|
|
Post by islandersgm on Oct 22, 2020 20:34:22 GMT
I think the main reason there is a discrepancy in talent is the number of managed teams. With GMs guiding a team they have a plan for the team. They draft, develop, trade, and sign with that plan in mind. The GMless teams aren't guided with that same attention to detail which is understandable. Teams with GMs also utilize the reward system. They are able to use POT boosts to improve players and over the course of a few seasons can drastically improve CON. If rewards were utilized on GMless teams it would boost their talent pool. Its just a lot of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Oct 22, 2020 21:13:08 GMT
We could bring back the waiver draft and only allow non-playoff teams (or something) the opportunity to pick players. But I see that as a way for rewarding teams for being bad To be honest, if you know what you're doing, you should be able to turn your team into a contender. When I took over STL, they had zero prospects and a lot of old talent. NJ was the same before Arty took over. GMs just need to make smart moves, use their CON/POT boosts properly and they should be able to turn their team around. Why should other GMs be penalized for developing good teams? If the current drafts were the same as past ones, sure, that might make sense. But they aren't. Yes, New Jersey has done a great job, but he also was able to draft several players in the second or even third round that would be top-5 in the 2030 draft, such as Boyd Jones (95-92-80, 31st overall), Manuel Hoierman (82-99-85, 37th overall), Slava Karamzin (71-91-80, 61st overall), Jonathan Gamache (81-90-85, 37th overall), Linus Kinigader (94-85-82, 45th overall). I didn't see quite as many for you, more from trades, though Guillaume Desautels (76-93-80, 24th overall) and Marat Kaledin (91-95-84, 45th overall) fit that. As far as I can tell, none of these guys got boosts. And yes, in theory other teams would have also got similar players around the same part of those drafts, but it still makes it difficult to rebuild now when there are teams with a stockpile of great talent that simply doesn't exist in current drafts. Again, if I wanted to rebuild I could gather as many picks as I wanted, but I still wouldn't be able to draft guys like Jones, Hoierman, Karamzin, Gamache, Kinigader, Desautels, or Kaledin, even if I managed to somehow get multiple top-5 picks in two or three drafts. I think the main reason there is a discrepancy in talent is the number of managed teams. With GMs guiding a team they have a plan for the team. They draft, develop, trade, and sign with that plan in mind. The GMless teams aren't guided with that same attention to detail which is understandable. Teams with GMs also utilize the reward system. They are able to use POT boosts to improve players and over the course of a few seasons can drastically improve CON. If rewards were utilized on GMless teams it would boost their talent pool. Its just a lot of work. Mhm, that's the thing. Active GMs have an obvious advantage. The question is how can we mitigate that advantage, so that we don't end up with one team having 20 players that should, in theory, be top line players. Look, we all know that AHL stats cap around 75. We also (probably) all know that the game was built where a player with ~65 overall was a regular NHL player. But we have a league where 65 overall isn't even good enough for the 4th line of most AHL teams (my own included), where 75, even 78 or 80, isn't good enough for the 4th line of some NHL teams. How does it make sense for individual teams to have several players with 95+ defence? Or maybe several players with 95+ offense? Meanwhile the draft had 1 player projected to hit 95 offense or defence. Overall, 37 players have 91+ offense (an A in game), 43 players have 91+ defence. So the average team should have 1-2 players with that level of offense and 1-2 with that defence, right? But there are a couple teams with ~10 of those. Fully one quarter of the players with 91+ offense or 91+ defence belong to just two teams (to be clear, players with 91+ in each would be counted twice). Projections suggest that just three players from this draft will have 91+, though there are a few on the bubble. I don't get how some people don't see a problem with this? How this would be a massive deterrent to getting people to join and be active. It's boring to trade with GMless teams and it looks impossible to trade with GMs who have a dozen players or prospects better than anyone on your team. |
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Oct 23, 2020 1:35:12 GMT
I suggested a waiver type draft because it is beyond unrealistic to expect Stephen to run 10+ teams in the league. I believe that it will make the league better as it will shift good players to weaker teams.
Perhaps it should be capped to GMless teams that are not in the playoffs as this way poor performance by actual GM's is not rewarded. A regular draft like what I proposed would also prevent stacked farm teams as players that have been on the farm for 3+ years would be eligible to be picked. Details of the draft can be worked out as I was just throwing out suggestions.
