EuroList

[HFNHL Commish]

Can we agree that the example ratings in the above post are fair? I would input them all, and could touch up the young players' ratings as well to match (ex Staal and Vermette). I would do it all in one to two days and save the new ratings to a seperate set of league files which we could either use, or not use. It's really that simple.

My team isn't even one of the teams that would really benefit from this as I only have one measly NHL rookie on my roster (Cam Ward), but I feel very strongly about this and how much it would help the league.

I can see that this issue is getting polarized a bit...

I'm in complete agreement that, on average, it takes too long for a young player to become useful in the HFNHL. And yes, generally speaking, Mike's example ratings look pretty fair. The question I have though with rating players based on supposition is: where does it stop???

Already, we've progressed from coming up with ratings for rookies, to "touching up" young players' ratings as well. Makes sense - it certainly wouldn't be fair for Mike Richards to be rated higher than Eric Staal. But where does it stop?

In a day and age where more and more players are late bloomers, how is it "fair" that we give the benefit of the doubt to 18 year-olds, but not to 23 year-olds? Mike Van Ryn didn't become a good NHL defenseman until he turned 24. Would he have been given the benefit of the doubt at 24? No way in hell, because we live in a world where the flavor of the month is king, and we write players off as busts by the time they turn 21.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. How would it have been fair if Brent Seabrook, or another similar defenseman, had been rated higher than Van Ryn at the start of the 2003-04 season? Or how about this as an example...who's to say that Kari Lehtonen doesn't wither under a torrent of 50 shots/game just as Marc-Andre Fleury did?

The bottom line is that someone is always going to get screwed. I can guess at how good a player is or isn't going to be as well as anyone, but I'm not perfect and neither is the HFNHL. But I would rather someone get screwed by hard facts than by supposition, as in my Van Ryn example. To that end, I would be far more willing to let retirees and Euros stick around for an additional season.

 

[SPG]

The 'where does it stop' question is a very good one... IMO, the answer to that is give any player that plays in the NHL a rating if signed in the HFNHL. When we do a full rerate after the season, the situations like the Staal/Richards example with work themselves out based on their play this season. Mike's ratings look very fair to me... and notice that they're all players that made NHL rosters out of camp. IE- They are at least good enough to make the squad and contribute to some level.

In a day and age where more and more players are late bloomers, how is it "fair" that we give the benefit of the doubt to 18 year-olds, but not to 23 year-olds? Mike Van Ryn didn't become a good NHL defenseman until he turned 24. Would he have been given the benefit of the doubt at 24? No way in hell, because we live in a world where the flavor of the month is king, and we write players off as busts by the time they turn 21.

We're not exactly giving these players the benefit of the doubt. If they make the NHL, they should be given useful ratings. There are many ratings that anyone who follows prospects has a good idea of... stuff like IT, SP, SK, ST, DU, DI... these guys aren't 50s in these categories if they are playing in the NHL! We're not even talking about making them 80's or even high 70s OV. Sure, Mike Van Ryn didn't become a good NHL defenseman until he was 24, but he's been playing in the NHL since 2001... for him to be playing in the league should have been enough for him to get a useful rating (Im only talking as a 6th/7th D here...). IMO, the proper way to have handled that was make him a mid-60s rated player and then bump his rating up accordingly when he deserved it... but that's in the past. Let's make a change here to benefit the future of our league, make it more realistic (which is what we always strive for), and more fun. Using my team as an example, I'd rather suffer through a rebuilding year with a guy like Jim Slater on my 4th line as opposed to someone like Dan LaCouture, who is not even in the NHL right now. It might even get some more teams involved when they can field a team of guys they are actually interested in.

Beacuse of the way things are, teams are going to have a number of "Dan LaCouture's" (meaning marginal players not even playing in the NHL) on their roster. That's less realistic than estimating young players' ratings and making them useful like they are in real life!

The bottom line is that someone is always going to get screwed. I can guess at how good a player is or isn't going to be as well as anyone, but I'm not perfect and neither is the HFNHL. But I would rather someone get screwed by hard facts than by supposition, as in my Van Ryn example. To that end, I would be far more willing to let retirees and Euros stick around for an additional season.

Sure, someone is always going to get screwed. Rating players is not an exact science even for the veterans. So why not at least expand our talent pool? If these players are playing in the NHL, they should have ratings good enough to at least contribute as 3rd/4th liners or 6th/7th defenseman. Like I mentioned earlier, we rerate players after every season. If a rating is inaccurate here and there, it will be adjusted to reflect reality following the year. Even veteran players ratings can be off base following a full NHL season. That's why we do rerates every year.

