Discussion on improving the league.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

I didn’t ask anyone to change anything. You are confused. Now I’m actually kinda worried about you.

You ok?

Corrected. It was Cheese.
I'm fine.
I don't like how you treat me.

[MJK]

I’m sending you a PM

[MJK]

PMs exchanged.

Mutual agreement of a Skeletor toy to MJK and a Teddy Ruxpin to Grant.

Now…my fellow GMs and some Rando old school dudes that still care about the CPHL for some reason that keep posting…please continue the conversation.

Good dialogue here.

[Jiri Hrdina]

A conditional 5th is coming with Ruxpin though. Skeletor for Ruxpin 1:1 wouldn't be fair. Ruxpin is too soft.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A conditional 5th is coming with Ruxpin though. Skeletor for Ruxpin 1:1 wouldn't be fair. Ruxpin is too soft.

No way. Teddy = Hardcore. The Teddy I had you could put cassette tape in it. Put a late 80s LL Cool J or Mastro Fresh Wes in him and he’d rap battle anyone.

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would do something like this:

Proposed changes
*Except where noted changes would go into effect in the off-season of 2023

League structure

-Move Arizona to Winnipeg (stays in West)
-Move CBJ to Boston (stays in East)
-Move Detroit to West (Central Devision)
Intended outcomes:
-Achieve a proper distribution of teams across conferences and divisions (7 per division).
-Reintroduce Boston and Winnipeg into the league

Moves to systematically improve asset distribution

-New rule that says that any ECHL player with a rating above an established threshold (TBD) must be signed in the off-season as part of the RFA process, regardless of how many years remaining on their contract
o Intended outcome: Prevent hoarding of NHL players in the ECHL while getting those players to their higher priced RFA deals faster

-Introduce new grids for older UFAs (33+?) that would include:
oLower grid amounts
oAbility to sign 1, 2, 3 years
oTwo way deals
oIntended outcome: Inject value into these older aged UFAs including for the trade market

-Adjust new grids for younger UFAs (28-32) that would include
oLowering the age of UFAs from 29 to 28 starting in Summer of 2024
oHigher UFA grids for UFAs in their peak years (28-32)
oExtend maximum amount from 10M to 12M
oStill 1 way
oStill 3 years only
oIntended outcome: Higher contract value for players in their peak years. More players entering UFAs at younger age. Net result: Harder decisions for GMs with good players

-Adjust RFA grids
oHigher overall grids including extending max amounts from 10M to 12M
oIntended outcomes: Higher contract value for players in their peak years, to provoke more tougher decisions and trading

-Trade restrictions
oFirst round picks from future years can no longer be traded
oReduce amount of cap from the next year that can be traded by 50% (from 18M to 9M)

-Weak Asset Club Incentives.
oGM Transitions
When a weak asset team becomes available, the team will be offered to the other league GMs. GMs of strong asset franchises can take over the weaker team and transition up to 3 assets of their choosing from their prior club. This must be approved by the commissioners to ensure that the former club is strong enough to be eligible and will not be materially weakened by losing 3 assets
Intended outcome: Incentives for veteran GMs to takeover weaker clubs. Opportunity to move assets from strong to weak clubs.

oNew GM incentives
When a new GM takes over a “weak asset” club (how do we determine this) they will be awarded a compensatory pick at the end of each draft round for the next draft.
These draft picks cannot be traded. The pick must be made. The prospect selected can be traded
If there are multiple compensatory picks the order of them will be set by the commissioners based on evaluating the quality of the asset base. The weakest asset base will be awarded the highest compensatory pick
Intended outcome: provides new GMs of weak clubs some additional assets to work with

-Draft changes
oRemove the 5th round of the annual draft
oIntended outcome: More drafted prospects available in the supplement draft that is held annually for weak asset clubs

I'd like to see some kind of reward for teams that make final 4/cup final/win the cup.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

I'd like to see some kind of reward for teams that make final 4/cup final/win the cup.

Your reward is winning the cup and bragging rights for the year. What more do you need??

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would do something like this:

Proposed changes
*Except where noted changes would go into effect in the off-season of 2023

League structure

-Move Arizona to Winnipeg (stays in West)
-Move CBJ to Boston (stays in East)
-Move Detroit to West (Central Devision)
Intended outcomes:
-Achieve a proper distribution of teams across conferences and divisions (7 per division).
-Reintroduce Boston and Winnipeg into the league

This Looks good. But I think if rules work as intended we look into 2 team expansion the year after.

Moves to systematically improve asset distribution
-New rule that says that any ECHL player with a rating above an established threshold (TBD) must be signed in the off-season as part of the RFA process, regardless of how many years remaining on their contract
o Intended outcome: Prevent hoarding of NHL players in the ECHL while getting those players to their higher priced RFA deals faster.

I like it

-Introduce new grids for older UFAs (33+?) that would include:
oLower grid amounts
oAbility to sign 1, 2, 3 years
oTwo way deals
oIntended outcome: Inject value into these older aged UFAs including for the trade market

I am not sure it is needed. Its important to have good vets available in free agency. This could take from UFA period

-Adjust new grids for younger UFAs (28-32) that would include
oLowering the age of UFAs from 29 to 28 starting in Summer of 2024
oHigher UFA grids for UFAs in their peak years (28-32)
oExtend maximum amount from 10M to 12M
oStill 1 way
oStill 3 years only
oIntended outcome: Higher contract value for players in their peak years. More players entering UFAs at younger age. Net result: Harder decisions for GMs with good players

I like lower age and higher maximum. I feel that 3 years is too long though. I think you could have 1 or 2 year options for Grids (At different signing values. EG. 1 yr x 10M or 2 year x 11M. With cheese attached a team could do well to sell a UFA aged player with a 1 or 2 year contract but is likely stuck with a 3 year contract. More players on the market.

