Discussion on improving the league.

[CMPunk]

I really think the biggest thing for you all is cap space. Having a bottom end and top end cap and not being able to go above or below would be best.

The league's average salary cap is 74.74 million with 16 teams above that and 12 below it. 58% of the teams below the cap are out of the playoffs and only 31% of the teams above it are out. I just can't even fathom how it's possible to have a $44.62 million difference between the top spending team and the bottom end team.

13 teams fit in the $70-80 million range, so if you set a Max/min just outside of those, there will be lots of players available to move around.

I've spent way too much time on this today at work....

[MJK]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

The league's average salary cap is 74.74 million with 16 teams above that and 12 below it. 58% of the teams below the cap are out of the playoffs and only 31% of the teams above it are out. I just can't even fathom how it's possible to have a $44.62 million difference between the top spending team and the bottom end team.

Easy. Tank for Bedard. Prospects and top picks have consumed this league, this is a real thing. Not the fault of the GM doing it it’s the culture of the league and where the value is.

Winning is secondary.

[Harry Lime]

The only reason I'm competitive this season is I picked up all of the insane contracts. My cap is through the roof. If I can't have a cool looking team of 1st rounders, I'll just buy myself a cup instead.

Originally Posted by CMPunk

I really think the biggest thing for you all is cap space. Having a bottom end and top end cap and not being able to go above or below would be best.

The league's average salary cap is 74.74 million with 16 teams above that and 12 below it. 58% of the teams below the cap are out of the playoffs and only 31% of the teams above it are out. I just can't even fathom how it's possible to have a $44.62 million difference between the top spending team and the bottom end team.

13 teams fit in the $70-80 million range, so if you set a Max/min just outside of those, there will be lots of players available to move around.

I've spent way too much time on this today at work....

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

Well this got off topic fast. Break this thread from the expansion one?

It's all related. How do we improve the league. I'll check the thread to reflect that.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The only reason I'm competitive this season is I picked up all of the insane contracts. My cap is through the roof. If I can't have a cool looking team of 1st rounders, I'll just buy myself a cup instead.

Ok Mr. Dibiase.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The only reason I'm competitive this season is I picked up all of the insane contracts. My cap is through the roof. If I can't have a cool looking team of 1st rounders, I'll just buy myself a cup instead.

You get it.

I wish you all the best this year my good man with you winning philosophy until I beat you in the conference finals.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's all related. How do we improve the league. I'll check the thread to reflect that.

A rebuttal to a simple request, not surprised. Two very, very different conversation.

Expansion vs Rule changes

I’ll go back into my hole now.

[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

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

A rebuttal to a simple request, not surprised. Two very, very different conversation.

Expansion vs Rule changes

I’ll go back into my hole now.

There's a lot of good discussion here. Feel free to take part.
Or sulk because you aren't just being given your way.

[MJK]

Is expansion dead?

[Jiri Hrdina]

No one has said that but I think there's been a lot of good discussion around what are other ways to improve the league.

[MJK]

Split the thread

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by agulati

We should prioritize finding a way to get web based line submitting though before these other items. I genuinely think that will make the whole experience much better/easier for new or even seasoned GMs

I would love a volunteer that could help understand how we do this and coordinate across Cam and Jon to do it.
I don't have the capacity to take it on directly.
Agree it would be a big improvement.

[MJK]

You don’t even have the courtesy of addressing the remote possibility of expansion when multiple GMs have expressed interest.

rule changes is one conversation but expansion is another. Had you mentioned expansion in your post perhaps we can blend the two but pretending like that conversation never happened means it doesn’t belong here.

[Jiri Hrdina]

You want a fight Dave.
I've spent a great deal of time in this thread explaining my thoughts. The thread started as an NHL draft thread and evolved from there.

I don't even know how to split the thread. It doesn't give me that option.

So start your own damn thread if you want.

I get it you want expansion. Others don't. We can continue to discuss. But I'm not going to just say "yeah let's do it" because you push and push and push.

[MJK]

Come in Grant. Let’s actually have a conversation I don’t have time to have this nonsense back and forth and being told I’m ‘sulking’.

We are too old for this stuff.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You want a fight Dave.
I've spent a great deal of time in this thread explaining my thoughts. The thread started as an NHL draft thread and evolved from there.

I don't even know how to split the thread. It doesn't give me that option.

So start your own damn thread if you want.

I get it you want expansion. Others don't. We can continue to discuss. But I'm not going to just say "yeah let's do it" because you push and push and push.

I started this thread!!! You keep changing it

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

Come in Grant. Let’s actually have a conversation I don’t have time to have this nonsense back and forth and being told I’m ‘sulking’.

We are too old for this stuff.

You started it when you replied with this:


"A rebuttal to a simple request, not surprised. Two very, very different conversation.

Expansion vs Rule changes

I’ll go back into my hole now."


You get what you give. I replied in kind.
I've been clearly open to discussing with those that are willing to discuss in a respectful manner and exchange ideas.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

I started this thread!!! You keep changing it

EDIT: My mistake it was Cheese that asked.

The thread started as a thread about the draft and Cheese asked me to change to it to be about expansion. You didn't start a thread about expansion.

[MJK]

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

You ok?