... and your nominees are ...

[The old geezer]

Gentlemen,
Hopefully I've got everyone but as it stands now your nominees for the 2 Admin Team Consultant roles are (in alpha order) Abbas, Adil, Brock, Sean K., and Ville.
A few nominated Tony as well but as I recall he indicated he didn't believe he would have the time to comit. Correct me if I'm wrong Tony.

So now you, the nominees, are free to lobby for our votes. I will open the voting in a few days. As our nominees you are not just being selected because of your dedication to the league but you also represent a voice for the rest of us on the Admin team so you may wish to include in your lobbying info on how you would vote, what you would look to change, etc.

As an example if I were lobbying for myself I might mention some things about acting for the good of the masses vs. my own teams interest and site some examples like championing the reduction in max org size despite the fact that it adversely impacted my team or some of the less popular things like minimum OV rules etc. that were a necessary evil for league health. Knowing how you stand on the 'issues' is important to us the voters

Sidenote: Did anyone else get their passwords and ID's changed? After years of being logged in and obvioulsy forgetting my password it was cleared from cache. While this stuff happens the odd thing when I requested my password the response e-mail had me with a username of Sim Mgr which I don't recall having ever used. Obviously I changed it.

Click to read more...

 

[SPG]

Wow, tough call. All of them are great candidates. I wish I could vote for all 5.

Strange - an election where there are too many good candidates rather than the opposite being true.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Rumours are circulating that HFNHL Super Agent Reggie Swingstein might have pre-empted the Admin vote by scooping up two of the most sought after executives available on the market to join forces at his agency. Sources would neither confirm nor deny if either of the candidates were on the aforementioned list, but there are reports they have already begun working with certain clients.

Details to follow.

 

[Hossa]

I should have replied to the last thread but forgot to (I actually thought I had, I almost responded saying that but thankfully checked first before putting my foot in my mouth).

I have to say though I don't know if I am a good candidate for this job, and considering the quality of the other candidates, I have to throw my support being them. This semester I'm writing my Honours Thesis which will keep me extremely busy. Furthermore, there's a decent chance I'll be abroad in the next year or so as well, maybe not in a situation where I have as consistent internet access as I had in Ghana.

Sorry I didn't do this in the last thread (I really thought I had :S), but thankfully we've got other strong candidates as well.

 

[Wildman]

My nomination goes for all for four. They are all exceptional candidate and will only do well for this league.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Hmm... if Sean is out of the running, and two of the remaining four are helping out Reggie, then I guess I vote for the remaining two?

All of them make worthy additions to the league - we're lucky in our membership, it just gets better every year.

FYI, I'm back in the swing of things, more or less - been tied up with some pressing personal stuff, but should be taking the reins again from Drew (thanks for filling in for me in my absence, Drew - you've done a better job with this team than I did, that's for sure!).

Now I have to decide whether to invest in a push for the playoffs, or start focusing on next year. It's early days, but offers on the table will help me decide.

So, if you have a immediate solution for my goaltending that doesn't put me over budget (and I very nearly am now), then drop me a line.

Conversely, if you think you'd have a place for Tom Poti or Craig Conroy for your own push (yes, I know - both FAs I signed this summer, so sue me!), drop me a line as well. I'm not certain how I intend to proceed, so the responses I get will help me make up my mind.

Best wishes to all for 2008, and thanks to everyone involved for all the great content the last few weeks. It's been an interesting read!

 

[Brock]

Honored to be nominated. I feel the nominees are all excellent choices.

I'll write up a little about me and why I should get your vote...

For those of you who don't know me that well. My name is Brock Otten. I'm enrolled in the Concurrent education program at Brock University, with an undergraduate degree in physical education. I'm in year 4 of 5 of my program. I used to write for Hockeysfuture for a couple years, when I aspired to be a journalist, but discovered that it wasn't for me. I've been posting on these boards since I was 12-13, which I'm not sure is sad or not...lol. I used watch CHL games in the mornings when I put together papers for my paper route. I remember watching Daniel Briere and Daniel Cleary, and I developed a real passion for junior hockey. I remember finding these boards when I was searching yahoo for information on Dan Cleary. I've been a part of the HFNHL for over 5 years now. I started out as the Assistant G.M. to Sean K in Vancouver for half a season (he's been posting at HF as long as I have, and he brought me into the league). After that, I took over the extremely horrific Florida Panthers franchise. With some good patience, I think I've really been able to turn the franchise around.