I haven't liked this rule from the start, but I didn't speak out against it because I figured it deserved a chance and I'd see how well it worked before I made any comments on it. It's clear that out talent pool has been severely depleted to the point where some teams are fielding minor leaguers on their 3rd lines. If there are career AHLers in the starting lineup, what's the harm is replacing them with youth?

We are the Hockey's FUTURE National Hockey League... if we continue like this we might as well change our name to the Hockey's PAST National Hockey League because thats what we are right now. Let's get some youth into the league!

 

[Dryden]

glad to see that some people agree with me.

Man that Ottawa TO game rocked. Awesome arena you guys got there. Love the 30% premiumfor toronto games! Getting a Spezza jersey ASAP. Love that guy!

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

We've discussed the 'rating the rookies' amongst the Admin team, and it really is a tough one, as it won't necessarily add an element of fairness per se, but will add workload.

What I think we should consider is slightly higher ratings for AHL players, so they are at least serviceable players. As of now, we have AHLers rated between 55-60 if they haven't played in the NHL, and that is just not realistic when it comes down to it. Most elite AHLers are least comparable to 4th line NHLers and the drop shouldn't be as significant. This will make more sense for teams to sign young players who are playing in the AHL, as they can at least be used on the 3rd pairing or 4th line.

Something like the following:
- AHL allstar: 65-66
- AHL fist liner: 64-65
- AHL average player: 60-63
- below average AHLer: 57-60
- Elite Junior player (no pro experience): 55-57

Also, keep in mind when rating rookies and additional players, we need to rate each individual skill - which is a LOT more work than just saying Crosby should be a 75, Ovechkin a 74 etc..

At least with the above, we're not rating additional players, just applying a slightly different formula to those in the AHL.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Just a minor observation, as I don't want to interrupt the free flow of ideas here...

Technically, this season is supposed to be a 70 OV minimum season, not 68. I had mentioned that the admin team might need to review that based on what appeared (to me) to be a slight drop in average forward ratings this season over past seasons. Nevertheless, that is what had been communicated to the league, and quite frankly what teams should have been prepared for heading into the (cancelled) 04-05 season.

Had GMs followed through with their responsibilities following the 03/04 season to get their team ready for the season we ended up having to cancel, a) we probably wouldn't have had to cancel it at all, and therefore could have enjoyed a year of hockey in the absence of the NHL, and b) we wouldn't be having these issues now.

That said, I think there's merit to the idea of ensuring that teams don't suffer a "lost year" at one oend of the career or the other, and given that we are Hockey's Future NHL, I can understand wanting to catch up the year up front. I just wish we weren't trying to do it on the cusp of a new season.

At the end of the day, though, as much as I don't think it's fair to essentially punish GMs who did their jobs and are prepared just so those who didn't do their jobs can have an easier time of it, I recognize that it probably serves the best interests of the league in the long run to ensure that struggling teams aren't forced even further into the margins, so if you guys can come up with a solution that is 1) reasonably fair, 2) at least moderately fact-based, 3) is not administratively burdensome, and 4) ensures that we won't face a shortage of workable talent going forward, then I'm willing to support it.

My $0.02.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

While I agree with Douglas in trying to keep an open mind to all this and also agree this post is more about the free flow of ideas (including my AHL take above, which would be applied in future years, not now) the bottom line is every team knew the rules on rookies, vets and Europe going into this year. The current rosters shouldn't come as a surpise to anyone.

Let's not lose focus here, as we're ready to embark on a new season and we're not going to re-do the whole rating structure at this point.

I also don't really have any patience for teams that have an incomplete roster, but never bothered to tender one offer for a free agent. We're aren't going to create rules to help these teams get back on track. This discussion and suggested changes really should be restricted to the active GMs who make this league go-around.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Let's not lose focus here, as we're ready to embark on a new season and we're not going to re-do the whole rating structure at this point.

Please please let's not get into a whole re-rating thing at this point regardless of whether we re-rate rookies, AHL'ers or have the option of keeping retired/Euro players for an additional year

I really like the idea of the AHL players having higher ratings - but now is not the time to do it IMO.

I also don't really have any patience for teams that have an incomplete roster, but never bothered to tender one offer for a free agent. We're aren't going to create rules to help these teams get back on track.

