The reason the VHL lacks parity is because there's two distinctly different types of GMs in our league: those who build their teams to compete with NHL talent and supplement that with smart drafting and development, and those who seem content to keep their big-league roster in the basement in favor of perpetually stockpiling draft picks and prospects. The GM in the former case always has a constant supply of good assets because they've got a balance of talent between the main roster and prospect pool and can still dip into free agency when there's a good deal, (e.g. Minnesota), whereas the GM who focuses strictly on draft picks has to overpay middling free agents just to ice a team and wait years for prospects that may or may not develop.
There is also a 3rd type of GM: one that is not very active, barely does anything, makes incompetent trades, and then leaves a giant clusterfuck for the next guy to clean up for 5 years. And that guy usually has to pick option 2, becuase the deck is so stacked that if he tries to take option 1 and fails, he'll end up mediocre, and there is no turning around from THAT.
The incentive for tanking is high BECAUSE the teams that are good are simply too good, so tanking for McEichel and having all lottery tickets hit is the only way to become really competitive, becuase to get competitive you have to stack yourself.
Post by Corey Scott on Mar 10, 2015 21:56:11 GMT -5
This idea would change nothing to make UFA season better. In fact, I am pretty sure the crop of free agents would become worse with the gauranteed 3 signings. Not many teams that are built to win for a long time are going to have a ton of UFAs upcoming because the good gms know how to make their talent stay on their team without having to risk costly resigning at overpaid prices.
I just don't see how this addresses the problems listed.
I usually like to avoid free agency with a few exceptions. Hell, right now, the only free agent acquisition I currently have on my roster is Henrik Zetterberg. Everyone else has been acquired via trade or waiver or draft.
I don't generally like to participate in free agency, and I wouldn't enjoy being forced to have to outbid everyone to fill roster spots out.
I usually like to avoid free agency with a few exceptions. Hell, right now, the only free agent acquisition I currently have on my roster is Henrik Zetterberg. Everyone else has been acquired via trade or waiver or draft.
I don't generally like to participate in free agency, and I wouldn't enjoy being forced to have to outbid everyone to fill roster spots out.
Isn't that what free agency is though? Teams need to outbid the others to get the players they want.
"I wouldn't enjoy being forced to have to outbid everyone."
So we can just casually let every team resign every single one of their players before free agency, like no big deal, and move on?
This idea would change nothing to make UFA season better. In fact, I am pretty sure the crop of free agents would become worse with the gauranteed 3 signings. Not many teams that are built to win for a long time are going to have a ton of UFAs upcoming because the good gms know how to make their talent stay on their team without having to risk costly resigning at overpaid prices.
I just don't see how this addresses the problems listed.
It would change quite a bit actually. I'm not sure if you read my post.
This new proposal still allows GMs to keep talent on their team, if they are smart that is.
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 10, 2015 23:33:50 GMT -5
Jesus... I am offline for 5 hours and I come back to this... There is a lot to comment on here, but I will try to keep my thoughts fairly restrained.
A) The thought that this system would prevent the types of overpaying that lead to the Parise contract is a complete falsehood.
If we assume that every team has 3 re-signs a year, it is probably safe to assume that, cap situation permitting, they would use it on their top 3 UFAs. In any given year, it would be surprising to have 3 UFAs among your top line, top D pairing and starting goaltender. Could happen, but it would be an anomaly. So let's assume that no first line talent will be available. In most years, the only players that will slip through will be second-tier second line forwards and 2nd pairing defensemen.
All of a sudden, the market is flooded with second tier players all looking for contracts, and we have a ton of teams looking to sign them, because everyone has holes to fill in their lineup and the cash to fill them since they could not sign all their guys. That will lead to almost all of the teams sending offers to the top 10% of available players because everyone wants the shinny new toy from the toy box.
All of sudden you have 20 teams in a bidding war for the Dennis Seidenergs and Clarke MacArthurs of the world because they are the best ones that actually made it to free agency, because the gm re-signed the Mark Giordanos and the James Van Riemsdyks. Take a look at Seidenberg's contract (which he signed in UFA, with far fewer teams bidding for his services) and tell me this is a good idea.
All this would do would flood the market with more second tier players and have more teams willing to bid against each other for their services. Therefore driving up the price of the top 10% of Free Agents, virtually guaranteeing that they will get inflated contracts.