As to why I should get your vote.
1) I've been a part of the league longer than 2 out of the other 3 nominees (Ville has me beat there). Thus I've had longer to know how the league works and to be able to experience what has worked and what hasn't in the past 5 years.

2) I've always been very active with league write ups. I've done a draft preview and mock draft every year I've been in the league. I've done season previews the past couple years. I've done organizational rankings, prospect rankings. In doing so, I've been able to get a good read on each franchise and I know their strengths and weaknesses.

3) I've been active in league affairs the past year or so, with doing a lot of work on the ratings this offseason, and a little bit of work the year before.

What is my platform?
Quite frankly, I'm not to sure this league needs a lot of work. I'm in another league, and compared to the HFNHL, it's pathetic. The HFNHL is the more comprehensive FHL league out there, and we are all lucky to be a part of it. We've got a significant amount of active GM's who are passionate about their teams. Most of all, all of these GM's are great guys and easy to talk to.

The main thing we need to continue doing is being flexible and innovative. The Admin team in the past has come up with some outstanding ways to improve the league, such as the endorsement deals, minimum OV requirements, and the use of Reggie the player agent. I think we as the admin, have to continue to be on the balls of our feet, and have to continue to create new aspects to this league which further it's enjoyment.

The two most critical things that I would stand for would be, trying to get the next season started in time with the NHL season, and enforcing greater trade regulation. In starting on time, I think we can try to get the ratings done a little earlier this year, and have everything in place. This season we started as early as I can remember the HFNHL starting. Next season, let's try to beat that. I'm willing to put in the work necessary to meet deadlines. In terms of trade regulation, I mean to say that I think some trades that have been happening recently haven't made a lot of sense. I'm not saying that these trades should be reversed without warning, but that in cases of trades, the G.M. should have to state their side of the story and explain why these deals help their clubs.

One thing that I do stand firmly against is raising the minimum OV to higher than it already is. I do think that the minimum OV is a necessary evil and is outstanding for our league. It prevents teams from being filled with more AHL players than NHL players, and a real competition for first overall pick. That being said, I think the min OV, where it stands now, does this sufficiently. If we were to raise the OV, I think that it would severely handicap a team who is looking to rebuild, and really force their hand in trading. As someone who's had to completely rebuild their franchise, I completely understand the commitment it takes. I think that if we raised the Min OV further, it would almost wipe out the "rebuild" from team strategy. This would not be consistent with the NHL, because as we know, teams who are struggling, do choose to rebuild (ala Gretz and the Coyotes as one example).

That's all, and good luck to all the nominees.

 

[Wildman]

Honored to be nominated. I feel the nominees are all excellent choices.

One thing that I do stand firmly against is raising the minimum OV to higher than it already is. I do think that the minimum OV is a necessary evil and is outstanding for our league. It prevents teams from being filled with more AHL players than NHL players, and a real competition for first overall pick. That being said, I think the min OV, where it stands now, does this sufficiently. If we were to raise the OV, I think that it would severely handicap a team who is looking to rebuild, and really force their hand in trading. As someone who's had to completely rebuild their franchise, I completely understand the commitment it takes. I think that if we raised the Min OV further, it would almost wipe out the "rebuild" from team strategy. This would not be consistent with the NHL, because as we know, teams who are struggling, do choose to rebuild (ala Gretz and the Coyotes as one example).

That's all, and good luck to all the nominees.

Brock, it is nice to raise the overall OV and have parity around the league. However, in order for teams to be competitive, they need cash and pool of UFA has to be higher than what we currently see. The problem I see here is that half of the teams are in such a state that they cannot bid on any free agent (Atlanta, Montreal, Phoenix) and the other half has been taking advantage by including cash along with the deal and dumping salary of mediocre player.

