Discussion on improving the league.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

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.

The sim seems to favor vets for sure, in particular in the playoffs. That's where the EX/LD ratings seem to matter more.
The year I won, 3 years ago, I think it was because half my blueline were veterans. And I had more experience up front too. And a pretty experience goalie.
That year turned when I acquired Jack MF Johnson and completely stabilized my blueline.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by 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
- 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.

Maybe we can shift the focus to rewarding teams that win in the playoffs? In the real-world teams that win and win year in year out often get players to re-sign at hometown discounts in order to keep the team together. Could teams that make it to the conference finals get a slight break on the grids when re-signing their players? Maybe this will promote some of the teams with tons of draft picks and prospects that are lower rated to trade them in order to compete now and making more picks and prospects available to the teams that are weak in long term assets.

I've found in the 6 months in this league that there are some teams that have some of the best prospects in the league, many 1sts in the next 2 drafts and good players on their teams yet try and load them up for a run at the title and they aren't interested. Maybe rewarding teams that make it to the final 4 will help prevent teams from focusing only on protecting their assets? Just an idea

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Maybe we can shift the focus to rewarding teams that win in the playoffs? In the real-world teams that win and win year in year out often get players to re-sign at hometown discounts in order to keep the team together. Could teams that make it to the conference finals get a slight break on the grids when re-signing their players? Maybe this will promote some of the teams with tons of draft picks and prospects that are lower rated to trade them in order to compete now and making more picks and prospects available to the teams that are weak in long term assets.

I've found in the 6 months in this league that there are some teams that have some of the best prospects in the league, many 1sts in the next 2 drafts and good players on their teams yet try and load them up for a run at the title and they aren't interested. Maybe rewarding teams that make it to the final 4 will help prevent teams from focusing only on protecting their assets? Just an idea

We used to have some of this. There were substantial rewards for winning playoff rounds and individual player awards. Could total millions for the top teams.
But it seemed to reinforce the asset disparity as those teams had better ability to re-sign their UFAs.
The asset weak teams typically don't go far in the playoffs. The ones that do are the ones that are probably middle of the road asset wise with a good mix of vets.
Like Turd, who I learned today won the cup last year (allegedly).

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

We used to have some of this. There were substantial rewards for winning playoff rounds and individual player awards. Could total millions for the top teams.
But it seemed to reinforce the asset disparity as those teams had better ability to re-sign their UFAs.
The asset weak teams typically don't go far in the playoffs. The ones that do are the ones that are probably middle of the road asset wise with a good mix of vets.
Like Turd, who I learned today won the cup last year (allegedly).

I think if we limit it to RFA's only and a max of 2 players per team. The top 4 GM's can pick players as their "Hometown Discount contract" and give that GM the option to sign a player for $500K discount as long as the player does not go below the league min could work. Maybe a bit of an extra incentive to the team that won in all.

For me, it's a bit strange that we can't remember who the champ is or who was in the final 4. I think we need to look at rules to promote pushing people to win and not just sit back and collect assets year over year.

[Macho0978]

No offence to Turd, but he won but I don't view his team as stacked with long term assets. I think Nashville was in the conference finals against him. Preds are rebuilding this year and were a veteran-based team last year.

I think we need rules to promote picking up the high-risk vets that most don't want to trade 1st round picks for. If we can accomplish that, we will get more turnover in who are the asset rich teams.

[TurdFerguson]

[Jiri Hrdina]

One of the most powerful levers is RFA contract amounts.
We could make those grids higher. That basically requires GMs to move more players earlier in their careers.
We've kept those directionally similar for the last number of years but you could get more aggressive, including at the higher rated players.
The cap is the biggest regulator of teams being able to keep all their players.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

Lies! That did NOT happen. NO

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

No offence to Turd, but he won but I don't view his team as stacked with long term assets. I think Nashville was in the conference finals against him. Preds are rebuilding this year and were a veteran-based team last year.

I think we need rules to promote picking up the high-risk vets that most don't want to trade 1st round picks for. If we can accomplish that, we will get more turnover in who are the asset rich teams.

Dallas is what I would call a balanced team
- Good veteran CPHL talent including some high end talent (Barkov, Robertson)
- Some younger players on the rise (Vilardi, Boldy)
- They own their next 2 1sts
- Not a great prospect pool

Middle of the road.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I think we need rules to promote picking up the high-risk vets that most don't want to trade 1st round picks for. If we can accomplish that, we will get more turnover in who are the asset rich teams.

I don't know how you create rules for that. Interesting to explore though.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

One of the most powerful levers is RFA contract amounts.
We could make those grids higher. That basically requires GMs to move more players earlier in their careers.
We've kept those directionally similar for the last number of years but you could get more aggressive, including at the higher rated players.
The cap is the biggest regulator of teams being able to keep all their players.

There has been a shift in the NHL when the Oilers and the Leafs forked out huge money for their high priced RFA's that RFA's are getting paid earlier in their careers and UFA's seem to be getting more reasonable cap hits then they did in the past.

