IMPORTANT - Pending League Rule Change

[Donga]

This is a very touchy topic in more ways than one. I agree with the many of you especially Hossa and Brock about the timing issue. I can see why the admin is doing it.

I WILL GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT I'M OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAS RUINED THIS LEAGUE WITH THE MASS EXODUS OF THE PLAYERS I HAD WHEN I FIRST STARTED. I had names like Greg Johnson, Sami Kapanen, Bryan Marchment, Artus Irbe (before being crap), Steve Shields, Dave Karpa, Martin Gelinas and Andreas Dackell. All were gone by the deadline of that season.

This rule is to discourage the likes of me doing it. If the admin wants to fire me right now, I will be disappointed but I'll leave no hard feelings. I had an inkling this would come out soon just didn't know how soon. However, this is nothing new to me. This was happening with Buffalo when I first came in. Talking to some of the GM's at the time, none were too pleased about it. When I started doing it, I could feel the heat turn to me.

However, I did trade for Scott Gomez in that deal with former GM Sameul Ley. From memory, the purpose was a semi prospect dump and the prospect of better revenue I would get at the start of the season knowing that I couldn't make the playoffs. This is how I stayed a float for the past two season. Hasnain, you may think I made money but that was on the back of getting off to a good start and winning a few games to get my revenue up. I'm not saying that this is a good way of making money but it seems to have worked for me thus far.

Another note to the Scott Gomez saga, I know that many of you would have kept Scott Gomez as part of your core. When the opportunity to get my #1 tender for the next ten years, I couldn't resist. Rick D wasn't going to be much help to Hasnain at the time, he wanted to get to the playoffs. Why not give him Gomez, in this deal? I got DiPietrio who has a solid rating and will be even more better after this season. I also gave up Kotalik but I also got a 1st rounder who turns out to be Dion Phaneuf. He was awesome at training camp but the Flames didn't want to rush him. Who could blame them when they already had a solid group of blue liners. Although Hasnain didn't make the playoffs, but he thought he could at the time. Now I have my #1/2 blue liner and #1 tender. You couldn't be happier could you?

Currently doing the sums using the updated Rosters, I'm currently 68.65OV. This is good as it will me the criteria for this year. For the next season, who knows. However, in order to get this overall rating, I had to incur costs. All on mf own doing, especially Igor Kravchuk (69OV) and Tony Hrkac (69OV) costing me just below $3mill. However, the waiver was my meal ticket. Corson, Hoglund, Grosek and Ward helped me some what over the line.

With the sudden rule change, like many of you have stated or implied, players that are middle of the road players, their prices are going to skyrocket just to get to the limit. I will reiterate the point

IT IS THE TIMING THAT SUCKS NOT THE RULE!!!!

By, I will say this, THIS IS DEFINITELY A WAKE UP CALL, for me anyway.

Also, I think the thinking of some of the GM's going into the season and their plans before the season could have contributed to the wide disparity in skill between teams. Teams that want to rebuild and Teams that want to make the playoffs. Playoff Teams will always look for bargains with the non playoff team. Which player doesn't want to get a chance to play for a cup contender. I'm pretty sure Andreas Dackell and Martin Gelinas wouldn't be complaining after being traded to the Thrashers and playing in the playoffs for the past two seasons and winning the cup last season. Whenever, there are opposites about, there bound to be an attraction somewhere.

On the Waiver draft, it felt like a ghost town. I had fun myself with the pickups that I did. Don't tell me the players that I picked could not beat some of the teams. Like I reckon I could win all my 5 games against TOR, however many games against TB, a fighting chance against NAS, VAN, FLA, NJD and the possible upsets against the Sens. This could mean a 15-25 win season. With TOR, I have better rated players, Comrie and Hurme might spoil the party but my players will get through. Meanwhile TB doesn't have goaltender and could be with Dull Knife and Dummie Head for $10mill a piece ouch. If he was at the Waiver draft, he could have picked up Jamie McLennan. Who is currently one of the hottest tenders in the NHL at the moment. Despite his .500 record, he has a 2.00 GAA and about 910 SAV% last time I checked. He could be a good get for me during this last off season. Thats wat you get for not turning up to these things. I learnt the hard way with the 2002 draft.

Next question is, Doug you say that you would put Jamie Pushor on the waivers rite. He has a good rating and good salary. He would be a good pick up at the moment for NJD on current standings. Say Irbe is on the waiver list. Why would anyone want to pick up his $4mill multiyear contract just for the sake of getting to a limit when you know that he is gonna really suck next season? what is the incentive in that?

Greg, your idea is sound. May I suggest a hike in prospect fees for overage NA players as compared to Euro players? This will force some GM's to sign the players. Another way to get around is a waiver draft for prospects. Protect so many overage and leave the rest up for the waiver draft. Josh, I can see your face now . Once they sign the players, they can be exempt. Or something to that extent. But this could be tough on the admin. I know there are ways around this. I wonder how through Eric was when he was compiling the list or did he leave it to the honesty system??

thats my 0.17 american cents plus my HFNHL life story ( or parts of it)

 

[Phoenix AGM]

As someone with no particular stake in this, let me butt in with two comments:

1. There seems to be a huge disconnect between the admin team and the rest of the league regarding the urgency of this issue. From the admin team's point of view (based on what I've read in this thread), they have been concerned about and discussing this issue for some time and have become convinced that something needs to be done immediately.

From the rest of the league's perspective, this seems to have come completely out of the blue. I've been around this league for a few years now, and dramatic "rebuilding" projects of the type that would not be tolerated in the NHL, comments on the message boards about getting the #1 pick, etc., have been a part of it for as long as I can remember. Frankly, I just assumed it was accepted.

