|
Post by seadawg on Apr 9, 2014 19:11:32 GMT -5
I really think a cap is a non-starter. It is much more work to manage. Who will be responsible for ensuring everyone stays under the cap with roster moves, trades, FA pick ups, etc.? That's asking a lot from a commish.
Plus, how do we decide what cap amount to use?
I'm in a cap league and there are 12 pages of rules. They can get very complicated.
I also don't really understand how a cap benefits the bottom teams, and therefore don't see a point in implementing a cap.
|
|
|
Post by roenick27 on Apr 9, 2014 19:22:45 GMT -5
I've always played in a cap league. To me it creates balance by $ and activity because of moving $ I would hope we would all follow rules and yes for one person it would be a lot but maybe if adam wanted to he could probably find a few of us to be mods to help out. The cap IMO makes you be a gm in more senses and forces teams to make decisions. In here the top teams wouldn't be under a cap, hence the better teams would be adjusted, as would other teams. Keep a lot of top end guys and you'll have no depth. It forces a mix.
It clearly provides balance.
One of the issues that hasn't been brought up and I could be wrong, but the top teams seem to be originals. The bottom ones had to take over a team and since there's no cap etc, the original teams have all of the better players. They could be been drafted. They could be been stolen from GMs that were on their way out. Adam is right. Activity is the main problem, but the way the league is situated now, I fear there will still be limited activity.
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Apr 10, 2014 5:41:41 GMT -5
I think we should stick it out with everything as is for one more year and focus on everyone being active. If people aren't active, or changes need to be made, we can revisit it. That's my opinion.
If we want changes now, I would vote for the re-draft with protecting 12-14 assets. I don't like the .5 prospect suggestion, only because if we start with the re-draft, I think everyone needs to have the same amount of assets (12-14 kept, 14-16 round draft, 10 round prospect draft). Those draft picks would not be allowed to be dealt. Then what happens to the 2014 and 2015 draft picks everyone owns? Do they get reset?
I won't be a part of a cap league. I don't have the time and quite frankly, I just don't want to do that. So if you guys want to go that route, I will bow out of the league.
It's a slippery slope with the way we are going. Leagues completely fall apart with discussions like this.
|
|
|
Post by roenick27 on Apr 10, 2014 5:50:51 GMT -5
z3.invisionfree.com/Hip_Checkers_Hockey/index.php?act=idxI just posted this link. Its the other league I'm in. Its a cap league, H2H 14 team etc so its a different animal. Basically I wanted to show the activity difference, how the NHL AHL JUNIORS set up is, our waiver rule at salary of 1.75 M to clear etc, I won the playoffs in year one and have rebuilt since. Went for it again last year and then quickly rebuilt and powered up again for next year. Its a very active and fun league. I'm not saying convert the league but maybe an idea or two that we could adopt or modify to fit this league might help out this league
|
|
|
Post by raylinke on Apr 18, 2014 12:20:59 GMT -5
As a new GM I wanted to stay the course and see what I had on my team so I wasn't jumping to make trades.
If doing a redraft it is only fair to have a Prospect be worth half a roster player. If you look at the top 2 teams they have Roster players and not much for prospects but they each have 10+ of the top 50 players in the league. Doing a redraft with every player being of equal value will mean that they each keep their major advantage and those rebuilding teams or teams loaded with prospects would have lose their advantage of future (possible) stars. REDRAFT - WITH PROSPECTS WORTH HALF - I WOULD VOTE YES
I agree something needs to be done, and I thought about a cap but also agree it can cause headaches, but the good thing is it is only at the beginning of the season and when making trades or waiver pickups. It does help force the trades though as some teams would be forced to dump players and others would have tons of space to add and prospects to give up. UNDECIDED on adding CAP
Agreed that the top teams are the original teams and might have had the chance to rape and pillage other managers that considering leaving and then did. That happens all the time though and not much can be done about it.
