Setoguchi benched, press boxed, rejects Contract extension

[Ohio Jones]

See, we all get screwed!

My point exactly: we ALL get screwed. My issue is not - NOT - with the agents' approach to Kulemin. It's with the system as a whole.

OCCUPY THE HFNHL!!!1!!

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

My point exactly: we ALL get screwed. My issue is not - NOT - with the agents' approach to Kulemin. It's with the system as a whole.

OCCUPY THE HFNHL!!!1!!

I like it.

We can all tent outside the Hockey Hall of Fame, which is right by all the bank's head office too, which is perfect given we're protesting the financial inequities of our own hockey world.

Time for the world to take notice.

 

[MatthewFlames]

BTW, what the heck does all this have to do with the fact Setoguchi will be in a Blues uniform next season?

Egads...

 

[MatthewFlames]

My point exactly: we ALL get screwed. My issue is not - NOT - with the agents' approach to Kulemin. It's with the system as a whole.

OCCUPY THE HFNHL!!!1!!

I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it isn't systemic. Maybe it is the agents. From what I hear Hasnain is having a ***** if a time negotiating with that #*%]}} Abbas.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Sorry, but you are not addressing the issue. You blame the GMs for not wanting to let their RFAs go to market, but you still don't give any justification for demanding that the HFNHL salary match the NHL salary.

Kulemin signed an NHL deal after scoring 30 goals. He is not a 30 goal scorer in our league. Nor will he be next year. And while that 30 goal season will be averaged in for 3 years, that won't make him a 30 goal scorer. Yet that is what it will take to sign him long term. Why? Because Brian Burke signed him to an overpriced deal Douglas can't have cost certainty moving forward?

And to clarify my feelings further - I don't mind the auto sign and I use it often as its not usually a problem. There are two occasions where problems do occur and I feel that there are solutions that could be formalized to help both sides.

1). My main complaint at the moment. The lack of historical context applied to auto sign. The Setoguchi negotiations is case in point so I wont repeat. It's not just the 300K difference in cap number, it's contract length and future contract value that hurts. If I could mirror his NHL contracts then I think the auto sign could work, no added work for the agents. Here is how see that working...

CAPGEEK is a great resource and keeps contract histories so it's easy to see why the past contracts were. Give GM's flexibility to auto sign based by matching individual deals or amortizing shorter term contracts together. In the Setoguchi example I could now sign him for 1x1.8 or 4x2.7. If I signed him on the one year deal I could then autosign at 3x3 after that. Does that give me long term and short term flexibility and stability. Yes. Does that harm the system. I don't think so. Is it extra work for the agents. Only marginally if at all. Does it harm the players ability to earn? No. He's matching the NHL reality.

A second thing to do would be to do some kind of grandfathering so if there is a rules change GM's who just auto signed under present rules for players contracts starting next season could appeal the autosign on a one time basis and have the contract revert to a historical auto sign. More work here for the agents but as Hasnain would benefit under the system (Rask) I'm sure he won't mind. . Again I would also leave it in the GM's hands to appeal or not. If they don't, then too bad.

2) we get into trouble where players are free agents in both the NHL and in the HFNHL. I would say in this grey area that we put the power back into the agents hands to negotiate. If a deal can't be reached then I suggest we move our free agency date back to the middle or end of July so that we are able to establish value by giving time for NHL deals to be struck and having enough time for agents and GM's to reach deals on HFNHL contracts before our own deadline.

What say ye?

 

[kasper11]

I like it.

We can all tent outside the Hockey Hall of Fame, which is right by all the bank's head office too, which is perfect given we're protesting the financial inequities of our own hockey world.

Time for the world to take notice.

If everyone is being screwed will our slogan be "We are the 100%"?

 

[Wildman]

Matt, all of these are good suggestions. However here are couple of things maybe we haven't talked about:

1) What about teams that traded away players that they could have signed if we went backwords. The one player I can think of here is Brad Richards who Pittsburg traded because of his new contract with NHL Rangers.

2) What about players who leave for KHL or other European league while under contract. A prime example is Radulov who left after two years in the NHL while I got only 1 one year out of his rookie contract. If he decides to return than his ratings will be at league minimum...so when do I get the benefit of his 30 goal season like Nashville did in his 2nd year?