Maybe I missed some leaguewide communications about this, or maybe the admin team has discussed these issues privately with the GMs at issue. But otherwise I really can't blame the affected GMs from feeling a little ticked that what was ok for teams in the past is now deemed so unacceptable as to warrant immediate action.

I think that fairness requires some kind of phase-in period for any rule changes. I also think that, while the point of having an admin team is to discuss issues in a smaller and more manageable group, and I'm very appreciative of all the hard work they put in to make this league work, they might want to let us know a little sooner when they believe there's an issue that is threatening the integrity of the league.

2. Having said all that, I don't think the proposed rule will cure the problem. "Tanking" for a higher draft position is only the most blatant manifestation. Teams that have conducted fire sales generally end up with multiple first round picks and/or good prospects. Bumping one of their draft picks (even the highest) down a couple of slots is not a big disincentive. For every coveted #1 overall who turns into Mario Lemieux, there's an Alexander Daigle or Brian Lawton.

This hits it right on the head:

The way I see it, there are few problems with this sim league compared to NHL. If you notice, the team with the worst record makes money in this league (i.e., Carolina, Bufallo and NYI of two years ago).

[snip]

The other thing that I have noticed is that teams stock pile their talent in prospect and showcase the leftover to HFNHL. I think the league should have a 2 year prospect rule just like NHL as this will force teams to sign their prospects and will clean up the league of excess baggage.

If you really want to stop the fire sales, you need some combination of:
(a) the proposed OV rating requirement, but with stiffer penalties -- perhaps financial as well as draft position or lottery eligibility
(b) some kind of adjustment to the financial system
(c) the 2 year prospect limit
(d) a limit on the number of 1st round draft picks a team can acquire (presumably with an exception for FA compensation)
(e) stricter trade review
(f) ?

I'm not saying all of these are necessary or advisable, but to really get at the problem (assuming it is a problem), you need more than the proposed rule.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

A few points...

1. This rule will be enforced - and it will probably be tinkered with at best, so GM's really should start planning. Teams are making much too much out of this being a monumental task.

2. So you don't make it to 66...it's not the end of the world. If you're at 65 - the ramifications? You might drop from 3rd to 5th in the first round. It means you get Vanek instead of Horton. Or it means you get Barker instead of Olesz. Some might say this is NOT ENOUGH of a penalty. The fact is the penalty is NOT that stiff. It's not like you're losing your first round pick. The Admin team at first wanted much stiffer penalties combined with a pure lottery (not a weighted one), a 4 draft position drop, and a 67 requirement by the trade deadline, but paired that back in consideration of the fact GMs were only being given three months. This penalty will not break ANY team, by any stretch of the imagination.

But we do realize for many of you draft hounds it is something you want to avoid. And of course, it does mean you are not going to get Ovechkin unless you're at 66 OV - which too many teams have been deliberately positioning themselves for, but that's the motivator. Hell, Bruce Firestone was fined for just suggesting the Sens plan was to tank and get Daigle. All of you seriously hurt the league when you talk of such things - which you do all to often with a flipancy that pains us who have built this league to the level it is now.

That said, we respect the new GMs abilities enough, we'd rather motivate you to improve your team rather than simply kick you out of the league. We do realize the current structure has allowed you to do this to your team. No more.

3. Finally, when a key member of the admin team resigns because of all the whining at the suggestion GMs will have to make some moves over the next three months to improve their team, enough is enough. A few new GMs are not worth the price of Drew resigning from the Admin team to be honest, so quit your *****ing and make the moves. We put countless hours into this league with little thanks other than our own pride in the league itself (Drew especially). Speaking for myself, I don't want a pat on the back from any of you. I don't want you to post something here saying you're sorry you haven't shown enough appreciation. I don't want you to send a diplomatic e-mail trying to soften your stance, but still suggesting you be given a little extra room.

I just want you to suck it up.

Welcome to the real world of being a NHL GM, where icing an AHL team is not acceptable. Having a team that is an on-ice joke is no longer acceptable, and we want changes beginning now. Did we let this go on too long? Yes. But that's exactly why we're not going to put this rule off until next year. The answer to this problem is not to let many of you write off this entire season without ANY motivation to be competitive THIS year, only to try and solve your problems via UFA. Going from 62 at the end of this year to 68 at the beginning of next year is TOO big of a task in an offseason anyway - especially when many GMs will be ignoring your trade requests as they're on vacation and many of you don't have the money to compete on the UFA market anyway. It will be enough to go from 66 (if you get there) to 68 next year.

We're not telling you to do this overnight. There are several teams in financial trouble looking to move solid players. And if you don't, the penalties really aren't that severe. Just suck it up and get moving. If you don't think that's fair and that we don't have the "right" to implement this over the next 3-4 months, even given all the hard work we've put in and the pride we take in making this league realistic and competitive, well, what else can I say, other than try not to let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[Tampa GM]

My question remains, why was ALL my trades approved if this was something you where already talking about? Since ALL my trades so far has been APPROVED I cant see why I should be punished now?

Finally can somoeone please explain to me how I can get the free agents that are still out there WITHOUT overpaying? This rule change means I need to get better players and how can I be sure to get them unless I overpay? Is it in the leagues best intrest that guys like Nylander, Friesen and Nabokov will have a salary that might be close to the one Recchi has?

I have said it before and I will say it again. I dont think its fair to come up with a rule change TWO days prior to the season starts. I accept a rule before the 04/05 season however since that is enough time to get those players.

 

[Chuzwazza]

Ok, I've stayed out of this a while, but as someone who sees things from pretty much every angle (Admin/rest of league, previous teardown team/current solid team) I feel I have a pretty good scope of things.