I thiink we need to seriously look at the revenue factor and I understand the arguements against raising the meter in previous years. However, now with the hard cap in place, every team should be given an equal opportunity to be creative and competitive.

As for the incentives, most of them are tailored for teams who are in the playoffs hunt and does not work for rebuilding teams.

The other way to bring parity is to introduce salary arbitration just like we see in the NHL or lower the UFA to NHL level. I am sure Colorado woudn't mind paying Crosby the max

 

[The old geezer]

Great write up Brock.

Reggie - even in abstentia you're messing with me. Please e-mail as to what's going on if the proposed Admin Team size needs to be changed or ... well just e-mail me.

Douglas welcome back. Before worrying about goalies you might start with trying some non-standard d-pairing combinations. Now that the offence is ticking fairly consistently (2nd highest in the league) I think the dmen pairings need to be focussed on as I think they are more to blame for that horrible goals against than the goalies. I was literally planning on tackling that next but then saw your message.

 

[SPG]

The two most critical things that I would stand for would be, trying to get the next season started in time with the NHL season, and enforcing greater trade regulation. In starting on time, I think we can try to get the ratings done a little earlier this year, and have everything in place. This season we started as early as I can remember the HFNHL starting. Next season, let's try to beat that. I'm willing to put in the work necessary to meet deadlines. In terms of trade regulation, I mean to say that I think some trades that have been happening recently haven't made a lot of sense. I'm not saying that these trades should be reversed without warning, but that in cases of trades, the G.M. should have to state their side of the story and explain why these deals help their clubs.

Great points. These are both things we've talked about in the past but still need some work on getting us toward where we want to be. I'm certainly willing to chip in again with all the offseason work like I did last summer. The ratings package is always what holds us up. If we can get that straight by mid-August we'll be right on target next year.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

If you vote for me I promise lower taxes, more jobs and a safer future for you and you're children

Seriously though, regardless of who gets on the admin team this may be a good opportunity to talk about potential improvements and take some suggestions.

1) There seems to be a lot of people who are looking to get into this league, so maybe we can put together a sign-up sheet and post up some names of who's expressed interest along with a short resume of sorts. I'm thinking a lot of GM's wouldn't mind contracting out a volunteer to help out with drafting or as a consultant regarding prospects. Another option would be if a GM misses a draft then we could at least let a volunteer draft for the team rather then go with the highest CSS... usually it hurts the incumbant GM when we draft highest CSS (I know it killed us when we first started in this league since we got stuck with some pretty bad 1st round drafting before we joined)

2) I think a lot struggling teams are a legacy from a previous GM who has left bare cupboards for the new GM... but that is part of the fun of this league. Once Ryan gets the thrashers back into line that will be an accomplishment almost as valuable as the cup That being said, the idea behind the minimum OV rule is to ensure the league remains competitive which is important to the health of this league and therefore minimum OV should be strictly governed based on the average OV of the league. In general, OV's have been increasing for a lot of low-end players and as that average OV increases the league has to correspondingly increase the minimum OV. Keep in mind, with the salary cap restrictions in place salaries will even out soon and the cost of fielding a minimum OV team will go down. If a GM has inherrited a team that needs help we should give them that help, but the minimum OV should not be the means of that help... I'd rather go with one-time cash infusions and keep the minimum OV competitive.

3) I hardily agree that the HFNHL season needs to start on time and this is a function of time constraints. I think as long as we invite participation early on in the off season (When some GM's and AGM's like myself) are looking for some hockey stuff to do we can accomplish this. The big hold-up with staring seasons has always been the re-rating, rating challenges and the data entry. Now, I know we can't change the data entry part, but rating challenges and re-ratings can be adjusted somewhat to reduce time. I personally like the idea of keeping rating challenges from the previous year which avoids the need for someone to rechallenge a rating... this would reduce the overall number of challenges needed. I've always been a fan of creating our own ratings too, however I don't know if everyone would agree on a single formula... I like the idea of combining the formula with a minimum DF rating that's done maybe once every 3 years... this would elminate alot of time during rerates and DF's shouldnt' be changing radically anyways between years. Another option would be to stick to the DVHL ratings and allow for challenges as soon as the DVHL ratings are released... I have to say to that Ville handled our challenges and I thought he did a phenomenal job.

