|
Post by Commissioner on Oct 21, 2008 9:18:13 GMT -5
One:
We have too many prospects. I'm in gridlock b/c of this stupid simulation program that can't calculate anything over 50 prospects. SO, I need all of you to thin out your prospect pools. The following teams must do something immediately:
Dallas (over 8), Nashville (over 21), LA (I know), Minnesota (over 2), Pittsburgh (over 1), Toronto (over 14).
I need Dan, Richard, Joe, Nathan, and Adriano to give me a list of players they are activating and players they are deleting from their prospect pool and it must equal the number they are over. If not, I will do it myself.
You have until noon tomorrow to do this.
Nathan Kopsack NsHL Commissioner
If you sense a great deal of frustration in my post, you're on to me. Get it done.
|
|
|
Post by formerDevilsGM on Oct 21, 2008 11:26:42 GMT -5
Article 3-TEAM ROSTERS
2. Farm Rosters--Each farm team must have a minimum of 20 players. (Same minimum requirements that the "Big League Rosters" must have.) Each NsHL can have a maximum of 50 players on both rosters and a total of 100 players within their organizational system (including prospects). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** We all need to do our part guys to help the Commish's office get the all their work done to get the season going. Not only do they have a lot of work to do every season, but on top of that something like this just adds to their work load.
It's our job as GM's of our team to keep the Roster size under the Legal rules.
I think this adds to the frustration cause the main offseason theme has been for us to clean up the rosters for the NsHL.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Oct 21, 2008 12:26:08 GMT -5
I this a solution to this problem is to create a rule in the constitution about prospects. Go into an NHL style.
Here's what I propose. If a prospect is 22 years old, or has three years pro experience (NHL-AHL-ECHL-EUROPE), he should have to be signed by his NsHL team, or that player either becomes an unrestricted free agent or re-enters the NsHL entry draft (age pending). This way there aren't teams hoarding prospects, and good, young quality players are entering the game yearly.
I have done research on this. There are teams out there, who've had prospects who've been playing pro three or four years in the NHL, AHL and ECHL and have not beeb activated in our league. This isn't good for the league's future as those players. most likely, won't get the rates or the pdp's they deserve, to make themselves as quality a player as they are in real life.
This is just my two cents. Plus 5% GST.
|
|
|
Post by formerDevilsGM on Oct 21, 2008 14:33:32 GMT -5
Very good point Dave.. The issue being that GM's are waiting till the prospects make the NHL Level so they get a player create with a year experience already, plus the money they save in salary from not having that player created. You might hve to bring your proposal down to just players in the AHL because you cant create the prospect anyway until he has reached the AHL level..
But something like that would be a great rule to implement..
I think this is the 1st time Dave and I agree on something... I think I am feeling sick...
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Oct 21, 2008 15:03:11 GMT -5
one thing that I do believe should take place is that we are never allowed to go over 50 prospects. If you are at 50 and add a prospect you must remove a prospect.
|
|
WildGM
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 210
|
Post by WildGM on Oct 21, 2008 15:18:16 GMT -5
Wild have trimmed their prospect pool via email to you Nate.
* Please send all inquires to my new email address Wildgm@q.com
Thank you Joe
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 21, 2008 17:58:00 GMT -5
The reason hoarding occurs is because unless a player comes in with a good rating they are going to be difficult to incorporate onto your team unless you have a shizznitty team. Look at what happened with Crosby his first season, he came in as an 73 and had no chance in hell at getting anywhere near the points he put up in the NHL. This forced Rob to use an NHL rerate on him and teams are wary of that now. So, they wait until a player has proven that they are an NHL caliber player to activate them so that they don't waste a rerate on them. I have the same thing going with a number of my prospects. I actually have disincentives towards activating certain prospects. I know Kyle Turris is going to be a good player in the NHL, hence, I have to wait for him to attain a certain level of success, usually two good seasons, before I feel comfortable activating him. Same thing is going to happen with Colten Tuebert, Thomas Hickey and would have happened with Kyle Okposo for me.
I find this problem is particularly pertinent with forwards because their ratings are so volatile. If we have any intentions of dealing with this problem we either have to change the rules regarding rerates so that it is easier to rerate a player who has a breakout season, or we have to put a limit on the number of pro seasons a player must play before they are deactivated from the prospect list.
I personally think it would be good to provide incentives to remove players who are either extremely overrated relative to their NHL counterparts or no longer playing in the NHL by allowing for exchanges to be done where a player can be removed from the league but a player who underrated can be rerated. This will make the biggest difference for players at the margin who are neither good enough to justify using an NHL rerate on or are extremely overrated. It should allow for the league to be closer to the NHL. I know for me, I don't really have any desire to use an rerate on a player unless I think its going to make them into a top six forward or a top four defenseman, and there are a lot of players every year that do this, they break out or they dissapear.
Anyhow, I don't know if that was entirely coherent or cogent, but, those are some thoughts that I have and maybe I will try and outline my thoughts better at another point.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Oct 21, 2008 19:21:24 GMT -5
Dan, I understand what you're saying and you do raise some good points. But if a GM can't tell if one of his players, after four years removed from being drafted, has turned pro or not, then they shouldn't be in this league! lol..... I say that facisciously.
With all do respect to your comment, I do agree that GM's should hold onto their youngsters to get a better rate when they come out. But, right now, I believe that four years is more than enough to activate one's prospects to players. Which means that some, not all, but some GM's either have to do a better job of scouting, or get motivated and sign these players before they loose them.