Some of the arguments are valid, some are less so. Originally I wasn't terribly impressed with the timing of the whole thing, as I feel like it's a little late to start dropping this on teams. That said, I'm not the guy who's responsible for sorting out the ratings for all those players that aren't included in the lists we use because they haven't played an NHL game for about 4 or 5 years (some have never made it past the NHL etc.). The Workload that Drew (and a few other guys) put in is phenominal, and they do it all for the benefit of the rest of us. They could quite easily go join some other league and just worry about their own team, but that doesn't happen. Unless someone else is prepared to step in and be responsible for all the things these guys do then I think it's reasonable to have to deal with the issues that they have.

Some of the problems are fromt previous GM's that have mismanaged teams and bolted, leaving it in the hands of new GM's who have taken apart teams because it is the only way they believe they can get the team back on track. Believe me when I say I know what it's like to have to try and build from the ground up. Guys, I'm in your corner somewhat in that regard, but the ratings limit is not exactly playoff level. If an NHL team attempted to ice some of the units we have here, the'd be looking to move inside of 3 years because of the revolt by the fans. Never mind that the owner would have taken drastic action LONG before and fired his whole front office (meaning YOU!).

Sure, it can mess with your plans somewhat, but it's not exactly like there aren't guys out there that you can pick up for a late round pick or two. and a couple of those guys and you've met the limit. It might cost you a couple of 7th's 8th's and 9ths, but that's not exactly going to kill you, and everybody else is doing it, so your race for the #1 isn't going to get any worse.

As for those who are doing this because of financial or philosophical mistakes, I have no sympathy for you...you brought this upon yourselves. The mess that Martin in Toronto is having to deal with is a direct result of GM's overpaying for bad players, and then leaving it too long before they start moving players, so he is left with no cash and not much talent. There is nothing harder than trying to find a GM for a team that won't be able to compete for at least another 4-5 years. And it's not like it's impossible to stop. Claudio was one of the first guys to try to buy a cup, and failed, but he realised the error of his ways early on and still has a very solid team to go with a decent crop of youngsters. Other teams have burned themselves in other ways, but the fact remains, we now have 1/4 of the league in a position to get the #1 pick. 1/4 of our league would be worse than the worse team in the NHl right now, and the scary thing is, it's all as a result of bad management in this league, either by current or past GM's. What this is all about, is attempting to stop this growing trend, so that we don;t get to a situation where half the teams in the league are close to unusable, and the league is in such a bad state that it has to be scrapped. The added workload that Drew has to endure through all this, is just another motivation for this coming out. It sucks for those few of you that are caught out now, but the 68 for next season isn't being complained about (much) and the deadline is a fair way away, so it should give you plenty of time to pick up those couple of players that will get you over the limit.

And before someone uses the "If I had known before the waiver draft I might have picked somebody"...save it. it's BS. You would have picked the good players because they'd get you another pick/prospect in a trade anyway, so I don't see what the problem is there. The deadline is enough time to make a move or two for players...you're gonna have to do it anyway next season, so what's the big problem with getting a little started this year? (which is all the deadline requirement is supposed to achieve)


OK...now onto my second point.

For those of you who want to take a crack at me for keeping Nash and Bouwmeester on my prospect list until they're good, keep it coming. We all know that the HFNHL is one year behind on ratings, so I don't get any creit for Nash's hot start to the season this year, or Bouwmeester logging 24+ minutes a night on D. The ratings I have are based soley on last year's, and neither of them are going to set the world on fire (66OV or so). If either one had been sent down last year because their teams were stronger, and they were not going to make the cut, or were only going to toil on the 4th line, would they have suddenly requested a trade? umm...no. That's all that's happening here. I have the option of using them as though they were as good as last season, or sending to the minors/juniors. And just in case you hadn't checked out my roster recently...why would I sign Bouwnmeester to a 1.2M contract when he's not even good enough to cut my top 6? Iwas actually intending on signing him, but was hoping I could pick up somebody better in the waiver draft. I did, so there's no need to play him, especially when I picked up another player, who could fill in as my #7 as well. Same goes for Nash, who even though I have toyed with the idea of signing him, would likely wind up playing next to Tim Taylor and Paul Ranheim on my 4th line. If Columbus had done that to him last year, people would have been abusing them for kiling his development.

I think that's my thoughts taken care of...happy to adress any problems people have with what I said

 

[Donga]

Nick I totally agree with you wholeheartly.

Just redoing a few sums, I went from a 62OV before waivers to a 68OV after waivers. Although, my task would be difficult to attain this figure has there had been many people participating in the waiver draft. So thanks for not coming everyone. And if Pushor is on the waivers, I'll gladly pick him up to and Savage too if he is available. Josh can vouch that I'm a waiver junkie. I won't be able to trade them and the only way to get rid of them would be through the waivers. This will restrict me.

I will have probably drop back to about 62 next season. No Hoglund and possibly Corson, both are 70's. No Kravchuk a 69OV. Its going to be an interesting off season for me next season. I have around $30mill and I won't be afraid to use it. Two seasons of losing has taking its toll. Now to year 3. Playoffs time next year in Raleigh. Lets fill the largest stadium in the HFNHL.

As nick said, if you are just below the mark, it doesn't take much to get over the initial limit. A few good acquisitions of 67OV-69OV players will all add up. Also with teams in financial problems with good players, there is a win-win situation for both teams. One team dumps cash, you get a solid to quality player which help ratings. You don't have to trade your top prospects for these guys. I wouldn't trade Zherdev for say Corson. No ****ing way.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

For those of you who want to take a crack at me for keeping Nash and Bouwmeester on my prospect list until they're good, keep it coming.

It wasn't a crack at you, don't take it personally. In fact, I brought up MY players in my post as well to make the point. I had actually not even remembered you had them both....I was just using 2 of the top players from last year as examples.

