Discussion on improving the league.

[simmer2]

This is where I think change for the sake of change doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's important to have a problem(s) we are trying to solve, otherwise we are just making up stuff.

From what I've read, the main problems that jump out to me in this thread are:

1) We don't have the Bruins and Jets in the league
2) We need to re-align the conferences

The two proposed solutions are:

1) Expanding the league to add the Bruins and Jets
2) Keeping the league the same size and moving say the Arizona Coyotes and one other team to the Bruins and Jets and getting rid of those teams

First thing is to agree to the problems above (which I think is accurate).

Next is to discuss the two solutions...which we have a few different opinions on. And the topic of asset distribution has again come up within the 2 proposed solutions.

If we are just trying to solve adding the Bruins and Jets and just move teams, then I think asset distribution is an entirely separate conversation.

If we are considering expansion, then asset distribution becomes a part of the solution because there are more moving parts now.

It looks like there is some form of a solution that looks like roughly (unsure the sequence, this is just a guess):

-Identify Top Asset teams and Top Weak Teams
-Identify GM's of top asset teams that are willing to move to weak asset teams and take some assets with them
-The remaining top asset GM's would stay where they are that don't want to move
-Identify who would want to be the expansion GM's
-Expansion draft happens
-Top asset teams have to give up more players
-middle asset teams give up less
-weak asset teams give up none

The pro to expansion is excitement, new teams, new GM's, added element to the CPHL that hasn't been there in a while

The con is concern about weak asset teams getting worse through this process (which I think can be solved), and less assets in general across the league.

It could be argued that there are more NHL players now that the league is larger, so by going from 28 to 30, we technically still have a similar size pool that we did before when we contracted because the NHL is now at 32 teams.

I think the bigger issue which constantly plagues the CPHL is having involved GM's. So I would want to have some comfort we would have enough GM's interested.

And to add one more piece to this....if Asset Distribution is considered a problem (which as of yet is hasn't been), then that should be added to this list as one of the problems we are trying to solve. As of right now, that is not one of the main concerns.

Anyways, sorry for the longer post, just trying to get clear in my head and down in one spot.

[MJK]

Can someone please give me the coles notes version of ^

[Jiri Hrdina]

#1 can be articulated in two ways and to your point we need to be clear on what we are trying to solve

Problem 1: We have less teams than the NHL. Is this a problem? Why?
Problem 2: We don't have Boston and Winnipeg

#2 is easy to solve in and of itself.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by simmer2

This is where I think change for the sake of change doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's important to have a problem(s) we are trying to solve, otherwise we are just making up stuff.

From what I've read, the main problems that jump out to me in this thread are:

1) We don't have the Bruins and Jets in the league
2) We need to re-align the conferences

The two proposed solutions are:

1) Expanding the league to add the Bruins and Jets
2) Keeping the league the same size and moving say the Arizona Coyotes and one other team to the Bruins and Jets and getting rid of those teams

First thing is to agree to the problems above (which I think is accurate).

Next is to discuss the two solutions...which we have a few different opinions on. And the topic of asset distribution has again come up within the 2 proposed solutions.

If we are just trying to solve adding the Bruins and Jets and just move teams, then I think asset distribution is an entirely separate conversation.

If we are considering expansion, then asset distribution becomes a part of the solution because there are more moving parts now.

It looks like there is some form of a solution that looks like roughly (unsure the sequence, this is just a guess):

-Identify Top Asset teams and Top Weak Teams
-Identify GM's of top asset teams that are willing to move to weak asset teams and take some assets with them
-The remaining top asset GM's would stay where they are that don't want to move
-Identify who would want to be the expansion GM's
-Expansion draft happens
-Top asset teams have to give up more players
-middle asset teams give up less
-weak asset teams give up none

The pro to expansion is excitement, new teams, new GM's, added element to the CPHL that hasn't been there in a while

The con is concern about weak asset teams getting worse through this process (which I think can be solved), and less assets in general across the league.

It could be argued that there are more NHL players now that the league is larger, so by going from 28 to 30, we technically still have a similar size pool that we did before when we contracted because the NHL is now at 32 teams.

I think the bigger issue which constantly plagues the CPHL is having involved GM's. So I would want to have some comfort we would have enough GM's interested.

And to add one more piece to this....if Asset Distribution is considered a problem (which as of yet is hasn't been), then that should be added to this list as one of the problems we are trying to solve. As of right now, that is not one of the main concerns.

Anyways, sorry for the longer post, just trying to get clear in my head and down in one spot.

