|
Post by FlyersGM on Oct 22, 2008 18:14:43 GMT -5
Inflation does need to be controlled, the sim does lose a lot of it's novelty when it's no longer hard to acquire an 80 OV+ player.
|
|
|
Post by coloradogm on Oct 22, 2008 19:37:25 GMT -5
I gotta agree with Gavin on this one. I always thought that this league was to take on a life of its own. I think it was cool that players like Johnson became someone in the NsHL and it was due to a lot of work on the GMs part.
I totally understand what and why the BOD did their thing, I just think it hurt some teams and GMs a considerable amount more than others.
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 22, 2008 20:16:23 GMT -5
In my opinion the problem with players like Johnson becoming somebody in the NsHL is we are still having players like Crosby, Pominville, Richards, Phaneuf, Sharp, Gagne etc. becoming NsHL players. In effect we are doubling the number of players who are becoming good. It leads to a lot of players being rated very highly. Something that is inconsistent with what should be happening.
If we want to reduce that we only really have two options though. We either have to be a league that is entirely its own entity or we have to be a league entirely based on the NHL. Otherwise we end up with inflation running rampant.
Possible solutions that would be worth exploring would include; completely removing rerates; or, completely removing PDP's. Those are both things that everybody would probably be against, but, without some sort of preventative measure enacted against this we are going to end up with 30 teams consisting entirely of players that are 80 overall. Of course that is an exaggeration, but we are going to continue a drift towards the center at around 78 overall and the deviation from that mean is going to continue to reduce.
|
|
|
Post by ex-BluesGM on Oct 22, 2008 21:42:52 GMT -5
Jack, I am fairly sure you're wrong... This year was the start of every UFA being re-rated based on their NHL counter part, however last year the BOD decided to re-rate UFAs on a case by case basis if their sim rating was way off compared to their real life value. Basically this ended up only occuring to players who needed to be upgraded in value.. or at least that's how it seemed. Sheldon Souray comes to mind as one who benefited.
That's when I think the inflation really started to occur. Cause as is, the system is rather solid. Teams can only rerate two players per year, sometimes one and that meant not too many superstars, and PDPs only make so much of a difference. Problem is were smart so in seasons where I felt I couldn't win I'd have prospects playing with stars to up their values faster but still that never made that much of an impact.
So perhaps Dave is the one who is right all along cause if we were forced to activate a prospect within 1 year of his real life activation in the minors they'd progress at a more "normal" rate, and teams wouldn't be able to stockpile, and no one would ever go over their limits.
All I know is I just found a lot of money to play with but now have a lot of holes to fill.... I'm still waiting for those offers too!
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Oct 23, 2008 0:53:43 GMT -5
Well, we all seem to have many different opinions on what is the problem(s) and how to fix them. The only way to really accomplish anything is to discuss these things early in the offseason so we can address them in a timely fashion. At this point, it seems like a lost cause and things will remain the status quo as we are close to starting soon.
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 23, 2008 1:16:06 GMT -5
Of course, I thought we were supposed to be putting a BOD this off season to deal with this kind of thing? That would be ideal. Personally, I would really enjoy having a forum where I am encouraged to offer my opinion and hear the opinions of others on how to make this league better. A healthy discourse between all members of the league is important. It would give all of a us a chance to feel like we are having an impact in shaping the league.
Obviously the final decision would come down to the guys who own and run the league, but I do think the league has evolved into something more then that and would benefit greatly from the BOD we were hearing about earlier in the off season.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Oct 23, 2008 14:23:31 GMT -5
Why not allow teams to have extra NHL re-rates that they can use, but for each one they use the BOD must choose a player on that team that should be NHL re-rated down?
As the newest member of the NsHL I am still grasping the nuances of the league, but personally I think it looks kind of silly to have a player like Brent Johnson so obviously out of touch with his real/NHL rating.
I understand the league doesn't want to exactly mirror the NHL and does want our GM's to be able to build up players using the methods available to us.
|
|
|
Post by coloradogm on Oct 23, 2008 14:50:52 GMT -5
the reason that Johnson is as good as he is is because Gavin played him and gave him pdps. I don't think he should be penalized for being a good GM
just my two cents
|
|
|
Post by formerDevilsGM on Oct 23, 2008 16:18:48 GMT -5
I guess when I posted my thought I was just refering to there needed to be something to help ease the Prospects who have been playing pro for 3 or more season in the AHL/NHL sitting on the prospect list in the NsHL.
Because when you guys speak of making the NsHL as realistic as possible there is now way the players union or Player agents would allow a prospect to stay on the shelf for 3 to 5 years until the GM feels its convinient to bring the players into the organization may it be to save money or to bring him in with a good rating..