Just looking for more ways to prevent people from tanking/stockpiling high picks and not using them on their HFNHL roster.

 

[Wildman]

It wasn't a crack at you, don't take it personally. In fact, I brought up MY players in my post as well to make the point. I had actually not even remembered you had them both....I was just using 2 of the top players from last year as examples.

Just looking for more ways to prevent people from tanking/stockpiling high picks and not using them on their HFNHL roster.

I know this suggestion won't sit well with many GM. How about re -shuffling those GM who don't make the playoffs the previous two seasons. This way, GM will not be guaranteed that they will be managing the same team every year and won't be motivated to take a dive for draft picks. We see GM being fired and hired by another team every day in NHL. Just a suggestion, comments are welcome.

 

[Dryden]

I've been sitting on the sidelines since I first read the original post. I t came as quite a shock to me that such drastic measures were being put in place so quickly, but I agreed it was necessary for the good of the league.

The one thing all the teams who are making a stink about this have not noticed is the new rule was not etched in stone but a general guideline. As for it not being able to be done, thats a crock of s*i*. I took over the Hawks last year and they had little to work with both prospect wise and player wise. Eric got me started off by dealing Sakic and Bondra for Bouchard and Upshall. Others tried to get what remaining prospects I had left but I wouldn't buge. In little under a year through trades and FA signings I've turned a bottom feeder into a playoff contender. I could have chose the route of going for the number one pick or trying to put out a competitive team on a daily basis. 1) it makes it more fun to come home from work and see that I one a game 2-1 as oppossed to getting blown out 6-1 and 2) Brian Lawton and other prospects who didn't pan out. Go for the good and proven I always say.

I was seriously looking forward to this year. My team has become a playoff hopeful, I've taken on assistant Sim duties with Drew and I actually like talking with some of the guys in the league. Now something like this comes along and puts a damper on things.

All I have to say is to those out there thinking that not fielding a competitive team, Don't ruin it for the rest of us. Get a goalie, get a defenseman, get a forward, just get anything...It can be done, don't say it can't.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

That's a very good point. When I took over Minnesota after the expansion draft, I had Patrick Roy, Sean Burke and a bunch of 4th liners. Of the guys on the team when I took over less than 3 years ago, only 6 are left in the NHL. Through the waiver wire, unsigned guys and some really good trades, I ended up getting guys like Nagy, St Louis, Dupuis and Arnott. I dealt some first rounders, and I may regret dealing the pick that became Rick Nash, but I ended up getting Sturm, DeVries and Klepis. Sturm is growing into a 30 goal scorer, and DeVries is a top 4 guy.

I never "tanked" to get my team better. I've only had 1 top 15 pick, but I have a ton of good prospects who will be in th NHL very soon.

I am sure it won't happen, and it's not a suggestion, but if this were a pay to play league, it would really dampen the impulse to tank.

 

[Brock]

The thing that keeps being mentioned here is that we stripped our teams to be contenders for the first overall. Thats a load of bloody horsesh**.

I took over this team at the entry draft and I've made it considerably better since than, for now and the future. Im going with the hand i was dealt. I didnt strip my team, it was already stripped. I was told to rebuild it, so I did. And now Im being ****ing molested here saying that it's my fault and what not. Back that horse up. All you GM's saying, "Oh well I did this, I had no trouble rebuilding, I had the same situation, etc" Yeah, ok I'm sure you did, But you also sucked for a year as well I'm sure. Dryden you mentioned your situation of rebuilding...but what place did you finish in again last year? 5th last?

This process takes time, in the NHL specifically. When i took over the Panthers I was told to rebuild and make it a playoff contender in a few years. I wasn't told to make it one the next season, thats an absurd request I'm sorry.

You guys are acting like that If I got a good team, I would have just gone and stripped that and said "Oh mother, I want that Ovechkin guy, no matter if i have to go from an 80 overall to a -49). If i would have been given a good team (for instance I was offered Dallas as well), I would have gone with the hand i was dealt and tried to make that team into a contender. I was given a team in shambles that i had to rebuild from the ground up. So I did.

You can analyze my trades of recent and look for proof if you really wish. With the exception of the Pavel Trnka trade (simply because my depth on defense was already good enough and It became a waiver draft issue), all of my trades have been to better my franchise for now and the future. In the only other deal you could classify as a dump, the Shawn McEachern deal, my very first in the HFNHL, I actually acquired Daniel Tjarnqvist to help my team now, he's a 68 overall right now. If i wanted it to be a pure dump, I would have just gone and acquired anything for him.

Also a lot of the GM's on here can tell you that I'm one of the most active GM's here. Im always searching for trades to make in order to improve the team for right now. I've asked about young centers, young defenseman (in particular an offensive defenseman) and I've talked to many of you about trades to improve. I've also researched and researched in order to find free agents available, such as Peter Sarno or Fernando Pisani or Cody McCormick, etc whom I have signed in the past while.

For me it's not about sucking to get Ovechkin, I want to win now, but the reality is that's not possible with my team. Like I said and will keep saying, I'm playing with the hand I was dealt.

If admins want to leave and are disgusted or whatever simply because I don't agree with the timing, then hey go ahead, But im allowed to voice my opinion as the GM of this team. And if some of you truly believe that I'm trying to suck, then you are clearly blind, because you'd have to be a fool to see I'm not trying to improve my team within the boundaries that my team (personal, finances, etc) allows.

Thats pretty much all I have to say.

 

[Wildman]

The thing that keeps being mentioned here is that we stripped our teams to be contenders for the first overall. Thats a load of bloody horsesh**.

