Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-14-2022, 05:58 PM   #21
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

It does have a basis Cheese. We saw it when we had more teams.
The first time we did expansion we had to unwind it mere years later because the teams were no fun to manage.

I contend contraction has helped asset distribution by having the same amount of assets spread across fewer teams. Adding more teams will add more weak teams and you will have the same number of strong asset teams.

I'm happy to do a vote to see what the appetite is but the vote will not be binding.
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 06:01 PM   #22
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
Exp:
Default

Grant, I hear you loud and clear but I actually think expansion can work now. How many teams now are required to dump really good players every year to get back to the $75mill. Not only that, you do an expansion, those teams no longer get solid assets to dump players, they get picked by the new teams.

I think the CPHL changes have been good but I do think an expansion of 1-2 teams can easily work now.

Each year it’s a superstar firesale so GMs are cap compliant where expansion means those guys go to new teams and no assets in return to the already stacked teams.
MJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 06:02 PM   #23
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Why would you bring a vote to the league without making it binding? If its successful put a group of guys together in committee to create the rules around expansion and do it. Just because the were issues before doesn't mean there will be now. Different times.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 06:03 PM   #24
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

A vote can be a way to gauge the interest from GMs but a decision of that magnitude shouldn't be done on an internet vote. My role is to shepherd the long-term health of the league, along with the other commissioners.
So I'm happy to take a vote as a data point, but not the way we make decisions as large as this.

"Just do it" isn't sufficient to make this decision.

Last edited by Jiri Hrdina; 11-14-2022 at 06:06 PM.
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 06:04 PM   #25
SportsJunky
Uncle Chester
 
SportsJunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exp:
Default

I have 1 or 2 players I'd like to kick to the curb!
SportsJunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 06:16 PM   #26
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina View Post
A vote can be a way to gauge the interest from GMs but a decision of that magnitude shouldn't be done on an internet vote. My role is to shepherd the long-term health of the league, along with the other commissioners.
So I'm happy to take a vote as a data point, but not the way we make decisions as large as this.

"Just do it" isn't sufficient to make this decision.
Don't take me wrong on this Grant, But your not the CEO of a multi million dollar company here..this is a free to play league where everyone involved commits their free time to make it what it is. Yes you steer it, but you can have some flexibility. Even in a large company CEOs have to go through process every now and then to get a vote of confidence. You don't. Try different things. Might be fun.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 06:22 PM   #27
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

I have always had flexibility. We've made a ton of changes in this league over the year, most of them for the better.
But I also was the commissioner in this league when we had too many teams and I feel like I can offer knowledge from that experience.
Again, I contend contraction helped the league.
I don't believe expansion would.

I'm open to counter arguments but so far nothing stated has addressed my concerns.
Asset disparity is the biggest issue many of these leagues face. My view is this would make it worse. Right now the fact there are more NHL assets than CPHL clubs gives every team some chance to get some piece of the pie. With more teams that pie has more forks eating from it. And I would wager than the asset rich clubs would continue to be (because of their overall approach) and that it would make it harder on asset weak clubs.

Net result - a less healthy league.
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 07:51 PM   #28
JonDuke
Franchise Player
 
JonDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Icon56

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJK View Post
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.
I've asked before about moving my roster from Philly to Winnipeg. I'd love to GM the Jets.

I do realize that Cam would have to do some work on the backend and he simply might not even have time. If he did though, I'd be willing to pay for his time on something like this.
JonDuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2022, 08:01 PM   #29
BagoPucks
First Line Centre
 
BagoPucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

i think it is nice to have a full 32 team league but I think the league is very healthy with 28 teams. I have been in leagues that have stretched itself to fill those last 4 more teams and I think it hurts more than it helps. Not only is it hard to constantly find GMs to fill the least active guys it is hard to justify diluting assets. I find it is better to have an active core than a full 32. I might be wrong but do we have 4 very strong GMs waiting in the fold? I dont usually think that is the case.

