|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Feb 22, 2017 3:04:26 GMT -5
Just throwing this out for conversation. I don't know why, after 12 years in this league that I am wondering about this, but I think it could be interesting for teams that are rebuilding.
What are your thoughts on the NsHL allowing trading one of your two NHL Re-Rates. Some teams struggle to use them, as they usually have veteran teams. Others have too many players to NHL Re-Rate, and that's where players start getting lost in the shuffle until their UFA's.
And this is just discussion. No one needing to insult here. What would be everyone's thoughts on allowing the trade of one of your NHL Re-Rates? What would the value be if that was allowed? Future penalties? Would the NsHLPA allow this?
Just curious, and to make some fine discussion.
|
|
|
Post by The_ZeroCool on Feb 22, 2017 12:36:06 GMT -5
Well I would say that It is not allowed only because if we start trading for something that is not "physical" then that would start opening the flood gates for other things to be traded that aren't part of the actual game.
I for one would rather not. because then, if we trade for re-rates then lets say a team that is building has all good NHLers but bad NsHLers and re-rates his whole team, then wins it all next season.... Kind of loses the excitement of building a team with hard work and development. Hope that makes sense.
Only way it could be possible is allowing for a team under certain restrictions to gain one more. Give more help to lesser teams. But, again, I like how the League makes all GM's work hard to keep their respective teams a float. Also, making us figure our own way of making our team better or worse. That is what makes us better GMs no?
Making it easier is not rewarding. Of course all base on my own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by NJDevilsGM on Feb 22, 2017 12:48:14 GMT -5
I'd be for it. As a team that was rebuilding it'd have been nice to add another rerate,it would also add more value to teams trading a rerateable player. Currently I find GM's trading players who could qualify for a rerate asking far to much simply because, while said player could be rerated, the acquiring team would have to burn half of their rerate allotment to rerate him.
If allowed though I'd cap the number of rerates a team could have. Say something like no more than four rerates and no fewer than one.
As far as the problem with trading something not physical the easy way around it would be to trade two physical items and add the rerate into the trade. For example, New Jersey trades a 3rd to Philadelphia for a 7th and one rerate. To make it transparent, since a rerate wouldn't reflect in the transaction log, there could be a requirement to post the trades in the thread for rerates Roger always sets up on the message board anyway.
|
|
SJSharks
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 472
|
Post by SJSharks on Feb 22, 2017 15:36:49 GMT -5
I'd say just keep it as is. It might become a pain in the ass keeping tabs on who has what for rerates. There are times I wish I had more rerates but there have been times when 2 was too much. LOL. I just think it would just cause extra work than what is needed. Also, the price of rerates I'm sure would go through the roof so they probably wouldn't get dealt much anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim GM on Feb 22, 2017 16:08:07 GMT -5
If a team in the NHL can trade it so should a team in the NsHL be able to. And vice versa. This league has stood the test of time and has flourished over the years under the premise and foundation that we are collectively offering a "REALISTIC" environment for GMs to simulate the NHL experience as closely as humanly possible. The continual drive towards realism is the foundation of every decision that we make, whether we like it or not. "What would be realistic, as to create realistic challenges that the NHL offers its GMs, that is the real question. I am quite certain there are 30 GMs in the NHL that do not agree to every rule and that is absolutely realistic, so the discussion here is, well, realistic. However, in looking at this matter closely, there is no other conclusion that we can arrive to when discussing whether rerates should be a tradable commodity. If we begin to trade NHL rerates, an intangible object that does not exist in the NHL, then Pandora's box is left wide open to trade other fictional pieces. Trade PDP points? Trade revenue generated from endorsements? In my opinion, it sets a very poor, and potentially dangerous precedent, and for that reason, I do not agree with it.
However, let me tell you a few other reasons why I do not like that idea and the pitfalls it could bring to the NsHL's doorstep:
1) It would incentivizes teams to not invest in their youth, the draft, and building your own players from within, all VERY IMPORTANT WAYS TO WIN IN THIS LEAGUE AND SURVIVE THE SALARY CAP ERA. Remember, on the other end of someone receiving a rerate is someone who is neglecting to bring out a player, nurture a player, and invest in one of their players.
2) It would render value to actual rerates instead of to the players who need re-rates, causing teams who have three or more players who could use a rerate (and are willing to trade such players) to have less value than they do today. So it would change the dynamics of value in the teams that spend a lot of time drafting, cultivating, and bringing people along the correct way. The NHL way, really. This dynamic is not realistic in the least and, therefore, is again a problem I have with the idea.
