IMPORTANT - Pending League Rule Change

HFNHL Red Wings
11-26-2003, 08:27 AM
Hello Gentlemen,
Please note that the exact details of the rule change are not
finalized and that the following is a summary of the direction we
are heading. The final details will be posted in the near future.

What is changing:
1. Minimum average team OV rating (20 starters)
2. Revision to the draft lottery
3. Draft position penalties for not meeting the minimum avg OV rating

Why is this changing:
A disturbing trend has emerged over the past two seasons that has
reached the point where 6 teams have incomplete/uncompetive pro
rosters that could not be competitive in an AHL league never mind
the HFNHL. Inversely with 6 teams fielding minor leaguers the top
teams have been able to assemble All-Star rosters. Frankly the middle
of the pack teams have higher talent levels than is reasonable as 30
teams worth of NHL talent are held by 24 HFNHL teams. This could not
be allowed to continue and as a result drastic measures are required
to save the league from itself.

The minimums currently being proposed are a team average 66OV (for
the 20 starters) by the All-Star break and 68 by the start of the
2004/05 season. Teams failing to meet these minimums will have their
draft position reduced by an undefined number of positions.
As draft position appears to be the motive for many of these GM's a
review of the lottery is being conducted to reduce this incentive.
Once the league is restabilised the Admin Team may chose to revert to
the NHL draft lottery system.

We recognise that one team is caught in this due to the financial
delema he inherited but that GM appears to have been acting in the best interest of his team and has done his best to maintain some valid NHL talent despite his circumstances.

Tampa GM
11-26-2003, 09:10 AM
I have been part of this league since the first face off back in 1998(cant believe it has gone five years now) and you all know that Tampa has been up and down. I have made it to the playoffs a couple of times. As you all know I was a high spender last year and I have lost track of how many millions I lost. Therefore I tried something else this season.

I guess I will be one of the teams that might have under 66 in average but should I really be punished for that? Is it fair to suggest a rule change TWO days before the pre season starts? If this was announced a couple of months/weeks ago I could have got additional players in free agency or waivers(I did send in the waiverlist before the deadline but it seems no one read it in time).

I guess you can see me as the Pittsburgh Penguins of the HFNHL. Trading alot of highpayed players for young prospects. Has anyone in the NHL complained about Pittsburgh? Minnesota Wild had one of the lowes payrolls last year in the NHL but did that stop them?

ALL of my trades has also been approved which means that the league actually has allowed me to do trades and now I should be punished?

I can understand a rule before the 04/05 season but I dont think its fair to suggest a rule change TWO days before the pre season starts.

Best regards

Martin Sedin
Proud Tampa Bay GM since 1998

HFNHL Red Wings
11-26-2003, 09:37 AM
It is my understanding that your trades were questioned. Should some of them been overturned? Possibly.
I don't disagree that this should have happened sooner, in fact this did come up last season but at the time it was hoped that this was a short term event that would not last. We were wrong. Recent moves, yours included, have forced us to act immediately with little notice and I will not deny that I was a main advocate.
The simple fact is that there is at least one other team starting down the same path and if we did not act immediately the problem would grow. The impact is not immediate as there is plenty of time until the all-star break to make the necessary adjustments with many of the teams in question only requiring a few minor tweaks to reach the 66OV target.
In regards to the Pittsburg Penguins they still have Mario Lemieux, Martin Straka, and other legitimate players. HFNHL Tampa has gone from a 73OV at the end of last season to 62.5 over the summer. The only legitimate players on the team are Sedin and Calder, nice young players but not exactly stars. In addition with a bank account of $17M, although lower than average, this does not qualify as a desperate financial situation.
Do not assume that you are the only team for which this rule was brought into place.

Brock
11-26-2003, 09:43 AM
I can understand a rule before the 04/05 season but I dont think its fair to suggest a rule change TWO days before the pre season starts.


I completely agree. I figured out my Overall average and it's 64 right now, which would put me under the limit.

Here's my beef though. I acquired this team, joined the HFNHL before the Entry Draft. And I acquired a Florida Panthers team that was in serious trouble. It had already begun a major youth movement, but without the youth part. Basically it was a team of very very crappy players who didnt have much future in the NHL, not to mention a team with not many excellent prospects. Shawn McEachern was essentially the only good player (over 70) I had. And yes I traded him, because it didn't make sense for me to keep a guy who made 2.5 million a year and whom didn't fit in with the team at all. I have made this Florida franchise into a team that in a few years could be a team that could challenge for the playoffs (with some added free agents when the time should come).

But basically what you are saying is that it isn't ok to go along with this rebuilding mode that i was dealt with. If i go now and pick up a few good players whom are in the 70's in terms of ratings and would push me above the 66 average, it wouldn't make much sense now would it? Even with those players, I'm not nearly good enough to make the playoffs at the moment. And the team as it is, is not generating enough revenue to be able to afford these guys I'd have to acquire (probably over 2 million dollar players, basically) So I'd then go into debt and the team would be right back to where it was when i took over, in trouble. Not to mention that in order to acquire these players, I'd have to give up my better prospects, the guys whom I'm counting on to be my players of the future and again I'm right back at square one, without any solid prospects and a sh** team.

Quite frankly I think this is horse**** and that it is completely unfair. I've been acquiring good talent for my hockey club, but it has been talent that can play now (guys with not that high ratings) but that will get better in the future. It's not like I went and stripped my hockey club bare, I've actually been adding on some salary, but I have been doing it wisely and at the right cost to the point where it doesn't hurt me now, but makes me better for now and the future.

Essentially, I'm not pleased at all.

HFNHL Red Wings
11-26-2003, 10:17 AM
First off let me say that I know you feel victimized hiowever the good of the league exceeds the good of one or two teams.
I have had some GM's in the past ask me how we were allowing this sort of thing to happen and they felt the league was being penalized. I'm sure they will chime in on this conversation at some point.

You have done an admirable job and have a good eye for prospects but this is not a case where the end justifies the means.

We cannopt allow moving every NHL player to aquire prospects and picks it's plain unhealthy, especially when they are cheap respectable players that are being moved for mid to late round picks. Whereas moving the McEachern's of the world made some sense but some others were just dumps. Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Gomez your player? He's the type of guy that even most rebuilding teams would keep in their core.

I know you are relatively new to the league but as some vets recall this league was nearly detroyed in it's very first season and since then the league admin has retained the right to intervene to protect the health of the league. Buffalo was one of those teams that got dismanteled in the the first season and only now, 5 seasons later, is recovering. In the last season or two we have gotten a little loose again on enforcing some of the rules that were there to protect the league and so some teams are in bad shape but before it goes any farther we have to intervene.

I am in my 4th season with the league and invested more than enough of my time in seeing it prosper. I will do all I can to protect it.

Hossa
11-26-2003, 10:28 AM
Ok, first off, let me state that I agree this is the type of rule that makes sense, but there needs to be more notice given. IF this rule had been proposed in June or something, fine, I can understand that, give me the summer to stock my team up for the season to be reasonably competitive, but at this point, I"m going to have to overpay for guys in that 66-70 zone because I have no leverage. I would have picked up Jon Klemm for example, in the waiver draft, despite his 3.8 million dollar salary, if I knew of this rule change.

I can understand where things are coming from. I also know that my teamis probably one of the ones that caused this rule to be thought up. But like Brock, I have to plead my defence. I took on the Canucks when they were old, overpaid, underachieving and declining. The payroll was around 50-60 million if I remember correctly, and guys like MacInnis, Palffy, Bure, Robitaille and so on and so forth, were on my roster. But these are players who's value (save Palffy) was only declining, and my best prospect was Kyle Freadrich. KYLE FREADRICH!!! Sure, I made a couple early moves that might not have fantastic, but I still acquired some very good prospects. I dealt Kimmo Timonen for Nick Boynton, hardly the type of trade you make if you just want to get the first overall pick. I wasn't dropping players for nothing in an effort to cave.

Furthermore, I held on to Sean Burke until the deadline last year becasue the right deal did not come along. I could have easily dealt him for a lesser deal last year and increased my chances of getting a top pick, but I didn't. I held out, and got Alex Polushin and more for him. Same thing with Ron Francis, who I dealt this past summer for a second round pick. Francis was one of the most impressive players in the league, leading my team to victories that I had no business being in. Again, could have dumped him to tank the season, but I didn't. I still have Joe Niewendyk, because the right deal has not come along.

I won the draft loterry, something that was a complete surprise, and instead of getting the 7th overall pick, I got the third overall pick, and got Eric Staal. Now, that's just good luck, hardly a product of tanking the season. The only major trade (save the Francis deal) I made this summer was dealing Nick Boynton for Maxime Oullet. Now, you can interpret this as tanking it, but really, it was done by design. Oullett (how do you spell his last name anyways?) is a guy who could be a JS Giguere clone in the future, and unlike Ilya Bryzgalov, my other top goalie prospect, he does not have an obstructed path to NHL stardom. Bryzgalov, while fantastically talented (possibly as much so as Oullett) is stuck behind the aforementioned Giguere. Robert Esche is my #1 goalie now, and won't be dealt this season unless I see a good offer, but he's not a franchise goalie. Oullett could be that franchise goalie, which is why I made that deal.

The other thing I'll say is that players don't break-out in the HFNHL. For example, with the NHL Penguins, Rico Fata has broken out with increased ice time. Yet, while a guy like Dan Corso could do what Fata is doign if given the same ice time on a bad team (say like Vancouver in the HFNHL), he is not. Players can't improve based on the HFNHL, opportunities aren't given. Maybe I'm not explaining this well, but that's why some poor NHL teams can look better than they are, because they give guys who need a chance, that chance, and they can blossom during the season. That can't happen in sim leagues.

Finally, I think it's not a bad idea. I see where you are coming from, although I think you are generalizing the situation a bit too much. I know I'm not simply tanking the season to get Ovechkin for example. Otherwise, I would have tanked it for a shot at one of the top 4 guys last year (which I got, only because of the loterry). There's a difference between stripping your team and re-building your team completely. I came into this league with a roster that had prior success, but was declining amazingly and had financial issues. I had no young players save Robert Esche, absolutely none, and the year I came in, I didn't get a single draft pick. The idea is not bad, but install it for 2004-05 or something. Don't basically tell me and other GMs on poor teams, we have to pay for average NHLers so we aren't penalized. Essentially, you are creating a market where I will have to overpay or else I will pay in the form of draft pick reduction.

Brock
11-26-2003, 10:28 AM
We cannopt allow moving every NHL player to aquire prospects and picks it's plain unhealthy, especially when they are cheap respectable players that are being moved for mid to late round picks. Whereas moving the McEachern's of the world made some sense but some others were just dumps. Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Gomez your player? He's the type of guy that even most rebuilding teams would keep in their core.



Uh huh.......right.....

Scott Gomez? Nope, never had him and if I did, it was the past GM Samuel Lay that moved him not me.

Which of my moves were just plain dumps? I didn't have any top quality NHL players to begin with? I've got good young players whom won't see a nice increase in ranking until next season. I've gone out and used prospects to acquire players whom can help me now and for the future and I've been active in trade talks that would benefit my team for the now and for the future.

This is still such complete and utter diahhorea. You are essentially telling me to ruin my team? If thats the case, mise well get a new GM because I'd have done no better job than Samuel Ley did in wrecking it. Acquiring some overpriced talent will not bring my close to the playoffs, I'd have to overpay to get it because the league knows the position I'm in, my prospect pool would have to be depleted and my finances wouldn't allow me to fully support it.

So essentially, to benefit the league, you've got to ruin my team that I believe I've done a very good job at building up so far?