-Adjust RFA grids
oHigher overall grids including extending max amounts from 10M to 12M
oIntended outcomes: Higher contract value for players in their peak years, to provoke more tougher decisions and trading

Good as long there is 1,2 and 3 year options

-Trade restrictions
oFirst round picks from future years can no longer be traded
oReduce amount of cap from the next year that can be traded by 50% (from 18M to 9M)

I think no IOU or conditioned picks is enough. Should be able to deal firsts for 2 seasons IMO. For Cap moves you can make it so that you can only trade 1:1 on Cap. So you cant trade 1M for 1.5 M next year. It has to be 1:1 only

-Weak Asset Club Incentives.
oGM Transitions
When a weak asset team becomes available, the team will be offered to the other league GMs. GMs of strong asset franchises can take over the weaker team and transition up to 3 assets of their choosing from their prior club. This must be approved by the commissioners to ensure that the former club is strong enough to be eligible and will not be materially weakened by losing 3 assets
Intended outcome: Incentives for veteran GMs to takeover weaker clubs. Opportunity to move assets from strong to weak clubs.

Looks good to me

oNew GM incentives
When a new GM takes over a “weak asset” club (how do we determine this) they will be awarded a compensatory pick at the end of each draft round for the next draft.
These draft picks cannot be traded. The pick must be made. The prospect selected can be traded
If there are multiple compensatory picks the order of them will be set by the commissioners based on evaluating the quality of the asset base. The weakest asset base will be awarded the highest compensatory pick
Intended outcome: provides new GMs of weak clubs some additional assets to work with

Not sure it is necessary but it makes some sense

-Draft changes
oRemove the 5th round of the annual draft
oIntended outcome: More drafted prospects available in the supplement draft that is held annually for weak asset clubs

Makes good sense to me

Answers in bold above.

This is a good discussion and i think it helps the health of the league as a whole.

I am going to be honest. In the past i have found it hard to make deals here due to the league being spilt into a First World and a Third World. There is better parity now. It is still quite top heavy but I think we can make changes that does put a pinch on teams that hoard young players without them having to actually just give them away.

Expansion is fine to consider but I think the league economics need to be adjusted before its fully viable.

[TheScorpion]

I'm loving this entire discussion, for what it's worth. I don't have much to contribute but I feel it's very productive in every way.

[MJK]

So.....can we revisit opportunity to try and align with NHL draft again? Put our rocks for brains heads together and figure something out?

Current process = no fun IMO

Watching NHL draft and from that knowing where you are drafting in the cphl was so much better!

[agulati]

Are you talking about draft positioning/lottery system? Or are you referring to the actual draft?

[MJK]

Lottery System.

CPHL positioning use to be based on NHL draft lottery. A week before CPHL draft you tune in and watch NHL draft on TV and results correlated to CPHL. I get there are challenges with this but we can come up with a solution.

Top 10 align with NHL and then hybrid rules kick in?!!?

[SportsJunky]

I don't want it to change, Dave.

[savemedrzaius]

If we wanted to do it MJK's way couldn't we just align the 12 teams that don't make the playoffs in the CPHL with the bottom 12 teams in the NHL standings? The 4 teams in 13-16 we just disregard. If they somehow move up in the NHL draft we just ignore them. I'm fine either way though.

Last year's draft was my first one and the one thing I didn't like is how fast we had to go. I understand we don't want it to drag out but it was way too rushed IMO.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I don't want it to change, Dave.

You good with a spreadsheet deciding the lottery position? Lame.

[SportsJunky]

Dave's right.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Teams entered this season with an understanding of what the lottery odds were. I don't think it's fair to change it mid-stream.
Moreover, the NHL has exceptions that we can't replicate including the number of times that teams can win the lottery. I don't how to factor that in to our league.

I'm not sure why a spreadsheet is an issue. It's a randomized calculator based on the established odds.

If the league is interested in something more suspenseful I can think about a way to unveil it over the course of an hour. Perhaps Scorp and I could collaborate on a CPHL "Lottery Revealing Show". Could be fun. We could even interview different GMs.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Let me try to be a little more crisp on the ramifications of following the NHL draft:

- The NHL now only allows teams to move up 10 spots. That means teams 12-16 have no chance of the #1 overall pick. Under our rules that follow the 2021 odds, teams 12-16 do. So those teams that are currently tracking to have picks in that range, would no longer have a chance at the #1 overall pick. Teams 13-16 would have no chance at #2. 14-16, no chance at #3, 15/16 no chance at #4, 16 no chance at #5. So would be immediately devaluing those picks. Doesn't seem fair to do that mid way through a season.

- If an NHL team is ineligible to win the lottery because they already won it twice in 5 years, that means the CPHL team that maps to them would also be ineligible. Now I don't know how the NHL would handle this. Does it mean the NHL team impacted just has no "balls in the lottery" and get their default position? How does it impact the rest of the odds. Unknown which makes it hard to solve for. May seem unlikely that a team would win the lottery multiple times but the reason why the NHL has put this in place is because it has happened.

[BagoPucks]

Not to change the subject as that should continue. I think a bigger concern for me is poster activity. Hannah Sniper being silent doesn't help as his posts were on point. I think we should consider incentivizing being an active poster in the league forums

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by BagoPucks

Not to change the subject as that should continue. I think a bigger concern for me is poster activity. Hannah Sniper being silent doesn't help as his posts were on point. I think we should consider incentivizing being an active poster in the league forums

I feel like if you don't send in your lines it should at least be a guaranteed loss. So many times people win without sending in lines which ain't right!