Just turn the league into a limited Keeper with the prospect lists protected still. WOULD CONSIDER THIS
To throw out another possible suggestion as we have a limit on the length we can keep prospects how about the same for Roster players? contract limit on all current roster players before they become eligible for redraft, and every promoted Prospect that gets promoted to roster gets a 'X' year Term limit as well. We could start this out by giving everyone a 5 full contracts, and then start lessening term down by 1 year and determining the amount of players for each value until we are down to say 2 for 1 year deals for player 27 + 28. So next year everyone has at least 2 players that are entered into the redraft. By Adding in a rule where any player that has played 125-150 games (1.5-2 years) is not a prospect and any prospect that plays his 125 game in a season is promoted at end of year regardless when he was picked. This prevents hoarding of prospects and tanking with awesome stud prospects still on Prospect list. So if they have played in the NHL for 2 years they will be close to being roster players and would definitely be forced off by end of year 3. maybe putting a term limit of 5 years and any trade for a player adds 1 year to their term. with a Rule to prevent trading and regaining a player so I cant trade Ovie for Crosby and then trade Crosby for Ovie to get 2 more years on the contracts. Maybe no retrading for a player within 2 years or something. Just an idea as I know some leagues have this to force trades and roster turnover. Who wants to get stuck putting Crosby back in the draft for nothing?
Ray
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Apr 19, 2014 9:00:13 GMT -5
The issue for me with prospects being worth half an asset is that teams will have more assets than others at the start. A re-draft is supposed to get everyone on "even terms". The top teams will have stronger 14 keepers but it will close the gap a little bit.
If we stand pat, we need 2 GM's. We could have those teams re-draft their teams with players from both teams.
|
|
|
Post by mrquacky on Apr 21, 2014 23:20:57 GMT -5
This is by far the worst time of the year in terms of activity. No trades, no free agency...and not many teams are in contention so they don't need to make roster moves. Active GM's are: Myself, seadawg, burnsy, roenick, akkei, pucksuckers, raylinke Inactive GM's: JR and mrquacky JR said he will be more active and I have talked to Chris (mrquacky). I don't think booting them out is necessary right now. Just to comment on this, I was definitely extremely inactive this year. Had myself a very busy year personally and got myself into a few too many leagues. I'm working to trim it down right now and will definitely be more of a presence next year.
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Apr 23, 2014 15:38:21 GMT -5
I think we need to come to a solution quickly. I believe these are our best options:
1. Stand pat. 2. Keep 14 assets then re-draft. Prospects count as a full asset. I can't stress enough the importance that every team starts with the same amount of assets.
If we stand pat, I think we should throw the players from the available teams into a draft and let the two new owners draft from those assets.
|
|
|
Post by raylinke on Apr 24, 2014 10:37:35 GMT -5
A redraft is suppose to even the playing field and let teams keep some of their players. If prospects are worth the same as a roster player we will be in the same boat instantly as the top teams traded multiple prospects to gain top players and the therefore the top teams have the top players so doing a limited keeper where they keep their X amount of players leaves them well ahead of all the other teams. By allowing prospects to count as half that gives the lesser teams who have less top end talent the chance to keep extra prospects instead of low end keepers and possibly close the gap to the top teams sooner.
The top teams would have less protected players but that is what they have right now as the tops teams have very few prospects and a lot of high end talent. The lesser teams have a lot of prospects but very little high end talent so they would be able to keep some of their extra prospects in exchange for all the high end talent that they cannot keep as they simply don't have.
I think this is the fairest way to do it as if you were rebuilding you have less quality players and more prospects and you will still need to draft a playable roster. So what is some teams have 25 assets and some 14. Some teams have like 28 and others 70 or more right now. Is that fair? yes the team with 28 has 28 GOOD to GREAT players and the teams with 70 have a few good to great players and a BUNCH of prospects that MIGHT be good or even great but not all of them will be that is for sure.
|
|
|
Post by akkei on Apr 24, 2014 11:39:04 GMT -5
I agree with the comments made by Ray. If roster players and prospects are considered as being equal, then the redraft process will hurt the bottom teams instead of helping them. I think that it is a step in the wrong direction for them, but also for the league as it would not address the balance issue. I would feel differently if we would keep - let's say - 5 assets. Then all GMs would only be keeping high end assets, whether they are prospects or not. I do not think this is an option that is of any interests for the remaining active GMs in this league however.
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Apr 24, 2014 16:25:54 GMT -5
It impacts the ability to pick players up in free agency. It impacts the ability to make trades. Having more assets is beneficial.
The redraft process is only going to help the bottom teams. They will still be the worst teams at the start, but that SHOULD be the case. The redraft is supposed to close the gap, not make everything even in the standings.
A compromise could be prospects are worth .5 assets but you can have a maximum of 18 assets. And then at the end of the 10 round prospect draft, the teams continue drafting until all teams have equal assets. For example:
Team A keeps 14 Team B keeps 16 Team C keeps 17 Team D keeps 18
After the 10 round prospect draft, there will be an additional 4 rounds. Team A gets 4 picks, Team B would get 2, Team C would get 1, and Team D would get none.