Brock
11-26-2003, 10:34 AM
Finally, I think it's not a bad idea. I see where you are coming from, although I think you are generalizing the situation a bit too much. I know I'm not simply tanking the season to get Ovechkin for example. Otherwise, I would have tanked it for a shot at one of the top 4 guys last year (which I got, only because of the loterry). There's a difference between stripping your team and re-building your team completely. I came into this league with a roster that had prior success, but was declining amazingly and had financial issues. I had no young players save Robert Esche, absolutely none, and the year I came in, I didn't get a single draft pick. The idea is not bad, but install it for 2004-05 or something. Don't basically tell me and other GMs on poor teams, we have to pay for average NHLers so we aren't penalized. Essentially, you are creating a market where I will have to overpay or else I will pay in the form of draft pick reduction.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Sean is much more level headed than I am, so he put it much better.

There is a big difference in rebuilding and stripping your team.

Hossa
11-26-2003, 10:38 AM
I am in my 4th season with the league and invested more than enough of my time in seeing it prosper. I will do all I can to protect it.

See, I agree with your intent. I think you mean well, and I agree that random dumping of everything for the simple purpose of tanking it, is silly. But wouldn't it make more sense to simply restrict teams from simple salary dumps the way the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins have done? I mean, the admin team (including yourself obviously) is unbelievable, I have the utmost respect for you guys, you work incredibly hard, but wouldn't closer scrutinizing of these types of deals work more effectively. Be proactive about the issue, instead of reactive.

HFNHL Red Wings
11-26-2003, 10:40 AM
I stand corrected on the Gomez thing it was during the brief tenure of GM Samuel Ley that that trade occurred.

Tampa GM
11-26-2003, 10:51 AM
It is my understanding that your trades were questioned. Should some of them been overturned? Possibly.

Still all my trades that I have made has been approved. I only regret one trade in the last few seasons.

1) Trading Bryan McCabe(dont remember for what) but I agree that was a stupid move.

So my only option would now be to go out and overpay on the free agents that are still on the market? Maybe I should offer Nabokov, Stillman, Friesen, Nylander and those guys 8+M$ so I am sure I get them and my ratings would improve? Would you prefer that? A Tampa Bay without money next spring?

HFNHL Red Wings
11-26-2003, 10:55 AM
The difference is when 'rebuilding' is done with a one year turn around vision and is done almost exclusively for picks and prospects that equals stripping.
I started in the league in the exact same situtation as Sean just described. I had an overblown budget on a bunch of aging stars that only made up two lines, no team depth, and no prospects. Difference is I rebuilt without ever missing the playoff's and I did that by trading for packages of mid level NHL'ers plus prospects/picks and did the transition over a 2 1/2 year process.
Douglas also took over Columbus, in an equally bad position as you inherited Brock. In fact it was so bad that no one would take the team so Douglas left his Washington team to rebuild Columbus. Whereas he prolly started with a team of a 60 something OV level it was much more respectable by the end of the season possibly even a 65-66OV level and he did not have to sacrifice his future to do it. Actually he started with no future to sacrifice :-)
My point is that there are other ways of doing it. Not as instantly rewarding mind you, but do-able and in a way that does not negtively impact the league.

HFNHL Red Wings
11-26-2003, 11:02 AM
Martin you know you don't have to overpay. As you will recall I made you a trade offer a week ago with a bunch of guys of varying conmtracts and skill levels that would help your team and at fair asking prices.
The truth is that there are alot of teams sitting on surplus players and there are a couple of NHL'ers currently unsigned. Most of the teams impacted have a couple of prospects that would improve the situtation.
With the exception of Tampa and Florida, the other teams only need to make one or two modest transactions to meet the all-star target which is 3-4 mnths away yet. Heck there are always a few players that hit waivers with useable ratings during the season as well.

Hossa
11-26-2003, 11:18 AM
The difference is when 'rebuilding' is done with a one year turn around vision and is done almost exclusively for picks and prospects that equals stripping.
I started in the league in the exact same situtation as Sean just described. I had an overblown budget on a bunch of aging stars that only made up two lines, no team depth, and no prospects. Difference is I rebuilt without ever missing the playoff's and I did that by trading for packages of mid level NHL'ers plus prospects/picks and did the transition over a 2 1/2 year process.
Douglas also took over Columbus, in an equally bad position as you inherited Brock. In fact it was so bad that no one would take the team so Douglas left his Washington team to rebuild Columbus. Whereas he prolly started with a team of a 60 something OV level it was much more respectable by the end of the season possibly even a 65-66OV level and he did not have to sacrifice his future to do it. Actually he started with no future to sacrifice :-)
My point is that there are other ways of doing it. Not as instantly rewarding mind you, but do-able and in a way that does not negtively impact the league.

The thing is, there are different ways as you pointed out, but you shouldn't punish different ways. Essentially, I took the root an expansion team essentially. I wanted to start over. There was nothing to build around in Vancouver, but I'm building my team with patience. Maybe it's because I grew up watching the NHL's Ottawa Senators and they built a great team by patience and player development, but I mean, I'm heading in the right direction. I just don't like the idea of penalizing a team for doing things differently.

Ohio Jones
11-26-2003, 11:21 AM
A couple of comments:

First off, this issue has been a long time in coming. I know because in my duties as DoPP I've pushed back on a get number of moves made by teams going through what should be a rebuilding process, where teams have frittered away established assets for very little return. Individually tose deals have been at least defensible, which is why in the end they were passed. But collectively they have amounted to gutting teams of assets and leaving little behind to work with.

It's exactly the process that left me in charge of Columbus after only one season in the league. It's what prompted the removal of Sam Ley in favour of Brock.

Sean's point is valid - in the NHL, teams who are rebuilding are afforded the luxury of having their young players develop and improve with increased icetime. In the HFNHL there is no such mechanism.

More importantly, in the NHL teams have owners who are expecting revenues, and who simply won't tolerate the destruction of a team's assets unless there are (as in the case of Pittsburgh) overwhelming financial considerations in play. If a GM in the NHL whose teams was not on the verge of financial collapse behaved this way, he'd be fired. There are no owners in the HFNHL, only an admin team trying to head off a growing problem.

We've been trying to address this through trade monitoring, but that hasn't been effective for the reasons explained. We've been trying to identify possible solutions for the better part of a year, and have considered everything from turfing out GMs (which we have had to do in a couple of instances) to contraction. These proposals are the best w've been able to come up with. If anyone can suggest an alternative, trust me, we're all ears. But letting teams decimate their playing rosters and futures on nothing but speculative moves is not a solution - it's a recipe for more abandoned teams that no one wants.

As to the timing of the decision, I will be the first to acknowledge that we would prefer to have come to these decisions (which, for the record, aren't decisions just yet - as Drew indicated, the exact mechanisms are still being debated) sooner. That is why we are proposing a phased implementation that sees teams working towards what we feel are achieveable targets that should if properly managed do nothing to impede a team's ability to rebuild.

In a way, it's funny. NHL fans have often criticized teams (such as the Rangers) who have steadfastly refused to address long-term needs, focusing instead exclusively on short-term fixes. In the HFNHL, we appear to ahve the inverse problem (as perhaps should be expected in a league sponsored by a prospects site!): we have GMs who make moves for the long term, but who abandon any semblance of an attempt to maintain a respectable team in the process (which would almost certainly be a requirement imposed by any owner).

That's what this comes down to. Brock - I understand your points. I do. And this is not a with-hunt. But you asked why you should have to add players to your team for the short-term when your rebuilding plans are long-term? It is for exactly this reason: you would be required by your owner and fans in order for your team to maintain some semblance of credibility at least in your local marketplace, if not in the league as a whole.

When the season hasn't even started and we have multiple teams challenging each other - in jest, but grounded in seriousness - to see who can get the first overall pick not only this season, but next season, I think we have a real problem.

But we are not talking about just a few teams, here - we're talking about the good of the league, and as such I think the other GMs in the league have some responsibility to help teams caught by this challenge out of their predicaments. With that in mind, I will make the following offer, and I challenge all GMs with sufficient average player OV and depth to do something similar:

I will put D Jamie Pushor to waivers, even though I'd prefer to keep him as my seventh defenceman. Before everyone scoffs, Pushor is a 70-OV player in his late 20's who has good IT, SK (for a stay-at-home defenceman, anyway) ST and DF, and only makes $800,000 per year.

Hopefully other teams will see their way clear to make other reasonably-priced depth players available to help teams meet the proposed targets.

As I said this subject is sill open for discussion. For example, I feel that there's no need to alter the draft or lottery in any way, if we simply apply the minimum average OV rule. But those are my thoughts. I expect everyone out there has some they would like to express as well. I look forward to hearing them.

Mandaou
11-26-2003, 11:22 AM
My personal views is that GM's should be allowed to run their teams as they see fit under the watchfull eye of the admin team who's mandate should be to keep the integrity of the league at a high level.

Let's face it, a lot of us "vets" have benefited from lopsided trades (especially in the past), including some members of the admin team. Take a look at a couple of the top teams and tell me they were not developed by lopsided trades. There were not all built on great talent evaluation by the GM's.

I think the current admin team is doing a great job and that if any more of the past dealings occur they will put a stop to it (although a few trades accepted this year are questionable) whether that be trades, waivers, etc...

PS I'm totally pumped to get the season underway....thanks for all of the guys who are making it happen....

Dr.Sens(e)
11-26-2003, 11:50 AM
A couple of comments:
More importantly, in the NHL teams have owners who are expecting revenues, and who simply won't tolerate the destruction of a team's assets unless there are (as in the case of Pittsburgh) overwhelming financial considerations in play. If a GM in the NHL whose teams was not on the verge of financial collapse behaved this way, he'd be fired. There are no owners in the HFNHL, only an admin team trying to head off a growing problem.


This is the main point GM's need to understand - several GMs would be fired for dismantling the team to the point they are no longer competitive. I understand that several GM's have inherited situations they felt necessary to tear completely down to work from the ground up, but we're working on making this league as realistic as possible, and this new rule will help keep "a competitive" check in place, without relying on the Admin Team to make judgement calls that in the end will simply be deemed subjective.

This new rule is a complete no-brainer, even if the particulars may be tinkered with over time.

The real question that remains is how we faze this in?

The point of all of a sudden having several teams fighting over mid-ranked players - thereby creating a rush and increase in asking price for these guys - is well taken, and it is not the intent of the Admin team to force teams into "bad trades", other than to apply the necessary pressure the owner and market would demand of the GM to provide a competitive team. As Doug has pointed out, we're still trying to create a fair, but firm, timeline to get teams on board.

Obviously this would have been better had we timed the announcement of this rule in advance of the waiver draft. However, GM's need to understand the Waiver draft was the Admin teams' final straw. We were hoping several teams would take advantage of the players available to them to improve their team, and redistribute some of the talent - which is the whole intent of the wiaver draft. In stead, we saw the collective yawn by several GMs who had the prime opportunity to improve their on-ice product, and the vast majority simply passed with the dreams of Ovechkin dancing in their minds (even though last still leads to less than a 50% chance of getting him).

Enough is enough.

I'm all for taking a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV requirement by the allstar break, but GMs should consider this discussion the proverbial firing across their bow. You've been put on notice by your owner and your fans to ice a credible team, and pronto. So now begins your challenge of keeping your job, while maintaining your prime assets (no one's suggesting you move your prime picks).

In the interim, the Admin team will take a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV, which is still several months away from now.

Time to tinker with your blueprint to building a winner gentleman - your owner and fans have demanded it, with your head being the price should you fail to deliver.

