SPG said:
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.