|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 9:34:22 GMT -5
St. Louis wants to implement an increase to 30. I would be fine with a vote too depending on what you all want to do to decide this.
I don't buy that hording prospects is really an issue. So weaker teams lose prospect talent only so teams that have better NHLers can also have better prospects? Yeah makes it pretty difficult to ever have a successful rebuild where you can compete-- thus maintaining the status quo as St. Louis said.
I would think we would want to make it possible for teams that aren't competitive to be competitive quicker not by forcing them to trade prospects (that will only make their rebuild harder by changing draft positions and ensuring that the top teams have future assets that are near to the one's the rebuilding teams have). So how exactly do you get ahead in this situation? Not every rebuilding team is going to get a #1 or #2 overall pick and we don't want to make it an even bigger scramble to get those I would think.
Also if getting a lottery pick is the only beneifical thing to rebuilding you can do you might as well be playing NBA fantasy which is a waste of time though quite easy right now.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 27, 2011 9:35:25 GMT -5
Small farm sizes hurt teams who are the weaker teams in the league and help the stronger teams in keeping the status quo. Larger pools help the weaker rebuilding teams and have minimal affect on the stronger more dominate teams. This is flawed logic. As Vancouver pointed out, increasing farm size does not automatically better bottom-feeders, and decreasing farm size does not automatically weaken them. Putting aside some people's penchant for digging deep into the prospect world, the real reason that this should be up for league discussion is to determine which system will best help bottom-feeders close the gap between the best and worst teams. A simple appreciation of market economics goes a long way here. If a country increases its annual GDP, it does not automatically follow that the poorest people in society gain on the rich. Assuming everyone shares equally in the increased productivity, everyone has more cash but there is still the same amount of cash per capita. Similarly, increasing the farm size doesn't help the weaker teams, it just increases the number of long shots that EVERY team owns. Relatively speaking, this does not change anything. (Note: that this is not strictly true... those who know their prospects better will have a slightly better chance at striking gold on a long-shot but, in the grand scheme of this pool, those increased odds are a) not statistically significant and b) not necessarily tied to improving the weaker teams). What Vancouver is suggesting, and what makes more sense if the goal is to redistribute wealth, is to increase quality as opposed to quantity. If you limit the number of resources that people can own, like we do through income tax, it increases the amount of resources that can be shared by everyone else. That way the gap between the rich and the poor is artificially kept smaller. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to contract the farms, everyone would have to drop talent, thereby increasing the quality of the players available to be added. Those with the weakest farms would then be in a position to accelerate their rebuilds by casting away their dead weight and replacing with the higher quality FA's. Of course, if the concern is that those with the weakest farms are the best teams (not sure that's true but it could be), we could create some kind of waiver process in connection with a contraction to ensure that the quality is properly redistributed. Anyway, I'm not really in favour of contracting or expanding per se. I'm just pointing out that to say that bigger farms = better rebuilds is a fallacious premise on which to base this entire discussion. It is not an across-the-board increase in the quantity of resources, but rather an increase in the relative quality of those resources that helps weaker teams.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 9:44:17 GMT -5
I don't think we want to make prospects equal opportunity for all teams. Good teams will only stay strong if it is harder to keep talent for rebuilding teams. I still don't see if the NHL talent is uneven against you and that is 100% fine (which is the way it should because you invested in futures or are stuck there) why we are advocating for more equal prospect quality. So a bottom team has worse NHL talent and not many better prospects? That's a real incentive to ever be involved in a rebuild (sarcasm).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2011 9:57:44 GMT -5
I don't think we want to make prospects equal opportunity for all teams. Good teams will only stay strong if it is harder to keep talent for rebuilding teams. I still don't see if the NHL talent is uneven against you and that is 100% fine (which is the way it should because you invested in futures or are stuck there) why we are advocating for more equal prospect quality. So a bottom team has worse NHL talent and not many better prospects? That's a real incentive to ever be involved in a rebuild (sarcasm). Should GM's who are in a state of 're-structuring' their franchise be entitled to some sort of 'reward' for having a team gutted of NHL players. There is a reward for this, it's called a high pick! I really think you should give Sami's post a read again because it expands very clearly on what I've been trying to say. I'm no youngster here guys, I've been playing these things for a long, long, long time. All I'm interested in is having a healthy league, in no way does my argument help or hinder my team as I feel my farm is very strong for also having a full/competitive roster.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 10:09:54 GMT -5
I did read it and i feel it is an over-abstraction personally. My point is a high pick is a reward but you lose a prospect you like too. sure some net benefit but not all that great. I wouldn't have gotten multiple 1st round picks had i known this.