Dr.Sens(e)
11-26-2003, 11:55 AM
PS: You don't need to be a genius to see several teams with solid veterans are in serious financial trouble.

There is going to be more than a couple of fire sales that develop over the season, and the reality is most contenders have already spent what they could.

Brock
11-26-2003, 05:47 PM
I just don't think some you realize the situation that some of us are in (in particular me and Hossa).

In order to get over this 66 overall mark, we'd have to acquire more than 3 guys with rankings over 75. And in order to do that, I'd have to gut my prospect system/draft picks. And then after doing that, I'd become very very much in debt.

All this on EXTREMELY short notice, like try two days before the pre season starts.

I think this is an idea with good intent, but the timing is incredibly frustrating.

When i was handed this team, i was Told by that it would be a very long and patient process. That i was getting this team because I was a person with vast knowledge for prospects and that I could rebuild this team. Thats what I have been doing. And now, you are telling me to essentially turn around and do the opposite? Strip the team bare again and put it in a bad position like the previous GM had it in?

My overall ranking is a 64 right now, but my defense is at a 67 and my goaltender is a 70 overall. I ask you, is me getting to a level of a 66 for this year, at the expense of my best prospects and top draft picks, really going to make my team that much more competitive? No it's not, not in the least.

Me and Sean (Hossa) have talked about this a lot and we are both equally very very frustrated. We both think that this should be something that is implemented next year, with a free agent crop to evaluate and trades for the rest of the season to explore. Make us meet the 68 overall rating by next season, thats realistic. And then just monitor our trades situation very closely. But this 66 overall by all star break is complete nonsense to be honest.

I had a plan for this team, to continue devloping my young players this year, as well as build for the future and then next year when guys like Adam Mair, Nathan Dempsey, Randy Robitaille, Alexandre Daigle, Fernando Pisani, Garnett Exelby all most definitely seing very good increases in their overalls following this season. Not to mention signing Raffi Torres, Konstantin Koltsov and Brent Burns. I was even going to sign a few significant free agents to try to improve my club even more. But you are forcing me to throw that plan (which is a very good one, and the plan i was asked to make for this franchise) down the sh***er essentially.

You mise well have just kept Samuel Lay in charge for that matter.

HFNHL PIT GM
11-26-2003, 06:03 PM
If anyone can suggest an alternative, trust me, we're all ears.

all good points by both sides.

maybe the compromise is to benchmark those teams under 66ov and require a certain % increase by the all star break and not neccesarly all the way to 66. this way the league can be assured its goals are being adhered to, but not at the expense of some good planning by some core GM's.

Robb

Hossa
11-26-2003, 06:47 PM
This is the main point GM's need to understand - several GMs would be fired for dismantling the team to the point they are no longer competitive. I understand that several GM's have inherited situations they felt necessary to tear completely down to work from the ground up, but we're working on making this league as realistic as possible, and this new rule will help keep "a competitive" check in place, without relying on the Admin Team to make judgement calls that in the end will simply be deemed subjective.

This new rule is a complete no-brainer, even if the particulars may be tinkered with over time.

The real question that remains is how we faze this in?

The point of all of a sudden having several teams fighting over mid-ranked players - thereby creating a rush and increase in asking price for these guys - is well taken, and it is not the intent of the Admin team to force teams into "bad trades", other than to apply the necessary pressure the owner and market would demand of the GM to provide a competitive team. As Doug has pointed out, we're still trying to create a fair, but firm, timeline to get teams on board.

Obviously this would have been better had we timed the announcement of this rule in advance of the waiver draft. However, GM's need to understand the Waiver draft was the Admin teams' final straw. We were hoping several teams would take advantage of the players available to them to improve their team, and redistribute some of the talent - which is the whole intent of the wiaver draft. In stead, we saw the collective yawn by several GMs who had the prime opportunity to improve their on-ice product, and the vast majority simply passed with the dreams of Ovechkin dancing in their minds (even though last still leads to less than a 50% chance of getting him).

Enough is enough.

I'm all for taking a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV requirement by the allstar break, but GMs should consider this discussion the proverbial firing across their bow. You've been put on notice by your owner and your fans to ice a credible team, and pronto. So now begins your challenge of keeping your job, while maintaining your prime assets (no one's suggesting you move your prime picks).

In the interim, the Admin team will take a closer look at the ramifications of the 66OV, which is still several months away from now.

Time to tinker with your blueprint to building a winner gentleman - your owner and fans have demanded it, with your head being the price should you fail to deliver.

I understand what you're saying, and what Doug was saying and Drew started off by saying. It's not that I'm against the idea of forcing teams to become competitive, I completely see the justification. The problem, as I keep saying, is the timing. I mean, i feel like I used the waiver draft to better my team in some ways, getting Malhotra and Slegr. I expected Slegr to have a higher ranking, but that's ok. I didn't stand by though, and let my on-ice product rot. But I probably would have protected a guy like Leschyshyn if I knew I had a minimum team rating that I had to achieve. I exposed him because it made no sense for me to keep him. He's not much better than guys like Martinek, Focht and also Slegr, and makes a lot of money, but could be more valuable to your team than mine.

It's too late to institute this before this year's waiver draft or even free agency, but I think basically putting teams on notice for next season, and strictly enfrocing this rule next year, is a fine idea. But there really is no way to avoid creating an inflated market for average NHLers. I mean, I'm fine at center, defence and goaltending, but I lack the requisite wingers to meet this at the moment.

The other thing I will say, just to reiterate the point, is that while we want this to be as realistic as possible, players can't blossom with ice time here. No matter how much ice time I give a guy like Manny malhotra, he won't improve from the 66 he is this year. Yet, look at what Rico Fata has done with ice time in Pittsburgh. That can not be changed, and I think we need to take this in to consideration.

SpinTheBlackCircle
11-26-2003, 07:11 PM
My .02:

I think it's a great rule. But, I really think it needs to be implemented at the start of next year rather than at the break this year. The notice is too short, and changing something so important mid stream is a bit harsh to me.

Here is another rule that I thinl should be discussed: If a player has played a certain amount of games in the NHL, then they can't be hidden on the prospect list. For example, next year if Bergeron and Lombardi play, say 60 games, I would be forced to sign them. You shouldn't be able to hide good players and wait until you stockpile a bunch of good players as a team hits the lottery year after year.

Plus, let's face it. A guy like Rick Nash could very well demand to be dealt if Columbus kept him unsigned all this time. It's not realistic for him or Bouwmeester to be prospects and not on an HFNHL roster.

Hossa
11-26-2003, 07:13 PM
My .02:

I think it's a great rule. But, I really think it needs to be implemented at the start of next year rather than at the break this year. The notice is too short, and changing something so important mid stream is a bit harsh to me.

Here is another rule that I thinl should be discussed: If a player has played a certain amount of games in the NHL, then they can't be hidden on the prospect list. For example, next year if Bergeron and Lombardi play, say 60 games, I would be forced to sign them. You shouldn't be able to hide good players and wait until you stockpile a bunch of good players as a team hits the lottery year after year.

Plus, let's face it. A guy like Rick Nash could very well demand to be dealt if Columbus kept him unsigned all this time. It's not realistic for him or Bouwmeester to be prospects and not on an HFNHL roster.

I agree with all of the above, including your rule proposal. Players should not be sheltered from waiver consideration for example, by being kept on the prospects list.

islanders
11-26-2003, 07:43 PM
I agree with all of the above, including your rule proposal. Players should not be sheltered from waiver consideration for example, by being kept on the prospects list.

The way I see it, there are few problems with this sim league compared to NHL. If you notice, the team with the worst record makes money in this league (i.e., Carolina, Bufallo and NYI of two years ago). The only way you can motivate GM is to compensate teams with additional revenues if they make playoffs or achieve certain number of points.

The other thing that I have noticed is that teams stock pile their talent in prospect and showcase the leftover to HFNHL. I think the league should have a 2 year prospect rule just like NHL as this will force teams to sign their prospects and will clean up the league of excess baggage.

The OV rule may work but I think teams in dire financial strain will have a hard time acquiring cheap NHL talent (i.e., Toronto)

BiLLY
11-26-2003, 10:52 PM
Ok, guys I wanna say my .02 cents here. I just got home from the bar probably the last time I will go before my finals so I am bit under the influence but I think my points are valid.

Firstly, although off topic, I will be the first to admit I have not nearly put in the time in the last year as I have in previous seasons. However, admidst numerous runins with Drew I must admit he has done a great job. It would really hurt the league if he were to leave on these terms. After everything you put in to this league Drew leaving because a disagreement is not worth it. I know you, Matt and Douglas are rarely credited for your dedication to the league but it is because of you guys and a few others the league is still alive today. I was a former commish before I know how time consuming it is and I also know how difficult this must be to see the league becoming so top heavy.

However, rather than imposing these strict regulations (which in most cases will be extremely diffcult for teams to implement I propose this idea:

I suggest we create a rule which forces the GM's with low average ratings to do one of the following:

1) Improve their OV rating by 2 points by the end of the season

OR

2) Improve their OV rating by 3 points including re-rates before the next season (excluding UFA signings and losses)

* All GM's would be expected to meet this criteria untill their OV is above 70. If this is not met they will be relieved of their duties by the league.

I think this idea could truly beneft the league. It gives GM's a realistic timetable to improve their clubs. It also promotes improving their clubs and even in some cases re-building without forcing them to sacrifice their youth reserves which would only put us further back.

One may wonder why I would respond to an issue like this when I can benefit greatly from the high pick I hold in 2005 (Tampas) but I think this is necessary for the good of the league. Douglas's idea of waiving players was an attempt to start us off on this path but I believe it is unnessecary. If the GM's can't meet these reasonable expectations then they deserve to be canned. This league has so much going for it (an amazing group of knowledgeable GM's who I enjoy just bull****ting about hockey with plus an admin team that puts in countless hours) it would really be terrible to see a loss in either of these areas because of an ill administered rule.

Just my drunken .02,
Billy

Donga
11-26-2003, 10:54 PM
This is a very touchy topic in more ways than one. I agree with the many of you especially Hossa and Brock about the timing issue. I can see why the admin is doing it.

I WILL GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT I'M OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAS RUINED THIS LEAGUE WITH THE MASS EXODUS OF THE PLAYERS I HAD WHEN I FIRST STARTED. I had names like Greg Johnson, Sami Kapanen, Bryan Marchment, Artus Irbe (before being crap), Steve Shields, Dave Karpa, Martin Gelinas and Andreas Dackell. All were gone by the deadline of that season.

This rule is to discourage the likes of me doing it. If the admin wants to fire me right now, I will be disappointed but I'll leave no hard feelings. I had an inkling this would come out soon just didn't know how soon. However, this is nothing new to me. This was happening with Buffalo when I first came in. Talking to some of the GM's at the time, none were too pleased about it. When I started doing it, I could feel the heat turn to me.

However, I did trade for Scott Gomez in that deal with former GM Sameul Ley. From memory, the purpose was a semi prospect dump and the prospect of better revenue I would get at the start of the season knowing that I couldn't make the playoffs. This is how I stayed a float for the past two season. Hasnain, you may think I made money but that was on the back of getting off to a good start and winning a few games to get my revenue up. I'm not saying that this is a good way of making money but it seems to have worked for me thus far.