3) It encourages teams to not bring out their talent in a timely fashion. It would create a market of keeping your prospects in the prospect list as long as you can to avoid having to use rerates, which is already a problem the NsHLPA combats daily. One of the reasons why we give GMs a hefty break when they bring their prospects out at their earliest convenience to begin cultivating their talent in their own organization. It is the dyanmic of the NHL to bring youth out earlier and earlier and we should be doing the same. "Well, I will just trade my two rerates this year and keep my talent in the prospect list until they can make a contribution at the NsHL level. Then, I really don't need rerates, I simply can trade them off for assets and manage my prospect creation."<----------------I hope this is not what we are looking for in the NsHL, because it creates a market that should not exist and does not exist in the NHL. For no other reason than that, this should not be considered for implementation.
4) We are assuming that there are teams out there who do not have 2 reratable players. Perhaps that is the case in this league. I remember a year or two where it wasn't as sexy to use my rerates, however, I do NOT recall a year in which I simply wasted them because I could not use them. However, if it is, indeed the case, then perhaps that GM needs to rethink long and hard their organizational strategy. Even if you improve someone as an AsHL player you are increasing an asset on your team. The chances of them improving enough to be a servicable player in the NsHL improve incredibly as they improve in the AsHL. Ask Joe Morrow on my team.
5) Rerates were, are, and will be in the future, used as a vehicle to help keep the NsHL in a loose sync with the NHL. They are a vehicle to help GMs invest in their youth players and they are an incredibly important part of the nurturing process in the NsHL. Without them, it would be difficult to emulate the NHL as well as I think we do here and would certainly change the entire dynamic of the league.
6) Putting a value on a foundational, structural piece that helps make the NsHL a unique place to play would be incredibly difficult. The rerates I have used over the years have been absolutely priceless to me and the process of staying competitive. Ryan Getzlaf (2). Derek Stepan (1). Nazem Kadri (1). Mattias Ekholm (1). Anton Khudobin (2). Kyle Palmieri (1). Nick Bonino (1). Matt Beleskey (1). The core of my team, essentially. There is absolutely nothing realistic that you can give me that would make me want to give up my power of bringing my youth along, that's for sure. To further this point, because the value is too high, coupled with the fact that it is intangible, it is too difficult and dangerous to place into the open market.
While there are a few other reasons, I think the point is already made
****************************************************************
Now, with that being said, I think the idea of having a lottery consolation prize that includes a third rerate to be something that perhaps we should look at as a league. In the situation where the last place team gets leap frogged in the yearly entry draft, perhaps an added rerate to their organization will both create an environment that fosters parity, as well as helps the individual team move their team towards being competitive in a quicker fashion. That suggestion I would be willing to make.
Additionally, this should be started in NsHL GM Discussions and not in "In Character" media posts....but the discussion is excellent. Thanks for bringing up some good ideas, guys. Personally, I love the fact that so many great people want this league to be a better place for its GMs. The NsHL is extraordinarily challenging because the GMs here are ridiculously good....And they keep getting better and better. Every year. There really are no shortcuts and before you get to heaven, sometimes you have to go through hell. God knows, I know this all too well.
|
|
|
Post by LAKingsGM on Feb 22, 2017 16:16:07 GMT -5
Great idea.
|
|
|
Post by LAKingsGM on Feb 22, 2017 16:19:03 GMT -5
If anyone likes the idea of trading an intangible that doesn't exist in the NHL for something here in the NsHL, I question whether you really understand the foundation of the NsHL. The NsHL has always been based on the premise of realism and PDPs and re-rates that are intangible help develop players the way our organization sees fit. These are ways we can 'train' our players that NHL teams utilize training camps and team coaching and specialists to accomplish in the NHL.
So what you'd like to do is trade your "training camp" and 'power skating and conditioning camp' for a 1st round pick, a player, and some cash. DOES THIS TRADE MAKE SENSE WHATSOEVER?
Not at all.
There we have it.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Feb 22, 2017 17:29:07 GMT -5
This thread has been moved to the NsHL GM Discussions section.
I feel like the reasons have been laid out pretty well above, but it is never a good idea to allow things that aren't tangible assets (players, picks, etc.) to be traded. Whether that be re-rates, PDPs, what have you.