I took over this team at the entry draft and I've made it considerably better since than, for now and the future. Im going with the hand i was dealt. I didnt strip my team, it was already stripped. I was told to rebuild it, so I did. And now Im being ****ing molested here saying that it's my fault and what not. Back that horse up. All you GM's saying, "Oh well I did this, I had no trouble rebuilding, I had the same situation, etc" Yeah, ok I'm sure you did, But you also sucked for a year as well I'm sure. Dryden you mentioned your situation of rebuilding...but what place did you finish in again last year? 5th last?

This process takes time, in the NHL specifically. When i took over the Panthers I was told to rebuild and make it a playoff contender in a few years. I wasn't told to make it one the next season, thats an absurd request I'm sorry.

You guys are acting like that If I got a good team, I would have just gone and stripped that and said "Oh mother, I want that Ovechkin guy, no matter if i have to go from an 80 overall to a -49). If i would have been given a good team (for instance I was offered Dallas as well), I would have gone with the hand i was dealt and tried to make that team into a contender. I was given a team in shambles that i had to rebuild from the ground up. So I did.

You can analyze my trades of recent and look for proof if you really wish. With the exception of the Pavel Trnka trade (simply because my depth on defense was already good enough and It became a waiver draft issue), all of my trades have been to better my franchise for now and the future. In the only other deal you could classify as a dump, the Shawn McEachern deal, my very first in the HFNHL, I actually acquired Daniel Tjarnqvist to help my team now, he's a 68 overall right now. If i wanted it to be a pure dump, I would have just gone and acquired anything for him.

Also a lot of the GM's on here can tell you that I'm one of the most active GM's here. Im always searching for trades to make in order to improve the team for right now. I've asked about young centers, young defenseman (in particular an offensive defenseman) and I've talked to many of you about trades to improve. I've also researched and researched in order to find free agents available, such as Peter Sarno or Fernando Pisani or Cody McCormick, etc whom I have signed in the past while.

For me it's not about sucking to get Ovechkin, I want to win now, but the reality is that's not possible with my team. Like I said and will keep saying, I'm playing with the hand I was dealt.

If admins want to leave and are disgusted or whatever simply because I don't agree with the timing, then hey go ahead, But im allowed to voice my opinion as the GM of this team. And if some of you truly believe that I'm trying to suck, then you are clearly blind, because you'd have to be a fool to see I'm not trying to improve my team within the boundaries that my team (personal, finances, etc) allows.

Thats pretty much all I have to say.

Brock, I don't think anyone is pinpointing you as an individual. We all know that you inherited a team which was in dire need of rebuilding. As you can see from what you inherited, the Florida Panther was totally stripped of all the talent and had no cash reserve to dip into free agent. This kind of things is happening more often the last couple of years and I for one did the same thing the very first year I joined.

I think the Admin team is trying to bring parity among each team which is always good in the long run.

 

[Brock]

Brock, I don't think anyone is pinpointing you as an individual. We all know that you inherited a team which was in dire need of rebuilding. As you can see from what you inherited, the Florida Panther was totally stripped of all the talent and had no cash reserve to dip into free agent. This kind of things is happening more often the last couple of years and I for one did the same thing the very first year I joined.

I think the Admin team is trying to bring parity among each team which is always good in the long run.

I agree with the intent and purpose of the new rule, I really do. It's just thatI don't agree with the timing and I think its unfair to handicap the GM's in question at the exact moment in time.

 

[Dryden]

Brock I think your taking this whole thing a little too personally. What I think you should do is step and lookat things from the other side of the fence. Look at the admin guys who have invested a lot of hard work, time and energy to make this a fun place for us to enjoy the world of hockey and have some fun. Picture trying to have a league run where everyone is competitive and people enjoy what is going. The teams involved are all operating at their best abilities. Now look at the reality of what the HFNHL has become: teams dumping players to secure a high lottery pick and all-star teams created for the chosen few who can afford it. Are you part of this...NO I don't think so. Are you the answer to the problem. Looks like your trying to be. But by crying about time I think you've just caused a bigger problem. I've noticed in the year and a half that I've been in here that some people live and breathe HFNHL and are totally devoted to making it work. I play within their rules and respect what they have put forth. No one is saying you don't have a voice but I don't think that rule was etched in stone either. My take is that it was put there to stop teams from not having a playable roster. I personally can not believe that there is a team with no goalie. Something like this should never happen and something needed to be done about it. I'm totally in favor of protecting the integrity of the league and think its great that those in power took the time to do it.

While I agree its horrible that your caught up in this and that you have improved the team considerably I also believe that those who think its great to tank should be punished. I also believe that those who try to improve themselves throughout the season but don't quite make it should not be punished. So keep trying to improve your team and don't let the restriction of time be an issue. JUST DO IT!

Now as for me finishing 5th last. I know you were not around last year so I'll let that slide. But I'd like to inform you that 3/4ths of the players on my roster were not there when I inherited this team. All I had to work with was Thibault, Viktor Kozlov and Jochen Hect. Those were the only players above 70 OV. A little tinkering, a couple of signings and a bunch of trades have turned me into something to work with and I guarentee that I will make the playoffs baring any injuries and I still have some prospects available to fill holes. Yours is probably a different route that can be taken and I'm sure all your research and time will payoff. That was just not my route. While you guys were drafting players this year I was enjoying the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal. Not one draft pick in the first 4 rounds. Who did I get Tanguay, Todd Simpson and Arvedson in return. Players that are needed now, not some I hope this guy pans out takes 3 years for him to get good prospect.

Well like I and others have said I don't think the problem is you...but others who have spoiled it for all of us.

With that said I am not writing any more on this.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I agree with the intent and purpose of the new rule, I really do. It's just thatI don't agree with the timing and I think its unfair to handicap the GM's in question at the exact moment in time.