Another note to the Scott Gomez saga, I know that many of you would have kept Scott Gomez as part of your core. When the opportunity to get my #1 tender for the next ten years, I couldn't resist. Rick D wasn't going to be much help to Hasnain at the time, he wanted to get to the playoffs. Why not give him Gomez, in this deal? I got DiPietrio who has a solid rating and will be even more better after this season. I also gave up Kotalik but I also got a 1st rounder who turns out to be Dion Phaneuf. He was awesome at training camp but the Flames didn't want to rush him. Who could blame them when they already had a solid group of blue liners. Although Hasnain didn't make the playoffs, but he thought he could at the time. Now I have my #1/2 blue liner and #1 tender. You couldn't be happier could you?

Currently doing the sums using the updated Rosters, I'm currently 68.65OV. This is good as it will me the criteria for this year. For the next season, who knows. However, in order to get this overall rating, I had to incur costs. All on mf own doing, especially Igor Kravchuk (69OV) and Tony Hrkac (69OV) costing me just below $3mill. However, the waiver was my meal ticket. Corson, Hoglund, Grosek and Ward helped me some what over the line.

With the sudden rule change, like many of you have stated or implied, players that are middle of the road players, their prices are going to skyrocket just to get to the limit. I will reiterate the point

IT IS THE TIMING THAT SUCKS NOT THE RULE!!!!

By, I will say this, THIS IS DEFINITELY A WAKE UP CALL, for me anyway.

Also, I think the thinking of some of the GM's going into the season and their plans before the season could have contributed to the wide disparity in skill between teams. Teams that want to rebuild and Teams that want to make the playoffs. Playoff Teams will always look for bargains with the non playoff team. Which player doesn't want to get a chance to play for a cup contender. I'm pretty sure Andreas Dackell and Martin Gelinas wouldn't be complaining after being traded to the Thrashers and playing in the playoffs for the past two seasons and winning the cup last season. Whenever, there are opposites about, there bound to be an attraction somewhere.

On the Waiver draft, it felt like a ghost town. I had fun myself with the pickups that I did. Don't tell me the players that I picked could not beat some of the teams. Like I reckon I could win all my 5 games against TOR, however many games against TB, a fighting chance against NAS, VAN, FLA, NJD and the possible upsets against the Sens. This could mean a 15-25 win season. With TOR, I have better rated players, Comrie and Hurme might spoil the party but my players will get through. Meanwhile TB doesn't have goaltender and could be with Dull Knife and Dummie Head for $10mill a piece ouch. If he was at the Waiver draft, he could have picked up Jamie McLennan. Who is currently one of the hottest tenders in the NHL at the moment. Despite his .500 record, he has a 2.00 GAA and about 910 SAV% last time I checked. He could be a good get for me during this last off season. Thats wat you get for not turning up to these things. I learnt the hard way with the 2002 draft.

Next question is, Doug you say that you would put Jamie Pushor on the waivers rite. He has a good rating and good salary. He would be a good pick up at the moment for NJD on current standings. Say Irbe is on the waiver list. Why would anyone want to pick up his $4mill multiyear contract just for the sake of getting to a limit when you know that he is gonna really suck next season? what is the incentive in that?

Greg, your idea is sound. May I suggest a hike in prospect fees for overage NA players as compared to Euro players? This will force some GM's to sign the players. Another way to get around is a waiver draft for prospects. Protect so many overage and leave the rest up for the waiver draft. Josh, I can see your face now :). Once they sign the players, they can be exempt. Or something to that extent. But this could be tough on the admin. I know there are ways around this. I wonder how through Eric was when he was compiling the list or did he leave it to the honesty system??

thats my 0.17 american cents plus my HFNHL life story ( or parts of it)

Phoenix AGM
11-26-2003, 11:07 PM
As someone with no particular stake in this, let me butt in with two comments:

1. There seems to be a huge disconnect between the admin team and the rest of the league regarding the urgency of this issue. From the admin team's point of view (based on what I've read in this thread), they have been concerned about and discussing this issue for some time and have become convinced that something needs to be done immediately.

From the rest of the league's perspective, this seems to have come completely out of the blue. I've been around this league for a few years now, and dramatic "rebuilding" projects of the type that would not be tolerated in the NHL, comments on the message boards about getting the #1 pick, etc., have been a part of it for as long as I can remember. Frankly, I just assumed it was accepted.

Maybe I missed some leaguewide communications about this, or maybe the admin team has discussed these issues privately with the GMs at issue. But otherwise I really can't blame the affected GMs from feeling a little ticked that what was ok for teams in the past is now deemed so unacceptable as to warrant immediate action.

I think that fairness requires some kind of phase-in period for any rule changes. I also think that, while the point of having an admin team is to discuss issues in a smaller and more manageable group, and I'm very appreciative of all the hard work they put in to make this league work, they might want to let us know a little sooner when they believe there's an issue that is threatening the integrity of the league.

2. Having said all that, I don't think the proposed rule will cure the problem. "Tanking" for a higher draft position is only the most blatant manifestation. Teams that have conducted fire sales generally end up with multiple first round picks and/or good prospects. Bumping one of their draft picks (even the highest) down a couple of slots is not a big disincentive. For every coveted #1 overall who turns into Mario Lemieux, there's an Alexander Daigle or Brian Lawton.

This hits it right on the head:
The way I see it, there are few problems with this sim league compared to NHL. If you notice, the team with the worst record makes money in this league (i.e., Carolina, Bufallo and NYI of two years ago).

[snip]

The other thing that I have noticed is that teams stock pile their talent in prospect and showcase the leftover to HFNHL. I think the league should have a 2 year prospect rule just like NHL as this will force teams to sign their prospects and will clean up the league of excess baggage.


If you really want to stop the fire sales, you need some combination of:
(a) the proposed OV rating requirement, but with stiffer penalties -- perhaps financial as well as draft position or lottery eligibility
(b) some kind of adjustment to the financial system
(c) the 2 year prospect limit
(d) a limit on the number of 1st round draft picks a team can acquire (presumably with an exception for FA compensation)
(e) stricter trade review
(f) ?

I'm not saying all of these are necessary or advisable, but to really get at the problem (assuming it is a problem), you need more than the proposed rule.

Dr.Sens(e)
11-27-2003, 04:07 AM
A few points...

1. This rule will be enforced - and it will probably be tinkered with at best, so GM's really should start planning. Teams are making much too much out of this being a monumental task.

2. So you don't make it to 66...it's not the end of the world. If you're at 65 - the ramifications? You might drop from 3rd to 5th in the first round. It means you get Vanek instead of Horton. Or it means you get Barker instead of Olesz. Some might say this is NOT ENOUGH of a penalty. The fact is the penalty is NOT that stiff. It's not like you're losing your first round pick. The Admin team at first wanted much stiffer penalties combined with a pure lottery (not a weighted one), a 4 draft position drop, and a 67 requirement by the trade deadline, but paired that back in consideration of the fact GMs were only being given three months. This penalty will not break ANY team, by any stretch of the imagination.

But we do realize for many of you draft hounds it is something you want to avoid. And of course, it does mean you are not going to get Ovechkin unless you're at 66 OV - which too many teams have been deliberately positioning themselves for, but that's the motivator. Hell, Bruce Firestone was fined for just suggesting the Sens plan was to tank and get Daigle. All of you seriously hurt the league when you talk of such things - which you do all to often with a flipancy that pains us who have built this league to the level it is now.

That said, we respect the new GMs abilities enough, we'd rather motivate you to improve your team rather than simply kick you out of the league. We do realize the current structure has allowed you to do this to your team. No more.

3. Finally, when a key member of the admin team resigns because of all the whining at the suggestion GMs will have to make some moves over the next three months to improve their team, enough is enough. A few new GMs are not worth the price of Drew resigning from the Admin team to be honest, so quit your *****ing and make the moves. We put countless hours into this league with little thanks other than our own pride in the league itself (Drew especially). Speaking for myself, I don't want a pat on the back from any of you. I don't want you to post something here saying you're sorry you haven't shown enough appreciation. I don't want you to send a diplomatic e-mail trying to soften your stance, but still suggesting you be given a little extra room.

I just want you to suck it up.

Welcome to the real world of being a NHL GM, where icing an AHL team is not acceptable. Having a team that is an on-ice joke is no longer acceptable, and we want changes beginning now. Did we let this go on too long? Yes. But that's exactly why we're not going to put this rule off until next year. The answer to this problem is not to let many of you write off this entire season without ANY motivation to be competitive THIS year, only to try and solve your problems via UFA. Going from 62 at the end of this year to 68 at the beginning of next year is TOO big of a task in an offseason anyway - especially when many GMs will be ignoring your trade requests as they're on vacation and many of you don't have the money to compete on the UFA market anyway. It will be enough to go from 66 (if you get there) to 68 next year.

We're not telling you to do this overnight. There are several teams in financial trouble looking to move solid players. And if you don't, the penalties really aren't that severe. Just suck it up and get moving. If you don't think that's fair and that we don't have the "right" to implement this over the next 3-4 months, even given all the hard work we've put in and the pride we take in making this league realistic and competitive, well, what else can I say, other than try not to let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Tampa GM
11-27-2003, 04:33 AM
My question remains, why was ALL my trades approved if this was something you where already talking about? Since ALL my trades so far has been APPROVED I cant see why I should be punished now?

Finally can somoeone please explain to me how I can get the free agents that are still out there WITHOUT overpaying? This rule change means I need to get better players and how can I be sure to get them unless I overpay? Is it in the leagues best intrest that guys like Nylander, Friesen and Nabokov will have a salary that might be close to the one Recchi has?

I have said it before and I will say it again. I dont think its fair to come up with a rule change TWO days prior to the season starts. I accept a rule before the 04/05 season however since that is enough time to get those players.

Chuzwazza
11-27-2003, 04:41 AM
Ok, I've stayed out of this a while, but as someone who sees things from pretty much every angle (Admin/rest of league, previous teardown team/current solid team) I feel I have a pretty good scope of things.

Some of the arguments are valid, some are less so. Originally I wasn't terribly impressed with the timing of the whole thing, as I feel like it's a little late to start dropping this on teams. That said, I'm not the guy who's responsible for sorting out the ratings for all those players that aren't included in the lists we use because they haven't played an NHL game for about 4 or 5 years (some have never made it past the NHL etc.). The Workload that Drew (and a few other guys) put in is phenominal, and they do it all for the benefit of the rest of us. They could quite easily go join some other league and just worry about their own team, but that doesn't happen. Unless someone else is prepared to step in and be responsible for all the things these guys do then I think it's reasonable to have to deal with the issues that they have.

Some of the problems are fromt previous GM's that have mismanaged teams and bolted, leaving it in the hands of new GM's who have taken apart teams because it is the only way they believe they can get the team back on track. Believe me when I say I know what it's like to have to try and build from the ground up. Guys, I'm in your corner somewhat in that regard, but the ratings limit is not exactly playoff level. If an NHL team attempted to ice some of the units we have here, the'd be looking to move inside of 3 years because of the revolt by the fans. Never mind that the owner would have taken drastic action LONG before and fired his whole front office (meaning YOU!).

Sure, it can mess with your plans somewhat, but it's not exactly like there aren't guys out there that you can pick up for a late round pick or two. and a couple of those guys and you've met the limit. It might cost you a couple of 7th's 8th's and 9ths, but that's not exactly going to kill you, and everybody else is doing it, so your race for the #1 isn't going to get any worse.