B) The inherent problem with how Free Agency is run is that those doing the negotiating on behalf of the players, the agents, are one and the same with those the players are negotiating with, we are also GMs. That puts the staff at a HUGE disadvantage in open market negotiation. We have the advantage of seeing everyone's offers on every players, but it would not be morally right or fair to take advantage of that information.
The best system that we have come up with to allow us to compete for players without knowledge of your offers (and if you have a better idea, by all means, please share) is to submit ALL of our offers before you can submit yours. This way our offers are unbiased and we as GMs are just as blind to what everyone else is offering when our offers go in. So our advantage is nullified.
The disadvantage comes in because, once that is done, we can't do any more. If a regular GM loses out on a player they wanted, they can then turn to their plan B, up their offer or submit a new offer to try to make up for the loss of the guy you were hoping to sign. The agents can't do this because we already know what the best offer is and could technically offer just a 100k more to get the player. Again, not fair to everyone else who does not have this info. So when we strike out, we can't change our plan. I have seen many a free agent sign for less then what I would have offered them, but I couldn't make them that offer because I had seen everyone else's offers.
Any move to increase the amount of players that go to free agency would increase the disadvantage towards the staff. Unless the way contracts were negotiated change, I can see a couple of staff members stepping down so that their teams are not additionally handicapped.
Finally C) We aim to mirror the NHL and our free agency is pretty much exactly the way it is in the NHL. Very few Superstars make it to Free Agency, often GMs need to pick from a bunch of players that were discarded from other teams, or whose contractual demands were simply too high, and hope for a turnaround. Take a look at our last Free Agent crop and the NHL's last Free Agent crop and tell me this is not true.
The fact of the matter is that Free Agency IS NOT an adequate plan to effectively build a team and trying to turn it into one would be wrong. Between the draft and the ability to sign Group 2 RFAs and claim prospects as you please, you can build a team back up. I can't tell you how many times I have picked up a prospect for free after hearing a whisper about a guy, and flipping him for useful assets three months later. Doing so requires some sacrifice, you need room on your prospect list, so instead of creating a player after his first full NHL season and getting him dirt cheap for three years, you have to create him as soon as possible and waste a couple of ELC years where he has next to no rating. You have to give to get.
The Vancouver Canucks went from Lottery team, to playoff team, to Stanley Cup champions within 3 years. I can't think of any big splashes they made in free agency during that time. Some savvy trades, good drafting and an eye for unprotected talent got them there. It requires time, but it can be done.
Listen, I feel for GMs who have to come in and try to fix up a trainwreck of a team, I really do, but this is not the way to go about it. The system is not broken, it just takes time and effort. If something needs to be fixed, it's a way to ensure that no team ends up in that state to begin with, but that would require even more staff oversight, and some already think we are too involved as it is.
This idea would change nothing to make UFA season better. In fact, I am pretty sure the crop of free agents would become worse with the gauranteed 3 signings. Not many teams that are built to win for a long time are going to have a ton of UFAs upcoming because the good gms know how to make their talent stay on their team without having to risk costly resigning at overpaid prices.
I just don't see how this addresses the problems listed.
It would change quite a bit actually. I'm not sure if you read my post.
This new proposal still allows GMs to keep talent on their team, if they are smart that is.
I think a lot of people aren't understanding.
I am just not seeing it. You want to limit the amount of UFA signings to 3 per team because teams currently sign too many leaving little apparent talent in the free agency pool (which I don't really agree with, but everyone has their own opinion). My point was that teams rarely resign more then 3 ufas as it is (3 that matter anyway). Example being my team this year having 1 ufa that I might resign (depends on my RFA resignings first).
Im just saying that I don't see this as solving what you would want it to (based off what I have seen). Teams can resign RFAs to 5 year max length deals and UFAs to 4 year deals. Going with a 23 man roster (the highest possible) teams are likely to have between 5-10 players who need to be resigned. Of those, you would assume that higher talented players are generally signed to longer term deals and hence more then 50% of these would be bottom 6/third pairing/backing goaltender status. So this will leave around 3-6 players per team that might be big name targets hitting free agency. Except not all of these players are going to be UFAs. Taking away the 2-4 rfas that are likely, this leaves 2-4 UFAs per team needing to be resigned that actually make a large difference. That is 1 player at most entering the free agency market and this was with conservative guesses in an attempt to increase people entering free agency. I just don't see this solving much, but feel free to point out where I am wrong.