Good. Because I've run into financial problems that meant I couldn't keep players - and you know what - the league stuck to it's rules when I wanted to trade a player for 10 million cash - and I lost a couple players - now I didn't put my team in that financial position - but I'm glad that the rules didn't change - because despite the fact it hurt my roster it is best for the league.

I still think there is room for those teams with struggling rosters to put something together - I have 2 dmen rated 68 and 70 that are spare - but I've had no offers for them - so obviously teams lacking dmen have not been reading my posts on this board regarding the fact they are available or making any attempts otherwise, which is, as stated above, the main problem here.

 

[SPG]

While I agree with Douglas in trying to keep an open mind to all this and also agree this post is more about the free flow of ideas (including my AHL take above, which would be applied in future years, not now) the bottom line is every team knew the rules on rookies, vets and Europe going into this year. The current rosters shouldn't come as a surpise to anyone.

Let's not lose focus here, as we're ready to embark on a new season and we're not going to re-do the whole rating structure at this point.

I also don't really have any patience for teams that have an incomplete roster, but never bothered to tender one offer for a free agent. We're aren't going to create rules to help these teams get back on track. This discussion and suggested changes really should be restricted to the active GMs who make this league go-around.

My whole point about assigning ratings to rookies wasn't geared toward helping the teams that missed the boat on getting their rosters up to speed. They don't deserve any extra help. My stance is that the talent level in general in this league has dropped because of the way we handle Euros and rookies. Our policies on both groups are contradicting. I actually agree with having the player splaying in Europe removed from the league. The point of that is that they are ineligible to play in the NHL for the current season. However, AHLers are eligible and should be treated accordingly.

The current rosters are absolutely no surprise to me. Like Douglas mentioned, the overall ratings of players have dropped. This is the reason for the discussion that took place a couple weeks ago regarding the possibility of lowering the min average rating. With the contradicting Euro/Rookie rules in place, this is no surprise.

That being said, maybe it is the wrong time to bring it up with everything else going on. Maybe nothing can be done this season... we're on the verge of finally getting going here and we really shouldn't let anything stand in the way of that. However, I really think we should make some changes in our rookie policy for the 2006-07 season. I just really don't see why there is opposition to making young players that are useful in the NHL useful in the HFNHL other than reasons like workload and further delay -- which are valid reasons but won't be next offseason.

 

[Vaive-Alive]

I can safely say from experience that the time required to re-rate regular players is substantial to say the least. To revamp and redo the rating structure for inexperienced NHLers at this point would significantly delay the start of our HFNHL season. There is no time to do that this season. This can be settled in the offseason.

GM Bruins

 

[kasper11]

My whole point about assigning ratings to rookies wasn't geared toward helping the teams that missed the boat on getting their rosters up to speed. They don't deserve any extra help. My stance is that the talent level in general in this league has dropped because of the way we handle Euros and rookies. Our policies on both groups are contradicting. I actually agree with having the player splaying in Europe removed from the league. The point of that is that they are ineligible to play in the NHL for the current season. However, AHLers are eligible and should be treated accordingly.

The current rosters are absolutely no surprise to me. Like Douglas mentioned, the overall ratings of players have dropped. This is the reason for the discussion that took place a couple weeks ago regarding the possibility of lowering the min average rating. With the contradicting Euro/Rookie rules in place, this is no surprise.

That being said, maybe it is the wrong time to bring it up with everything else going on. Maybe nothing can be done this season... we're on the verge of finally getting going here and we really shouldn't let anything stand in the way of that. However, I really think we should make some changes in our rookie policy for the 2006-07 season. I just really don't see why there is opposition to making young players that are useful in the NHL useful in the HFNHL other than reasons like workload and further delay -- which are valid reasons but won't be next offseason.

I agree completely with everything that you said.

I think we need to move on with this season with the ratings as they are now....everyone has had 2 years to get their rosters ready with the ratings where they are now with the assumption that the rules would not be changed.

I do also agree that we should take another look at how we rate players in the offseason. I like Nick's chart, although I think we need to expand it to include NHL 4th liners and part timers, to make sure that they are rated higher than an AHLer. Young players that play in the NHL, even if only half a season, should be rated higher than a young player in the AHL.

One thing I do not worry about is the lack of skating talent in the league. I actually prefer to have less high and mid rated players. One problem I have in almost every league I am in is that too many players are bunched around the 68-70 mark, meaning that a player who is a solid 4th line energy guy becomes useless, since every other player who played 10 games is rated exactly the same.I think the ratings are much more accurate in the range they are now, I just think that some veterans are too high and young players too low.