I like the idea of starting this discussion regarding ratings early and seeing if any agreement can be had. Either way, we can eliminate alot of this delay by eliminating re-rates and allowing only challenges or moving to our own system that doesn't require re-rates or challanges.

4) Regarding trades, there's a good forum setup in the blog system to allow for comments regarding trade fairness and that's a good method to provide GM's feedback on trade they've made. Keep in mind that trading is a vital part of this league and leway should be allowed to teams to make trades they feel are important for their team. I remember last year when OTT traded for Berard and there was some objections, however they did win the cup with him

5) I really enjoy the trade deadline and draft chat sessions. It would be nice if we could do more of these chat sessions more often since they are a lot of fun, but I realize their's not usually time for a lot of GM's to get to gether at the same time. Maybe we should consider holding the rounds 4-7 in chat format as well and allow teams to submit lists if they don't want to attend the draft or maybe allow a stand-in volunteer disgnated by the GM if they have time constraints? Another idea would be a UFA chat session... the logistics behind this might be complicated but who knows, if we can work something out it might be fun.

 

[TorontoGM]

The Candidates listed above are all very good, and the 2 that are chosen will be an asset to the HFNHL.

I unfortunately will have to withdraw myself, as I am one of two new employees at Swingstein Enterprises.

As a side note who currently sits on the Admin Team?

 

[Fan.At]

Just throwing out an idea, kinda off topic: since adil mentioned that a lot of people want to join the league, what about making an HFAHL? with real farm teams? would be fun - although a lot of new people would be required for all the teams and probably admins for the minor league as well...

 

[SPG]

Just throwing out an idea, kinda off topic: since adil mentioned that a lot of people want to join the league, what about making an HFAHL? with real farm teams? would be fun - although a lot of new people would be required for all the teams and probably admins for the minor league as well...

The HFAHL actually did exist at one time and is something a few of us league vets would rather forget

We gave it a good effort, but it ended up being a nightmare admin wise. Its something I'd rather not revisit. It's a great idea in theory, but its just not practical.

 

[SPG]

2) I think a lot struggling teams are a legacy from a previous GM who has left bare cupboards for the new GM... but that is part of the fun of this league. Once Ryan gets the thrashers back into line that will be an accomplishment almost as valuable as the cup That being said, the idea behind the minimum OV rule is to ensure the league remains competitive which is important to the health of this league and therefore minimum OV should be strictly governed based on the average OV of the league. In general, OV's have been increasing for a lot of low-end players and as that average OV increases the league has to correspondingly increase the minimum OV. Keep in mind, with the salary cap restrictions in place salaries will even out soon and the cost of fielding a minimum OV team will go down. If a GM has inherrited a team that needs help we should give them that help, but the minimum OV should not be the means of that help... I'd rather go with one-time cash infusions and keep the minimum OV competitive.

I don't think it would be a bad thing to evaluate our minimum OV rating on a year to year basis, based on some percentage of our average ratings. I've been against raising this in the past, but it does make sense if we base it on our current rating set. I wholehartedly and strongly agree that we should start giving GMs who take over financially strapped teams (ahem... Atlanta) some kind of one time cash infusion.