PS - This is not a knock on Stephen no one is going to properly run a league and 10+ teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Oct 23, 2020 2:05:16 GMT
PS - This is not a knock on Stephen no one is going to properly run a league and 10+ teams. I really want to emphasize this part, because I'm well aware that the work Stephen puts in to ensure the league keeps going is immense. I also don't want to be coming across as criticizing any GMs, I know that all are just doing the best they can and aren't trying to cheat the system or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 23, 2020 18:48:34 GMT
Unfortunately when you don't have many active GMs, this is what is going to happen. The only way this really gets fixed is if you increase activity but either getting more GMs (not likely), or have current GMs look after multiple teams (more likely)
By looking at the board activity, we only have 9 GMs that have logged on in the past month (STL, EDM, NYI, TB, OTT, ARI, DAL, MTL, TOR). Of these 9 GMs, there are a few that are caretaking other teams (STL->BUF, NYI->CBS/VAN, TB->DET/CGY, OTT->ANA), so there are 15 total teams being taken care of. That means Stephen, in addition to being the commish and GM of ARI, has to look after the 15 other GMless teams. So yeah, by no fault of Stephen (let's be serious, he shouldn't have to be looking after any other team in addition to his commish duties and ARI), this is why there is such a divide amongst the teams. You can't expect him to do all that and keep those teams competitive. Having a waiver draft of sorts isn't going to fix it, because Stephen will still need to look after those GMless teams.
Is there any way EDM, DAL, MTL...you guys could care take another team? I understand if you can't, but it would help a bit with Stephen's work load
|
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Oct 23, 2020 21:29:21 GMT
But that's a reason why a lower cap might help, because it might force teams to shed some talent (at least some of whom would end up on GMless teams), preventing GM-ed teams from stockpiling talent.
As for taking care of another team, honestly I have enough trouble remembering to take care of Edmonton. I might be able to find other ways to help with Stephen's work load that would also help my appalling reliability.
Slight aside, I did actually find a way that at least 26 teams are breaking contract rules, myself included. The rules include minimum salaries for entry level contracts of first round picks, and none of the players drafted in the last three years who have signed entry level deals hit those minimum salaries. I didn't go back to the fourth year (with the exception of my own pick - I hadn't violated that rule from the last three drafts so wanted to check back and voila, Jarvi's contract does) so the other four teams might also have.
On that note, some form of minimum salaries might also be a way to go, though it would require more screening effort than simply lowering the cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 23, 2020 21:59:11 GMT
But that's a reason why a lower cap might help, because it might force teams to shed some talent (at least some of whom would end up on GMless teams), preventing GM-ed teams from stockpiling talent. As for taking care of another team, honestly I have enough trouble remembering to take care of Edmonton. I might be able to find other ways to help with Stephen's work load that would also help my appalling reliability. Slight aside, I did actually find a way that at least 26 teams are breaking contract rules, myself included. T he rules include minimum salaries for entry level contracts of first round picks, and none of the players drafted in the last three years who have signed entry level deals hit those minimum salaries. I didn't go back to the fourth year (with the exception of my own pick - I hadn't violated that rule from the last three drafts so wanted to check back and voila, Jarvi's contract does) so the other four teams might also have. On that note, some form of minimum salaries might also be a way to go, though it would require more screening effort than simply lowering the cap. This rule has been eliminated, it just has not been updated on the rules page (among other rules) Lowering the cap is just going to cause issues for every team in the future |
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Oct 24, 2020 0:54:06 GMT
This rule has been eliminated, it just has not been updated on the rules page (among other rules) Lowering the cap is just going to cause issues for every team in the future Ah, fair. I mean, that's kind of the point? But to be clear, I'm not suggesting that it drop from 70mil right now, as the 29-30 season comes to a close, to (for example) 60mil for the 30-31 season. It's definitely something that should either wait a year, so everyone has a season to prepare, or be tiered (i.e. 69mil this year, 68mil next, etc, to whatever finishing point). The NHL/AHL split would also not be something we'd want to do immediately for similar reasons, not to mention we'd have to figure out where things stand at the moment. If we were to go to some form of minimum contract method, easiest thing would be to grandfather in existing contracts. Arguably you've proven my point - if the cap as it is doesn't cause issues for teams, it's not doing its job. |
|
|
|
Post by islandersgm on Oct 24, 2020 15:18:12 GMT
One of the reasons teams can sign players to such friendly contracts is because of how much they can offer as a signing bonus. If we lowered the signing bonus allowed, the players would demand higher contracts. That is one way we could help spread talent. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Oct 24, 2020 22:42:49 GMT
One of the reasons teams can sign players to such friendly contracts is because of how much they can offer as a signing bonus. If we lowered the signing bonus allowed, the players would demand higher contracts. That is one way we could help spread talent. Thoughts? Couldn't hurt, that's for sure. The (outdated) rules do have something about that, but it's a bit lax and I don't know if it's one of the enforced rules? It also requires a bit of effort from Stephen (or other simmers), since he/they would have to calculate whether the signing bonus is twice as much (basic math sure, but still takes a bit of extra effort). It'd be easier for the simmers if the rule was the signing bonus can't be bigger than the annual salary, but I know some may find that too restrictive. |
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Oct 29, 2020 15:37:27 GMT
I am not sure that introducing more rules and overhead to a league that is struggling to survive is the prudent thing to do. While a good idea in theory it does nothing but add more overhead to the Commish and active gm's for which all of our interest in the game is trending towards zero.
I would put this on hold until the fate of the league is determined as I am no longer sure there are enough of us left to make this viable any longer.
|
|
i'll be doing it all on friday as its teh only day off I have at the moment. Sorry, we are down people and its long late shifts at teh moment. 