If you really want me to go through Sami's hypothetical sure. Sami "assumes" that "if everyone shares equally in the increased productivity, everyone has more cash but there is still the same amount of cash per capita. Similarly, increasing the farm size doesn't help the weaker teams, it just increases the number of long shots that EVERY team owns."
This plainly is never the case ever anywhere. Someone always benefits off of someone else's productivity whether you claim to be a socialist or not it always happens that someone else loses at someone else's gain. Distribution of wealth is never equal. It never has been and never will no matter your ideology.
Also back to hockey not every team is going to be using those for long shot prospects and what is the problem with having more long shot prospects to begin with? Some teams don't want to put in that time? fine that is okay-- it is their choice.
I also feel making a massive waiver process as Sami wants to do just wouldn't make sense.
I am not personally against Vancouver or Sami just analyzing what was said.
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Oct 27, 2011 10:36:20 GMT -5
One of the things we should maybe look at is reducing the number of games for player eligibility to be considered minor league eligible.
"Section I How long can a team keep a player in the minors if called up by NHL team? A player shall be considered a Protected Prospect until he has exceeded 164 games in the NHL (82 for a goalie)."
Maybe we should reduce the number of games played for players to 82 and goalies 50. This would create some more for the player pool as teams can't hide players and move up or down from minors. If they are sent to minors by NHL team fantrax keeps track of this so then they are minor eligible such as my Shane Morrison who was sent down by Buffalo.
I have Jimmy Howard, Victor Hedman, Chris Butler, T.J. Galiardi, Jonathon Blum (probably now) who won't be sent down to the minors in the near future, but I am able to manipulate my roster using these guys in the minors. If I couldn't then I would have to drop an NHL calibre player, there fore now I am kind of working with 4 or 5 extra spots. Actually Hedman will hit 164 games in the next week so I won't be able to send him down. I am thinking reducing these numbers will make teams have to make decisions on players sooner opening up more free agents.
I don't mind the farm team going to 30 players as once the league has been going for a few years teams will have to start dropping players when there is a draft. The farm team always gives hope that you will hit a homerun on a long shot or someone that took 5 years to work his way up from juniors to minors to NHL.
I like what I am reading from teams that want a strong league as well as teams that took over struggling franchises and want the satisfaction of building a future. It is more fun if you have a competitive league.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 10:53:29 GMT -5
I think magicstew presents an interesting point. Love to hear more from others on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2011 12:09:03 GMT -5
I also agree with Magicstew's point. I think 82 games is plenty for a prospect to graduate. less for a goalie.
for the farm team issue, I am on the side of Vancouver and Calgary. I believe we should keep the current size or reduce. I would rather have quality over quantity. This should deepen the free agent pool a bit.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 12:34:11 GMT -5
why do we need to deepen the FA pool though?
You'll only have a prospects available. I think it is possible to have quality and quantity on a team-- you can do it with NHLers and that is the goal with a competitive main roster so shouldn't a competitive prospects roster have the same thing so down the road it can be a competitive NHL roster?
In general I dislike these constant issues and it seems that we view things differently. I just don't honestly see how having only 25 prospects for a team with lots of prospect talent is fair since I got more draft picks in the early rounds thinking I could use them to build off of not build while losing a brick or two.
People have been complaining about the prices prospects have been valued at, my response is if it isn't your team than it isn't your situation so obviously people will value them differently. I personally have never had someone say "well prospect A just was dealt for package B so I feel entitled to that in our trade." So is that really an issue?
I also see that it is pretty much the lower ranked teams (counting me) advocating for more farm spots and the top teams pulling for less which is pretty odd when some are claiming that limiting farms helps everyone.
