|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 14, 2014 13:46:34 GMT -5
One rule change I'd like to see is something similar to the rule the NHL has when it comes to entry level contracts. If a player plays less than 10 games, you should have the option of not having him rated and waiting until the following season to start his entry level deal. He would not be placed on your roster and stay in your prospects list. For instance, this season I have three players who I consider top prospects who played 2, 3 and 5 games respectively last season. As a result I have to burn a year of their entry level contract even though they are no use to me this season. I'm sure most teams have young players in similar positions. Its definitely an interesting proposal. I've never really thought about changing this rule. I always figured it balanced out because that guy with a 3 year 500k contract this year might have ended up with a 3 year 3,000,000 contract the next one. I have a couple of players in this situation. Im not necessarily against a new rule, but I also dont think its needed.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 14, 2014 13:59:40 GMT -5
One rule change I'd like to see is something similar to the rule the NHL has when it comes to entry level contracts. If a player plays less than 10 games, you should have the option of not having him rated and waiting until the following season to start his entry level deal. He would not be placed on your roster and stay in your prospects list. For instance, this season I have three players who I consider top prospects who played 2, 3 and 5 games respectively last season. As a result I have to burn a year of their entry level contract even though they are no use to me this season. I'm sure most teams have young players in similar positions. Yeah I'm not really sure I understand the logic here. You'd prefer to not have these guys signed for the next 2 seasons (after the upcoming one) for $500k and risk them getting great ratings and possibly paying several million on their initial contract? When their initial contract expires they'll still be RFAs (most likely 24 and under), so it's not like you're "losing" a year by having them signed now. It actually benefits you to have them signed to your team as early as possible, especially if you think they'll be upper-tier players.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 14, 2014 14:25:53 GMT -5
I agree with Jon here.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 14, 2014 15:24:20 GMT -5
I agree it wouldn't necessarily be advantageous in all cases, but it many cases it would. That's why I said the GM should have the option in these instances.
Take for example a prospect like Brandon Gormley. He played 5 games last year and will get rated and his entry level contract will start. As a long-term project on a team with Ekman-Larsson and Yandle ahead of him, there's very little chance he's going to tear up the league next year and earn a big contract. So in cases like his, it could be to the team's advantage not to start the entry level deal until the following year.
On the other hand, I'd be wise to sign Teravainen to his entry level contract this year, because there's a reasonable expectation he could be highly productive as a rookie next year and earn a much larger contract than the $ 500,000 minimum he'll earn on his entry level deal.
It would be calculated risk, and a decision the GM would have to make in each individual case.
Again, it's not a big issue with me, but I thought it was a change that would be consistent with the NHL rules and be something that could be beneficial to teams in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 14, 2014 16:23:22 GMT -5
I kind of see where you're coming from, but from my perspective it's just one more thing I'd have to manually keep track of.
How many times can a player be skipped over for activation? Now I have to have a list for every team, their prospects that got skipped, how many times they've been skipped, how many times they have remaining to be skipped?
Or if you create a bracket by NHL games played, when it comes to prospect activation time do I have to look up every prospect, see how many NHL games they played last season and see if they're eligible to be skipped from activation?
And what if you're a team that is already stacked, tight on funds and you have a prospect that would be activated with a salary of 1-2mil but you don't really need them, can you pass on them just because it would hinder you financially?
I honestly don't see any drawback to having prospects activated as early as possible. They play in the NHL, they get rated, they get signed to your team, simple.
Those questions were rhetorical btw, jut kinda thinking out loud so you can see where I'm coming from.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 14, 2014 18:07:53 GMT -5
I appreciate the work you do Jon and wouldn't want to impose anymore on you. So for that reason, I'll forget about it.
But just for argument sake, here's how it would work from my point of you as far as addressing some of your questions.
You'd only have the option not to activate prospects who played less than 10 NHL games, just like the NHL rule. So a $ 1-2 million dollar prospect would always have to be activated. You'd only be allowed to skip over a prospect once, again just like the NHL rule. If he plays NHL games in two consecutive seasons he has to be activated.