NHL re-rates are simply a player development tool. This would be similar to teams trading practice time or training camps (as noted above). It just doesn't make sense to do such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Feb 22, 2017 18:05:31 GMT -5
I do not like the idea, and specifically because of the reasons outlined above. If you want to add more NHL rerates, or trade some NHL rerates you have to be creative and savvy with trades. It can be done without actually trading the rerate. Ex. LA/PHILLY/WPG 3 way deal from draft day.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Feb 22, 2017 23:58:15 GMT -5
Not a fan of trading rerates. Then again I'm not a fan of trading draft picks for cash .. which is unrealistic, but allowed.
|
|
|
Post by LAKingsGM on Feb 23, 2017 11:58:20 GMT -5
Ron brings up a great point and it's one WORTH noting. If the NHL doesn't do it, we should look into following the same practice. You can trade cash in a trade in the NHL for an asset but not for a draft pick by itself. There has to be a tangible asset along with it. That's a point worth looking into. Currently, it is practice to be able to trade picks for cash in the NsHL. While this isn't an egregious exaggeration (bc they are both TANGIBLE ASSETS), in keeping with realism, the NHL doesn't do it...maybe we shouldn't either. Good point, Ron.
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Feb 23, 2017 14:07:47 GMT -5
Ron brings up a great point and it's one WORTH noting. If the NHL doesn't do it, we should look into following the same practice. You can trade cash in a trade in the NHL for an asset but not for a draft pick by itself. There has to be a tangible asset along with it. That's a point worth looking into. Currently, it is practice to be able to trade picks for cash in the NsHL. While this isn't an egregious exaggeration (bc they are both TANGIBLE ASSETS), in keeping with realism, the NHL doesn't do it...maybe we shouldn't either. Good point, Ron. Agreed, even more so because a lot of the time teams are getting fleeced in these deals.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Feb 23, 2017 18:56:28 GMT -5
Leave it to Ned to fire the salvo! lol.... I knew you couldn't resist. It's in your blood!
Mark's idea is great. While I do believe that there is no value in an unrealistic asset, I do believe that if set up correctly, the trade of an NHL re-rate would become as much of an asset as a 1st or 2nd rounder. Now, that being said, I do like the current system, and do not feel there is anything wrong with it. Hey, if it isn't broken, why fix it. But teams have been known, mostly in the Minors to trade players for sticks, equipment, team bus, money, coaches, and other tangible assets to gain assets. Therefore, if I look at it that way, then why not a re-rate because it is an asset. I'm not a fan of the idea of trading PDPs. That would be a real mess.
But let's be hypothetical here for a second:
A team could be allowed a maximum of 3. No less than one. If you trade one, you cannot trade another for a certain period of time, say three to four years, (which yes, I know would take some tracking, but hey, we are pretty honest here). Third re-rate must be used on someone who is 24 and under. And whatever else. So considering a re-rate may not be a legitimate asset, it's still an example of an asset that teams in the pro's and minors will use anything in there arsenal to make a deal happen. I remember my Dad's Junior A team trading a player for sticks and tape.
Here's a couple of hockey examples of weird trades:
Kris Draper gets traded from Winnipeg to Detroit for a dollar. (Yes, LEGAL trade in the NsHL)
Tom Martin traded for a bus: In 1983, the Seattle Breakers traded him to Victoria for a used bus and future considerations. Seattleās bus had recently blown an engine during a road trip so they were in desperation for a bus, and Martin was just the guy to make that happen for the Breakers.
Once again, let me be SPECIFIC, I do NOT think the current rule is broken nor needs to be changed at all, and this is just for token discussion, as we rarely seem to engage in conversation anymore on here.
|
|
|
Post by torontogm on Feb 24, 2017 1:48:18 GMT -5
Interesting discussion here... well done, Cherni.
- I 100% agree that trading re-rates or PDPs is not something we should engage in [not to mention the potential difficulty of tracking]. - I 100% agree that selling picks for cash should not happen. Cash for players - Kris Draper example is enough for me! All good. Cash for picks? Never liked this practice.
Mark's suggestion of a bonus re-rate being available for losing out on a lottery pick... that one merits further discussion. It seems a bit arbitrary since only teams that drop in the lottery get a shot at it, but there may be something here. A few questions on that:
- Would it only apply to the team if they lose first overall? - Would the first overall pick have to be owned by the team, or could it be one that was acquired by the team? - Should it apply to more than just the team that finished dead last?
More somewhat related questions for discussion:
- If we want to expand rerates, do we have "bonus years" where all teams would have three... maybe even years we get 2, odd years we get 3... or a 3rd rerate on leap years? - In order to further encourage/reward bringing players out earlier, do we consider giving teams 3 or 4 PDPs on an early activation to be used on that player only once they are created?
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Feb 24, 2017 2:03:07 GMT -5
I think a third rerate might encourage more GM's to bring out players quicker.
|
|