3) I hardily agree that the HFNHL season needs to start on time and this is a function of time constraints. I think as long as we invite participation early on in the off season (When some GM's and AGM's like myself) are looking for some hockey stuff to do we can accomplish this. The big hold-up with staring seasons has always been the re-rating, rating challenges and the data entry. Now, I know we can't change the data entry part, but rating challenges and re-ratings can be adjusted somewhat to reduce time. I personally like the idea of keeping rating challenges from the previous year which avoids the need for someone to rechallenge a rating... this would reduce the overall number of challenges needed. I've always been a fan of creating our own ratings too, however I don't know if everyone would agree on a single formula... I like the idea of combining the formula with a minimum DF rating that's done maybe once every 3 years... this would elminate alot of time during rerates and DF's shouldnt' be changing radically anyways between years. Another option would be to stick to the DVHL ratings and allow for challenges as soon as the DVHL ratings are released... I have to say to that Ville handled our challenges and I thought he did a phenomenal job.

Agree with you on these points. We should start developing our rating set as soon as the DVHL ratings are available. Ratings have been the main holdup. Data entry wasn't really that big a problem for me last year (I was able to punch in all the ratings within a couple days), but has been in the past, just because of time constraints. The way things are looking, and its still a ways away so things should change, I should be able to handle this again this year. The ratings import went smoother than ever last offseason. And I also agree that Ville and company did a great job with challenges.

I like the idea of starting this discussion regarding ratings early and seeing if any agreement can be had. Either way, we can eliminate alot of this delay by eliminating re-rates and allowing only challenges or moving to our own system that doesn't require re-rates or challanges.

I think keeping rerates/challenges in place wouldn't be a problem if we get our ratings set ready well before we have been.

4) Regarding trades, there's a good forum setup in the blog system to allow for comments regarding trade fairness and that's a good method to provide GM's feedback on trade they've made. Keep in mind that trading is a vital part of this league and leway should be allowed to teams to make trades they feel are important for their team. I remember last year when OTT traded for Berard and there was some objections, however they did win the cup with him

Agree to an extent, but I also think that we should be more strict on trades. If a deal is questioned and a GM presents a valid argument, then no problem...

5) I really enjoy the trade deadline and draft chat sessions. It would be nice if we could do more of these chat sessions more often since they are a lot of fun, but I realize their's not usually time for a lot of GM's to get to gether at the same time. Maybe we should consider holding the rounds 4-7 in chat format as well and allow teams to submit lists if they don't want to attend the draft or maybe allow a stand-in volunteer disgnated by the GM if they have time constraints? Another idea would be a UFA chat session... the logistics behind this might be complicated but who knows, if we can work something out it might be fun.

I agree on the chat sessions. It would be nice to have these more regularly. We still need to get a stable chat client running. I know we used Mike's last year, maybe he can help us get something similar going for our league.

I think there would be logistics issues with holding rounds 4-7 in a chat, buts its definitely worth some discussion. It would eliminate the extra work for Matt combing through the whole league's draft lists, but there could be issues elsewhere. The fact that we have GMs from all over the world always makes things interesting when planning meetings like the draft. The first three rounds take several hours and I can only imagine how long those extra four rounds would take - even if they were scheduled at a different day/time. We're always up against the NHL draft date as our deadline, and it might be tough to schedule a meeting for round 1-3 and then the remainder of the draft before the NHL draft (and after our playoffs) without making them too early for GMs to gather their draft publications, etc.

All in all, greats points and great discussion.

 

[The old geezer]

We're really getting off track for this thread, that Reggie guy derailed it , but on the OV I agree with Sean that it should be revisited. When it was set we used a different base rating set but these DVHL ratings have been way too high and so the current rating has lost any merit. The spread between a good AHL'er and a star is way too narrow but that's for our new Admin team to sort out.

 

[SPG]

We're really getting off track for this thread, that Reggie guy derailed it , but on the OV I agree with Sean that it should be revisited. When it was set we used a different base rating set but these DVHL ratings have been way too high and so the current rating has lost any merit. The spread between a good AHL'er and a star is way too narrow but that's for our new Admin team to sort out.

Yeah, it has gotten off track, but its a good discussion nonetheless. On the OV topic, we can go back to the archived rosters from a couple seasons ago, figure out what the average rating was and what percentage our old minimum overall was of that average, and apply that percentage to our average OV going forward from season to season. We'd come up with a number thats on par with what we originally used.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

I think keeping rerates/challenges in place wouldn't be a problem if we get our ratings set ready well before we have been.

