Update re. GM recruitment

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Right, which is why everyone should fall under the same rules in the dispersal draft. Protect X fowards, X d-men, X goalies, X prospects and the dispersal draft starts. It is the most fair to everyone.

Again, the issue here is the rich teams need to be on board. 90% of the rest of the league are on board for this I imagine because they improve their team significantly.

Despite having mostly meh prospects and being able to keep all my good young talent, I would probably be out if this happened. Even though I'd actually likely gain from where I am now which is a bit shocking actually.

It doesn't solve the underlying issues.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

It's amazing at how similar this is to political arguments.

I'm just waiting on the libertarian GM type to come in and say "I should be free to play by my own rules"

I think the league should dole out the players to create thirty equal teams. Then the head office resigns and we live in an equal utopia.

Originally Posted by devo22

Only on my phone right now and hammered already, so it's better if I post my thoughts tomorrow.

No, if you're drunk, nows the time!

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Despite having mostly meh prospects and being able to keep all my good young talent, I would probably be out if this happened. Even though I'd actually likely gain from where I am now which is a bit shocking actually.

It doesn't solve the underlying issues.

I see your point.



The teams on the left would go down fairly significantly but still remain there, the teams in the middle would stay in the middle and the teams on the right would still be there, but closer to the teams in the middle.

You are against a dispersal draft but would benefit from it. Your core would stay and your best prospects would stay - so what are you seeing as the problem with this approach?

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

He said in his above post he is open to a dispersal draft... I assume you meant you are not on board with a re-draft, right?

Oh did he? Must have missed that, reading on my phone. No, I wouldn't participate in any dispersal of talent, I'd choose to resign.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think the league should dole out the players to create thirty equal teams. Then the head office resigns and we live in an equal utopia.

We all finish the season .500 too.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, if you're drunk, nows the time!

Haha, no. But I will say this, I really enjoy this league and I'llstay on board in either case.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Oh did he? Must have missed that, reading on my phone. No, I wouldn't participate in any dispersal of talent, I'd choose to resign.

I'm open to the concept, but not as Pat has described it here. If I'm forced to lose a truly valuable asset then what is the point in playing the game or working hard to improve my organization.

For me that's the problem. If this punishes teams for doing well the entire motivation and reason for playing the game falls apart.

I actually think a better idea was proposed - which is only allow weaker teams (how we define that remains TBD) to participate in free agency.

Teams shouldn't have to give up a the most valuable assets in whatever we do here - it should be about dispersing assets of medium value, that teams use as a primer to improve their overall organization.

But folks this is the issue. We have long-term GMs saying if we do something extreme they will resign.

That solves nothing given how hard it is to find quality GMs.

[Swayze11]

I am trying to understand why Florida and Boston are opposed to a dispersal draft when they would both significantly benefit from it.

Maybe they don't feel they need help? Maybe they view it from the rich teams perspective? I am struggling here.

Allowing weaker teams to participate in free agency is such a cop out IMO. Great, they get aging vets but the problem is still there. A dispersal draft would be a change, where this suggestion of only allowing weaker teams to be allowed to participate in UFA is a band-aid.

[Swayze11]

We are also getting away from the main point. People don't want to be a GM of these teams available because they don't want to put in the significant work to improve those teams over a long period of time. Is allowing those teams to POSSIBLY get a few aging vets really an attractive piece?

They still would likely strike out with 80% of their bids.

[Da_Chief]

Why don't we create a poll and see where we all stand?

Allowing just certain teams to participate in UFA wouldn't do anything imo. Example my team, i have no UFAs next off-season. The pool won't be deep enough. If you do want do this then here is another idea. Lower UFA age to 24-25. Change the grid and flood the market with uber talent.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I am trying to understand why Florida and Boston are opposed to a dispersal draft when they would both significantly benefit from it.

Because they are looking at it more broadly then just wheather or not they benefit from it. It comes down to why and how you play the game.

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Allowing weaker teams to participate in free agency is such a cop out IMO. Great, they get aging vets but the problem is still there. A dispersal draft would be a change, where this suggestion of only allowing weaker teams to be allowed to participate in UFA is a band-aid.

I think me having to give up a great prospect and being punished for being good at the game is a bigger cop out.