I think that we have a good system in place regarding the bolded above. Is it perfect, no. This is a voluntary league and some guys just get overwhelmed by the demands? scope? and leave. I havent tracked our history with GMs, because there is always someone leaving every year, but generally speaking we are lucky that we live in a hockey forum that has a good supply. There are other forums I post at as well as friends of GMs that always pop up. I dunno, dont see the well drying up yet. With the newbie trading rules in place, and others that have been instituted over the years, there are many eyes watching and commenting on newbie activity in the league. Much tougher to drag a team out of it. This isnt the way it was 5 or 10 years ago.

[MJK]

The CPHL has evolved, many new rules to help so that any team on any given year can win a championship.

I think expansion would be a ton of fun for this league, inject a lot of interest, create a ton of trade activity and it would work.

It just has to be done the right way. Cheese can take the lead.

[Macho0978]

When we discuss expansion, I think we should be looking at is it good for the league, not is it good for me.

My team probably is considered an asset weak team, I personally would rather take over a weak team and build it myself then piggyback off someone else who left the league with a stacked team. The expansion rules shouldn't be designed to penalize one GM more than another. If we used the NHL rules for expansion, I'd have no problem protecting all my players that have any value and the asset rich teams probably lose a much better player than I will. But I feel like all GM's should have to expose 1 player.

IMO the focus should be on does it make the league better adding 2 to 4 new GM's and can we find 4 GM's without creating problems with turnover?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

#1 can be articulated in two ways and to your point we need to be clear on what we are trying to solve

Problem 1: We have less teams than the NHL. Is this a problem? Why?
Problem 2: We don't have Boston and Winnipeg

#2 is easy to solve in and of itself.

I prefer to look at it as less of a problem and more of a challenge. Why do we only have to change if there is a problem? Doesnt work that way in business.
With some of the guys we have here a solid expansion committee could be developed to create rules that would assist the league in managing some of the issues mentioned above.
The league was developed to follow the NHL, we playa schedule that follows the NHLs season, every GM looks at and rates their players based on how they are doing in the NHL, almost no trade is made where a reference isnt made referring to that players status in the NHL, so why not try and bring back a few teams and make the league a little closer to "NHL like".
At one point this league didnt want to hire GMs under a certain age, it was a question asked upon a person sending out feelers. I think Scorp has turned that thought on its head with his aggressiveness and knowledge regardless of age and made this place better for it.
This is so much simpler than having to find problems in order to change.
Sometimes change is good it breathes life back into whatever it is you are working on.

[Knut]

I also think we should adopt web/mobile lines. Most other leagues have them now and it is built into the sim. It is way beyond my computer ability but i am sure it is something that we should look at for next season.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by Knut

I also think we should adopt web/mobile lines. Most other leagues have them now and it is built into the sim. It is way beyond my computer ability but i am sure it is something that we should look at for next season.

I really like this idea. I suppose I could have just Thanked the post. Newb haha.

[TheScorpion]

If we adopt mobile lines, you won't have to worry about replacing the NYI GM. Will just say that up front.

Already debating sticking around anyway, even though my team is completely hopeless.

[MJK]

Ok that decides it then. Scorp sticks around if we expand!

[Knut]

FYI this is what it looks like in Browser. Note my crappy rebuilding team (i took over an asset poor team to try and turn it around.. not shown are my 7 2023 firsts). Pretty much works the same on mobile. Takes about 2 minutes to adjust your roster and set lines. Automatically loads into the sim.

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Knut

I also think we should adopt web/mobile lines. Most other leagues have them now and it is built into the sim. It is way beyond my computer ability but i am sure it is something that we should look at for next season.

If someone can volunteer to take point on that I'm 100% on board.
I don't know how to do it myself.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I prefer to look at it as less of a problem and more of a challenge. Why do we only have to change if there is a problem? Doesnt work that way in business.
With some of the guys we have here a solid expansion committee could be developed to create rules that would assist the league in managing some of the issues mentioned above.
The league was developed to follow the NHL, we playa schedule that follows the NHLs season, every GM looks at and rates their players based on how they are doing in the NHL, almost no trade is made where a reference isnt made referring to that players status in the NHL, so why not try and bring back a few teams and make the league a little closer to "NHL like".
At one point this league didnt want to hire GMs under a certain age, it was a question asked upon a person sending out feelers. I think Scorp has turned that thought on its head with his aggressiveness and knowledge regardless of age and made this place better for it.
This is so much simpler than having to find problems in order to change.
Sometimes change is good it breathes life back into whatever it is you are working on.