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 21, 2008 20:43:19 GMT -5
Its not a question of scouting though Dave. Its a question of hoarding and strategy. If it makes me worse off by activating one of these players, then that is a disincentive to activate them. There is no question that it does make me worse off either.
I am just as well off playing some no name 70 overall player on my fourth line center as I am playing Kyle Turris. I am better off in fact, this is because if I do activate Kyle Turris and play him on my fourth line he is not going to post many points.
If I play him on my second line however it makes me considerably worse off. This doesn't even take into account the NHL re-rate I will have to use on him in the future in order to get him to a rating that is comparable to what he is worth in the NHL. So in essence here, there are two dominant strategies for me here. If I think a player is going to max out as a third liner... Activate him. I am not losing much by not activating him.
However, if I think a player is going to be a dominant player in the near future, it makes zero sense for me to activate him. I can get a free NHL rerate on him just by activating him after he has played a couple seasons in the NHL. I also have the added advantage of playing him on my top two lines while he has a salary of a maximum of 1 million dollars per season. Again, huge advantages. For players that are going to be good, this will always be the dominant strategy and I know that other GM's feel this way as well. I have spoken to many and they are perfectly willing to sit on players and wait for them to develop. Thats the whole disincentive thing in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Oct 22, 2008 0:04:37 GMT -5
Dan is right...This is a strategy that I have practiced for 5 years now. So I can guarantee you it is true and I can attest to it. The only time I activate a prospect early, an example would be Phil Kessel is because I need to fill a roster spot. However, usually, I can create average to low end prospects to fill out my AsHL team, sprinkle in some free agents and we are competitive while I wait for my top youngsters to develop in the NHL.
Dave, typically, with a prospect like Kyle Turris, Phil Kessel, Crosby, etc I'd personally wait two years of NHL play and evaluate his progress and what I think his future holds. However, if we do institute a rule similar to the NHL (which we should because we were supposed to revise the constitution this offseason) and 3 years became the maximum it'd give GMs a limit on how long they can wait on these top guns. It'd also clear out the low end prospects people never create, or don't do the research on.
|
|
|
Post by ex-BluesGM on Oct 22, 2008 8:30:40 GMT -5
jack and Dan are dead on. It even hurts your players development to bring them in too soon. They get a rating somewhere in the high 60s or 70 and they sit on your 4th line getting only 4 mins per game or they sit in the minors where there's little development at all. I've had players have close to point per game seasons in the AsHL and rate exactly the same the next year. That's why I'm not activating Viktor Tikhinov this season. I think the real issue is, is there a way to change the way we allow players to progress within the game. Perhaps first rounders and second rounders could be seen as "elite" prospects and be allowed to develop at a faster rate if placed in the system. So if you activate a Kyle Turris and he's only a 70OV this year, he'll progress at a faster rate then some schlub who'll never get past the ECHL in real life.
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 22, 2008 10:14:59 GMT -5
See the idea would work to some extent, but then you are left with the problem that only 33% of first and second rounders ever play more then 100 games in the NHL. We are going to end up with a disproportionate amount of developed NsHL prospects. Which I guess is fine, but if you want to have NHL rerates in the league you have to have a way to curb the development prospects to a degree.
Another problem that I have noticed arising is the clear indication of inflation of player stats. If you look at the player stats from our first season, players are rated significantly lower. Back then it was uncommon to see two 80 overall players on a team. Now every team has at least one and I have six.
The same thing goes for the supplementary players as well. In the first couple seasons a good third line had three players who were rated at 73 overall. Now a good third line has players that are rated 76 or 77 overall. Clear signs of inflation.
We haven't seen this inflation towards the top end though. We are moving towards much more parity within ratings in the league, unfortunately I am not sure that is what we want to happen.
|
|
|
Post by ex-BluesGM on Oct 22, 2008 14:08:39 GMT -5
^True another thing going on is that with all the recent changes we're moving toward a system that I feel contradicts the initial edict of the league... or at least one of them, which was you get to decide how your players develop. Whether it be by playing time and quality of time and of course PDPs, and when they're activated.
Changes over the past year (re-rating UFAs based on their previous NHL year, not their NsHL year, losing prospects or other young players who went over seas in real life.) It has become a system where really the only thing that counts in player development is what they've done in real life.
This is not a criticism of the league nor the BOD. Its just that in striving for "realism" I think the league has in some ways defeated some of its original purpose.
Look at my team: (just a couple examples) I have Brent Johnson a superstar in the sim because back when I got the Blues I played him as my main starter and the sim did him well. When his contract is up he will re-rate automatically to an average back-up at best.
Alexei Shkotov- entered the league as a young prospect with a good deal of potential, I play him alot add PDPs, turn him into a nice (still very young) player in the NsHL. Now that he's gone home to Russian to play in real life his sim value takes a dive. Even though he'll have another 6 years or so until he's a UFA to be productive. And then if I decide to keep him 'til then (cause I've been offered a buy out) he could be a superstar by then but he'll be removed.
I hope this isn't seen as bitching cause that's not what I'm trying to do at all!!!! As we know Nate took a HUGE hit losing Straka and Jagr. I'm just pointing out that the game has changed drastically.
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Oct 22, 2008 15:02:09 GMT -5
Gavin, rerating UFA's based on their NHL performance was just done this off season as a revitalization...it won't be happening every season.
Made sense considering it's been five years of the same old and we needed to shake things up, we just didn't go far enough........
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 22, 2008 16:57:43 GMT -5
I think we should be looking at lowering the UFA age as well. But thats another story entirely.
|
|