Im off to bed now, but can go over it more in depth tomorrow and really look into it if need be, but even just quickly looking at the first 3 teams I see tends to back up my thinking (which I admit was just from the top of my head). Free agent numbers didnt count farm teams, but no real top end expiring UFA contracts there.
Anahiem - 10 free agents - 3 forwards are bottom 6 (this was counting Hodgson as top 6 despite his play this year) 3 D are bottom pairing and 1 backup goaltender so 3 free agents in higher priority roles - All 3 of these remaining free agents are RFAs
Arizona - 10 free agents - 5 expiring ufa contracts, 2 cannot be resigned, another is an ECHL player, and then you have Prust as the best of the other 2. While I am here I will point out that Latendresse somehow is still playing when he hasnt been in the NHL for awhile now.
Boston - 9 free agents - 8 expiring ufa contracts, 2 cannot be resigned, 3 bottom 6 forwards and 1 backup goaltender leaving 2 bigger name ufa resignings.
Not going to continue, but you can see that giving 3 guaranteed reasonable resignings would really not change anything in terms of increasing the talent pool in the offseason.
B) The inherent problem with how Free Agency is run is that those doing the negotiating on behalf of the players, the agents, are one and the same with those the players are negotiating with, we are also GMs. That puts the staff at a HUGE disadvantage in open market negotiation. We have the advantage of seeing everyone's offers on every players, but it would not be morally right or fair to take advantage of that information.
The best system that we have come up with to allow us to compete for players without knowledge of your offers (and if you have a better idea, by all means, please share) is to submit ALL of our offers before you can submit yours. This way our offers are unbiased and we as GMs are just as blind to what everyone else is offering when our offers go in. So our advantage is nullified.
The disadvantage comes in because, once that is done, we can't do any more. If a regular GM loses out on a player they wanted, they can then turn to their plan B, up their offer or submit a new offer to try to make up for the loss of the guy you were hoping to sign. The agents can't do this because we already know what the best offer is and could technically offer just a 100k more to get the player. Again, not fair to everyone else who does not have this info. So when we strike out, we can't change our plan. I have seen many a free agent sign for less then what I would have offered them, but I couldn't make them that offer because I had seen everyone else's offers.
i've said this before for free agency: OPEN OFF SEASON UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENCY AUCTION BIDDING
I will admit it's not the "best" way of doing it, but it's guarenteed to be the most fair, and in the leagues i've been, it's fun as S!@#. Make unrestricted free agency a pure market exercise, and there would be no questions/concerns regarding fairness.
Jesus... I am offline for 5 hours and I come back to this... There is a lot to comment on here, but I will try to keep my thoughts fairly restrained.
A) The thought that this system would prevent the types of overpaying that lead to the Parise contract is a complete falsehood.
If we assume that every team has 3 re-signs a year, it is probably safe to assume that, cap situation permitting, they would use it on their top 3 UFAs. In any given year, it would be surprising to have 3 UFAs among your top line, top D pairing and starting goaltender. Could happen, but it would be an anomaly. So let's assume that no first line talent will be available. In most years, the only players that will slip through will be second-tier second line forwards and 2nd pairing defensemen.
All of a sudden, the market is flooded with second tier players all looking for contracts, and we have a ton of teams looking to sign them, because everyone has holes to fill in their lineup and the cash to fill them since they could not sign all their guys. That will lead to almost all of the teams sending offers to the top 10% of available players because everyone wants the shinny new toy from the toy box.
All of sudden you have 20 teams in a bidding war for the Dennis Seidenergs and Clarke MacArthurs of the world because they are the best ones that actually made it to free agency, because the gm re-signed the Mark Giordanos and the James Van Riemsdyks. Take a look at Seidenberg's contract (which he signed in UFA, with far fewer teams bidding for his services) and tell me this is a good idea.
All this would do would flood the market with more second tier players and have more teams willing to bid against each other for their services. Therefore driving up the price of the top 10% of Free Agents, virtually guaranteeing that they will get inflated contracts.
B) The inherent problem with how Free Agency is run is that those doing the negotiating on behalf of the players, the agents, are one and the same with those the players are negotiating with, we are also GMs. That puts the staff at a HUGE disadvantage in open market negotiation. We have the advantage of seeing everyone's offers on every players, but it would not be morally right or fair to take advantage of that information.
