|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 4, 2017 20:09:56 GMT -5
Since the poll was seemingly in favour of change, lets do it once more but with only 2 options.
Forwards games played eligibility would be lowered to 90 games played. Goaltenders to 45.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Oct 12, 2017 8:54:32 GMT -5
There's this consensus that it's difficult to trade and monitor teams to ensure proper lineups. There needs to be a more significant change if that's the true goal IMO.
I think this change is too small to make any real impact in the dynamic of the league. 20 games is nothing, I probably have the most minor eligible roster players and this wouldn't change much for me even if it was put in place this summer. There's literally a rule that allows you to send players in NHL minors to your minors regardless of games played. A NHL player being in the minors for parts of 2 seasons does more harm to what people seem to want to fix
Reduce Minors: 20 spots Reduce Minor Eligibility Games for F/D: 70 games
1) 100-150 prospects into the UFA pool 2) Many of these UFA players will be fringe depth NHLers. Dime a dozen players that should be dime a dozen. Teams struggling to meet minimums can pick them up and not have to ruin their rebuild (teams will try to take advantage) just to compensate for injuries. 3) teams who monitor UFA pool will have A LOT more opportunity to find diamonds. First come first serve, this will give competitive advantage to people who are active.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 12, 2017 9:37:43 GMT -5
I actually find the current GP limit to be a bit frustrating which is why I voted against... you research a guy, track him, pick him up and then he hasn't even come close to showing you his capability before he hits the limit and you have to drop him. I understand the rationale in helping the weaker teams but it's still frustrating. Sometimes I wonder why I bother with it. I do agree with Penguin though that changing the GP is a minimal impact change. I'm already dropping the same prospects that I would otherwise; it's not often that an extra 20 games is making me change my mind on a prospect.
The deep farm teams are what appeals to me the most about this pool. Without that, it's really not much different from any other pool I'm in and wouldn't require me to pay as much attention to the junior/minor/Euro leagues as I do. All that said, I think that 20 prospect spots is still an interesting enough number.
One thought: reducing the farm size also reduces the value of draft picks (making trades harder). Would you draft an 18 year-old third rounder when you can get decent prospects who are closer to the show through FA? I'm not saying the value would be eliminated but the value prop definitely changes as it closes the gap between a 3rd round pick and an older prospect sitting on the wire.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Oct 12, 2017 12:43:04 GMT -5
I actually find the current GP limit to be a bit frustrating which is why I voted against... you research a guy, track him, pick him up and then he hasn't even come close to showing you his capability before he hits the limit and you have to drop him. I understand the rationale in helping the weaker teams but it's still frustrating. Sometimes I wonder why I bother with it. That's the point though: you either drop him, trade him, or make room for him being you need to take a calculated risk. This also wouldn't be isolated to your team but every team. This means everyone will have to make similar decisions and a player I think is not going to hit potential could be your treasure. It's not just helping weaker teams, it creates player turnover without impacting teams too much. The 21st - 25th favoured prospects will rarely make any impact but the slight increase in UFA prospect pool creates an environment more open for steals. Are there any NHL players in your minors you'd value over a 3rd rounder that's closing in on 70 games but not good enough to be in your roster full time? For me, this is Soshnikov and I guess MCIlrath...I mean sure theyre nice to stash in my minors but it's not impacting me. I'm literally hoarding him for the sake of depth - meanwhile small changes to games+farm size and I probably trade/drop them. One thought: reducing the farm size also reduces the value of draft picks (making trades harder). Would you draft an 18 year-old third rounder when you can get decent prospects who are closer to the show through FA? I'm not saying the value would be eliminated but the value prop definitely changes as it closes the gap between a 3rd round pick and an older prospect sitting on the wire. I don't think 3rd rounders will be impacted. With the 70 game limit + 20 minor spot, teams can't just hoard all the fringe prospects that have nhl games that would be UFA. This means the minor spots will be used for prospects further away from NHL. Roster spots will be used for NHLers, minors used for prospects. Might sound like a huge change but the impact does not really hurt anyone if you go team by team. all it does is create a better UFA pool and force more movement when prospects approach limit. Active GMs will actually reap more from this as they'll clean house on the quality prospects that hit UFA. 20 x 30 = 600 prospects who have under 70 NHL games played / not in NHL. The minors will remain super deep and long shot prospects will still be picked up. the idea is to get more dime a dozen young scrubs and old scrubs to be easily available to fill roster minimums. Having a rebuilding team overpay teams trying to poach off their desperation to meet minimum isn't good for league IMO. Dime a dozen shouldn't be costing picks/prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 12, 2017 13:01:48 GMT -5
I'll start by saying that I understand the impetus behind turnover. The theory is that more turnover means more opportunity for a rebuilding team. I just think that it has a more fundamental impact than that.
As you narrow the prospect pool and increase turnover you start to question the purpose of your farm team. As you pointed out, the only prospects you can keep are those who are far away from the NHL, which by definition have no value in our format. Of course there's also the occasional prospect who has huge upside but you're going to keep that prospect no matter what the GP limit/roster size is. Realistically, there's not more than 10 guys on any farm team who fit that bill, if there are even 10.
The proposal really just turns farm teams into lottery picks for the highest upside since there's no longer any point in stashing a depth player (those will always be available in UFA). And to that end, are there really 90 guys you'd consider to have very high upside from a given draft? That's my point about the 3rd rounders...