As for those who are doing this because of financial or philosophical mistakes, I have no sympathy for you...you brought this upon yourselves. The mess that Martin in Toronto is having to deal with is a direct result of GM's overpaying for bad players, and then leaving it too long before they start moving players, so he is left with no cash and not much talent. There is nothing harder than trying to find a GM for a team that won't be able to compete for at least another 4-5 years. And it's not like it's impossible to stop. Claudio was one of the first guys to try to buy a cup, and failed, but he realised the error of his ways early on and still has a very solid team to go with a decent crop of youngsters. Other teams have burned themselves in other ways, but the fact remains, we now have 1/4 of the league in a position to get the #1 pick. 1/4 of our league would be worse than the worse team in the NHl right now, and the scary thing is, it's all as a result of bad management in this league, either by current or past GM's. What this is all about, is attempting to stop this growing trend, so that we don;t get to a situation where half the teams in the league are close to unusable, and the league is in such a bad state that it has to be scrapped. The added workload that Drew has to endure through all this, is just another motivation for this coming out. It sucks for those few of you that are caught out now, but the 68 for next season isn't being complained about (much) and the deadline is a fair way away, so it should give you plenty of time to pick up those couple of players that will get you over the limit.

And before someone uses the "If I had known before the waiver draft I might have picked somebody"...save it. it's BS. You would have picked the good players because they'd get you another pick/prospect in a trade anyway, so I don't see what the problem is there. The deadline is enough time to make a move or two for players...you're gonna have to do it anyway next season, so what's the big problem with getting a little started this year? (which is all the deadline requirement is supposed to achieve)


OK...now onto my second point.

For those of you who want to take a crack at me for keeping Nash and Bouwmeester on my prospect list until they're good, keep it coming. We all know that the HFNHL is one year behind on ratings, so I don't get any creit for Nash's hot start to the season this year, or Bouwmeester logging 24+ minutes a night on D. The ratings I have are based soley on last year's, and neither of them are going to set the world on fire (66OV or so). If either one had been sent down last year because their teams were stronger, and they were not going to make the cut, or were only going to toil on the 4th line, would they have suddenly requested a trade? umm...no. That's all that's happening here. I have the option of using them as though they were as good as last season, or sending to the minors/juniors. And just in case you hadn't checked out my roster recently...why would I sign Bouwnmeester to a 1.2M contract when he's not even good enough to cut my top 6? Iwas actually intending on signing him, but was hoping I could pick up somebody better in the waiver draft. I did, so there's no need to play him, especially when I picked up another player, who could fill in as my #7 as well. Same goes for Nash, who even though I have toyed with the idea of signing him, would likely wind up playing next to Tim Taylor and Paul Ranheim on my 4th line. If Columbus had done that to him last year, people would have been abusing them for kiling his development.

I think that's my thoughts taken care of...happy to adress any problems people have with what I said

Donga
11-27-2003, 04:47 AM
Nick I totally agree with you wholeheartly.

Just redoing a few sums, I went from a 62OV before waivers to a 68OV after waivers. Although, my task would be difficult to attain this figure has there had been many people participating in the waiver draft. So thanks for not coming everyone. And if Pushor is on the waivers, I'll gladly pick him up to and Savage too if he is available. Josh can vouch that I'm a waiver junkie. I won't be able to trade them and the only way to get rid of them would be through the waivers. This will restrict me.

I will have probably drop back to about 62 next season. No Hoglund and possibly Corson, both are 70's. No Kravchuk a 69OV. Its going to be an interesting off season for me next season. I have around $30mill and I won't be afraid to use it. Two seasons of losing has taking its toll. Now to year 3. Playoffs time next year in Raleigh. Lets fill the largest stadium in the HFNHL.

As nick said, if you are just below the mark, it doesn't take much to get over the initial limit. A few good acquisitions of 67OV-69OV players will all add up. Also with teams in financial problems with good players, there is a win-win situation for both teams. One team dumps cash, you get a solid to quality player which help ratings. You don't have to trade your top prospects for these guys. I wouldn't trade Zherdev for say Corson. No ****ing way.

SpinTheBlackCircle
11-27-2003, 05:52 AM
For those of you who want to take a crack at me for keeping Nash and Bouwmeester on my prospect list until they're good, keep it coming.

It wasn't a crack at you, don't take it personally. In fact, I brought up MY players in my post as well to make the point. I had actually not even remembered you had them both....I was just using 2 of the top players from last year as examples.

Just looking for more ways to prevent people from tanking/stockpiling high picks and not using them on their HFNHL roster.

islanders
11-27-2003, 06:11 AM
It wasn't a crack at you, don't take it personally. In fact, I brought up MY players in my post as well to make the point. I had actually not even remembered you had them both....I was just using 2 of the top players from last year as examples.

Just looking for more ways to prevent people from tanking/stockpiling high picks and not using them on their HFNHL roster.

I know this suggestion won't sit well with many GM. How about re -shuffling those GM who don't make the playoffs the previous two seasons. This way, GM will not be guaranteed that they will be managing the same team every year and won't be motivated to take a dive for draft picks. We see GM being fired and hired by another team every day in NHL. Just a suggestion, comments are welcome.

Dryden
11-27-2003, 07:47 AM
I've been sitting on the sidelines since I first read the original post. I t came as quite a shock to me that such drastic measures were being put in place so quickly, but I agreed it was necessary for the good of the league.

The one thing all the teams who are making a stink about this have not noticed is the new rule was not etched in stone but a general guideline. As for it not being able to be done, thats a crock of s*i*. I took over the Hawks last year and they had little to work with both prospect wise and player wise. Eric got me started off by dealing Sakic and Bondra for Bouchard and Upshall. Others tried to get what remaining prospects I had left but I wouldn't buge. In little under a year through trades and FA signings I've turned a bottom feeder into a playoff contender. I could have chose the route of going for the number one pick or trying to put out a competitive team on a daily basis. 1) it makes it more fun to come home from work and see that I one a game 2-1 as oppossed to getting blown out 6-1 and 2) Brian Lawton and other prospects who didn't pan out. Go for the good and proven I always say.

I was seriously looking forward to this year. My team has become a playoff hopeful, I've taken on assistant Sim duties with Drew and I actually like talking with some of the guys in the league. Now something like this comes along and puts a damper on things.

All I have to say is to those out there thinking that not fielding a competitive team, Don't ruin it for the rest of us. Get a goalie, get a defenseman, get a forward, just get anything...It can be done, don't say it can't.

SpinTheBlackCircle
11-27-2003, 08:06 AM
That's a very good point. When I took over Minnesota after the expansion draft, I had Patrick Roy, Sean Burke and a bunch of 4th liners. Of the guys on the team when I took over less than 3 years ago, only 6 are left in the NHL. Through the waiver wire, unsigned guys and some really good trades, I ended up getting guys like Nagy, St Louis, Dupuis and Arnott. I dealt some first rounders, and I may regret dealing the pick that became Rick Nash, but I ended up getting Sturm, DeVries and Klepis. Sturm is growing into a 30 goal scorer, and DeVries is a top 4 guy.

I never "tanked" to get my team better. I've only had 1 top 15 pick, but I have a ton of good prospects who will be in th NHL very soon.

I am sure it won't happen, and it's not a suggestion, but if this were a pay to play league, it would really dampen the impulse to tank.

Brock
11-27-2003, 09:21 AM
The thing that keeps being mentioned here is that we stripped our teams to be contenders for the first overall. Thats a load of bloody horsesh**.

I took over this team at the entry draft and I've made it considerably better since than, for now and the future. Im going with the hand i was dealt. I didnt strip my team, it was already stripped. I was told to rebuild it, so I did. And now Im being ****ing molested here saying that it's my fault and what not. Back that horse up. All you GM's saying, "Oh well I did this, I had no trouble rebuilding, I had the same situation, etc" Yeah, ok I'm sure you did, But you also sucked for a year as well I'm sure. Dryden you mentioned your situation of rebuilding...but what place did you finish in again last year? 5th last?

This process takes time, in the NHL specifically. When i took over the Panthers I was told to rebuild and make it a playoff contender in a few years. I wasn't told to make it one the next season, thats an absurd request I'm sorry.

You guys are acting like that If I got a good team, I would have just gone and stripped that and said "Oh mother, I want that Ovechkin guy, no matter if i have to go from an 80 overall to a -49). If i would have been given a good team (for instance I was offered Dallas as well), I would have gone with the hand i was dealt and tried to make that team into a contender. I was given a team in shambles that i had to rebuild from the ground up. So I did.

You can analyze my trades of recent and look for proof if you really wish. With the exception of the Pavel Trnka trade (simply because my depth on defense was already good enough and It became a waiver draft issue), all of my trades have been to better my franchise for now and the future. In the only other deal you could classify as a dump, the Shawn McEachern deal, my very first in the HFNHL, I actually acquired Daniel Tjarnqvist to help my team now, he's a 68 overall right now. If i wanted it to be a pure dump, I would have just gone and acquired anything for him.

Also a lot of the GM's on here can tell you that I'm one of the most active GM's here. Im always searching for trades to make in order to improve the team for right now. I've asked about young centers, young defenseman (in particular an offensive defenseman) and I've talked to many of you about trades to improve. I've also researched and researched in order to find free agents available, such as Peter Sarno or Fernando Pisani or Cody McCormick, etc whom I have signed in the past while.

For me it's not about sucking to get Ovechkin, I want to win now, but the reality is that's not possible with my team. Like I said and will keep saying, I'm playing with the hand I was dealt.

If admins want to leave and are disgusted or whatever simply because I don't agree with the timing, then hey go ahead, But im allowed to voice my opinion as the GM of this team. And if some of you truly believe that I'm trying to suck, then you are clearly blind, because you'd have to be a fool to see I'm not trying to improve my team within the boundaries that my team (personal, finances, etc) allows.

Thats pretty much all I have to say.

islanders
11-27-2003, 09:36 AM
The thing that keeps being mentioned here is that we stripped our teams to be contenders for the first overall. Thats a load of bloody horsesh**.

I took over this team at the entry draft and I've made it considerably better since than, for now and the future. Im going with the hand i was dealt. I didnt strip my team, it was already stripped. I was told to rebuild it, so I did. And now Im being ****ing molested here saying that it's my fault and what not. Back that horse up. All you GM's saying, "Oh well I did this, I had no trouble rebuilding, I had the same situation, etc" Yeah, ok I'm sure you did, But you also sucked for a year as well I'm sure. Dryden you mentioned your situation of rebuilding...but what place did you finish in again last year? 5th last?

This process takes time, in the NHL specifically. When i took over the Panthers I was told to rebuild and make it a playoff contender in a few years. I wasn't told to make it one the next season, thats an absurd request I'm sorry.

You guys are acting like that If I got a good team, I would have just gone and stripped that and said "Oh mother, I want that Ovechkin guy, no matter if i have to go from an 80 overall to a -49). If i would have been given a good team (for instance I was offered Dallas as well), I would have gone with the hand i was dealt and tried to make that team into a contender. I was given a team in shambles that i had to rebuild from the ground up. So I did.

You can analyze my trades of recent and look for proof if you really wish. With the exception of the Pavel Trnka trade (simply because my depth on defense was already good enough and It became a waiver draft issue), all of my trades have been to better my franchise for now and the future. In the only other deal you could classify as a dump, the Shawn McEachern deal, my very first in the HFNHL, I actually acquired Daniel Tjarnqvist to help my team now, he's a 68 overall right now. If i wanted it to be a pure dump, I would have just gone and acquired anything for him.

Also a lot of the GM's on here can tell you that I'm one of the most active GM's here. Im always searching for trades to make in order to improve the team for right now. I've asked about young centers, young defenseman (in particular an offensive defenseman) and I've talked to many of you about trades to improve. I've also researched and researched in order to find free agents available, such as Peter Sarno or Fernando Pisani or Cody McCormick, etc whom I have signed in the past while.