The best system that we have come up with to allow us to compete for players without knowledge of your offers (and if you have a better idea, by all means, please share) is to submit ALL of our offers before you can submit yours. This way our offers are unbiased and we as GMs are just as blind to what everyone else is offering when our offers go in. So our advantage is nullified.
The disadvantage comes in because, once that is done, we can't do any more. If a regular GM loses out on a player they wanted, they can then turn to their plan B, up their offer or submit a new offer to try to make up for the loss of the guy you were hoping to sign. The agents can't do this because we already know what the best offer is and could technically offer just a 100k more to get the player. Again, not fair to everyone else who does not have this info. So when we strike out, we can't change our plan. I have seen many a free agent sign for less then what I would have offered them, but I couldn't make them that offer because I had seen everyone else's offers.
Any move to increase the amount of players that go to free agency would increase the disadvantage towards the staff. Unless the way contracts were negotiated change, I can see a couple of staff members stepping down so that their teams are not additionally handicapped.
Finally C) We aim to mirror the NHL and our free agency is pretty much exactly the way it is in the NHL. Very few Superstars make it to Free Agency, often GMs need to pick from a bunch of players that were discarded from other teams, or whose contractual demands were simply too high, and hope for a turnaround. Take a look at our last Free Agent crop and the NHL's last Free Agent crop and tell me this is not true.
The fact of the matter is that Free Agency IS NOT an adequate plan to effectively build a team and trying to turn it into one would be wrong. Between the draft and the ability to sign Group 2 RFAs and claim prospects as you please, you can build a team back up. I can't tell you how many times I have picked up a prospect for free after hearing a whisper about a guy, and flipping him for useful assets three months later. Doing so requires some sacrifice, you need room on your prospect list, so instead of creating a player after his first full NHL season and getting him dirt cheap for three years, you have to create him as soon as possible and waste a couple of ELC years where he has next to no rating. You have to give to get.
The Vancouver Canucks went from Lottery team, to playoff team, to Stanley Cup champions within 3 years. I can't think of any big splashes they made in free agency during that time. Some savvy trades, good drafting and an eye for unprotected talent got them there. It requires time, but it can be done.
Listen, I feel for GMs who have to come in and try to fix up a trainwreck of a team, I really do, but this is not the way to go about it. The system is not broken, it just takes time and effort. If something needs to be fixed, it's a way to ensure that no team ends up in that state to begin with, but that would require even more staff oversight, and some already think we are too involved as it is.
Calgary Flames: that unassigned list has been huge
Aug 7, 2023 9:14:49 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: Go Dallas
Dec 10, 2023 20:47:04 GMT -5
Boston Bruins: Did we lose the discord?
Jan 23, 2024 7:15:42 GMT -5
Philadelphia Flyers: Announcement coming soon......
Jan 23, 2024 22:32:24 GMT -5
Anaheim Ducks: I got logged off Discord and I don’t know how to get back on. That’s frustrating.
Mar 5, 2024 16:05:08 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: Go Stars
Mar 12, 2024 12:48:29 GMT -5
Montreal Canadiens: not sure what teh point of this is anymore, when your 3rd line is better then the top line on 4 teams ahead of you in the standings simulation obbioulsy has zero reality to it.
Apr 11, 2024 13:16:33 GMT -5
Boston Bruins: @montreal... I feel your pain. Got spanked in a must win game by a team I hadn't lost to all season... Just another reason for hockey to make me drink!!! lol
Apr 15, 2024 11:01:12 GMT -5
Los Angeles Kings: 3rd line better ummm scratching my head
Apr 23, 2024 20:37:13 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: Stars winning the cup
May 10, 2024 19:30:28 GMT -5
Montreal Canadiens: Dakota joshua at 6 million, eeeeesh
Aug 17, 2024 21:03:54 GMT -5
Los Angeles Kings: yup one of those contracts you look 2-3 years down the road and go, why did I sign that deal
Aug 20, 2024 10:20:39 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: I had the money to spend but exactly why i didn't spend it. Just because you have the ability to, doesn't mean you should! Unless you plan on retaining for trade value after the 50 game no trade limit as a rebuilding team imo
Aug 20, 2024 16:31:28 GMT -5