Goalies, on the other hand, obviously have a talent shortage. When it comes to goalies, I think any goalie that plays reasonably well in a couple of NHL games, or has a good AHL season needs to be rated in the mid 60s. If you think about it, most teams have a 3rd goalie in the minors that they can bring in if need be to play a few games.If we only rate goalies that high that play 10+ games or so we will never have those 3rd string goalies, and teams will hoard them.

Onto the Euro/retiree rule ---
I would like to see this changed a bit....while I agree that a player who decides he would rather play in Europe or retires he should be removed. Surprises like this are something that every team deals with, and we should as well. However, if it is a money dispute, that is different. If the GM in our league is willing to pay the player more than the NHL GM, why should they lose that player? I'm not just saying this to get Kovalchuck, since he is already coming back, but he is a good example. I gave him the money that he was looking for, so why shouldn't I have him? A player like Semin, on the other hand, is under contract for the rookie max but is still playing in Russia. Therefore I should lose him. When a player is under NHL contract but signs in Europe because they want more money, I think our agent should have the option of holding that player out for more money if the contract in our league is low, and the GM should have the option of paying it. Basically, we would be dealing with what the NHL GMs deal with.

Sorry this was so long, just getting back into the swing of the league again after my vacation.

Edit: One thing I wanted to add about rating rookies....just because a player is highly touted doesn't mean that he will play well early. Joe Thornton was just as hyped as AO, yet he did nothing his rookie year. And there is no way we should base it on results thus far. I should not have Pavel Vorobiev rated higher than somebody who played in the NHL all of 2003-4 just because he had 2 good games. And just because Seabrook had 1 good game doesn't mean he deserves to be higher rated than most established #5-6 dmen.

 

[Ohio Jones]

And there is no way we should base it on results thus far. I should not have Pavel Vorobiev rated higher than somebody who played in the NHL all of 2003-4 just because he had 2 good games. And just because Seabrook had 1 good game doesn't mean he deserves to be higher rated than most established #5-6 dmen.

...not to mention the simple fact that our ratings should be completed, and our season begun, befo the NHL regular season starts. Obviously we've missed the second point a bit this year (although we're still looking to be well ahead of some years' schedules, especially during the Commish tenure of that fool Emerson...), but the point remains.

Glad to have the ideas on the table - this is exactly the sort of exercise the admin team goes through on a regular basis with a variety of issues. As has been pointed out, however, as tight as this year may be for some, there is enough talent to get us through this season while we hash out possible rules changes for 2006-07.

Let's get those GM positions filled and drop the puck!

 

[Dempsey]

The main argument against this is that it will be more work and thus take the season longer to get going... Yet I have clearly stated, several times might I add, that the whole process would take a day or two tops, that I would do all the work, and that after it's done each team would have a full roster and we could get on with the season a heck of a lot faster than the rate we're going at.

Another point made is that rookies will have ratings higher than some of the comparably-productive 2nd and 3rd year players. I would put those ratings to where they should be, as well.

I've spoke enough on the matter. It's not my team that it would be helping, I'm just trying to help the league. But there is so much resistance here from people coming up with points against this that I've already addressed. If you guys don't want to have this season started earlier, I guess that's fine with me.

 

[Donga]

I hope through all these discussions that everyone is beginning to realise that this league is a year behind the NHL due to the rerates. The only problem I had with the league at this point was that players were retiring a year early instead of the next season. This has caught out many teams in the past. The admin team has talked about this issue. The more I read the discussions, the more apparent it has become.

 

[Dempsey]

Let's get on with the season as it is then. I won't do the league any favors that it doesn't want. Point dropped.

 

[Ohio Jones]

The main argument against this is that it will be more work and thus take the season longer to get going... Yet I have clearly stated, several times might I add, that the whole process would take a day or two tops, that I would do all the work, and that after it's done each team would have a full roster and we could get on with the season a heck of a lot faster than the rate we're going at.

Another point made is that rookies will have ratings higher than some of the comparably-productive 2nd and 3rd year players. I would put those ratings to where they should be, as well.

I've spoke enough on the matter. It's not my team that it would be helping, I'm just trying to help the league. But there is so much resistance here from people coming up with points against this that I've already addressed. If you guys don't want to have this season started earlier, I guess that's fine with me.