For me it's not about sucking to get Ovechkin, I want to win now, but the reality is that's not possible with my team. Like I said and will keep saying, I'm playing with the hand I was dealt.

If admins want to leave and are disgusted or whatever simply because I don't agree with the timing, then hey go ahead, But im allowed to voice my opinion as the GM of this team. And if some of you truly believe that I'm trying to suck, then you are clearly blind, because you'd have to be a fool to see I'm not trying to improve my team within the boundaries that my team (personal, finances, etc) allows.

Thats pretty much all I have to say.

Brock, I don't think anyone is pinpointing you as an individual. We all know that you inherited a team which was in dire need of rebuilding. As you can see from what you inherited, the Florida Panther was totally stripped of all the talent and had no cash reserve to dip into free agent. This kind of things is happening more often the last couple of years and I for one did the same thing the very first year I joined.

I think the Admin team is trying to bring parity among each team which is always good in the long run.

Brock
11-27-2003, 09:48 AM
Brock, I don't think anyone is pinpointing you as an individual. We all know that you inherited a team which was in dire need of rebuilding. As you can see from what you inherited, the Florida Panther was totally stripped of all the talent and had no cash reserve to dip into free agent. This kind of things is happening more often the last couple of years and I for one did the same thing the very first year I joined.

I think the Admin team is trying to bring parity among each team which is always good in the long run.

I agree with the intent and purpose of the new rule, I really do. It's just thatI don't agree with the timing and I think its unfair to handicap the GM's in question at the exact moment in time.

Dryden
11-27-2003, 11:50 AM
Brock I think your taking this whole thing a little too personally. What I think you should do is step and lookat things from the other side of the fence. Look at the admin guys who have invested a lot of hard work, time and energy to make this a fun place for us to enjoy the world of hockey and have some fun. Picture trying to have a league run where everyone is competitive and people enjoy what is going. The teams involved are all operating at their best abilities. Now look at the reality of what the HFNHL has become: teams dumping players to secure a high lottery pick and all-star teams created for the chosen few who can afford it. Are you part of this...NO I don't think so. Are you the answer to the problem. Looks like your trying to be. But by crying about time I think you've just caused a bigger problem. I've noticed in the year and a half that I've been in here that some people live and breathe HFNHL and are totally devoted to making it work. I play within their rules and respect what they have put forth. No one is saying you don't have a voice but I don't think that rule was etched in stone either. My take is that it was put there to stop teams from not having a playable roster. I personally can not believe that there is a team with no goalie. Something like this should never happen and something needed to be done about it. I'm totally in favor of protecting the integrity of the league and think its great that those in power took the time to do it.

While I agree its horrible that your caught up in this and that you have improved the team considerably I also believe that those who think its great to tank should be punished. I also believe that those who try to improve themselves throughout the season but don't quite make it should not be punished. So keep trying to improve your team and don't let the restriction of time be an issue. JUST DO IT!

Now as for me finishing 5th last. I know you were not around last year so I'll let that slide. But I'd like to inform you that 3/4ths of the players on my roster were not there when I inherited this team. All I had to work with was Thibault, Viktor Kozlov and Jochen Hect. Those were the only players above 70 OV. A little tinkering, a couple of signings and a bunch of trades have turned me into something to work with and I guarentee that I will make the playoffs baring any injuries and I still have some prospects available to fill holes. Yours is probably a different route that can be taken and I'm sure all your research and time will payoff. That was just not my route. While you guys were drafting players this year I was enjoying the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal. Not one draft pick in the first 4 rounds. Who did I get Tanguay, Todd Simpson and Arvedson in return. Players that are needed now, not some I hope this guy pans out takes 3 years for him to get good prospect.

Well like I and others have said I don't think the problem is you...but others who have spoiled it for all of us.

With that said I am not writing any more on this.

Dr.Sens(e)
11-27-2003, 11:50 AM
I agree with the intent and purpose of the new rule, I really do. It's just thatI don't agree with the timing and I think its unfair to handicap the GM's in question at the exact moment in time.

You're simply not that far from a 66 OV Brock. You can easily get there without compromising your strategy, especially given you have literally months to do it.

Ohio Jones
11-27-2003, 11:52 AM
My question remains, why was ALL my trades approved if this was something you where already talking about? Since ALL my trades so far has been APPROVED I cant see why I should be punished now?

Finally can somoeone please explain to me how I can get the free agents that are still out there WITHOUT overpaying? This rule change means I need to get better players and how can I be sure to get them unless I overpay? Is it in the leagues best intrest that guys like Nylander, Friesen and Nabokov will have a salary that might be close to the one Recchi has?

I have said it before and I will say it again. I dont think its fair to come up with a rule change TWO days prior to the season starts. I accept a rule before the 04/05 season however since that is enough time to get those players.


1) As was previously mentioned, Martin, your trades (among others) had been approved on an individual basis because an argument could be made for them - again, individually - and because as a veteran GM you were not being held to the same exacting standard that a rookie is held to. Perhaps that's my mistake. Collectively, the result of these deals has been that Tampa has few quality assets remaining, but with little improvement to the system (in prospects or picks) to show for it, ever mind getting NHL-ready players back. However, I'm sure you'll recall that this is not the first you've heard of your moves causing concern - it's been raised directly with you on multiple occassions.

2) The Free Agents you list are all RFAs, and no, I don't expect too many teams to dive into the RFA market - it almost never happens in the NHL for a reason, and the few times it's happened in the HFNHL it's been teams with a lot of cash and depth feeling they could afford to take the hit to a) sign an RFA to a sufficiently imposing contract, and b) give up the compensation picks necessary. (Washington, I'm sure, is still stinging from the 3 firsts I gave up for JP Dumont in one of my more stupid moves in the league...). RFAs, however, are not the only source of players available to you. Try a trade. Try showing willingness to pay a player more than $450K (and no, I'm not suggesting you pick up a bunch of overpaid guys). There are even a few UFAs still available who, while not necessarily 70+ players, would be a significant improvement on some of your current roster. Just some thoughts - call me crazy.

3) Would I have preferred if we had come to this decision before Free Agency and the Waiver Draft? Sure. Frankly, I wish we'd thought of it three years ago. But the rule being put in place now still gives GMs time to do their GM thing and restore some semblance of reality to their teams without gutting their system or their bank account.

Ohio Jones
11-27-2003, 12:27 PM
I think that fairness requires some kind of phase-in period for any rule changes. I also think that, while the point of having an admin team is to discuss issues in a smaller and more manageable group, and I'm very appreciative of all the hard work they put in to make this league work, they might want to let us know a little sooner when they believe there's an issue that is threatening the integrity of the league.

If you really want to stop the fire sales, you need some combination of:
(a) the proposed OV rating requirement, but with stiffer penalties -- perhaps financial as well as draft position or lottery eligibility
(b) some kind of adjustment to the financial system
(c) the 2 year prospect limit
(d) a limit on the number of 1st round draft picks a team can acquire (presumably with an exception for FA compensation)
(e) stricter trade review
(f) ?

I'm not saying all of these are necessary or advisable, but to really get at the problem (assuming it is a problem), you need more than the proposed rule.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions, Jim. Where have you boys been lately? :)

I apologize if our concern about the tanking situation comes as a surprise to some of you - it was certainly not meant to be a secret. Perhaps we should revisit the extent to which we discuss issues among the admin team before bringing them to the league as a whole for consideration.

Regarding your suggestions, while your comments about the value of relative dratf position are well taken, I'm personally disinclined to introduce stiffer penalties, for the simple reaosn that historically we've found that the GMs that most frequently end up having penalties imposed on them for non-compliance with league rules usually end up quitting (or being fired), and if their team has in the meantime endured a number of fines and other penalties, the team's weak position will be made worse, thus making it even harder to find a willing replacement GM, and then (as Brock has found) making that GM's job even harder.

In fact, that's the very reason I ended up with Columbus - the previous GM lost his draft picks in 2001 due to his failure to show up to the draft or submit a list. It was my own rule, and in retrospect it didn't work very well. The two teams who suffered that penalty that year, Columbus and Edmonton, promptly lost their GMs, while the new GMs had to deal with a team that had made no draft selections that year. The next player available during Columbus's selection would have been Stphen Weiss - granted, he hasn't been an impact player yet, but the Columbus depth chart would have looked a lot better had a player of Weiss' potential been sitting on it when I took over!

In fact, there are a number of considerations we have introduced over the years to address more of these considerations you mention. The "teams are keeping quality players on their prospect lists too long" issue was raised back when I was Commish, and was addressed by applying a $50,000 surcharge to teams for each prospect they kept unsigned for more than two years. This has had some success in getting teams to, as it were, "fish or cut bait" on prospects earlier than they used to. That said, perhaps it hasn't gone far enough, but we were trying to balance the consideration that a) many prospect take more than a couple of years to become usable pros, even in the minors, and b) we didn't want to unnecessarily double the number of players in the league for the sim manager to have to enter (manually, in case you weren't aware - every player file, every ratings change has to be entered manually, one rating at a time).

Every time - EVERY time - we have tried to impose stricter trade review, we have received massive push-back from the GMs involved. This is the same debate as in public justice - what is the balance between maintaining civil liberties and preserving public safety? Ironically, some of those that have fought back hardest on this point are the GMs who, over the years, have managed to consistently make poor decisions regarding their teams... I'm not naming names!

I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of some kind of financial adjustment - we have introduced the new endorsement structure as a means of helping teams improve their financial position through prudent management. If you could give an example of the kind of thing you were thinking of, and how it might help?

The proposal to limit a team's first rounders is interesting, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. Historically, I believe the team with the most first-rounders in a single year was Ottawa, who (as now) was considered a favourite to win the Eastern Conference. In fact, if I recall correctly, Steve followed that year up with another multiple-first draft... So it's not as though it's only those teams that gut their rosters who are able to accumulate picks.


On an unrelated note, Jim, I've actually been meaning to ask you - what exactly do you and Stan have in mind for the Coyotes? Your roster has undergone comparitively little change over the past few years, and I've watched as your available talent has waned to the point where you have an all-star first line, an elite starting netminder and then... what? I figured you guys would have gone through a rebuilding process yourselves long since, but you've held off, so I was just wondering what you had in mind?

Curiously yours,

D

kasper11
11-27-2003, 02:20 PM
Some thoughts from me:

1) This is not meant to single any team out, least of all you Brock. We know that some teams have inherited tough circumstances, every single one of us on the admin team feel strongly that this is important.
2) This has happened in the past, but never to this extent. There are about 5 teams out there right now that cannot put together a complete line of regular NHL players. Plus, from looking at other situations and talking to other teams, there could be another 5 or so in the next year. This is one of the reasons for us wanting to get something in place immediately.
3) For the most part, the teams that we are most worried about don't even have any young NHL players or NHL ready prospects, meaning that the turnarounds will not be quick.
4) There has been definate talk from several gms (who will remain nameless) about putting together a team bad enough to get Ovechkin, and I see no reason to think that it would lessen next year with Crosby. I am not saying that every team that is in this situation is tanking, but there are definately some instances where teams that are rebuilding anyway are taking it further to try and get the top pick.

Before someone thinks that I am being hipocritical since my team finished last overall last year, I would like to point out that I held onto several young NHLers and picked up alot of prospects who were NHL ready, ensuring that I would not be in a bad situation for long. I finished 9th the season before, and expect to finish around 10th this season and make the playoffs next. Also, when I began rebuilding, there was only 1 other team following a similar path.

That being said, I move that we table the conversation for the next couple of days. Most people have had their say, and I would like to wait and see what Matt has to say, since he is the commish. He is away for a few days I believe, so lets let him get back and comment.

