The VHL League Parity Issue, and Amendment Suggestions

[Tampa Bay Lightning]

The VHL League Parity Issue, and Rule Amendment Suggestions

As the owner of the Tampa Bay Lightning in VHL, I have worked with many of you fine gentlemen in other leagues as well. Having spoken to several other GMs, there is a general feeling that there is a parity problem in the VHL, with the bottom teams worse off, even compared to the NHL.

Here are some numbers to corroborate my point:

Teams with winning percentage < .500 in VHL: 11
Teams with winning percentage <.500 in NHL: 7

Average WP% of bottom 10 teams in NHL: .447
Average WP% of bottom 10 teams in VHL: .427

However, of teams at the top 10:
WP% NHL - .667
WP% VHL - .674

However, if we change the cutoff to the top 5, the difference becomes;
NHL WP: - .687
VHL WP: - .705

The general point I’d like to get across is that the top VHL teams are better than the top NHL teams, the bottom VHL teams are worse than the bottom NHL teams, and there are more non-competitive teams in the VHL than the NHL.

Another factor we have to consider is that in the VHL, the only budget constraint is the salary cap and the salary floor. The Cap was put in place in the first place not just for cost certainty for owners, but also for parity reasons. However, many teams in the NHL do not spend to the cap because of internal budget constraints. We only have the cap and virtual money. If all the bottom-ranked teams are capable of spending to the cap in the VHL, but still perform worse than their NHL counterparts, then clearly the salary cap itself is not enough to ensure league parity.

I have proposed a list of suggestions/recommendations to the league, I sincerely hope fellow GMs take some time to read this list over and give their input. This is a great league with great people, and I believe a continuing gap in parity is detrimental to the health of the league going forward.

That being said, being the owner of a non-competitive team, I will state that I am not in favour of any measures that decrease the competitiveness of competitive teams unless there is an overwhelming popular opinion to do so. Almost all measures I have suggested are designed to increase the competitiveness and the “overall franchise value” of non-competitive teams.

Suggestion 1: Caretaker GMs
Most teams become terrible in SIM GMs not because of mis-management, but no management. The current system is that the staff will manage the team in committee, but that system is not working.

I propose a system where a specific caretaker GM is assigned to the team without a GM. The caretaker GM should be a volunteer from another conference. He cannot make deals with his own team, and all decisions must be approved by the staff. Another benefit of the caretaker GM system is to prevent the inability to make reasonable transactions.

Suggestion 2: Enlarged Prospect Pools
Prospects and draft picks are not a perfect representation of lottery tickets, but there is a probability component to them. For non-competitive teams to turn it around, they need more tickets. They also need to be given more time.

I propose a system of an enlarged prospect pool over the current 20 for non-playoff teams. If a team does not make the playoffs by the end the current VHL season, that team has its prospect limit increased to either 25, 28, or 30 (depending on what number we reach a consensus on). The increase lasts for 3 seasons. If the team makes the playoffs in 2 of the next 3 seasons, the team’s prospect limit drops back to 20.

Suggestion 3: An Additional Draft Pick
All non-playoff teams get an additional draft pick at the end of the 3rd round. So essentially, non-playoff teams pick for 4 rounds while playoff teams pick for 3. THIS PICK CANNOT BE TRADED. The player drafted cannot be traded unless he gets created.

Suggestion 4: One “enhanced” salary buyout
If a team has not made the playoffs for 2 consecutive seasons, then that teams receives one “Enhanced” buyout. Instead of the regular buyout (From the rulebook: The GM will be retaining 50% of the total contract as a CAPHIT in a buyout process.), teams using the ONE “enhanced” buyout will have a CAPHIT of 25% retained. For example, a regular buyout of a contract of 4 mil X 2 years will result in a 2 mil retained cap hit for 2 years, however, teams using the enhanced buyout will carry a cap hit of 1 mil for 2 years. Players are only eligible for an enhanced buyout if that player has played 82 games for the team. The purpose of this rule proposal is to assist non-competitive teams to clean up their rosters, not to take on a bad contract of another team to use the buyout from.

Suggestion 5: None from me

Again, I believe the league must assist in the non-competitive teams in becoming better and enhancing their overall franchise value. The measures I have proposed do so in a gentle manner, and do not detract from the value or competitiveness of existing competitive teams.