The more I think on this the more I wonder if rerates are better then challenges... the only thing that rerates provides is a correction on some of the higher ratings provided by DVHL, however I don't know if this is necessarily a problem considering they will be spread across the entire league anyways. Challenges moves the work of re-rating to the GM's themselves who already have a good understanding of their players and if the challanges are limited, these GM's will be careful how they use them.

I agree on the chat sessions. It would be nice to have these more regularly. We still need to get a stable chat client running. I know we used Mike's last year, maybe he can help us get something similar going for our league.

I think there would be logistics issues with holding rounds 4-7 in a chat, buts its definitely worth some discussion. It would eliminate the extra work for Matt combing through the whole league's draft lists, but there could be issues elsewhere. The fact that we have GMs from all over the world always makes things interesting when planning meetings like the draft. The first three rounds take several hours and I can only imagine how long those extra four rounds would take - even if they were scheduled at a different day/time. We're always up against the NHL draft date as our deadline, and it might be tough to schedule a meeting for round 1-3 and then the remainder of the draft before the NHL draft (and after our playoffs) without making them too early for GMs to gather their draft publications, etc.

We could give teams the option of either showing up, lettign some else draft for them (maybe a volunteer applicant?) or taking the highest person from their draft list. This would help Matt out since he doesn't have to be the only one combing through other peoples draft lists...

I think the better option for another yearly chat session would be UFA season, since that would be a lot of fun I think and a lot easier for teams on signing UFA's... plus, it might be nicer if the chat sessions are more spread appart

 

[Ville Isopaa]

Just throwing out an idea, kinda off topic: since adil mentioned that a lot of people want to join the league, what about making an HFAHL? with real farm teams? would be fun - although a lot of new people would be required for all the teams and probably admins for the minor league as well...

That's actually where I started out, running Hersey as the AHL affiliate of Colorado. It didn't work very good, as some NHL teams signed players for the AHL teams while other weren't as lucky to have such generous HFNHL GM's. Almost all trades went via the HFNHL team GM, so very little could be done by the HFAHL GM's. I hope we don't bring that to the league anymore..

Other than that, I'll join the Admin discussion tomorrow with a presentation of some ideas I have about the league.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

I thiink we need to seriously look at the revenue factor and I understand the arguements against raising the meter in previous years. However, now with the hard cap in place, every team should be given an equal opportunity to be creative and competitive.

I agree with Hasnain that the revenue factor has to be taken into account now that the cap is in effect. I know the financial aspects of the game are critical, however most NHL teams have the option to buy out player contracts every now and then and many field high-payroll's while still rebuilding. If you look at the NHL today, only 2 teams are below 40M (PHX and NAS) and only 10 teams are below 45M, and 6 teams are above 50M... and remember that's cap space with long term injury exemptions taken into account. I'm not saying we play with the revenue factor, but we should consider alternate forms of adjusting revenue... such as the 4.4M offset from last year which was a good idea IMO

As for the incentives, most of them are tailored for teams who are in the playoffs hunt and does not work for rebuilding teams.

Again, another good point... this goes along with what Sean and I have been saying about cash infusions... if we provided incentives to rebuilding teams then cash infusions may not be necessary... the problem becomes what incentives will provide rebuilding teams revenue while still allowing them to rebuid? The mountain dew is successful to a certain point, but what do you do with the rebuilding team that doesn't have any prospects? Either way, the incentive structure does seem to reward the good teams and punish the poor teams in its current state

The other way to bring parity is to introduce salary arbitration just like we see in the NHL or lower the UFA to NHL level. I am sure Colorado woudn't mind paying Crosby the max

I think most of us would be happy paying max for Crosby

 

[Brock]

Again, another good point... this goes along with what Sean and I have been saying about cash infusions... if we provided incentives to rebuilding teams then cash infusions may not be necessary... the problem becomes what incentives will provide rebuilding teams revenue while still allowing them to rebuid? The mountain dew is successful to a certain point, but what do you do with the rebuilding team that doesn't have any prospects? Either way, the incentive structure does seem to reward the good teams and punish the poor teams in its current state

