Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-15-2022, 03:38 PM   #41
Swayze11
something else haha
 
Swayze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knut View Post
If there is an expansion draft it would have to be weighted so that top Asset teams would lose more players and lower asset teams less or else you are just creating 4 new lower asset teams.
Yea I thought about this as well but how do we come up with a solution to defining what a rich team looks like?

We could vote I suppose but there is a massive gap between the #1 asset rich team and the #10 asset rich team.
__________________

Swayze11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 05:22 PM   #42
Harry Lime
Franchise Player
 
Harry Lime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Exp:
Default

It has taken a couple of years GMing the Kings to get to the point that I'm happy with the state of my prospects. Mostly that has been through careful accumulation of longshots that have paid off (ei Joshua Roy) and overlooked players who have reached their potential (ei Kirill Marchenko). That said, I also started out with players like Scott Perunovich, who are top ten draft class.

Even with these 'wins', there are teams who could buy and sell all of my players without raising much of a sweat. I think that is just what happens with longevity.

What this generally means is that I actually trade less with the rich teams, as I am aware that giving up my 1st, Roy, Marchenko or Perunovich would be a starting point in many discussions and it's difficult for me to damage future value. I think that this must make it more boring for the rich clubs to play.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Harry Lime is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
Old 11-15-2022, 06:26 PM   #43
Knut
 
Knut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swayze11 View Post
Yea I thought about this as well but how do we come up with a solution to defining what a rich team looks like?

We could vote I suppose but there is a massive gap between the #1 asset rich team and the #10 asset rich team.
Could be a simple 28 round expansion draft with the option to skip a team and take an extra asset from one of the top 5-7 asset teams. Those teams are only able to lose one additional asset on top of the 4 they lose to expansion.

Remember…. Teams would be losing 4 assets oustide of protected players.
Knut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
MJK
Old 11-15-2022, 07:18 PM   #44
BagoPucks
First Line Centre
 
BagoPucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

I think maybe some of the veteran GMs can take on the expansion teams and allow the rich teams to be handed over to incoming GMs?
BagoPucks is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BagoPucks For This Useful Post:
MJK
Old 11-15-2022, 07:27 PM   #45
Harry Lime
Franchise Player
 
Harry Lime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BagoPucks View Post
I think maybe some of the veteran GMs can take on the expansion teams and allow the rich teams to be handed over to incoming GMs?
And take half of the team with them? That would make it interesting.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Harry Lime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 07:48 PM   #46
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
Exp:
Default

I’ve been in this league for 20+ years as the GM of the Panthers, Jackets and Sharks. Yes, that’s how many times I’ve been hired and fired in this league. Each time a top end team being taken away from me and only given back a basement dweller.

I’ve always been a top team again in 2 years.

Ya I’m tooting my own horn but it’s facts. It can happen if a GM is willing to put in the work and I’m OK doing it again.

A weighted expansion draft can work and I’d be willing to give up the Sharks to a newbie to make it happen.

Top teams in the CPHL…are you?

Imagine the trades that would happen if the top team GMs had assets POOR teams and had to scramble to be good again. Wait, I’ve done that 3 times already…have you?
MJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 10:00 PM   #47
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

I think the opportunity to manage an expansion team would be fun.

The less fun teams are the current asset weak clubs that are potentially going to be hurt more by this, and have an even tougher time going forward with fewer assets to go around.

So would veteran GMs, who are advocating for expansion, be willing to give up there current teams and take over an asset-weak, non-expansion team?

Some GMs of current weak asset teams could be given the choice of keeping their team, or taking an expansion club (if we choose to do this).
New GMs get moved into asset rich clubs vacated by veteran GMs.

That's probably the best way to address my concern (which has largely not been addressed in anything proposed)...which is how to make this OK for those currently asset weak clubs.

I will say, to be open about it, I have no interest in giving up the Wild. IF we were to do this I would be fine with the Wild losing more assets than other clubs, as long as its reasonable (something like Knut outlined) but I have no desire to switch clubs. We all play this game for different reasons and the part I enjoy is the long-term asset building including drafting and prospect development. The long-game has always been what I enjoy.

I will also note there are a lot of GMs we have NOT heard from. Would be great to hear from more voices.
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 04:50 AM   #48
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina View Post
So would veteran GMs, who are advocating for expansion, be willing to give up there current teams and take over an asset-weak, non-expansion team?
IMO the majority of Vet GMs would need to be willing to do this otherwise there are better options. I doubt most would want too and I get it. Maybe I am too old to rebuild again!

I think the following could work:

Expansion Option:

1. Top Teams required to expose more players; non UFA.
2. 'Asset poor' teams are included in the expansion draft (every 2nd round?)
3. 'Asset Poor' teams expose less players and only players prior to start of draft are eligible so new teams don't take players they just acquired

Problem we solve is:

We improve asset poor teams
We get more overall balance in the league
We reintroduce the Jets and Bruins
MJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 06:41 AM   #49
Swayze11
something else haha
 
Swayze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

Does expansion solve things or should we be looking at an “asset distribution” solution?
Ie: distributing wealth to our CURRENT asset weak teams? I’d be willing to do that as well
__________________

Swayze11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 07:32 AM   #50
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Id be willing to take an asset weak team, if that is what helps. I think putting a committee together to create the rules around this has to happen if it is moved forward.