You're simply not that far from a 66 OV Brock. You can easily get there without compromising your strategy, especially given you have literally months to do it.

 

[Ohio Jones]

My question remains, why was ALL my trades approved if this was something you where already talking about? Since ALL my trades so far has been APPROVED I cant see why I should be punished now?

Finally can somoeone please explain to me how I can get the free agents that are still out there WITHOUT overpaying? This rule change means I need to get better players and how can I be sure to get them unless I overpay? Is it in the leagues best intrest that guys like Nylander, Friesen and Nabokov will have a salary that might be close to the one Recchi has?

I have said it before and I will say it again. I dont think its fair to come up with a rule change TWO days prior to the season starts. I accept a rule before the 04/05 season however since that is enough time to get those players.

1) As was previously mentioned, Martin, your trades (among others) had been approved on an individual basis because an argument could be made for them - again, individually - and because as a veteran GM you were not being held to the same exacting standard that a rookie is held to. Perhaps that's my mistake. Collectively, the result of these deals has been that Tampa has few quality assets remaining, but with little improvement to the system (in prospects or picks) to show for it, ever mind getting NHL-ready players back. However, I'm sure you'll recall that this is not the first you've heard of your moves causing concern - it's been raised directly with you on multiple occassions.

2) The Free Agents you list are all RFAs, and no, I don't expect too many teams to dive into the RFA market - it almost never happens in the NHL for a reason, and the few times it's happened in the HFNHL it's been teams with a lot of cash and depth feeling they could afford to take the hit to a) sign an RFA to a sufficiently imposing contract, and b) give up the compensation picks necessary. (Washington, I'm sure, is still stinging from the 3 firsts I gave up for JP Dumont in one of my more stupid moves in the league...). RFAs, however, are not the only source of players available to you. Try a trade. Try showing willingness to pay a player more than $450K (and no, I'm not suggesting you pick up a bunch of overpaid guys). There are even a few UFAs still available who, while not necessarily 70+ players, would be a significant improvement on some of your current roster. Just some thoughts - call me crazy.

3) Would I have preferred if we had come to this decision before Free Agency and the Waiver Draft? Sure. Frankly, I wish we'd thought of it three years ago. But the rule being put in place now still gives GMs time to do their GM thing and restore some semblance of reality to their teams without gutting their system or their bank account.

 

[Ohio Jones]

I think that fairness requires some kind of phase-in period for any rule changes. I also think that, while the point of having an admin team is to discuss issues in a smaller and more manageable group, and I'm very appreciative of all the hard work they put in to make this league work, they might want to let us know a little sooner when they believe there's an issue that is threatening the integrity of the league.

If you really want to stop the fire sales, you need some combination of:
(a) the proposed OV rating requirement, but with stiffer penalties -- perhaps financial as well as draft position or lottery eligibility
(b) some kind of adjustment to the financial system
(c) the 2 year prospect limit
(d) a limit on the number of 1st round draft picks a team can acquire (presumably with an exception for FA compensation)
(e) stricter trade review
(f) ?

I'm not saying all of these are necessary or advisable, but to really get at the problem (assuming it is a problem), you need more than the proposed rule.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions, Jim. Where have you boys been lately?

I apologize if our concern about the tanking situation comes as a surprise to some of you - it was certainly not meant to be a secret. Perhaps we should revisit the extent to which we discuss issues among the admin team before bringing them to the league as a whole for consideration.

Regarding your suggestions, while your comments about the value of relative dratf position are well taken, I'm personally disinclined to introduce stiffer penalties, for the simple reaosn that historically we've found that the GMs that most frequently end up having penalties imposed on them for non-compliance with league rules usually end up quitting (or being fired), and if their team has in the meantime endured a number of fines and other penalties, the team's weak position will be made worse, thus making it even harder to find a willing replacement GM, and then (as Brock has found) making that GM's job even harder.

In fact, that's the very reason I ended up with Columbus - the previous GM lost his draft picks in 2001 due to his failure to show up to the draft or submit a list. It was my own rule, and in retrospect it didn't work very well. The two teams who suffered that penalty that year, Columbus and Edmonton, promptly lost their GMs, while the new GMs had to deal with a team that had made no draft selections that year. The next player available during Columbus's selection would have been Stphen Weiss - granted, he hasn't been an impact player yet, but the Columbus depth chart would have looked a lot better had a player of Weiss' potential been sitting on it when I took over!

In fact, there are a number of considerations we have introduced over the years to address more of these considerations you mention. The "teams are keeping quality players on their prospect lists too long" issue was raised back when I was Commish, and was addressed by applying a $50,000 surcharge to teams for each prospect they kept unsigned for more than two years. This has had some success in getting teams to, as it were, "fish or cut bait" on prospects earlier than they used to. That said, perhaps it hasn't gone far enough, but we were trying to balance the consideration that a) many prospect take more than a couple of years to become usable pros, even in the minors, and b) we didn't want to unnecessarily double the number of players in the league for the sim manager to have to enter (manually, in case you weren't aware - every player file, every ratings change has to be entered manually, one rating at a time).

Every time - EVERY time - we have tried to impose stricter trade review, we have received massive push-back from the GMs involved. This is the same debate as in public justice - what is the balance between maintaining civil liberties and preserving public safety? Ironically, some of those that have fought back hardest on this point are the GMs who, over the years, have managed to consistently make poor decisions regarding their teams... I'm not naming names!

I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of some kind of financial adjustment - we have introduced the new endorsement structure as a means of helping teams improve their financial position through prudent management. If you could give an example of the kind of thing you were thinking of, and how it might help?

The proposal to limit a team's first rounders is interesting, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. Historically, I believe the team with the most first-rounders in a single year was Ottawa, who (as now) was considered a favourite to win the Eastern Conference. In fact, if I recall correctly, Steve followed that year up with another multiple-first draft... So it's not as though it's only those teams that gut their rosters who are able to accumulate picks.