Adil, I think the reality is that rebuilding teams are always going to be in a tough position. I don't think in any sport, is the rebuilding process kind to the owners, the GM, or anyone else in a position of authority. The rebuilding phase is more a necessary evil, if you will. In the NHL, a team will go into rebuilding phase and quite often lose many fans, go through a G.M. and coaching change, and most likely lose much money. But you do it because you like to think that 3 years or 5 years down the road it will be worth it. You'll be winning again, the fans will return, the management will be stabilized, and you'll return to sound economic times.

Rebuilding isn't a kind phase to anyone involved. I don't think you can reward a team financially for rebuilding, because in reality that would not happen. We try to make this league as realistic and as close to the NHL as possible, and if we start throwing money around to teams who are rebuilding and encourage 'losing', well than I don't think that would resemble the NHL very much.

To me, the Mountain Dew endorsement, as well as the standing improvement endorsement are more than enough to help a rebuilding team get through some tougher times. It was enough for me. It was enough for the Canucks, Devils, Avs. And we did primarily without the help of endorsements, because those are a new introduction.

 

[SPG]

The other way to bring parity is to introduce salary arbitration just like we see in the NHL or lower the UFA to NHL level. I am sure Colorado woudn't mind paying Crosby the max

Lowering the UFA age to the NHL level is something that has been discussed, but decided against in the past. Our league is technically one year behind the NHL, which is why we have it at the age we do.

 

[Wildman]

Lowering the UFA age to the NHL level is something that has been discussed, but decided against in the past. Our league is technically one year behind the NHL, which is why we have it at the age we do.

I understand what you are saying but increasing overall OV will only create more problem with teams that have no cash and mediocre prospects. In my opinion, increasing the OV will only force team to make a unfavourable deals that will force them to take players like Lindros or Allison.

Brock you are referring to New Jersey, Buffallo, Carolina, and yourself. All of these teams had some value players, prospects and cash when they were rebuilding. The only team that I can think that was in similar position like Atlanta was Columbus which Doug took over and turned it around. Although, Columbus had some cash to acquire talent.

I don't have the solution for these problems but I don't want to see newer GM get frustrated and pressured to make deal that will hurt them the team in a long run.

 

[SPG]

I understand what you are saying but increasing overall OV will only create more problem with teams that have no cash and mediocre prospects. In my opinion, increasing the OV will only force team to make a unfavourable deals that will force them to take players like Lindros or Allison.

I'm not really advocating increasing the minimum OV, moreso making that minumum OV a dynamic number so it stays in line with what happens when our league's OV average increases or decreases.

 

[Hossa]

I understand what you are saying but increasing overall OV will only create more problem with teams that have no cash and mediocre prospects. In my opinion, increasing the OV will only force team to make a unfavourable deals that will force them to take players like Lindros or Allison.

Brock you are referring to New Jersey, Buffallo, Carolina, and yourself. All of these teams had some value players, prospects and cash when they were rebuilding. The only team that I can think that was in similar position like Atlanta was Columbus which Doug took over and turned it around. Although, Columbus had some cash to acquire talent.

I don't have the solution for these problems but I don't want to see newer GM get frustrated and pressured to make deal that will hurt them the team in a long run.

Actually you're wrong about Brock's team. I remember when he took over that team, it had little in the way of prospects, little cash and VERY little of value on the roster.

While my team when I took over wasn't quite as bad, it had ZERO prospects of any worth, ZERO draft picks and a financial mess. I did have older veterans of some value to trade away, but still, I built my team with smart drafting, and not just in the first round. THAT is in my opinion the best way out of the basement, is to build up a prospect base, and it's something any team can do. It's what Brock did, and when you build up a ton of mid round picks and use them wisely, you get depth, and you get trade assets.

Brock's Panthers began like the Thrashers now, and it was drafting, especially in the mid rounds, that made the difference.