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Oct 12, 2017 14:21:40 GMT -5
I'll start by saying that I understand the impetus behind turnover. The theory is that more turnover means more opportunity for a rebuilding team. I just think that it has a more fundamental impact than that. As you narrow the prospect pool and increase turnover you start to question the purpose of your farm team. As you pointed out, the only prospects you can keep are those who are far away from the NHL, which by definition have no value in our format. Of course there's also the occasional prospect who has huge upside but you're going to keep that prospect no matter what the GP limit/roster size is. Realistically, there's not more than 10 guys on any farm team who fit that bill, if there are even 10. The proposal really just turns farm teams into lottery picks for the highest upside since there's no longer any point in stashing a depth player (those will always be available in UFA). And to that end, are there really 90 guys you'd consider to have very high upside from a given draft? That's my point about the 3rd rounders... The point for 3rd rounders is valid today though, is there really 90 guys worth picking up now? I think you're overstating the impact on farm. 20 minor spots x 30 teams = 600 prospects. There is no way that prospect pools won't be deep with as many late rounders we see picked up as we do today. All we need to do to see impact is look at your own minors/roster and see who you'd end up moving out. I think both of our teams are among the top in depth and there is very little impact to the value of the farms. I'll do my own team - minor eligible NHLers: 5 Mathews, Tkatchuk, Knoecny, Keller, Dell Borderline NHLers that are minor eligible: 6 Jaros, Grzelcyk, D.Strome, K.Connor, Soshnikov, McIlrath Impact: Likelihood Jaros, Grzelcyk, D.Strome, K.Connor hit 70 this season is low, I can keep them in minors. Keller might not reach it. Can't stream Matthews, Tkatchuk, Konecny anymore. Soshnikov will likely be moved. McIlrath as well depending on him being called up. To reach 20 minors, I'll probably move out McIlrath, Sundstrom, Helvig, Soshnikov. I don't think it will impact as much as you think. I'd get to keep my depth with the 70 game limit and I have 11 guys who'd be targeted .
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 12, 2017 14:29:02 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't clear. I do support a reduction to 20 players. My comments were meant to get people thinking about the impact of reducing the protection of minors players generally (not necessarily in the specific circumstance of a reduction to 20).
You're also right, though, that the value of a 3rd rounder under our current rules is arguably minimal.
Personally, I'd love if the rule change was that we keep fewer players but keep them for longer than the current GP limit. Pretty sure I'm in the minority there though.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 13, 2017 0:52:03 GMT -5
One change that Admins have discussed that will impact all of this is that a few years ago, it was decided to go down to 10 forwards. The reasoning at that time was the commisioner (at the time) was taking a hard-line when it came to NHL rosters having only active players so teams were being forced to make bad trades just to have active players on their rosters.
I argued at the time that if we were going with 10 forwards we should equally go with 5 defence. that way the ratio remains the same 10/12F - 5/6D
active NHL defencemen have been over-priced in this league for awhile.
I don't see the minors dropping below 25 but this talk is all good so we can hear what changes can be made to improve the league. Ultimately right now is the time to put these changes to a vote so we have time to try and implement the changes to start next season. we can discuss dropping the minors eligibility in the future but I am not in favor of large, sweeping changes. We'll see how this poll ends up and if the majority agrees, we'll make this change and weigh out the impact (if any)
An NHL farm team is built with prospects, borderline NHL'ers and life-time AHL'ers. A team should be able to have those borderline NHL'ers available to them should they like, the large games played eligibility allows for that. We do not have a waiver system that allows us to move a non-eligible player to the minors if they do not fit on our team unless their actual NHL team initiates that move and so the 110 games played threshold was a way to make up for that.
So what would people think about dropping to 5 active D-men rather than 6. or with the changes in miniumum games played rules being used to combat tanking, would people be in favor of returning to 12 forwards?
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Oct 13, 2017 8:26:46 GMT -5
Another benefit for minor reduction to 20 spots is it will be more attractive for new GMs looking to join. They can weed through UFA to try to improve their minors and don't have to rely completely on the response of other GMs in this league. Movement attracts more activity. Seeing someone else make a move can incite want to make own move to not miss out. I really like the reduction to be seriously considered/voted on for next season.
I'd be open to reducing roster spots but I think the value on defense is good as it is right now. In many leagues, defense is severely under valued. This is one of the few leagues where a bottom pairing D can actually hold value like he would in NHL.
I'd be more favorable to reducing a F spot and/or Reserve Spot (2 C, 2 RW, 2 LW, 3 F, 6 D, and 3/4 Reserve). Personally a fan of C/RW/LW, creates an interesting dynamic to maintaining positional balance.
|
|
|
Post by mtlgm on Oct 13, 2017 10:14:12 GMT -5
I think one factor that needs to be considered in dropping the roster size specifically if the active roster size is changed at all is the ability of teams to meet the cap floor.
If an active roster spot is removed but a bench spot not added the number of teams not meeting the floor might increase. I noticed over the last couple seasons that a few teams were not meeting the floor regularly and since Fantrax doesn't acknowledge that as an illegal roster like a team over the cap is recognized as illegal that number may rise.
An aspect I enjoy about fantasy sports is having a minors roster and drafting or signing FA's and watching said players develop. I for one would hate to lose a portion of that enjoyment by basically lowering how long a player can be retained or flat out eliminating a handful of minors spots.
I'll continue to stand my assertion that I don't believe roster sizes are overly egregious in any way.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Dec 8, 2017 2:33:33 GMT -5
The poll has ended, next season we will be dropping the prospect eligibility to 90 games for Skaters and 45 games for goaltenders.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Dec 8, 2017 8:37:02 GMT -5
Just like in real politics, voice of 1/3 for everyone lol.
|
|
|
Post by njdevils on Dec 8, 2017 12:42:16 GMT -5
Just like in real politics, voice of 1/3 for everyone lol. That's embarrassing.
|
|