Pat, this isnt about solving anything, its about bringing in at least Boston and Winnipeg who should be part of the league. If it works well and no issues are found then discussions could be had about Vegas and Seattle.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 07:34 AM   #51
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina View Post
I think the opportunity to manage an expansion team would be fun.

The less fun teams are the current asset weak clubs that are potentially going to be hurt more by this, and have an even tougher time going forward with fewer assets to go around.

So would veteran GMs, who are advocating for expansion, be willing to give up there current teams and take over an asset-weak, non-expansion team?

Some GMs of current weak asset teams could be given the choice of keeping their team, or taking an expansion club (if we choose to do this).
New GMs get moved into asset rich clubs vacated by veteran GMs.

That's probably the best way to address my concern (which has largely not been addressed in anything proposed)...which is how to make this OK for those currently asset weak clubs.

I will say, to be open about it, I have no interest in giving up the Wild. IF we were to do this I would be fine with the Wild losing more assets than other clubs, as long as its reasonable (something like Knut outlined) but I have no desire to switch clubs. We all play this game for different reasons and the part I enjoy is the long-term asset building including drafting and prospect development. The long-game has always been what I enjoy.

I will also note there are a lot of GMs we have NOT heard from. Would be great to hear from more voices.
I think the thread topic needs to be changed.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 07:35 AM   #52
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese View Post
Id be willing to take an asset weak team, if that is what helps. I think putting a committee together to create the rules around this has to happen if it is moved forward.

Pat, this isnt about solving anything, its about bringing in at least Boston and Winnipeg who should be part of the league. If it works well and no issues are found then discussions could be had about Vegas and Seattle.
Why should they be part of the league?
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 07:36 AM   #53
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese View Post
I think the thread topic needs to be changed.
Done
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 07:46 AM   #54
Abstract
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

I have a pretty middle of the road team that I think I've improved slightly. It does take time and my lack of knowledge in terms of prospects probably hinders me.

That said, I'd be all for expansion. I'd like it to be as realistic as possible and not having 4 teams doesn't sit right to me. I think the posturing ahead of the expansion draft and draft itself could be a lot of fun.

Count me as a yes vote
__________________
Those days are past now, and in the past they must remain, but we can still rise now and be a nation again.
Abstract is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 07:56 AM   #55
Cambam8
Scoring Winger
 
Cambam8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Newfoundland
Exp:
Default

I'm all for it, spark some new interest and new blood into the league. We have a great group but it seems the trading partners are the same all the time. I know trading isn't a requirement but it sure adds an extra fun element. I think prep for an expansion would be awesome. I'm a yes.
Cambam8 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cambam8 For This Useful Post:
MJK
Old 11-16-2022, 08:00 AM   #56
savemedrzaius
Help, save, whatever.
 
savemedrzaius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Yeah I am a yes for expansion as well. It seems crazy to not have the Bruins on here and like Fla GM said it makes it feel more authentic to have all NHL teams.

Doing two teams a season makes sense? And if bringing in Winnipeg why not ask Whiteout. He seems active. I feel like if you are a fan of another team but are active on this site it's already a good sign you are a hardcore hockey fan and so likely a big hockey nerd how would really get into CPHL.
savemedrzaius is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to savemedrzaius For This Useful Post:
MJK
Old 11-16-2022, 08:08 AM   #57
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina View Post
Why should they be part of the league?
History, part of the NHL which the league fashions itself after, Boston having won the CPHL championship, Winnipeg being a Canadian team.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 08:16 AM   #58
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

OK but we differ from the NHL in all sorts of ways.
It would also be easy to swap two teams and change them to those two.

I feel like the reasons I've articulated as to why not to do this are largely being dismissed without a lot of thought.

We expanded before
It hurt the league and created several teams that had no assets
As a result we contracted those 2 teams and 2 more to get back to a league that had a smaller number of teams, including so more assets could be available to less teams.

So it failed the first time. Why do we think it will be different this time?

If we are going to explore this I would want whoever is doing that to help address those issues, and not just dismiss them.
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 08:38 AM   #59
Swayze11
something else haha
 
Swayze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

I understand I am muddying the waters a bit here but I rather provide assets to current "less rich" active teams than expansion.
__________________

Swayze11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2022, 08:46 AM   #60
devo22
Franchise Player
 
devo22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Austria, NOT Australia
Exp:
Default

I struggle to find arguments for expansion that would really benefit the league. Yeah, I get it's fun and stuff, but I do fear it might dilute the overall balance. Does expansion close or widen the gap between asset-rich and poor teams?
devo22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021