The drawback I see to having prospects activated as quickly as possible is a guy like Gormley, who plays five games and isn't going to be a big contributor for a couple of years. I lose a year of minimum salary when he's absolutely no factor and he's a year closer to free agency and potentially a big raise.
But again, after reading your post, it probably isn't worth the extra record keeping that would be required. I'm not sure how many players it would affect to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 14, 2014 19:03:28 GMT -5
I'll definitely keep it on the back burner for future thought, but for now I feel the work involved outweighs the necessity for the option. Plus it also seems like a way to keep a young, talented player under a cheap contract longer, yet further along in their development.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 4, 2014 10:43:58 GMT -5
Which team is leading the "Dishonour for Connor" sweepstakes? At THW I edited and published a guest post from a lad with an imperfect but interesting idea, that spurred a lot of debate. Couple years ago I proposed 4 other ideas (article also linked in post). Be complicated, but cool to trial a new idea in the JGHL (I'd make an article of the trial!) Link: thehockeywriters.com/suggested-nhl-draft-system-honour-for-connor/
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 4, 2014 10:58:31 GMT -5
Which team is leading the "Dishonour for Connor" sweepstakes? At THW I edited and published a guest post from a lad with an imperfect but interesting idea, that spurred a lot of debate. Couple years ago I proposed 4 other ideas (article also linked in post). Be complicated, but cool to trial a new idea in the JGHL (I'd make an article of the trial!) Link: thehockeywriters.com/suggested-nhl-draft-system-honour-for-connor/Sorry - might be wrong thread I posted the above to - Gavin/Jon: feel free to move...
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 4, 2014 12:00:15 GMT -5
Its an interesting idea, but im generally never in favour of incentivizing winning with draft picks because its counter productive.
I would far prefer a system where, for example, the bottom 10 teams are in an even lottery. But the worst team in the leauge needs the picks, and isnt going to win enough games.
Like, what if a shit team makes a couple trades to load up right before the deadline and uses that to get the 1st overall? Kinda counter produxtive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 12:33:15 GMT -5
I don't think the current system is broken so naturally will not be fond of most ideas to "fix it" but this one seems like one that will really ensure the bad teams remain bad with little hope of improving.
It also seems like another system that rewards mediocrity which as a fan is the worst thing for my team to be.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Aug 4, 2014 12:47:56 GMT -5
I'd like to see all teams that do not make the playoffs get equal odds.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Aug 4, 2014 14:42:06 GMT -5
If I finish 1 point out of 8th, why should I get the same odds as the basement teams?
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 4, 2014 23:01:19 GMT -5
I don't think the current system is broken so naturally will not be fond of most ideas to "fix it" but this one seems like one that will really ensure the bad teams remain bad with little hope of improving. It also seems like another system that rewards mediocrity which as a fan is the worst thing for my team to be. There's definitely different ways to look at it, but quickly have to point out a couple of flaws I see with your points, Scott. *The draft is only one element of many that it takes to build a successful franchise, albeit a very important one. Of course, teams like the Pens and Blackhawks turned around their franchises thru the draft, but it's not the only way it's done, and maybe not that even that common. Why can't the Oilers seem to progress? I mean, I think eventually it has to come together for them, or at least get better - it's inevitable, but if it's only about the draft, they should've been strongly contending for the playoffs last season. *As for rewarding mediocrity, I think's that's exactly where this system proposed (and some of the others) are not doing. Picture: your team just missed the playoffs (yes the mediocre Flames of yrs past ring a bell) - if that team were to obtain a high pick, that theoretically could be the difference maker to push them into the playoffs the next season. The big thing me would be have teams actually playing for something right up to the very end. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a perfect alternate system and it's probably all a futile endeavour as the NHL and enough fans are ok with status quo, with some minor tinkering. I simply hate rewarding failure and that's what I detest about the current system.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 4, 2014 23:16:59 GMT -5
I'd like to see all teams that do not make the playoffs get equal odds. I've actually seen that quite a bit in feedback, Jake.
|
|