Why should I go out and get those assets if I then have to give them up?

The game becomes pointless.

The type of asset I would expect to give up is a guy like Scott Hartnell. Not a guy like Justin Faulk.

[Slava]

Well if we are not going to make a change like that I am going to step up my activities. I have realized this afternoon that I really want to win, or at least compete. So Nashville is wide open for business.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

We are also getting away from the main point. People don't want to be a GM of these teams available because they don't want to put in the significant work to improve those teams over a long period of time.

Which actually don't know if this is the problem or not. We have anecdotal evidence but that's it.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

The more I think about the dispersal draft the more I am against it. It doesn't actually solve any problems, it is just a temporary fix until a few months later when the active GMs put in the effort to build a team and make some trades and they get the good assets back.

The right approach was taken last offseason by limiting the cap, that alone will help close the gap. I think more emphasis should be placed on the GMs. Every summer, great deals are available for expensive players, some teams like Curtis take advantage and add assets. Others close their wallets and end up having 15 mill in extra cap space. The only way teams get better is when GMs put the effort in. A dispersal draft would be great for a few months but like I said above, the same GMs that sit around will drop to the bottom and the ones that work will move up so in a couple years the league would be in the exact same position. When I had a crappy team I would scroll through the rosters and look at playoff teams who had struggling D or G or whatever and then message them and offer them a D or G to fix the problem. I would find a problem, explain it to them and then try to get them to make a trade. The head office has made some changes to try and help the league but any more changes should have a long term impact, not just a simple reset button so we can go through all of this again in 2 years.

[JiriHrdina]

The mistake we made last off-season was with the grids. We didn't connect the new ratings package and the grids well, so even though we limited cap space, teams still had plenty.

Aggressive grids+lower UFA age+limited cap availabity would potentially help here without going completely Nuclear.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Because they are looking at it more broadly then just wheather or not they benefit from it. It comes down to why and how you play the game.

I understand this, but if it benefits the league as a whole... people need to be on board and look at it from a league health perspective.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think me having to give up a great prospect and being punished for being good at the game is a bigger cop out.

Why should I go out and get those assets if I then have to give them up?

The game becomes pointless.

The type of asset I would expect to give up is a guy like Scott Hartnell. Not a guy like Justin Faulk.

I don't disagree with this. I have mentioned in almost every post ive made in this thread, it is going to take the rich asset teams like yourself to be on board for this to happen. Is losing Justin Faulk really going to destroy your team? no. You will still be the richest team in the league in my suggestion/example. For all we know, when its your turn to draft in the dispersion draft, Justin Faulk might be available.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I am trying to understand why Florida and Boston are opposed to a dispersal draft when they would both significantly benefit from it.

Maybe they don't feel they need help? Maybe they view it from the rich teams perspective? I am struggling here.

Allowing weaker teams to participate in free agency is such a cop out IMO. Great, they get aging vets but the problem is still there. A dispersal draft would be a change, where this suggestion of only allowing weaker teams to be allowed to participate in UFA is a band-aid.

I do, because they are looking at it without considering their own gains and how it affects their team. When you look at something taking your own team out of the equation is always best

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

I do, because they are looking at it without considering their own gains and how it affects their team. When you look at something taking your own team out of the equation is always best

I knew some people would get caught up in that comment I made. I understand its not all about their team benefiting but on the other side of the coin you have rich teams willing to give assets away for the league to be more healthy and active.

[dsavillian]

we should just mandate that teams have to make 12 trades per month.

and no tradsies-backsies.


edit: green text

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The mistake we made last off-season was with the grids. We didn't connect the new ratings package and the grids well, so even though we limited cap space, teams still had plenty.

Aggressive grids+lower UFA age+limited cap availability would potentially help here without going completely Nuclear.

Not to be a broken record... I won't say it again for that reason but Like I said last time I think the greater issue is the over cap teams trading assets to get under cap and then flipping it right around afterwards.

The FA process doesn't move the talent around it just helps over cap teams to flush out their vets and steal the youth from the teams trying to build. That is my opinion and that is the FA problem and nothing to do with the grids last year

This doesn't mean I'm right, it is my believe but 29 other GM can see it differently and be as equally correct