There are some teams with STACKED prospect teams and good roster players. They could essentially have 20 good starters whereas the top teams would only have 14.
|
|
|
Post by seadawg on Apr 25, 2014 8:30:54 GMT -5
It impacts the ability to pick players up in free agency. It impacts the ability to make trades. Having more assets is beneficial. Although this is true, the fact is that we are only talking about a small number of extra assets for the teams that have plenty of prospects worth protecting. I assume that even the bottom teams will keep at least 5 or 6 roster players (and probably more really), which would amount to only 8 or 9 extra assets. Considering the current imbalance in this league between the top and bottom teams, I seriously doubt that 8 or 9 extra assets is going to close the gap all that much. I agree that it offers a bit of an advantage, but I don't think it will have a serious impact. I believe the real advantage from this process is the re-draft, where the bottom teams will be able to improve their core roster players and the top teams will weaken their core roster players. As a top team, it certainly hurts to have to sacrifice some of the good players on my team, but I think to save this league, that is the only solution. The problem with this league, unfortunately, is that for whatever reason (turnover, lack of experience, etc.) some of the teams at the bottom of the standings (previous owners mostly) made some poor trade decisions that have negatively impacted their ability to compete. I agree that with patience and good decisions going forward, even the bottom teams can be competitive in a few years, but the truth is that most people don't have the patience to wait that long, and we are trying to encourage new owners to take over the bottom teams, which is not going to be easy unless we have a re-draft and make the process weighted in favor of the bottom teams.
|
|
|
Post by seadawg on Apr 25, 2014 8:43:55 GMT -5
For example, looking at the last place team (currently does not have an owner), I think most people would keep the following assets. This only amounts to 6 extra assets.
Roster players:
Jonathan Huberdeau Mikkel Boedker Wayne Simmonds Ryan Johansen Brandon Saad Morgan Rielly Dougie Hamilton Carey Price
Prospects (.5 assets):
Evgeny kuznetsov 2010 Nikita kucherov 2011 Chris kreider 2009 Tomas hertl 2012 Ryan Strome -2011 Elias lindholm 2013 Anthony mantha 2013 Jakob Silfverberg Ryan Murphy 2011 Brandon Gormley -2010 Robin Lehner -2009 John Gibson 2011
|
|
|
Post by burnsy00 on Apr 27, 2014 9:12:59 GMT -5
I see a lot of good communication coming out of this. When we went through this I'm the other league that folded it just went sideways and the result was no result and fold. I think we atleast all agree that there needs to be a change. I chose to rebuild my team after seeing it never had a chance to compete with the top teams and I also know that I had something to do with that. It's a learning process for most gm's new or veteran. That all being said I like the idea of a redraft and having to keep x amount of players valued at 1 point and c amount of prospects valued at one half point up to a maximum of x points as in te example as shown. To be honest and I should know because my team is a have not team I would much rather have 12 Guys names Corey perry Ryan Getzlaf she's weber Carey price etc then 8 guys like Bozak and palat and landeskog and a few promising prospects like Drouin and Hamilton and John Gibson because we all know and the proof is in te pudding that points is what wins championships. Not potential prospects. Sure it's great if you can draft mackinnon and boom he gets 60 points as a rookie but how many points did Kessel and Giroux and Getzlaf get this year? I love that I have Drouin but he hadn't shown squat at the nhl level so there is nothin written in stone that he will produce a point per game ever! How many players have you seen in the past get over 100 points once or twice or more in junior hockey become high draft picks and never amount to anything at the pro level? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) It happens every year. Not everything is a sure thing. So in saying all this my thoughts are if Adam for example keeps 12 active players no prospects and I keep 8 active players and 8 prospects and it is considered all equal how much do any of you want to bet that Adam will win every year regardless of those prospects? My guess is almost every year. So I agree that it helps cinch up the gap slightly which is what we all want te end result to be but i think the worried few that think a team that gets to keep a few extra assets vs actual nhl roster calibre players is worrying for nothing. Prospects don't win. Active players do. In closing I am on the redraft side with all teams keeping a weighted point value of maximum points and half point for an asset of prospect value and then when the time comes to draft and fill the roster the teams that chose to keep a kucherov or vatanen as prospects vs Andrew Ladd as a keeper will have to fill in their roster with the left overs while the team yet chose to keep Eric staal and no prospects will still be ahead and thinking of how they are going to spend their winnings at the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by burnsy00 on May 1, 2014 9:14:44 GMT -5
Soooo. Where do we all stand?
|
|