a lot in the grand scheme of things.

I think it has a huge impact. Why? The ones that do play are the ones that most GM's care about. The guys who play at 18 typically are the top picks from their draft.

In a lot of cases these guys are going to be high paid players once their ELC contracts expire.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I think it has a huge impact. Why? The ones that do play are the ones that most GM's care about. The guys who play at 18 typically are the top picks from their draft.

In a lot of cases these guys are going to be high paid players once their ELC contracts expire.

but the Makar example just drives home the point I'm making. He played 2 seasons of college hockey after being drafted, so once he made the NHL, his ECHL contract was over anyway. The proposed rule change would have made no difference whatsoever.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by devo22

but the Makar example just drives home the point I'm making. He played 2 seasons of college hockey after being drafted, so once he made the NHL, his ECHL contract was over anyway. The proposed rule change would have made no difference whatsoever.

I removed the Makar scenario as it would have no impact but why does that matter. The Avs drafted him and he didn't make an impact for their team for 2 years anyways.

But if I draft McDavid or Matthews? They would have been highly rated after their rookie years but as a GM I could sit them an extra year in the ECHL even though they would easily make my roster. No NHL team would send McDavid to the minors for an extra year so they can manipulate their cap.

l like the idea because of the few scenarios where a player is clearly good enough for your team, they should have to be signed and play.

[devo22]

hey, I agree. I'm not against the idea whatsoever, I'm just pointing out that it will affect very few players so the impact might not as big as some might think.

[Knut]

1) Players rated above a certain threshold have to be signed out of the ECHL (68 ? )

2) 2 year ELC's for ALL ECHL players. It will help with more available late round picks in the league available. More free agents = Higher chance to be good. Tougher decisions in the AHL will potentially lead to more available tier 2 prospects on the market.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by devo22

hey, I agree. I'm not against the idea whatsoever, I'm just pointing out that it will affect very few players so the impact might not as big as some might think.

I guess that is where we disagree. It's a quality over quantity scenario.

If you compiled a list of players over the last 2 decades who played when they were 18 and were impact players when they were 18, you would be looking at a list of future hall of famers.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Knut

1) Players rated above a certain threshold have to be signed out of the ECHL (68 ? )

2) 2 year ELC's for ALL ECHL players. It will help with more available late round picks in the league available. More free agents = Higher chance to be good. Tougher decisions in the AHL will potentially lead to more available tier 2 prospects on the market.

68 might be a bit low for me? 68 is a player than may be sent to the AHL by their NHL club.

I'm thinking 70 plus, basically the players that it makes no sense they aren't on your team, and you are only choosing to leave them there just to manipulate your cap.

[Harry Lime]

Last year, I traded some good prospects and all of my high draft picks, to take a run. I had to trade them, because I had nothing else of value due to UFAs being undervalued.

With no big draft picks in the system, I know the hammer is coming down in terms of team value in a season or two, so I loaded up again this year on vets.

I came in 4th last year, and hopefully go deep again this year. I think that a reward for success in the playoffs should be a no Brainerd.

Aside from the ideas to balance team value, I think some of that could be solved by increasing the value of vets somehow, or decreasing value of prospects.

Zibinejad was just traded for two prospects, and under the structure of the league, the value was decent. It probably should require more capital to get a top 5 center, somehow.

[agulati]

We should prioritize finding a way to get web based line submitting though before these other items. I genuinely think that will make the whole experience much better/easier for new or even seasoned GMs

[Harry Lime]

How about a discount on a teams existing UFAs going into the next season? 2M for conference final, 3M for finals and 4M for the cup. Can be used on one player.

Example, if McDavid is a 9M UFA, the cup winning team can sign him for 5M. That raises his trade value as an older player and is quite a good prize for winning.

It also means that the value of an expiring contract player will go up in trade.

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

5) if a team wants to relocate to an existing NHL city, then why not? It's only graphics that need to be changed I imagine. Heck if a team wanted to relocate to Halifax, let them, I can't see it as being a big deal, as long as the divisions balance

I like this idea! If we aren't going to worry about having the same teams as the NHL why not just ditch NHL teams if the GM wants to. We could have some teams from all over the world if their GMs wanted to change the location. Like CMPunk said I don't know how hard it is to just change the name of the team and their logo? But I'd be down for that.

[MJK]

Well this got off topic fast. Break this thread from the expansion one?

[MJK]

New thread starting at post #182 if possible.