Attention G.M.'s - RE: Prospect Signings

[Brock]

As we draw closer to beginning the season and as we continue to finish finalizing the ratings (I promise guys, we are really close), we the Admin team need your assistance.

Firstly, if you are planning on signing your prospects for the upcoming season and have yet to do so, we would like you to do this as soon as possible.

On a related note, if you are one of those GM's who has yet to sign a player from your prospect list you plan on signing for the upcoming season, we would like to know from you which of these prospects you do plan on signing, this way we can try to eliminate any extra work we don't need to do by rating a prospect who's not even going to get signed.

We do have a tentative list of players we 'expect' to be signed, but we can't read your minds (although we wish we could ).

SO could all G.M.'s please respond to this thread. We are going to use this as a roll call for the upcoming season as well.

Let us know if you've already signed all your prospects, if you don't plan on signing any, or the ones you do plan on signing but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Thanks guys.

Click to read more...

 

[Brock]

The Florida Panthers have finished signing their prospects for the upcoming season.

 

[Dryden]

Hawks have finished signing for the up coming season.

 

[kasper11]

O'Sullivan, Lapierre and Gervais were signed and are the only Devils prospects I intend to sign.

 

[HFNHL Canadiens]

Montreal is finished signing prospects

 

[Hossa]

Price, Letang, Krejci, Dawes, Callahan and Welch are all signed, and the Canucks are done.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Calgary many need to sing one of these two dmen, Andrej Sekera or Alex Picard.

Amongst the forwards: Steve Downie, Colin Stuart and Devin Setoguchi.

THANKS

Matthew

 

[Tampa GM]

Tampa Bay is all signed and ready

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

PIT is going to make offers to Milan Lucic and Peter Mueller.

 

[ThrashersGM]

If I wanted to Sign Voracek or Stamkos would they get ratings?

 

[Tampa GM]

If I wanted to Sign Voracek or Stamkos would they get ratings?

They will get ratings but that rating will be so low so it will not be worthwile to sign them. Wait until they have played one season the NHL and you will do alot better.

 

[Brock]

They will get ratings but that rating will be so low so it will not be worthwile to sign them. Wait until they have played one season the NHL and you will do alot better.

Well actually, they'd get 50's across the board because as of last season (which the ratings are based on), they had yet to play an NHL game.

But yeah, as Martin said, don't sign them.

 

[Dryden]

I still hate this view. We emulate the NHL in almost every way possible yet can't have draftees who make it in the current year play. I say they should because:

a) the talent pool is weak as it is with players leaving for Europe and it would help teams fill out a roster.

b) We start so far into the season that we would know who is going to make the NHL and stick. Then just like this thread is doing each team would have to indicate whom they may sign and ratings could be prepared. The ratings could be a canned rating based on the HF rating for prospects.

Just an idea. Vote for change!

 

[Fan.At]

Nashville will not sign more prospects

 

[HFNHL Commish]

The Anaheim Ducks have most likely signed all of the prospects that they're going to sign. If I did sign anyone else, it would be Pekka Rinne or Petri Kontiola, and that would only happen in an absolute emergency.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Just an idea. Vote for change!

I agree on this suggestion!

The combination of our usual delayed start up gives us the ability to add this unique dimension.

This type of change is also consistent with the principles of a league started up from Hockeys Future!

Good job Mr Lowe sarcasm !!

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

The St. Louis Blues are likely going to sign at least one, if not a few of David Bolland, Kyle Chipchura, Jared Boll and Zack Fitzgerald.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I still hate this view. We emulate the NHL in almost every way possible yet can't have draftees who make it in the current year play. I say they should because:

a) the talent pool is weak as it is with players leaving for Europe and it would help teams fill out a roster.

b) We start so far into the season that we would know who is going to make the NHL and stick. Then just like this thread is doing each team would have to indicate whom they may sign and ratings could be prepared. The ratings could be a canned rating based on the HF rating for prospects.

Just an idea. Vote for change!

The main issue with this, is we would have to wait quite a while before enough games had been played to give fair ratings to these players. There simply hasn't been enough games played to really rate these first-time NHLers and now is the time we are finalizing the ratings.

That said, we used to have an interesting rule many years ago where a team could submit a player or two for "re-rates". These were players that were having significant break-out years in the NHL that year, so their ratings were clearly out of date and mid-season, they would be given a re-rate that would make them a bigger impact player down the line.

This could of course be done for rookies, althoug the team would have to sign them before the re-rates (with 50's as ratings) and then wait for the re-rate to have the player make an impact. Of course, it is similar to calling a player up from the minors in some ways, so maybe this would work.