On an unrelated note, Jim, I've actually been meaning to ask you - what exactly do you and Stan have in mind for the Coyotes? Your roster has undergone comparitively little change over the past few years, and I've watched as your available talent has waned to the point where you have an all-star first line, an elite starting netminder and then... what? I figured you guys would have gone through a rebuilding process yourselves long since, but you've held off, so I was just wondering what you had in mind?

Curiously yours,

D

 

[kasper11]

Some thoughts from me:

1) This is not meant to single any team out, least of all you Brock. We know that some teams have inherited tough circumstances, every single one of us on the admin team feel strongly that this is important.
2) This has happened in the past, but never to this extent. There are about 5 teams out there right now that cannot put together a complete line of regular NHL players. Plus, from looking at other situations and talking to other teams, there could be another 5 or so in the next year. This is one of the reasons for us wanting to get something in place immediately.
3) For the most part, the teams that we are most worried about don't even have any young NHL players or NHL ready prospects, meaning that the turnarounds will not be quick.
4) There has been definate talk from several gms (who will remain nameless) about putting together a team bad enough to get Ovechkin, and I see no reason to think that it would lessen next year with Crosby. I am not saying that every team that is in this situation is tanking, but there are definately some instances where teams that are rebuilding anyway are taking it further to try and get the top pick.

Before someone thinks that I am being hipocritical since my team finished last overall last year, I would like to point out that I held onto several young NHLers and picked up alot of prospects who were NHL ready, ensuring that I would not be in a bad situation for long. I finished 9th the season before, and expect to finish around 10th this season and make the playoffs next. Also, when I began rebuilding, there was only 1 other team following a similar path.

That being said, I move that we table the conversation for the next couple of days. Most people have had their say, and I would like to wait and see what Matt has to say, since he is the commish. He is away for a few days I believe, so lets let him get back and comment.

Rich

 

[Phoenix AGM]

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions, Jim. Where have you boys been lately?

Appreciate the response -- I thought about staying out of this one completely, but my nosiness got the better of me. Regrettably I've been out of town for the last two drafts (entry and waiver), but the last was for a good cause (the Heritage Classic).

I apologize if our concern about the tanking situation comes as a surprise to some of you - it was certainly not meant to be a secret. Perhaps we should revisit the extent to which we discuss issues among the admin team before bringing them to the league as a whole for consideration.

Maybe a semi-annual message board topic or something about "Issues the Admin Team is Looking At" or something. Nothing major -- I'm not proposing any more work for people. But there have been some ideas here that might have been useful several months ago, and if nothing else, sometimes just the process matters.

Regarding your suggestions, while your comments about the value of relative dratf position are well taken, I'm personally disinclined to introduce stiffer penalties, for the simple reaosn that historically we've found that the GMs that most frequently end up having penalties imposed on them for non-compliance with league rules usually end up quitting (or being fired), and if their team has in the meantime endured a number of fines and other penalties, the team's weak position will be made worse, thus making it even harder to find a willing replacement GM, and then (as Brock has found) making that GM's job even harder.

Yeah, fair point -- that's always a paradox. My only comment is that removal of a GM is the ultimate sanction, so punishing the team beyond that is fruitless, and lesser sanctions won't dissuade owners who are blatantly ignoring their duties. Conversely, owners who are tanking are by definition hoping to be around in a few years, so they would be responsive to such penalties.

Re issues with limiting the prospect list: I hear you on this as well. I'm just thinking of ways to reduce the effectiveness of the "tank now, win later" strategy.

Every time - EVERY time - we have tried to impose stricter trade review, we have received massive push-back from the GMs involved. This is the same debate as in public justice - what is the balance between maintaining civil liberties and preserving public safety? Ironically, some of those that have fought back hardest on this point are the GMs who, over the years, have managed to consistently make poor decisions regarding their teams... I'm not naming names!

Without wading into the even thornier debate you allude to, I'll just say that I'm a big believer in trade review. Leagues shouldn't degenerate into a game of "find-the-sucker."

I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of some kind of financial adjustment - we have introduced the new endorsement structure as a means of helping teams improve their financial position through prudent management. If you could give an example of the kind of thing you were thinking of, and how it might help?

I'm just thinking of addressing the problem Hasnain (sp?) has pointed out -- that lousy teams can still make money. The endorsement deals are clearly a step in the right direction, though I would eliminate the upfront committment so it's less of a gamble. Other possibilities are having local TV contracts or merchandising revenue that are linked to team quality and/or results.

Brief digression here... I run a baseball sim league, and our simulator includes a "fan interest" factor that has a big impact on attendance and therefore revenue. Fan interest is heavily influenced by competitiveness for a playoff spot, and carries over from year to year. I don't know enough about the fhl sim, but something that accomplishes that result would be welcome.

The proposal to limit a team's first rounders is interesting, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. Historically, I believe the team with the most first-rounders in a single year was Ottawa, who (as now) was considered a favourite to win the Eastern Conference. In fact, if I recall correctly, Steve followed that year up with another multiple-first draft... So it's not as though it's only those teams that gut their rosters who are able to accumulate picks.

Fair enough, I'm not a big believer in this one. Just brainstorming for ways of making it harder to reap the rewards of a fire sale.

On an unrelated note, Jim, I've actually been meaning to ask you - what exactly do you and Stan have in mind for the Coyotes? Your roster has undergone comparitively little change over the past few years, and I've watched as your available talent has waned to the point where you have an all-star first line, an elite starting netminder and then... what? I figured you guys would have gone through a rebuilding process yourselves long since, but you've held off, so I was just wondering what you had in mind?