I'm sorry you seem to feel your offer and insight is being disregarded, Mike. At least, that's certainly what the tone of your messages would imply. Dryden appeared to feel similarly about the response to his own contributions... perhaps there is a breakdown in how the admin team is responding; if so, I for one apologize. It is certainly not my intent to dismiss any offer of assistance, nor to disregard the legitimate feelings and concerns of league members.

I believe, however, you may have missed the key point here. As important as it is to ensure that any solution is sustainable, consistent, fair and workable on a go-forward basis, the primary argument I have heard and seen in opposition to changing the approach to rookies (as well as retiring or Europe-bound) players appears to be that it is not appropriate to change the rules on the eve of the season. That does an injustice to all the teams that have worked hard to ensure that their rosters were ready for the season based on the rules in effect.

There is, from what I can tell, a general consensus suggesting that some change be made... for the 06/07 season. Various possible solutions have been raised. I've found it an interesting and useful exercise. But I have not seen or heard anything to date to suggest that it is imperative to make this change for this season, and doing so would be inconsistent with the approach the league has established and found to be most fair and effective: giving teams as much notice as possible of rules changes affecting their planning.

If there is a compelling argument that I have missed, I encourage anyone to bring it to my attention. Otherwise, let us continue this discussion for the purposes of making plans for next seaosn, but let's not let that discussion get in the way of the work that needs to be finished to get this season rolling.

And whatever else happens, let's not let any of these natural differences of opinion generate resentment among league members. This is, after all, supposed to be a fun league. If something is preventing it from being fun, let's address that. If it's something that cannot change, then let's acknowledge that and go our seperate ways.

 

[Pandastyle]

I've been watching this discussion take place, and had up till now decided to stay out of it, but Doug made a real good point. Even if these rerates would take little time, proceeding with them would be unfair since teams have been given no notice that they would be done. I'm sure there are several teams out there that would not have made some of the personnel moves they made if they knew that rookies would be getting more favorable ratings.

If I knew Ales Hemsky, Dustin Brown or Corey Perry may get a rating in the low 70's, then I likely would have had second thoughts about signing Dave Andreychuk for $2.5 mil. If I knew Hannu Toivonen would get around a 70, would I have signed Garth Snow for $1.35 mil?

The point is we all knew the rules coming in, and changing them just when we're about to start would be unfair to those who prepared.

The one thing that I agree should be done is that teams should be able to keep players that have retired but would have played last season (I don't have any of these players if people are questioning my intent). Someone like Mark Messier probably would have played last year, I would have no beef with him being allowed to play in our league this year. I'm sure there are others as well.

I agree that we should reconsider how we deal with a lot of these issues concerning rookies, but any decision we make should be effective for next season.


-Andrew, EDM GM

 

[SPG]

If I knew Ales Hemsky, Dustin Brown or Corey Perry may get a rating in the low 70's, then I likely would have had second thoughts about signing Dave Andreychuk for $2.5 mil. If I knew Hannu Toivonen would get around a 70, would I have signed Garth Snow for $1.35 mil?

I could be mistaken, but I think Hemsky would get a solid rating because of his production in the 2003-04 season if you signed him. He played over 70 games with the Oilers and scored 30+ points. I think the Zubial ratings we use as a guide have him around 70.

 

[Dempsey]

If I knew Ales Hemsky, Dustin Brown or Corey Perry may get a rating in the low 70's, then I likely would have had second thoughts about signing Dave Andreychuk for $2.5 mil. If I knew Hannu Toivonen would get around a 70, would I have signed Garth Snow for $1.35 mil?

I can agree that this is fair enough. It would only have been fair to put it to a vote anyway.

Looking forward to the start of the season.

 

[kasper11]

Quick question...

Is the Euro list set, or will we be adding players to it? If Boumedienne and Semin are going to go back onto my prospects list I need to sign a couple of players off it.

 

[Tampa GM]

Richard Wallin from Phoenix has played all 11 games for Färjestad in the SEL this season.

Stanislav Neckar from Phoenix has played 10 games for Södertälje in the SEL this season.

 

[Tampa GM]

Both Richard Wallin and Stanislav Neckar have both been able to play all four games for Phoenix so far this season, why?

Another question is how Josef Boumedienne can be on Torontos pro-roster? In 2005/06 he has been playing for Zurich in the Swiss League and Sodertalje in the SEL.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Why is Korolyuk allowed to play for Vancouver since he has been in Russia all year?

 

[kasper11]

Because we missed him when the season started. We don't remove players after that, since NHL teams cannot lose players to Europe after the season starts.