I guess we differ on this. If you aren't clear on what you are trying solve, you don't know if you have improved or not.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

The CPHL has evolved, many new rules to help so that any team on any given year can win a championship.

I think expansion would be a ton of fun for this league, inject a lot of interest, create a ton of trade activity and it would work.

It just has to be done the right way. Cheese can take the lead.

Any committee needs to have a balance of people who are both advocates for expansion and those that have hesitancy for valid reasons.
Because those advocating aggressively for expansion are not sufficiently, to this point, and in my view, acknowledging the concerns let alone providing answers on how they can be addressed.

Meaning in my view the committee should be not led by someone who is strongly opposed (e.g. me) or someone who is strongly for (e.g. Dave/Cheese) but rather someone who has a more balanced view of things considering pros and cons.

The question the committee should first begin with is IF we should expand and more fully explore the pros/cons, including short-term and long-term ramifications (my view is that it would be fun short-term and damaging long-term)
And then if the answer to that question is yes, then figure out what that might look like.

[Abstract]

Originally Posted by rumy

I'm a new GM, so my opinion is not as informed as others, but I am somewhat opposed to expansion as I believe it will dilute the asset pool. That said: I am enjoying the discussion here and am open to hearing more opinions (with my final vote still up for grabs).

I would love to see Boston & Winnipeg in the CPHL; relocate Arizona already! Back to Winnipeg, haha! CLB or Florida maybe as well?

Hey you move your team if you're that keen on it chummy. Florida is suiting me just fine.

[Abstract]

I might be being naive but I don't really get the dilution of talent argument. If the NHL has sufficient players for 32 teams then surely the CPHL would too?

Look at Montreal for example, kudos to their GM for obviously doing a great job but one team having McDavid, Suzuki, Tkachuk, Laferniere, Caulfield, Weegar and Hedman is bananas. I don't see how one or two of those players on a different roster doesn't have a positive impact on league parity?

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Abstract

I might be being naive but I don't really get the dilution of talent argument. If the NHL has sufficient players for 32 teams then surely the CPHL would too?

Look at Montreal for example, kudos to their GM for obviously doing a great job but one team having McDavid, Suzuki, Tkachuk, Laferniere, Caulfield, Weegar and Hedman is bananas. I don't see how one or two of those players on a different roster doesn't have a positive impact on league parity?

Yea, this is where I was getting at. I rather an active team with lesser assets get distributed wealth.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Abstract

I might be being naive but I don't really get the dilution of talent argument. If the NHL has sufficient players for 32 teams then surely the CPHL would too?

Look at Montreal for example, kudos to their GM for obviously doing a great job but one team having McDavid, Suzuki, Tkachuk, Laferniere, Caulfield, Weegar and Hedman is bananas. I don't see how one or two of those players on a different roster doesn't have a positive impact on league parity?

Asset distribution is more uneven in the CPHL.
Largely this is driven by teams that go for it, including through deficit spending, and deplete their asset base v. teams that build a long-term asset base.

The asset depletion would play out in a few different ways:
- There would be more teams competing for free agents. Free agency is one of the ways asset poor teams get players. More free agents tend to go to asset weak teams because asset rich teams have cap tied up in the player they have.
- There would be the same number of NHL quality prospects across more CPHL roster spots. The roster limits provokes a certain degree of movement of prospects including from prospect rich clubs. In an expanded world, there are the same number of good prospects available but now there are +30 ECHL spots and +50 AHL spots where they can land.
- It's the same across the NHL players. You have a certain number of top 3/6/9/12 forwards that spread across a certain number of CPHL roster spots. You increase the number of roster spots by +50 in an expansion world and that spreads the talent across.

Asset rich clubs will be fine because they've create a pinwheel where they always have a pipeline of new and cheaper players coming. So even if they lose someone for nothing, they can replace them.

The uneven spread would happen across the more asset poor teams that rely on player movement, free agency, etc to get their assets.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Abstract

I might be being naive but I don't really get the dilution of talent argument. If the NHL has sufficient players for 32 teams then surely the CPHL would too?

Look at Montreal for example, kudos to their GM for obviously doing a great job but one team having McDavid, Suzuki, Tkachuk, Laferniere, Caulfield, Weegar and Hedman is bananas. I don't see how one or two of those players on a different roster doesn't have a positive impact on league parity?

Expansion is unlikely to solve for that because expansion rules would probably allow Goffie to protect all those guys.
You aren't going to see movement of the most valuable assets, though by a natural result, the teams with a deeper pool of assets will lose something more valuable.