Maybe the best solution is to increase the cap to 2012/2013 season and go with it. Hopefully, the richer teams would be able to afford their star players with if the cap was say $70M.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Maybe the best solution is to increase the cap to 2012/2013 season and go with it. Hopefully, the richer teams would be able to afford their star players with if the cap was say $70M.

...except we don't know what next year's cap is going to be yet, do we? And do we want to add more inflation, when we still haven't addressed revenues? (There's that word again...)

 

[Wildman]

...except we don't know what next year's cap is going to be yet, do we? And do we want to add more inflation, when we still haven't addressed revenues? (There's that word again...)

Yes, we don't have next year's cap amount which is similar to NHL where they are signing players without the cap amount. The revenue issue is separate thing to be discussed.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Yes, we don't have next year's cap amount which is similar to NHL where they are signing players without the cap amount. The revenue issue is separate thing to be discussed.

Separate in mechanism, true, but directly related to the league's overall fiscal crisis. A constantly rising cap, and rising salaries keyed to the NHL (where the average player salary will be a shade above $3 million) will inevitably bankrupt the league if revenue generation is not also addressed. These issues need to be viewed and resolved in tandem.

 

[Fooladelfia]

people talking about money problems.....but jokinen make 8M$ in this league....Selanne 8M$ all re-sign has ufa
it,s easy when it's not real money .....

 

[MatthewFlames]

1) What about teams that traded away players that they could have signed if we went backwords. The one player I can think of here is Brad Richards who Pittsburg traded because of his new contract with NHL Rangers.

Excellent point. I think that in this case then we will have to introduce the rule starting only next season (unless GM's in the situation you describe above consent to a more immediate change and bite the bullet on the changes. I would be one of the ones affected as I've moved a ton of contracts this year. The same problem rears its head when thinking of financial revenue changes over the summer.)

2) What about players who leave for KHL or other European league while under contract. A prime example is Radulov who left after two years in the NHL while I got only 1 one year out of his rookie contract. If he decides to return than his ratings will be at league minimum...so when do I get the benefit of his 30 goal season like Nashville did in his 2nd year?

The only solution for this one is a Jagr rule - where a returning player will get a portion or all of their ratings from when they left, unlike Jagr who returned this year with all 50's. Outside of that change I think GM's who's players leave really just get .... you know whatted.

Maybe the best solution is to increase the cap to 2012/2013 season and go with it. Hopefully, the richer teams would be able to afford their star players with if the cap was say $70M.

I don't like this idea as much. Especially as Doug pointed out we haven't really resolved any revenue changes, or even if we're gonna do some revenue changes.

I have built out a whole proposal on revenue changes based on discussions this year.

They are built to address the concerns raised - those that Drew raised about GM behavior and how to ensure we get the behaviors we want - those from Adil & Hasnain about tying revenue to performances rather than giving away free money - those from Nick and others about not flooding the market with money - and those by me and other GM's about allowing teams to be competitive and have a shot at getting out of fiscal holes. All the while making it an evolutionary step within our present structure (and with considerations to how the sim runs and under the assumption that we're stuck with it for another year) Its quite the plan and it does away with things like free TV revenue - and its not a revolution by any means. I'll be presenting it to the admin once I have time to finish it up for their consideration and input....

 

[MatthewFlames]

people talking about money problems.....but jokinen make 8M$ in this league....Selanne 8M$ all re-sign has ufa
it,s easy when it's not real money .....

Its' easy when you have 40 million in the bank

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Part of these issues would be solved if we implemented dynamic ratings that were updated at games 20, 40, 60 and 80 (for example). This would result in a players ratings being significantly different by year end. There will be boom's and busts of course, but it would solve some issues with signing rookies sooner, and also for guys like Jagr, who should be a decent contributor at this point in the season, but isn't. And what if Jagr goes back to Europe or retires next year? The whole exercise was for not. Plus, it would add a significant element of realism in terms of not knowing how good your team really is.

I'm personally willing to help make this happen for next year.