The challenge of course is you then need to have several "re-raters" who will be objective and make themselves available to re-rate when the time comes (and it might be a lot of players). We'd also need to figure out how to apply the current formula's to these 're-rates' to make them reasonable, but not out of whack. But still, it could work.

 

[Dryden]

I agree on this suggestion!

The combination of our usual delayed start up gives us the ability to add this unique dimension.

This type of change is also consistent with the principles of a league started up from Hockeys Future!

Good job Mr Lowe sarcasm !!

Whoa! Didn't see that one coming.

What I meant by a canned rating is, for example:

I drafted Mikkael Boedker in the 1st round of this years draft. The Coyotes have given every indication that he will remain with the team for the year. HF has him rated as an 8.0B which has him projected to be a 1st line player. If he was given a rating of say 70OV he could be a useful player in my lineup.

The ratings for players could be:

10 - Generational talent - 75OV

9 - Elite forward / defenseman / goaltender - 73 OV

8 - First line forward / No. 2 defenseman / No. 1 goaltender - 70OV

7 - Second line forward / No. 3-4 defenseman / journeyman No. 1 goaltender - 66OV

6 - Third line forward / No. 5-6 defenseman / Backup Goaltender - 62OV

5 - Fourth line forward / No. 7 defenseman / depth goaltender - 58OV

4 - Top minor league forward / defenseman / goaltender - 54OV

3 - Average minor league forward / defenseman / goaltender - 50 OV

2 - Minor league role-player - 50 OV

1 - Borderline minor league playe - 50 OV

No one in their right mind would sign someone below a 7 anyhow and the player must be on a NHL roster full time by a certain date to be allowed an opportunity to be signed.

It's just a thought and I know it will continue to get shot down and never applied but if I can get Robb to agree with me it can't really be that bad of an idea. Can it?

 

[Brock]

The main issue with this, is we would have to wait quite a while before enough games had been played to give fair ratings to these players. There simply hasn't been enough games played to really rate these first-time NHLers and now is the time we are finalizing the ratings.

That said, we used to have an interesting rule many years ago where a team could submit a player or two for "re-rates". These were players that were having significant break-out years in the NHL that year, so their ratings were clearly out of date and mid-season, they would be given a re-rate that would make them a bigger impact player down the line.

This could of course be done for rookies, althoug the team would have to sign them before the re-rates (with 50's as ratings) and then wait for the re-rate to have the player make an impact. Of course, it is similar to calling a player up from the minors in some ways, so maybe this would work.

The challenge of course is you then need to have several "re-raters" who will be objective and make themselves available to re-rate when the time comes (and it might be a lot of players). We'd also need to figure out how to apply the current formula's to these 're-rates' to make them reasonable, but not out of whack. But still, it could work.

At risk of hijacking this thread away from it's original intent (jeez guys, can't we stay on topic ), I do think that this is an interesting idea that would bring a new aspect to our league.

However, I think it would be best placed for a start next season. As an admin member, we've already got enough on our plate right now with trying to finish the ratings, getting the sim updated, going through improvements on the endorsements and starting the season sometime in November. I don't think we need to add another thing to our plate.

But I do like the idea in theory and I think it's definitely something we can talk about and consider for next season.

 

[Dryden]

I wasn't suggesting it for this season.

 

[Donga]

Carolina still needs to sign Stephen Weiss and Denis Gresbeshkov from prospect list.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Columbus has noone to sign for now, although I notice Ryan Potulny (who is already signed) still shows up on my prospect list.

If we were to (re)introduce the idea of adding rookies to rosters, I think it would have to be something along the lines of what Nick has suggested.

Dry, I don't think we could use HF's ratings as any sort of guide at all for what players should be rated. For one thing, they give no indication about individual skills, which is what specific ratings are based on.

More to the point, however, they are a) representative of a player's *top potential*, not their current status in the NHL, b) they represent a range of possibilities of meeting that potential at some point in their career, which is almost certainly *not* going to be in their rookie season, and finally c) I personally find that the HF ratings are generally wildly out of date and poor assessments to begin with.

Still, an interesting discussion to have, and to remember for later this seaosn when we start planning next fall's activities.

 

[The old geezer]

While I've signed my opening night rosters a lack of depth means it's very possible that injuries during the season may force me to sign Mikhail Grabovski and/or Curtis McElhinney during the year so I'd appreciate them being rated.

 

[TorontoGM]

I plan to sign the following players at some point this season

David Steckel
Niklas Grossman
James Sheppard
Franz Nielsen

Abbas