Also just would like to hear from more people in general.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 27, 2011 13:16:51 GMT -5
I just don't honestly see how having only 25 prospects for a team with lots of prospect talent is fair since I got more draft picks in the early rounds thinking I could use them to build off of not build while losing a brick or two. I also see that it is pretty much the lower ranked teams (counting me) advocating for more farm spots and the top teams pulling for less Also just would like to hear from more people in general. I agree that we could do with hearing from more people in general. As for my previous post, I didn't assume that people actually share equally when GDP is increased. I set up a hypothetical where that was a premise (not a conclusion). haha Putting the analogy aside, I am NOT advocating equal opportunity for acquiring prospects. The argument for increasing the farm size simply maintains the equal opportunity that we already have vis-a-vis FA prospects. What I was using as a hypothetical (again, not advocating) was quite the opposite... artificially blocking the opportunity of the teams at the top. I agree, though, that such a course of action may be overly complicated from an administrative perspective. Please don't simplify this issue by painting it as "teams at the top versus teams at the bottom" because that does injustice to the entire argument that Kris and I are trying to make. Our argument is based on improving all of the weaker teams, not just improving a few teams who a) are managed by GM's who have ridiculous knowledge of prospects, and b) happened to have traded for a plethora of draft picks that they now cannot use. It is clear where your interest lies in this but in terms of the benefit to the teams at the top, we could care less whether you increase the size of the prospect pool. It just means more prospects for us to add too... Finally, I love Andy's suggestion, despite the fact that 1/5 of my farm plays in the NHL. Why? It forces GM's to drop quality players from the farm while strengthening the quality of the FA pool. Personally, I don't see this as so important a rule change that it needs to be made in-season but I can't say that I've given it much thought.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 27, 2011 14:19:27 GMT -5
the main reason I brought up the size of the farms was having to do with the 5 rounds of drafting. it's pointless to have one without the other. The size of the farm isn't important to me, I can work with what we have, I can expand it to 50 and it will be fine.
but it is important to nail down the ratio of entry draft rounds with available minors spots or we are all wasting alot of time in those last 2-3 rounds. And yes, it is possible to be wasting your time in the 3rd round of an entry draft if you have 25 players in your minors you like.
I don't subscribe to this notion that an expanded minor league equals rebuilding teams have a better chance of improving...the only thing that helps with that is a strict salary cap and eventual contraction/waiver draft.
This isn't the NHL, no one here is making any money out of this nor do we have any money invested in this. The salary cap will help somewhat to require GM's to make trades of good players to stay under the cap as the market is set by NHL free agent signing but its not a perfect system.
Shrewd GM's can make trades that while they are trading away a Crosby, they are picking up a Taveres and a Stamkos. in the form of 2 1st round draft picks on a really bad team. That is a bit of an exaggeration but my point is that the top teams can stay the top teams if they are able to get the best trades for their assets. It is difficult to keep GMs with poor teams and could get to a point where those franchises require a contraction from the league. Or a waiver draft.
These are issues that are still down the road, I think this league has a good platform and I would advocate against wild changes midstream, but it is good to have a civil conversation about these issues.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 27, 2011 14:23:04 GMT -5
re: the graduation age
I thought it was insane when I joined, but I was intrigued. I went through each teams roster and there are some really great NHL players who still qualify as prospects that good teams have stashed in the minors.
but that is what the rule was set as. you can't just change that suddenly mid-season. These are all changes that we need to decide on now, but impliment in the offseason.
I think a vote is the best way to go, unilateral changes have a way of putting GM's noses out of joint and when that happens in a league we have no financial attachment to, its easy to just walk away.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 16:30:07 GMT -5
I think depth wins league so if you want to win in the future you need prospect depth.
"Please don't simplify this issue by painting it as "teams at the top versus teams at the bottom" because that does injustice to the entire argument that Kris and I are trying to make. Our argument is based on improving all of the weaker teams, not just improving a few teams who a) are managed by GM's who have ridiculous knowledge of prospects, and b) happened to have traded for a plethora of draft picks that they now cannot use. It is clear where your interest lies in this but in terms of the benefit to the teams at the top, we could care less whether you increase the size of the prospect pool. It just means more prospects for us to add too..."
Starting from a faulty premise means you finish at a faulty conclusion, right there is no other way of rationalizing it. None of us are masters of logic so no need to come after others when you can't build a reasonable construction yourself.
Look how are we strengthening only a few teams by hurting other weaker teams? Also why are you advocating that it is unfair for some of us to actually study our prospects no different than having knowledge on NHLers more than someone else. Also I am not the only one with multiple first round picks.
It also disturbs me that you are trying to paint me as completely having a disregard for the good of the league. I do honestly believe that there is no reason to limit the league's choices and if one rightfully gets a prospect I don't see why they should be forced to deal it or let it go. We were just saying this type of thing was wrong with high to low salary players.
Also note that the "us" in your last line I quoted means you do believe there is some division and that you do see yourself as part of a group and BLATANTLY expresses self-interest as much as I may have too.
