Discussion on improving the league.

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by 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.

This would be awesome. Probably a lot of work though but I'd watch! Guaranteed the production level would be miles ahead of whatever crap Sportsnet broadcasts.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

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!

Conceptually I agree but there's no way to do that in the sim.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Conceptually I agree but there's no way to do that in the sim.

Counter point. Most times I don't submit lines it's because I assume that my previous lines are just used.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Counter point. Most times I don't submit lines it's because I assume that my previous lines are just used.

Which is wrong.
GMs should submit lines every game. This has been stated numerous times.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Which is wrong.
GMs should submit lines every game. This has been stated numerous times.

Well, I learned that when I had an 8 - 0 loss and it came back with a line up with 24 players and a goalie not on my roster suddenly on my roster.

[Harry Lime]

Considering where we are in the season, it might be beneficial to re-visit the possibility of adding prizes to the playoffs. I struggle to find the downside of offering dynasty incentive to playoff success. Something like a supplemental round for the two conference loser after the second round of the draft, and a supplemental round for the two finalists after the first round. Any yays or nays?

[Blaster86]

As someone who inherited a team with no assets, any means to accrue additional assets is a-okay by me.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I don't know how that helps the asset disparity and in fact would it not make it worse?

[Knut]

How about a Minnesota Wild Dispersal Draft ?

<Ducks>

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't know how that helps the asset disparity and in fact would it not make it worse?

I would add incentive for the team in the spots close to the cutoff to not become sellers. It would drive more trades, and raise the prices on players of teams who are selling at the deadline, because there would be fewer.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I would add incentive for the team in the spots close to the cutoff to not become sellers. It would drive more trades, and raise the prices on players of teams who are selling at the deadline, because there would be fewer.

I agree. I think you would see teams at the top more willing to load up to win now which would help the guys at the bottom when they are selling.

The teams winning aren't always the asset rich teams either and it would only be picks past 28th overall.

There are some really asset rich teams choosing to continue to build when it's pretty clear they could set themselves up to win now.

[Macho0978]

Another thought, we could make all traded 1st round picks lottery protected. If a traded first is a top 5 pick it goes back to the original owner and the first available first round pick by that franchise is awarded to the team that lost the first?

[BagoPucks]

Nm wrong thread

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Another thought, we could make all traded 1st round picks lottery protected. If a traded first is a top 5 pick it goes back to the original owner and the first available first round pick by that franchise is awarded to the team that lost the first?

Lottery protection is something that can be built into trades at the individual deal level. Surprised more deals don't have that though.

But I don't know that it needs to be a mandated thing.

I think though a mandated rule could be something like

"If the traded pick is in the top 5, and the team that traded that pick still owns their first for the next year, then they can trade that future pick instead and retain the top 5 pick. The future pick has no additional lottery protection".


I don't think it’s fair if picks are deferred years because the trading team has no future picks. They need to own their future 1st. Which may deter teams from constantly trading those picks.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think other thing is how to you handle firsts that move more than once?

[Harry Lime]

Yeah, I think that lottery protection should start being normalized as part of the trade, and if it is unprotected, you get more value for that lack thereof.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Lottery protection is something that can be built into trades at the individual deal level. Surprised more deals don't have that though.

But I don't know that it needs to be a mandated thing.

I think though a mandated rule could be something like

"If the traded pick is in the top 5, and the team that traded that pick still owns their first for the next year, then they can trade that future pick instead and retain the top 5 pick. The future pick has no additional lottery protection".


I don't think it’s fair if picks are deferred years because the trading team has no future picks. They need to own their future 1st. Which may deter teams from constantly trading those picks.

I guess when I suggested it I was thinking of the prespective if an owner quits, the new guy comes in and has a bad team and no picks. This is what seems to be the problem we are trying to fix. Maybe if a new owner comes in with no picks, their first is top 5 propected?

I started in this league with one of the worst teams in the standings, a team that was old and way over the cap but I also did not have my first. I didn't trade the first.

Not sure how often it happens but if the new GMs came in and have no picks it sets them back for years and some probably quit trying to dig out of the hole.

I'm ok to leave it too, just an idea. Can't always cater to people who quit when they start with less.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I agree that’s a significant problem
This was a suggestion I posted earlier


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

[TheScorpion]

I am willing to do whatever it takes to implement a mobile, web-based line submitting solution for next season and beyond, to the point of potentially financing it myself if need be.

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I am willing to do whatever it takes to implement a mobile, web-based line submitting solution for next season and beyond, to the point of potentially financing it myself if need be.

What's the cost here? I have more researched this at all but would contribute as well