 

[Canuck09]

Part of these issues would be solved if we implemented dynamic ratings that were updated at games 20, 40, 60 and 80 (for example). This would result in a players ratings being significantly different by year end. There will be boom's and busts of course, but it would solve some issues with signing rookies sooner, and also for guys like Jagr, who should be a decent contributor at this point in the season, but isn't. And what if Jagr goes back to Europe or retires next year? The whole exercise was for not. Plus, it would add a significant element of realism in terms of not knowing how good your team really is.

I'm personally willing to help make this happen for next year.

This would blow my mind. Given the 3 year average thing though, would much really change? Or would this replace the 3 year averages? I would think it would be near impossible to keep track of 20 game intervals from 3 years ago to drop off the moving scale.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Part of these issues would be solved if we implemented dynamic ratings that were updated at games 20, 40, 60 and 80 (for example). This would result in a players ratings being significantly different by year end. There will be boom's and busts of course, but it would solve some issues with signing rookies sooner, and also for guys like Jagr, who should be a decent contributor at this point in the season, but isn't. And what if Jagr goes back to Europe or retires next year? The whole exercise was for not. Plus, it would add a significant element of realism in terms of not knowing how good your team really is.

I'm personally willing to help make this happen for next year.

While in general I've always been against this - I'm actually really coming around to the idea... it does s solve some problems and interesting new wrinkles...

 

[Ohio Jones]

Sorry to be a raincloud - I just don't see how mid-season ratings updates are feasible. As it is we're a few months late with our re-rate each season, I don't see that process getting easier by doing it more often.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea! But only if we had the resources to create objective and comprehensive ratings multiple times a year. Since we don't seem to have the resources to do it even once without significant delays and quality gaps, I'm... let's say skeptical.

 

[Fooladelfia]

I was in a league where we could re-rates 2-3 players at the trade deadline...It was fun.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Regarding re-rates, the current year is always given more weight than the previous year, which has more weight than the year before that. Not sure what we are using, but should probably be something like 50/30/20, or even 60/30/10. This is what would happen by year's end, and is essentially the transformation in our ratings year to year. (I'm actually a believer in a 2 year rating system, but not a huge deal either way). At the 20 game mark, you'd only see a slight impact, but by year's end, the 3rd year will have disappeared off the back end completely, and the last year will have dropped significantly in weight.

I think we can all appreciate how our team would look right now if we could incorporate this year's performance as the primary source of ratings. Would definitely make things interesting.

In terms of delays, this can be accomplished in short order. And to be clear, this would not be a total re-rate. We would completely stay away from any subjective ratings which would only be updated once per year. This is what takes time.

But for the purely quantitative ratings (SC, PA, PH, DU and perhaps even a few others like DF), we would have access to to the stats and turn this around in a matter of 48 hours. Goalies would also be updated. We could even sim a few games while this is happening, given the staggered schedule of game 20 for everyone.

Of note, I have yet to formally circulate this idea or even propose it to the admin team, but there it is.

 

[Wildman]

Regarding re-rates, the current year is always given more weight than the previous year, which has more weight than the year before that. Not sure what we are using, but should probably be something like 50/30/20, or even 60/30/10. This is what would happen by year's end, and is essentially the transformation in our ratings year to year. (I'm actually a believer in a 2 year rating system, but not a huge deal either way). At the 20 game mark, you'd only see a slight impact, but by year's end, the 3rd year will have disappeared off the back end completely, and the last year will have dropped significantly in weight.

I think we can all appreciate how our team would look right now if we could incorporate this year's performance as the primary source of ratings. Would definitely make things interesting.

In terms of delays, this can be accomplished in short order. And to be clear, this would not be a total re-rate. We would completely stay away from any subjective ratings which would only be updated once per year. This is what takes time.

But for the purely quantitative ratings (SC, PA, PH, DU and perhaps even a few others like DF), we would have access to to the stats and turn this around in a matter of 48 hours. Goalies would also be updated. We could even sim a few games while this is happening, given the staggered schedule of game 20 for everyone.

Of note, I have yet to formally circulate this idea or even propose it to the admin team, but there it is.

That would be amazing Nick. I can see Gomez with 1 goal being rated based on his new performance

 

[Ohio Jones]

I'm giving serious consideration to building a database for some of the key supporting stats like DU, EN, DI.

DU should be fairly straightforward, counting games missed to injury as a percentage of a full season. I suggest this way rather than counting games played because that would unduly penalize depth guys who may not dress every game, but are not injured.