Rich

Phoenix AGM
11-27-2003, 10:11 PM
Thanks for the feedback and suggestions, Jim. Where have you boys been lately? :)

Appreciate the response -- I thought about staying out of this one completely, but my nosiness got the better of me. Regrettably I've been out of town for the last two drafts (entry and waiver), but the last was for a good cause (the Heritage Classic).

I apologize if our concern about the tanking situation comes as a surprise to some of you - it was certainly not meant to be a secret. Perhaps we should revisit the extent to which we discuss issues among the admin team before bringing them to the league as a whole for consideration.

Maybe a semi-annual message board topic or something about "Issues the Admin Team is Looking At" or something. Nothing major -- I'm not proposing any more work for people. But there have been some ideas here that might have been useful several months ago, and if nothing else, sometimes just the process matters.

Regarding your suggestions, while your comments about the value of relative dratf position are well taken, I'm personally disinclined to introduce stiffer penalties, for the simple reaosn that historically we've found that the GMs that most frequently end up having penalties imposed on them for non-compliance with league rules usually end up quitting (or being fired), and if their team has in the meantime endured a number of fines and other penalties, the team's weak position will be made worse, thus making it even harder to find a willing replacement GM, and then (as Brock has found) making that GM's job even harder.

Yeah, fair point -- that's always a paradox. My only comment is that removal of a GM is the ultimate sanction, so punishing the team beyond that is fruitless, and lesser sanctions won't dissuade owners who are blatantly ignoring their duties. Conversely, owners who are tanking are by definition hoping to be around in a few years, so they would be responsive to such penalties.

Re issues with limiting the prospect list: I hear you on this as well. I'm just thinking of ways to reduce the effectiveness of the "tank now, win later" strategy.

Every time - EVERY time - we have tried to impose stricter trade review, we have received massive push-back from the GMs involved. This is the same debate as in public justice - what is the balance between maintaining civil liberties and preserving public safety? Ironically, some of those that have fought back hardest on this point are the GMs who, over the years, have managed to consistently make poor decisions regarding their teams... I'm not naming names!

Without wading into the even thornier debate you allude to, I'll just say that I'm a big believer in trade review. Leagues shouldn't degenerate into a game of "find-the-sucker."

I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of some kind of financial adjustment - we have introduced the new endorsement structure as a means of helping teams improve their financial position through prudent management. If you could give an example of the kind of thing you were thinking of, and how it might help?

I'm just thinking of addressing the problem Hasnain (sp?) has pointed out -- that lousy teams can still make money. The endorsement deals are clearly a step in the right direction, though I would eliminate the upfront committment so it's less of a gamble. Other possibilities are having local TV contracts or merchandising revenue that are linked to team quality and/or results.

Brief digression here... I run a baseball sim league, and our simulator includes a "fan interest" factor that has a big impact on attendance and therefore revenue. Fan interest is heavily influenced by competitiveness for a playoff spot, and carries over from year to year. I don't know enough about the fhl sim, but something that accomplishes that result would be welcome.

The proposal to limit a team's first rounders is interesting, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. Historically, I believe the team with the most first-rounders in a single year was Ottawa, who (as now) was considered a favourite to win the Eastern Conference. In fact, if I recall correctly, Steve followed that year up with another multiple-first draft... So it's not as though it's only those teams that gut their rosters who are able to accumulate picks.

Fair enough, I'm not a big believer in this one. Just brainstorming for ways of making it harder to reap the rewards of a fire sale.

On an unrelated note, Jim, I've actually been meaning to ask you - what exactly do you and Stan have in mind for the Coyotes? Your roster has undergone comparitively little change over the past few years, and I've watched as your available talent has waned to the point where you have an all-star first line, an elite starting netminder and then... what? I figured you guys would have gone through a rebuilding process yourselves long since, but you've held off, so I was just wondering what you had in mind?

Don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll discuss it with you via email if you like. I will say, though, that we have found it hard to make the deals we have wanted to make (trading stars for depth) in a league where teams are either gunning for the title (and thus unwilling to part with depth) or "rebuilding" (and thus uninterested in acquiring stars). So believe me, I share the admin team's concern. On the other hand, it's a little disconcerting that we won't be allowed to do the same rebuilding process that other teams have used, though we'll adapt to whatever rules are in the league's best interests, of course.

Dr.Sens(e)
11-28-2003, 03:53 AM
Brief digression here... I run a baseball sim league, and our simulator includes a "fan interest" factor that has a big impact on attendance and therefore revenue. Fan interest is heavily influenced by competitiveness for a playoff spot, and carries over from year to year. I don't know enough about the fhl sim, but something that accomplishes that result would be welcome.

The FHL Sim includes winning and star power in it's determination of attendance (among other things). One of the naive things teams will begin to realize is that you don't make a ton of money when you miss the playoffs. The real cash kings of the league are the teams that have consistently made the playoffs (and had a few upset wins), while maintaining a reasonable payroll.

The teams with AHL talent will have a tough time making $400,000-500,000 per game, or $15-$20 million in total revenue. As a result, they might make $5 - $10 million in a year, but only if they have a payroll of $10-12 million, when other playoff teams (my Blues and the Kings as examples), have pulled in $15 - 420 million in profits in a given year because of playoff revenues (which can give you $1 million in pure profit per game).

It pays to be competitive.

HFNHL Red Wings
11-28-2003, 04:47 AM
It does indeed appear that there is a fan interest factor. We had always believed attendance was impacted by winning/losing streaks. Last year there was so much interest in trying to understand the Sim's revenue model that I was paying more attention thatn usual. The winning/losing streak factor is not the true factor but in truth it is your team's winning percentage and/or conference rank. I watched a few select teams attendance as the season progressed and saw revenue rise and fall on two teams that had roller coaster seasons as far as the standings goes and can confirm that while their ticket price and talent level remained relatively constant attendance did change as their winning percentage increased.

HFNHL Commish
11-28-2003, 07:58 PM
Folks, I'm smack in the middle of a week and a half-long vacation, so this whole mess clearly could've come at a better time... ;)

First off, I'd like to state that part of me is glad to see the numbers of replies this thread has received. That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the content of all of the replies, but it's good to see so many people getting involved.

Unfortunately, discussions in a forum such as this always seem to break down at some point and get a little personal. With that in mind, it's important for everyone to understand that, while it could have been communicated better, these rule changes are LONG overdue and aren't being brought about to pick on certain GMs...least of all some of our newer GMs who have by and large done good jobs in turning their respective teams around (or at least pointing them in the right direction).

A lot of you have offered up suggestions and alternatives of your own, and they are appreciated and have been noted. While I don't have the time right now to go back and address every issue that has been brought up, I do want to respond quickly to the notion that the trade reviewing process could be stricter.

When I first took over as Commissioner, and Rich Epstein was serving as DoPP, we fought more than our share of battles with GMs over intervening in trade proceedings. In most cases, GMs were simply asked to tweak deals a little in order to gain approval. However, there were several instances where things got rather ugly. It wasn't fair for Rich to have to go through that then, and I won't ask Douglas to go through that now. It sucks the fun right out of the game. At this point, it's my opinion that the DoPP's job should be to call into question trades that are rather obviously lopsided, and that's it. Anything beyond that and we probably ought to be taking a closer look at the individual GM to see whether or not he really has his team's best interests at heart.

That little bit of editorial commentary aside, I want to touch on the "Average OV Rating" rule briefly.

I'll be the 15th person in this thread to admit that the timing of this announcement could've been better. However, considering that the All-Star break doesn't come for another 3-4 months, I think that issue's been overblown. We're not talking about having an average 66 OV for your entire roster, people. As Nick stated in the first post, we're only looking for teams to have a STARTING ROSTER (12F, 6D, 2G) averaging 66 OV.

Folks, that's nothing. There are some truly marginal players that could be had for low draft picks that have 66+ OV ratings. Most of you who are concerned about this rule probably could take care of things by dropping two or three 60 OV rated players from your starting roster and adding 67-68 OV players in their place. No one's realistically going to have to tear their team apart to get a hold of a few legitimate depth players.

That's my piece for the moment. Again, the timing's bad, we're all aware of that. But let's not blow the situation out of proportion...we're simply asking teams to put together a roster that can play marginally competitive hockey.

Tampa GM
12-27-2003, 05:27 AM
We are almost 10 games into this season and so far I havent heard the final answer on this rule change. 1) Will it happen 2) What will happen if a team has under 66 oV? How many draft spots will they lose?

HFNHL Red Wings
12-29-2003, 11:39 AM
We are almost 10 games into this season and so far I havent heard the final answer on this rule change. 1) Will it happen 2) What will happen if a team has under 66 oV? How many draft spots will they lose?

The rule is definitely in effect but you are right, after many deliberations, the penalty amount has not been finalized. I believe the draft position penalty is definitely in but the number of positions is TBD. I'm pretty sure the draft lottery change is on hold (ie as long as things don't get ridiculous and the draft penalty is a sufficient deterent it need not apply). There was also some talk of simply replacing the GM's.
Only Matt however can say exactly what the penalties will be.

HFNHL Commish
01-15-2004, 10:00 AM
The rule is definitely in effect but you are right, after many deliberations, the penalty amount has not been finalized. I believe the draft position penalty is definitely in but the number of positions is TBD. I'm pretty sure the draft lottery change is on hold (ie as long as things don't get ridiculous and the draft penalty is a sufficient deterent it need not apply). There was also some talk of simply replacing the GM's.
Only Matt however can say exactly what the penalties will be.

To close the book on this issue, any changes to the draft lottery are indeed on hold.

As for the "draft position penalty", the penalty amount will be two positions for every point that a team is under the average OV requirement.

godlh
01-16-2004, 09:13 AM
Gentelmen,

I can't remember if we discussed this or not...

Is the draft penalty exclusively for the first round or is it for every round of the draft?



Eric

HFNHL Commish
01-21-2004, 09:23 AM
Is the draft penalty exclusively for the first round or is it for every round of the draft?

Good question, Eric. The draft penalty will only apply to the first round.

Hossa
01-21-2004, 09:39 AM
Another question.

After the all-star break, can a team dip below the 66 OV rating or does it need to finish the season at 66 OV or more, and be up to 68 OV for next season.

The reason I ask is that at the deadline, it is common practice for teams not making the playoffs to trade veterans who they don't need and will most likely be gone in the summer, for picks and prospects. The example off my team is Mario Lemieux. Could I deal Lemieux at the deadline without having to keep my team at 66 OV? I mean, it doesn't make sense for me to keep Lemieux for the extra 12-15 games, might as well get something from him assuming I'm not in the playoffs. Would these types of scenarios be reviewed on a case-by-case basis or what?

I mean, I wouldn't be "gutting" my roster, but Lemieux has value at the deadline that he may never have again...

Brock
01-21-2004, 10:08 AM
Another question.

After the all-star break, can a team dip below the 66 OV rating or does it need to finish the season at 66 OV or more, and be up to 68 OV for next season.

The reason I ask is that at the deadline, it is common practice for teams not making the playoffs to trade veterans who they don't need and will most likely be gone in the summer, for picks and prospects. The example off my team is Mario Lemieux. Could I deal Lemieux at the deadline without having to keep my team at 66 OV? I mean, it doesn't make sense for me to keep Lemieux for the extra 12-15 games, might as well get something from him assuming I'm not in the playoffs. Would these types of scenarios be reviewed on a case-by-case basis or what?

I mean, I wouldn't be "gutting" my roster, but Lemieux has value at the deadline that he may never have again...

