Discussion on improving the league.

[MJK]

Can someone remind me why we got away from using NHL draft lottery as the standard for the CPHL lottery? I know the number of teams doesn’t line up (anymore) but IMO it was so fun matching up the CPHL teams with the NHL teams and watching the lottery live knowing where the pick lands.

If there is a way to get back to that, I think it would be great.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Because of the complexity of the rules, including around how many teams can win the lottery, which would impact their order and therefore ours, even though it shouldn't.

https://www.tankathon.com/nhl/pick_odds

There's no realistic way to match the NHL lottery anymore.

[Jiri Hrdina]

This is the type of thing that is impossible for us to account for:
Teams are only allowed to improve their positioning via the Lottery twice in a five year period (beginning with the 2022 Lottery).

[MJK]

Gotcha.

The spreadsheet thing seemed quite complicated and looked time consuming. Can’t we just use https://www.random.org/lists/ to do this? It’s widely acceptable randomizer for card breaks etc.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Now that I have it set-up the spreadsheet is pretty easy. Just requires me to update the teams based on the final standings.
I don't know how that randomizer works. But also not sure why we would change from something that seems to be working. What's the concern?

[Jiri Hrdina]

As a reminder, these are the odds we use:
https://www.fearthefin.com/2021/6/2/...an-jose-sharks

[MJK]

No concern, just a couple questions. Got my answer.

[MJK]

I do have more questions but not sure we will get anywhere. Anytime a question is asked ‘what’s your concern’ vs ‘is there a concern’ suggests I have an issue and I don’t. Just asking question.

Just a guy trying to have a conversation on an Internet forum.

Can we continue?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Yes of course, just trying to understand the objectives.
I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change. I like change when there is an understanding of the intended outcomes that one is trying to achieve through those changes.
So understanding the "problem we are trying to solve" is how I approach this. When that isn't clear - I ask.

Same way I approach this in my job. I don't like starting with an end solution, I like to understand what is the problem we are trying to solve and if it's meaningful or not.

[MJK]

It was way more fun (for me) to watch the live NHL draft on tv knowing how it matched up in the cphl, that’s all. Just one of the things I really looked forward to and couldn’t remember why the change. I was hoping there was a way to get back to that, even if we get creative. Maybe I’m on an island on that one but it was actually one of my favorite parts, watching the ‘real’ live lottery knowing how it impacts CPHL.

If there is a smart GM here that can figure out how this might be possible again based on the NHL restrictions Grant outlined, I’d like to know if there is an appetite to move back to this.

Question 2.

Why don’t we add Boston and Jets back into the league. Had a conversation with Cambam the other day who is a huge Bruins fan and I told him they once did exist.

Can we go to a 30/32 team league? Expansion draft for those two teams might be a ton of fun.

[SportsJunky]

I can GM two teams. San Jose being one of them.

[Harry Lime]

An off-season expansion draft could be fun, and could even out some of the disparity between the top teams and the bottom. Losing one or two really good players/prospects could add quite a bit of parity, and might even make it more interesting for the rich teams to have to scramble a bit more.

[SportsJunky]

That idea won't gain traction around here, lol. I'd probably be against it, too, if I had built up a team that was loaded. Takes time and effort to get there. Less effort to stay there.

[Jiri Hrdina]

My view on expansion (noting this is my view not the leagues) is that contracting has been beneficial overall because there is a surplus of player supply - more NHL players than slots in our league. This allows more teams to have competitive teams.
We have a constant challenge with asset poor clubs being tough to replace and retain GMs. I think the moves we've made in several different ways has helped including:
- Contraction
- UFA/RFA grids with mandatory 3 year 1 ways for UFA re-signings
- No increases to cap
- Cancellation of awards
- 2 year ECHL deals for first rounders

All of this means that players become more expensive faster, which requires talent to move around more. There is still an asset disparity but that's largely driven by GMs who take a short view and try to win now v. those that build an asset base.

But I think adding teams to the league would re-introduce similar challenges we had when we did them away.

Right now I fear we will have a hard time finding a GM that will take on NYI. Teams that have few prospects, little cap, and no picks are not compelling for new GMs. So then we have a ton of turnover.

My view is that expansion would be net-negative.
Open to the dialogue on it.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

That idea won't gain traction around here, lol. I'd probably be against it, too, if I had built up a team that was loaded. Takes time and effort to get there. Less effort to stay there.

Not sure I agree with you but will see I guess. I would think top teams would be open to exposing certain players because every year you have to ‘dump’ solid guys anyways outside the UFA guys.

[MJK]

Sub question to question 2, if it just doesn’t make sense to expand, is there anything stopping a team like Nashville to relocate to Boston if there is an equal desire for someone to do the same going East to West to even it up?

Boston is an Original 6 team, should be in the league somehow.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Would require some work from Cam.
To me the bigger issue is that we have 15 teams in the East and 13 in the west.
We probably need move one from the east to the west to re-balance things properly.
I need help remembering to solve that in the off-season.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

That idea won't gain traction around here, lol. I'd probably be against it, too, if I had built up a team that was loaded. Takes time and effort to get there. Less effort to stay there.

I'm not against it out of fears of losing assets. I've always opposed broader dispersal drafts because I think that's where you punish GMs for taking a long view.
But an expansion draft to me isn't the same.
My opposition is that long-term I think it hurts the league by actually amplifying the issues we experience currently.
Over the long-term I believe the asset disparity would worsen, with the same number of assets spread across more teams. The gap between those teams that take an asset-building long view v. those that take a short-term win now view would actually widen.

You'd be back to where you started. And worse.

[SportsJunky]

Actually, I had "dispersal draft" on my brain. Expansion draft is different, for sure.

[Cheese]

I think expansion would be great.
The idea that it delutes the league has no more basis than it did in the NHL. It would create excitement around an expansion draft and even if a GM here has spent years building their team, it's no different than the NHL which we kind of model ourselves after. So you have to think about who to protect and who to set free, sounds like a fun addition to the league. New teams, new people to deal with. The GM issue is a non issue, there has always been change or Flux, that will never change, it's the nature of the beast and a free to play league... And I have always managed to fill roles adequately.
Change is good..new blood is great...let's just do it.

Take a vote on it..