EN is a function of icetime per game. You may well have depth guys playing fewer minutes who would actually have high EN if measured directly, but for our purposes it should be a measure of how much you play.

DI is a tricky one, since I'm unclear how it combines with FG to determine who gets what kind of penalties in a game. I'd like to run some tests, because I think it's an important distinction: is the player a fighter, or is he undisciplined (or both)? It think it's much more important to count the number and type of penalties (as a function of games or minutes played) than it is the total number of penalty minutes in determining the answers to these questions.

For players who have spent the relevant seasons in the NHL, these should all be pretty straightforward calculations. The issue comes when factoring in experience in lower leagues, but I think a weighting system can be developed to account for that, with the highest weighting (after the NHL at 100%) being given to games played in the AHL (90%), followed by the Euro Leagues (80%), followed by Major Junior and College (70%).

I'll see if I can come up with some draft formulas and run trials for the admin team to review. One of the key points would be that you should have role players with useable stats. It would also help us avoid situations like having Drew Doughty among the top 10 penalty leaders in the league (right, Alvaro?).

One other consideration with regard to ratings is that I think it might be important to grade player's ratings on a bell curve. By this I mean that key ratings would be predetermined following a bell curve distribution, and then assigned to players based on where they ranked among the rest of the player pool. For example, if offensive production calculations indicate that a player produces in the top 5% of scorers, that wouldn't mean he'd have 95s in his offensive stats, it would mean he'd be within 5% of the top of the ratings distribution.

I'm probably not explaining this bit very well, but will see if I can do better when it comes to an admin discussion.

 

[Ohio Jones]

In reference to my post above about pre-determined ratings on a bell curve, let's assume that there are roughly 25 players on each roster who should realistically have some degree of NHL-level ratings. That means a typical player pool of 850 guys.

The pre-determined bell curve would take the range of effective player ratings - say between 50 and 99 - and distribute 850 ratings on a bell curve within that range. There would be fewer 50s and 99s, and more 70s and 75s. This same curve could be used for all ratings - or at least all ratings where a player's value versus another can be reliably calculated.

The top player in a given category receives a 99. The lowest player receives a 50. Everyone else is distributed within the curve based on where they rank out of the 850 guys.

This approach might accomplish a couple of things: it should help make the true stars of the league stand out, as they would be the guys whose performance falls in the upper outliers in a number of categories. Fair enough. But it should also create a degree of parity in that the bulk of players would generate ratings that are average but useable.

I'm not convinced that all stats should be graded on a curve, mind you, but it would be interesting to explore.

 

[kasper11]

In reference to my post above about pre-determined ratings on a bell curve, let's assume that there are roughly 25 players on each roster who should realistically have some degree of NHL-level ratings. That means a typical player pool of 850 guys.

The pre-determined bell curve would take the range of effective player ratings - say between 50 and 99 - and distribute 850 ratings on a bell curve within that range. There would be fewer 50s and 99s, and more 70s and 75s. This same curve could be used for all ratings - or at least all ratings where a player's value versus another can be reliably calculated.

The top player in a given category receives a 99. The lowest player receives a 50. Everyone else is distributed within the curve based on where they rank out of the 850 guys.

This approach might accomplish a couple of things: it should help make the true stars of the league stand out, as they would be the guys whose performance falls in the upper outliers in a number of categories. Fair enough. But it should also create a degree of parity in that the bulk of players would generate ratings that are average but useable.

I'm not convinced that all stats should be graded on a curve, mind you, but it would be interesting to explore.

If you rate like this, how do you account for exceptional seasons? There would be no difference between Ovechkin's 65 goal season in 07-08 and Crosby's 52 goal season in 09-10.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Where we may have the biggest trouble, I suspect, is in purely subjective ratings like SK, EX, LD. I wonder if going forward it would be worth simply cribbing from something like EA hockey for those ratings, and using our formulas for all the quantifiable stuff?

 

[Wildman]

If you rate like this, how do you account for exceptional seasons? There would be no difference between Ovechkin's 65 goal season in 07-08 and Crosby's 52 goal season in 09-10.

Woudn't it be easier to start by 99 rating to 93 goals scored by the great one and use some predetermined formula to come up with the rest of player stats.