Most of you arguing against me are not rebuilding teams so I do see this as at this point as an attempt to stop teams from rebuilding successfully in a way they want to do. You just expressed it was at least partially self-serving. I am only focusing on Sami because he is only focusing on me and he insinuated that his support is to target certain GMs that have a "ridiculous knowledge of prospects (whoever they are)," which means it is not looking for the best for the league if he wants to play that stupid annoying political card against a Co-Commish. I have done a lot for this league (done my best to run the inaugural drafts, last year's draft, led/contributed to discussions, dealt with Fantrax bullshit). I am not asking for sainthood or exclusivity but to say I don't care about the good of this league is really hurtful and insensitive. I do just so happen to be a lower team but I in general try to what I feel is right for a league in which case is helping to give lower teams a shot at some day being strong too. taking away depth does a lot to hurt those efforts because even top prospects don't always pan out and depth is needed to win anyway in nearly every case.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 27, 2011 17:09:19 GMT -5
Starting from a faulty premise means you finish at a faulty conclusion, right there is no other way of rationalizing it. None of us are masters of logic so no need to come after others when you can't build a reasonable construction yourself. Look how are we strengthening only a few teams by hurting other weaker teams? Also why are you advocating that it is unfair for some of us to actually study our prospects no different than having knowledge on NHLers more than someone else. Also I am not the only one with multiple first round picks. It also disturbs me that you are trying to paint me as completely having a disregard for the good of the league. I do honestly believe that there is no reason to limit the league's choices and if one rightfully gets a prospect I don't see why they should be forced to deal it or let it go. We were just saying this type of thing was wrong with high to low salary players. Also note that the "us" in your last line I quoted means you do believe there is some division and that you do see yourself as part of a group and BLATANTLY expresses self-interest as much as I may have too. Most of you arguing against me are not rebuilding teams so I do see this as at this point as an attempt to stop teams from rebuilding successfully in a way they want to do. You just expressed it was at least partially self-serving. I am only focusing on Sami because he is only focusing on me and he insinuated that his support is to target certain GMs that have a "ridiculous knowledge of prospects (whoever they are)," which means it is not looking for the best for the league if he wants to play that stupid annoying political card against a Co-Commish. I have done a lot for this league (done my best to run the inaugural drafts, last year's draft, led/contributed to discussions, dealt with Fantrax bullshit). I am not asking for sainthood or exclusivity but to say I don't care about the good of this league is really hurtful and insensitive. I do just so happen to be a lower team but I in general try to what I feel is right for a league in which case is helping to give lower teams a shot at some day being strong too. taking away depth does a lot to hurt those efforts because even top prospects don't always pan out and depth is needed to win anyway in nearly every case. I don't understand why this always has to become personal with you bud. I'm going to make a disclaimer that will apply to every post that I will make from now until the day that I die: I am not disrespecting what you've done for the pool; on the contrary, I am appreciative of the work that you did as co-comish; I am not judging you or how you manage your team; I am not targeting you; I do not think that you have a complete disregard for the good of the league; etc. etc. I will, however, reserve the right to disagree with you from time to time and call a spade a spade when it comes to a debate. When I do so, I am not rallying support or playing "political cards". We all have our biases and we need to be comfortable with letting others point them out. For example, Kris made me entirely rethink this league (hopefully for the better) by calling me out on my biases. Anyway, let's leave all that nonsense out of this and focus on the issues at hand. 1) Strengthening only a few versus hurting other weaker teams. I never said that your proposal would hurt weaker teams. I said that it wouldn't necessarily help them, and that helping the weaker teams should be our goal. Not sure why this is a bone of contention. 2) It is unfair to have deep knowledge of prospects. Again, when did I say that it was unfair for people to have a ridiculous knowledge of prospects? Au contraire mon ami, it's admirable. That said, it is not the norm. That means that making the league more desirable for those with a deep appreciation of prospects does not necessarily equate to making the league more desirable for weaker teams (unless those happen to always be the same people... the fact that you are in both categories does not mean that everyone is.) 3) Us versus Them. Again, we are not trying to stop teams from rebuilding successfully. We are trying to ensure that there is a framework within which ALL teams have an opportunity to rebuild. 4) Zaphod's 2 most recent posts. I completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 17:17:21 GMT -5
O yeah it is fine to disagree but to only point out my biases and not be open about yours (until now) is not okay with me. I know your points and disagree that is all. whatever you guys decide to do that's fine. I'm going to be on autopilot. There is no point in this back-and-forth with you all. I'll ride out this year and try to be a decent Co-Commish but I'm not going to put forth opinions as a rule for myself now in this league. After this season I'll see what I want to do. In the mean time here is some reading for you all en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise
|
|