We could also have UFA grids for players 29-35 and 35 and older with high rated players over 35 top $ being much less than the $10 mil max? Another idea. They are so high risk for falling off a cliff but if you could get a Bergeron or AO or Crosby and resign them for max contracts of $7 or $8 mil with their high ratings more people might look at signing them and keeping those players and taking on that risk?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

There has been a shift in the NHL when the Oilers and the Leafs forked out huge money for their high priced RFA's that RFA's are getting paid earlier in their careers and UFA's seem to be getting more reasonable cap hits then they did in the past.

We could also have UFA grids for players 29-35 and 35 and older with high rated players over 35 top $ being much less than the $10 mil max? Another idea. They are so high risk for falling off a cliff but if you could get a Bergeron or AO or Crosby and resign them for max contracts of $7 or $8 mil with their high ratings more people might look at signing them and keeping those players and taking on that risk?

Yeah those are interesting ideas.
Also we don't have to max out at 10M per player. Perhaps the highest rated players should be making $12M or more.
The cap and grids basically are designed to make GMs face more difficult decisions on who to keep and who not to.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Earlier UFA age is also a lever.

[MJK]

Most asset rich teams dump UFAs already to clear cap to get back to 75mill. We are also seeing more and more RFAs being traded and not signed because it’s just to $$$. IMO Increasing the $ amount only hurts mid-low asset teams.

[MJK]

I totally agree with Macho, for many the goal really isn’t to win the cup in the CPHL it’s to build sexy teams.

More incentive to actually try and win would be good, this would lead to more trades and more teams to trade good assets to try and go for it.

Right now there are too many people happy to sit on what they have in the ECHL or the younger guys without giving it a solid GO to try and build a cup winner.

That doesn’t feel right and when we can’t remember who won the cup, that’s an issue.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Let's not over-react to the fact that I couldn't remember who won the cup.
And I don't think you can decide how people play this game. We all do it for our reasons. And that should be OK.

The flip of what you describe could also be true.
Is the issue that too many GMs focus on asset building or that not enough GMs focus on asset building.

Again no on forces GMs to spend all their picks, cap, prospects and trade capital. They do it on their own.

There's also an element of work here. A reason why teams have strong asset base is because they draft well, sign valuable free agent prospects, etc.

I don't want this to be league where doing the right things is punished.

[Macho0978]

I'm a firm believer that you should develop a stategy based on the rules not change the rules to fit your strategy. I'm ok with everything as is but if it blocks the league from expanding because the rich stay rich and the poor lose out because of it maybe we should change the rules a bit.

But for me it's a concern that few are in it to win it. That should always be the goal so I think making older UFA's more valuable shifts the balance a bit from the rich to the poor and also hurts those who only care about stock piling youth.

At the end of the day if I have a Crosby and looking to sell should I not be able to get a first in 2023 and a good prospect? Just seems weird that guys that are still star players can't get you much once they hit 28/29.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I'm trying to win every year. I think I have the second best record over the last 5 years (Philly #1?). But I balance trying to win with maintaining the asset base so I can continue to contend.
So it's an eye on moves to try and win (e.g. trading Cozens for Forsberg) and still maintaining asset capital going forward.

I don't think it's true that only a few are in it to win it.

But some teams would do well to take a step back for 1-2 seasons to re-build their asset base and have way more chances to contend going forward.

Most keeper leagues function on the basis on the exchange of "win now" assets v. "build for the future" assets. To your point, perhaps the "win now" assets need more value injected.

UFAs have less value because
- You can't trade their rights in the off-season
- You have to re-sign them to high 3 year, 1 way deals that are risky

We made that change a long time ago, so more FAs entered the pool. But in doing so perhaps we eroded the value they have on the trade market?

[Cambam8]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I'm a firm believer that you should develop a stategy based on the rules not change the rules to fit your strategy. I'm ok with everything as is but if it blocks the league from expanding because the rich stay rich and the poor lose out because of it maybe we should change the rules a bit.

But for me it's a concern that few are in it to win it. That should always be the goal so I think making older UFA's more valuable shifts the balance a bit from the rich to the poor and also hurts those who only care about stock piling youth.

At the end of the day if I have a Crosby and looking to sell should I not be able to get a first in 2023 and a good prospect? Just seems weird that guys that are still star players can't get you much once they hit 28/29.

I agree 100 % macho. I've asked many times why a 28 year old(outside RFA control) is now worth less hitting their prime, u drop a 73-75ish ov established player to ufa to control the contract of a 65ish guy hoping he gets better over years. That being said, with that league mentality you can compete each year if you choose to.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Here's another example of deficit spending
Calgary has 11.75M in cap traded to that team for NEXT year already.
Why? Who is trading nearly $12M in cap to him.
And he's got 3 1sts already.

Smart. Ravi is playing the buy low game. Cap next year is easier to get than cap this year. future 1sts are easier to get.

But that cap space and picks are coming from other teams that are constantly trading those things.

Stop trading your 1sts, future picks and future cap!