As for switching teams and bringing out teams like the Bruins is a no brainer provided the technical support to switch it up.
BagoPucks is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BagoPucks For This Useful Post:
Old 11-15-2022, 06:55 AM   #30
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BagoPucks View Post
i think it is nice to have a full 32 team league but I think the league is very healthy with 28 teams. I have been in leagues that have stretched itself to fill those last 4 more teams and I think it hurts more than it helps. Not only is it hard to constantly find GMs to fill the least active guys it is hard to justify diluting assets. I find it is better to have an active core than a full 32. I might be wrong but do we have 4 very strong GMs waiting in the fold? I dont usually think that is the case.

As for switching teams and bringing out teams like the Bruins is a no brainer provided the technical support to switch it up.
Just like Ive found all of you, I could find 4 more GMs to fill new teams. Will there be churn, maybe, but certainly there are enough people out there to play.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 02:40 PM   #31
simmer2
Franchise Player
 
simmer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

What is the problem that expansion is trying to solve?
simmer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 02:52 PM   #32
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer2 View Post
What is the problem that expansion is trying to solve?
Problem? Why does it have to be a problem? Why not just a refresh to help alleviate some of the humdrum of < 1/3 of the leagues GMs dealing at any given time. My thoughts would be that this would bring movement, trades, new ideas by new GMs, a general rise in excitement and a desire to bring at least 2 of the 4 teams missing from the NHL back into the fold.
Shouldn't the question be, why not? It doesn't cost a thing outside of effort. Dilution did not seem to be an issue in the NHL when Vegas or Seattle joined the league.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 02:58 PM   #33
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Doesn't cost anything but risks the health of the league.
I don't think you can compare asset dilution issues faced by fantasy leagues with asset dilution not happening in the NHL.
I've tried to articulate, perhaps not effectively, the why nots.
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
Old 11-15-2022, 03:04 PM   #34
agulati
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

More than expansion, I like the idea of a refresh draft set maybe 2/3 years down the road where teams can start from scratch.
agulati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 03:05 PM   #35
Swayze11
something else haha
 
Swayze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

I would love an expansion draft - it feels bad to not have Boston as a team.
__________________

Swayze11 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Swayze11 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-15-2022, 03:08 PM   #36
Cheese
Franchise Player
 
Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina View Post
Doesn't cost anything but risks the health of the league.
I don't think you can compare asset dilution issues faced by fantasy leagues with asset dilution not happening in the NHL.
I've tried to articulate, perhaps not effectively, the why nots.
I look at it more from a risk adverse perspective. It can actually be damaging to the league to not challenge yourself or the league to change. We have lost good GMs because we simply do not challenge ourselves to enhance movement. We risk health by not doing anything as well.
Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
MJK
Old 11-15-2022, 03:15 PM   #37
Swayze11
something else haha
 
Swayze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

There is no question there are teams who have spent years (decades as well) adding to their team.

I feel the end goal is to have a consistent pipeline of players from ECHL, AHL and NHL where you are never impacted by UFAs because you have AHLers getting called up. There is no question we have teams with this asset wealth. I would say NJ is very top heavy but I would consider my team as being asset rich.

Although I do love the idea of an expansion draft it needs to be thought out instead of just being a knee jerk reaction. My biggest concern would be taking an asset away from a poor asset team. I feel like an expansion team would have a better team than other existing teams very quickly.
__________________

Swayze11 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Swayze11 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-15-2022, 03:30 PM   #38
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese View Post
I look at it more from a risk adverse perspective. It can actually be damaging to the league to not challenge yourself or the league to change. We have lost good GMs because we simply do not challenge ourselves to enhance movement. We risk health by not doing anything as well.
When GMs resign the most common reason they give me is that something in their life has changed and they no longer have the time to commit to the game.
I would say the second most common reason is when GMs are given asset weak clubs, and they find the game not fun because they don't have enough to work with.

I think the expansion draft would be fun for GMs of asset rich teams, and GMs of expansion teams. I think it would stink for asset weak teams. And I agree with Pat they likely end up worse than expansion teams.
Jiri Hrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 03:31 PM   #39
Knut
 
Knut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exp:
Default

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.
Knut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2022, 03:33 PM   #40
Cambam8
Scoring Winger
 
Cambam8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Newfoundland
Exp:
Default

Enjoying this discussion
Cambam8 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 02:22 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




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