Don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll discuss it with you via email if you like. I will say, though, that we have found it hard to make the deals we have wanted to make (trading stars for depth) in a league where teams are either gunning for the title (and thus unwilling to part with depth) or "rebuilding" (and thus uninterested in acquiring stars). So believe me, I share the admin team's concern. On the other hand, it's a little disconcerting that we won't be allowed to do the same rebuilding process that other teams have used, though we'll adapt to whatever rules are in the league's best interests, of course.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Brief digression here... I run a baseball sim league, and our simulator includes a "fan interest" factor that has a big impact on attendance and therefore revenue. Fan interest is heavily influenced by competitiveness for a playoff spot, and carries over from year to year. I don't know enough about the fhl sim, but something that accomplishes that result would be welcome.

The FHL Sim includes winning and star power in it's determination of attendance (among other things). One of the naive things teams will begin to realize is that you don't make a ton of money when you miss the playoffs. The real cash kings of the league are the teams that have consistently made the playoffs (and had a few upset wins), while maintaining a reasonable payroll.

The teams with AHL talent will have a tough time making $400,000-500,000 per game, or $15-$20 million in total revenue. As a result, they might make $5 - $10 million in a year, but only if they have a payroll of $10-12 million, when other playoff teams (my Blues and the Kings as examples), have pulled in $15 - 420 million in profits in a given year because of playoff revenues (which can give you $1 million in pure profit per game).

It pays to be competitive.

 

[HFNHL Red Wings]

It does indeed appear that there is a fan interest factor. We had always believed attendance was impacted by winning/losing streaks. Last year there was so much interest in trying to understand the Sim's revenue model that I was paying more attention thatn usual. The winning/losing streak factor is not the true factor but in truth it is your team's winning percentage and/or conference rank. I watched a few select teams attendance as the season progressed and saw revenue rise and fall on two teams that had roller coaster seasons as far as the standings goes and can confirm that while their ticket price and talent level remained relatively constant attendance did change as their winning percentage increased.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

Folks, I'm smack in the middle of a week and a half-long vacation, so this whole mess clearly could've come at a better time...

First off, I'd like to state that part of me is glad to see the numbers of replies this thread has received. That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the content of all of the replies, but it's good to see so many people getting involved.

Unfortunately, discussions in a forum such as this always seem to break down at some point and get a little personal. With that in mind, it's important for everyone to understand that, while it could have been communicated better, these rule changes are LONG overdue and aren't being brought about to pick on certain GMs...least of all some of our newer GMs who have by and large done good jobs in turning their respective teams around (or at least pointing them in the right direction).

A lot of you have offered up suggestions and alternatives of your own, and they are appreciated and have been noted. While I don't have the time right now to go back and address every issue that has been brought up, I do want to respond quickly to the notion that the trade reviewing process could be stricter.

When I first took over as Commissioner, and Rich Epstein was serving as DoPP, we fought more than our share of battles with GMs over intervening in trade proceedings. In most cases, GMs were simply asked to tweak deals a little in order to gain approval. However, there were several instances where things got rather ugly. It wasn't fair for Rich to have to go through that then, and I won't ask Douglas to go through that now. It sucks the fun right out of the game. At this point, it's my opinion that the DoPP's job should be to call into question trades that are rather obviously lopsided, and that's it. Anything beyond that and we probably ought to be taking a closer look at the individual GM to see whether or not he really has his team's best interests at heart.

That little bit of editorial commentary aside, I want to touch on the "Average OV Rating" rule briefly.

I'll be the 15th person in this thread to admit that the timing of this announcement could've been better. However, considering that the All-Star break doesn't come for another 3-4 months, I think that issue's been overblown. We're not talking about having an average 66 OV for your entire roster, people. As Nick stated in the first post, we're only looking for teams to have a STARTING ROSTER (12F, 6D, 2G) averaging 66 OV.

Folks, that's nothing. There are some truly marginal players that could be had for low draft picks that have 66+ OV ratings. Most of you who are concerned about this rule probably could take care of things by dropping two or three 60 OV rated players from your starting roster and adding 67-68 OV players in their place. No one's realistically going to have to tear their team apart to get a hold of a few legitimate depth players.

That's my piece for the moment. Again, the timing's bad, we're all aware of that. But let's not blow the situation out of proportion...we're simply asking teams to put together a roster that can play marginally competitive hockey.

 

[Tampa GM]

We are almost 10 games into this season and so far I havent heard the final answer on this rule change. 1) Will it happen 2) What will happen if a team has under 66 oV? How many draft spots will they lose?

 

[HFNHL Red Wings]

We are almost 10 games into this season and so far I havent heard the final answer on this rule change. 1) Will it happen 2) What will happen if a team has under 66 oV? How many draft spots will they lose?

The rule is definitely in effect but you are right, after many deliberations, the penalty amount has not been finalized. I believe the draft position penalty is definitely in but the number of positions is TBD. I'm pretty sure the draft lottery change is on hold (ie as long as things don't get ridiculous and the draft penalty is a sufficient deterent it need not apply). There was also some talk of simply replacing the GM's.
Only Matt however can say exactly what the penalties will be.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

The rule is definitely in effect but you are right, after many deliberations, the penalty amount has not been finalized. I believe the draft position penalty is definitely in but the number of positions is TBD. I'm pretty sure the draft lottery change is on hold (ie as long as things don't get ridiculous and the draft penalty is a sufficient deterent it need not apply). There was also some talk of simply replacing the GM's.
Only Matt however can say exactly what the penalties will be.

To close the book on this issue, any changes to the draft lottery are indeed on hold.

As for the "draft position penalty", the penalty amount will be two positions for every point that a team is under the average OV requirement.