[Deleted]

I think these are all good suggestions, but I think they can accomplish more parity without applying them to ONLY non-competitive teams.

For example, increase the draft to 4 rounds and the prospect list to 25 for all teams. Obviously more youthful assets helps rebuilding teams more than competitors. Reducing the buyout penalty to 1/3 of the cap hit across the board would also help rebuilding teams.

Tampa Bay's suggestions will do a great thing for the league, but applying them across the board accomplishes multiple things:

1) Helps the 10 teams in the middle of the top 10/bottom 10 dilemna
2) Does not punish teams for winning
3) Makes it easier to manage

[Corey Scott]

There will always be less parity in Sim leagues for one main reason (well two really), the first one being that NHL gms have a lot more knowledge then us armchair gms and hence they are much less likely to screw everything up as bad as we are.

The second (and main reason) is that VHL gms are much more likely to sell everything in an attempt to rebuild/tank either before or during a season. If you look at some teams rosters here, it is quite obvious that they give even less a damn about what their team does this season than Buffalo does in the NHL. That is going to create lower lows and higher highs in terms of winning percentage. I think this is shown because we have very similar situation in terms of the 7th-10th spots in both leagues. NHL has 4 teams within 5 points of the playoffs without being in, we have 3.

Not saying that the above suggestions are bad (only one I don't like is the buyout one), but that's because I hate get out of jail free, or in this case at a discount, type things. I don't however know if doing anything with prospect pools/picks would really help. Adding the extra one to those teams who miss could, but I feel that teams in a higher position tend to be there cause they are active in the hunt for the best prospects and then use that to better their roster. Adding 5 more spots to all teams would likely create disparity.

[Philadelphia Flyers]

The salary cap ceiling of 69 million and floor of 51 million next season will even things out quite substanially. There are a handful of basement teams under 51 million at the moment and will need to increase their payrolls quite significantly in the off-season, while the top teams may have to shed a million or so.

Neglected teams are already looked after by the staff board for various signings and deals. It's all addressed in the off-season.

Increasing the benefits of non-playoff teams, ie. larger prospect pool, less caphit penalties, I think just furthers the imparity. Every team needs to operate on the same playing field. If we start confusing the rules, we will run into more issues in my opinion. Extra draft picks aren't going to do anything in the grand scheme of things.

All of that said, I think the new salary cap next season fixes all of these issues. If you can call them issues, that is. The league will eventually balance itself out with the current structure that's in place.

[Buffalo Sabres]

Really interesting ideas.

The buyout to me is only idea that i wouldn't really consider.

Staff members and other gm's have expressed interest in larger prospect pool for a few years now. Perhaps i need to be Now open to the idea. I've always held the thought that smaller list equals more trading but with more and more teams in cap hell trades are even harder. I'm open to a larger list perhaps but staggering it based on performance may not be realistic.

As for extra picks well I'm not a fan but perhaps i have a solution.
Every year as draft ends its a free for all adding non drafted prospects. Maybe instead we have a one week or a few days where gm's can add non drafted prospects thru a waiver system. If you burn waivers though you go to bottom. then after that period its a free for all again.

I'm always into new ideas and Tony is always looking to improve any league he's in.

Minny's explanation of the discrepancy is accurate to me Ruth more teams mailing it in to lose.

[Deleted]

I think any changes to the draft or prospect lists have to be implemented across the board for all teams.

[Buffalo Sabres]

Also i think the cap next year will help.
I know my team for sure is in a mess and i have to let go way way more guys than i was hoping to and even had to trade a guy like soderberg that i really didn't want to just to try and make next year work.

I run a spreadsheet for each of my teams in my various leagues and with prospective resignings abd i need to be creative and still let a big name or to walk just so i have a chance to put a full roster together next year

[Deleted]

I think going to a 5 round draft (or two rounds of the waiver idea) and 25 prospects would both be great moves for the league.

[Edmonton Oilers]

we moved to 3 rounds because people are never around to draft or send lists for the later rounds, we just waste time

[Nashville Predators]

I've noticed that with other leagues as well. Once you are past the first couple of rounds no seem to cares anymore