If a players plays in the AHL for 2 years then reaches the NHL and the GM does not activate him until 2 years after he reaches the NHL then that is 4 years a player has lost of his pro career..
Because if it is to save money or to not use him 4 minutes per games, then there is a GM out there who will be willing to use him on the 4th line because it will pay down the road.
I think the Players you guys are refering to who are TOP prospects its easy to justify why you will wait on creating them, but its tough to justify the player who is borderline, who might one day make it to the NHL but its more convinient to have sitting on the Prospect list for 5 years, meanwhile he could be contributing in AsHL on another team. To me that just seems like giving the AsHL no importance what so ever as a league....
That is all I was refering to, I was in no way taking it as far as you guys are with revamping the entire NsHL OV rating..
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 23, 2008 16:49:57 GMT -5
The problem with what your suggesting Carlos is it penalizes the good GM's.
If you are forcing me to activate my prospects sooner, its going to hurt my ability to get every player to a realistic level. I have 4 or 5 guys that are worth rerate every year and I want to give them all rerates. Problem is if I started activating all of my prospects right off the bat its going to get even harder for me to get the guys I want at the level they should be at.
I agree with you though, I do think its stupid that a player sits on a prospect list until its convenient. But the way the league is designed, you can't bring a player in until he has proven himself in the NHL.
If we were to force GM's to activate players sooner we would also need to give GM's the ability to rerate more young players. I don't see having players sit on a prospect list as any worse then having players rot in the minors.
I have players like Vandermeer, who has over 270 games played in the NHL, sitting in the minors. Same thing is probably going to happen with all of Nystrom, Prust and Stortini for me. These guys are all NHL players, but, they aren't good enough to justify me using an NHL rerate on them. Same thing is going to happen to the majority of marginal NHLers.
Personally I wouldn't be against a more NHL realistic aproach to things. I think "developing" players does more to make the bad GM's look better then they are. If you can scout players in the NHL effectively and you can make trades to acquire NHL players you shouldn't need to develop players...
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Oct 23, 2008 18:29:20 GMT -5
of course Johnson is as highly rated as he is due to Gavin's skill as a GM, because it sure isn't on anything Brent Johnson ever did in the NHL as the guy only had a 20 win season once! I believe as a league we must have a way for overrated players to be toned down if not right away, at least over a period of time. As for young (star) prospects, I will also be holding on to my prospects for long periods so that they have a more realistic rating and I have a better ability to build my team using the best strategy. the reason that Johnson is as good as he is is because Gavin played him and gave him pdps. I don't think he should be penalized for being a good GM just my two cents
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 23, 2008 18:59:45 GMT -5
I would love to hear what our illustrious BOG has to say on a lot of the things that have been brought up here.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago GM on Oct 23, 2008 22:46:17 GMT -5
I think the answer is fairly simple to combat the "hoarding" that is occurring in our league. If we implemented a rule that fined teams a hefty price for each asset that they had over the maximum limit of 50, these levels would decrease significantly. These penalties should be issued without warning by the league office; leaving the onus on the individual GM's to manage their system. The fines should initially start out as monetary and progressively work their way up to draft picks. Given the trend that not only more prospects are playing overseas, but NHL level talent that is continuing to "defect", if you will, to the European Leagues, fueled in part by the weakening North American economies, the situation is only going to get more complicated. Since our league does not recognize player’s statistics that are not part of the NHL, AHL or ECHL, the assets playing overseas are basically worthless in our league and end up dying in the prospect pool, so to speak. At first glance, I would venture to guess that upwards of 25% of the prospects listed in our league have probably played lengthy careers overseas and have no chance of ever playing in North America.
|
|
|
Post by ottawagm on Oct 24, 2008 0:21:14 GMT -5
What you have suggested doesn't even begin to look at the problem of teams keeping prospects in their prospect pool until they have played 4 pro seasons. It is a very good solution to the current problem. But I think a lot of the discussion has moved on from that.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago GM on Oct 24, 2008 14:22:14 GMT -5
Actually Dan, the point I was trying to make, and maybe was not clear enough last night was that if GM’s pay more attention to their prospect pools and keep their assets under 50, then the whole notion of when to activate a prospect is null and void. I do not believe there should be a timeline on when to activate an asset. If a GM wishes to “roll the dice” by waiting to activate their players, then so be it. Because, on the flip side, the organization may wait too long to the point the players NHL, AHL or ECHL career is over, either via catastrophic injury or defecting overseas. Further, I would venture a safe guess that you could look at half of the organizations in the league and find players in their prospect pools that have played 4+ years overseas. Per the league rules, these players should not be in the prospect pools.
|
|