I am also very curious about this.

HFNHL Red Wings
02-23-2004, 03:46 PM
Although this is not my call, it's Matt's at the end of the day, it was the intent that the team held this level. The 66OV was meant as a stepping stone towards the 68OV. It was the intention that once we got to the 68OV by next season that teams not be allowed to drop below this so I'm not sure why the the interim steps would be any different to be honest. Especially if it meant teams would reduce their rosters again for the remainder of the season with the intent on just stocking up temporarily at the free agency period.
Remember the original objective is to maintain some level of competiteness and not have teams drop below for periods only to bolster their rosters temporarily for a measurement period and then trade down again in a roller coaster manner.

Tampa GM
02-24-2004, 10:25 AM
If I trade for a player that puts me over the 66OV do I need to keep him my starting line up for the rest of the season or could I send him to minors right away?

Donga
02-25-2004, 03:26 AM
If I trade for a player that puts me over the 66OV do I need to keep him my starting line up for the rest of the season or could I send him to minors right away?

As Drew said, we have to keep a level of competitiveness as we head to next year as some of us will endeaveor trying to get to a 68 OV which can be another 50-35 points depending on how our guys rated. With me, most of my better players have been playing on a regular basis except for a few due to contracts and what not. However, for me to do this, I've needed to trade for better players so I can keep on top of these things. I'm up to point now that I'm over, I can play around with my lineup such that I try and play anyone that is 100% and scratch those that are not at 100%. I guess thats the luxury of being over. Although, I'm not over by much.

If you do as you suggest, how can the guy be counted as part of your roster if he doesn't play regularly in the bigs?? If you are implying on getting someone like a Artus Irbe or a Tony Hrkac or Bill Houlder, then I can see why you would want to do this but imagine if you were in there shoes. You get sent down to the minors and the guy playing on the second or third line or starting tender is way not better than you, wouldn't you get mad?? Also depending on who you pick up, would they clear waivers?? What happens if some ******* (like me :D) decides to pick them up?? What happens then?? You traded for him and lose him just as quick. Your now in a worst position then you were in before. The only thing you got is probably $50,000 from waiver fees.

Although, it would be Matt's call, IMO he should stay on the roster to be counted. Man, why didn't someone impose a games played quota with this rule, that way it would have been a no contest with this question. I'm not taking out on you, Martin. Your question is quite valid considering this wasn't cleared up.

Although this is not my call, it's Matt's at the end of the day, it was the intent that the team held this level. The 66OV was meant as a stepping stone towards the 68OV. It was the intention that once we got to the 68OV by next season that teams not be allowed to drop below this so I'm not sure why the the interim steps would be any different to be honest. Especially if it meant teams would reduce their rosters again for the remainder of the season with the intent on just stocking up temporarily at the free agency period.
Remember the original objective is to maintain some level of competiteness and not have teams drop below for periods only to bolster their rosters temporarily for a measurement period and then trade down again in a roller coaster manner.

I hear ya there Drew. Totally agree. :yo:

With all this talk, it reminds me that I have to bring Dale Purinton, arguably my best blue liner back into the team. :)

*sighs and everything is now off his chest :rolly: *

Ville Isopää
02-25-2004, 08:13 AM
If you do as you suggest, how can the guy be counted as part of your roster if he doesn't play regularly in the bigs?? If you are implying on getting someone like a Artus Irbe or a Tony Hrkac or Bill Houlder, then I can see why you would want to do this but imagine if you were in there shoes. You get sent down to the minors and the guy playing on the second or third line or starting tender is way not better than you, wouldn't you get mad??

What about if you trade for a guy, like the 3 mentioned above, that has been in the minors with previous team. If you then keep him in pro, shouldn't his OV count to the totals?


ps. I should be over 68,5 at this point with most of my players looking like they should be uprated for next season.

Tampa GM
02-25-2004, 10:22 AM
I made a deal yesterday that is still waiting for approval and when thats done I should be at 66.15OV and I believe I will have no problem to reach way above 68OV until next season.

Daniel Sedin 4 goals tonight! You gotta love it! I wonder how his rating will be next year :)

HFNHL Commish
02-25-2004, 11:32 AM
If I trade for a player that puts me over the 66OV do I need to keep him my starting line up for the rest of the season or could I send him to minors right away?

If you're talking about replacing a 69OV player with a 58OV player then no, you wouldn't be able to send him to the minors right away.

Folks, it's important to remember here that, regardless of any OV requirements, we all have a responsibility to dress our best possible roster on a nightly basis. If it's obvious that you're benching players in favor of those with significantly lower ratings, shame on you! Such behavior is against the spirit of our game, and will not be tolerated.

As for the question: "Do I have to maintain a 66OV rating after the All-Star break???"

We all recognize that, sometimes, it's in a struggling team's best interest to trade a quality player before the deadline...particularly if the player is on the verge of retirement. For that reason, we did not specify an OV requirement for season's end. Obviously, that allows for some room for teams to dip below the OV requirement prior to the start of next season. That said, GMs must be prepared to explain any trade that would put them below 66OV. Such trades will be subjected to the closest scrutiny, and generally must be made for the purpose of getting the team to 68OV for the start of next season.

In other words, if you're trading Mario Lemieux (for example) because of the possibility of retirement, and the trade would put you below 66OV, you need to be able to explain how the trade will help you get to 68OV for next season. That means that you need to be getting players in return, not just a horde of 2006 draft picks. ;)

Clear enough?

Tampa GM
02-25-2004, 12:34 PM
"Folks, it's important to remember here that, regardless of any OV requirements, we all have a responsibility to dress our best possible roster on a nightly basis. If it's obvious that you're benching players in favor of those with significantly lower ratings, shame on you! Such behavior is against the spirit of our game, and will not be tolerated."

What does this mean? If we have the responsibility to dress the best possible roster I guess that the players mention below will be recalled to HFNHL acation asap or?

Adam Graves Ottawa Senators
Earns 3.0M$ but is ranked as Ottawas 10th forward, earns 10% in the minors

Tony Hrkac Carolina Hurricanes
Is ranked as Carolinas 2nd best center but is playing in the minors?

Arturs Irbe Philadelphia Flyers
Is ranked as Flyers 2nd best goalie(backup) but is in the minors due to his high salary only.

Bill Houlder Colorado Avalanche
Is ranked 6th on Avs defence but is in the minors to do 2+M$ salary.

HFNHL Commish
02-25-2004, 01:06 PM
In the case of Graves, you're dealing with a depth forward who clearly has no impact on the fate of the Senators, since they're currently sitting in 2nd place in the East. As such, I don't have a huge problem with the Sens keeping Graves in the minors. I would feel differently if Graves played for Carolina, in which case he'd be a first-line player. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing Graves placed on waivers so that he'd be available to other teams that could actually use him.

With Irbe, you're dealing with a backup goaltender who clearly has no impact on the fate of the Flyers, since they're currently sitting in 4th place in the East. I don't have a huge problem with the Flyers keeping Irbe in the minors since he's barely better than Noronen. Again, I wouldn't mind seeing him placed on waivers, either.

In the case of Houlder, you're dealing with a depth defenseman who plays for a team with financial problems. It would be silly to force Colorado to play Houlder just for the sake of driving the team into bankruptcy. Houlder has cleared waivers on more than one occasion. I would feel differently if Houlder was the Avalanche's #3 defenseman, but he's not.

I do, however, have a problem with the Hurricanes benching their leading scorer, especially considering that finances aren't a problem......hint, hint.

Basically what I'm saying is that, if the player is good enough that he should be playing an important role, then he should be playing. It's not fourth-liners I'm worried about here. It's teams not playing their first and second-liners.

HFNHL Red Wings
02-25-2004, 01:11 PM
I don't completely disagree Martin but a couple of quick points.
(i) Really notable players have been forced to play ... just ask the the Kings and the Islanders who were forced to address certain players not in the lineup.
(ii) Bill Houlder only just became relevant with the trading of Niinimaa the other day. Prior to that he was an injured resrve 7th dman and has played some games this season when needed. He has also been placed on waivers twice this season with no one claiming him
(iii) Tony Hrkac was in the lineup until just two days ago and is available on waivers to anyone who wats him.
(iv) Graves was not originally a top 10 player when he was sent to the minors earlier in the season but recent trades have made it so and I'll admit this went unnoticed.

islanders
02-25-2004, 01:18 PM
Here is my suggestion Mr. Commissioner:

- Team should have the right to keep players in the minors provided they have cleared waivers once.
- For the first five games of the season, teams should be forced to keep their protective list roster unless a player is under 24 years old (barring any injuries). This way, teams will be forced to play their over age players at least for the first 5 games. I know I was one the teams that decided to send Recchi down before he played his 5th game that was due to the fact that i acquired Tkatchuk and moved Doan over to RW.


FYI Martin,

I don't think any of the teams you mentioned would have a problem trading these players to you for bare minimum. I am sure these players are better than what you have under your roster. As matter of fact, Claudio just announced that Irbe is available to anyone interested.

I also see a posting from Atlanta willing to trade Turgeon for mid round pick, I know Turgeon is expensive but I am sure he can handle 1st line duties for your team.

Tampa GM
02-25-2004, 01:45 PM
I once traded Pierre T due to his high contract(which I gave him btw :) ) and I have no intrest to take Pierre back for 7.0M$. I wouldnt even take him for free. Probably the most overpaid player in our league. I am also not intrested in Graves, Houlder, Irbe or Hrkac. Why? Mostly because of the big contracts.

How come all players in the HFNHL has two way contract? My suggestion is that if you send a player down you still pay his salary and not any 10%. I dont think that the minors should be a way for teams to earn money.

Regarding the money issue that Colorado and a few other team has. What does happen when a team has no money left?

HFNHL Commish
02-25-2004, 01:58 PM
Here is my suggestion Mr. Commissioner:

- Team should have the right to keep players in the minors provided they have cleared waivers once.
- For the first five games of the season, teams should be forced to keep their protective list roster unless a player is under 24 years old (barring any injuries). This way, teams will be forced to play their over age players at least for the first 5 games. I know I was one the teams that decided to send Recchi down before he played his 5th game that was due to the fact that i acquired Tkatchuk and moved Doan over to RW.

First off, please don't call me Mr. Commissioner. ;)

I wouldn't have a problem with either of those rules...to a degree, they're already being informally enforced. The only problem would come with teams that start a lot of under-25 players...

BlueAndWhite
02-25-2004, 02:03 PM
(iv) Graves was not originally a top 10 player when he was sent to the minors earlier in the season but recent trades have made it so and I'll admit this went unnoticed.Before I address the Graves situation on my part, I'd like some clarification on this comment.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here Drew...

Donga
02-25-2004, 07:44 PM
What does this mean? If we have the responsibility to dress the best possible roster I guess that the players mention below will be recalled to HFNHL acation asap or?

...

Tony Hrkac Carolina Hurricanes
Is ranked as Carolinas 2nd best center but is playing in the minors?

...


If you read my post earlier, I can afford to put Hrkac in the minors. THis is because that I've got players that will put me over the 1320 mark, if I put him in the minors. As Drew said, I recently put him on the waivers and he has played a majority of my games since about game 2.

The examples you give are not really that valid coz of the fact that those teams especially, the Senators and Avalanche can afford to do that. Whereas, I'm walking the tight rope but I'm managing.

Ville Isopää
02-26-2004, 02:49 AM
About Houlder, I'd like to add the fact that bringing up Houlder would change my OV-mark with very little. It'd add 5 points to my total, which hardly can be a reason to play a guy who's going to retire after the season.