Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

SharksGM wrote:

Dallas Stars GM wrote:I would welcome that option too

Please also, I'd like to see those contracts below league minimum to be reset to league minimum.
No more 450 000 or 600 000 contracts...

I have thought about this, but since many of the guys on these deals were traded on the basis of their cheap cap hits, I don't like the idea of retroactively boosting their salaries.

The real problem is that we used to allow 5+ year deals at league minimum and we've dealt with that issue, and we've now committed to keep the league minimum fixed for the next 3 seasons.

This why any changes need to be grandfathered in. The trades and contracts were made within the rules at the time and teams have been constructed with certain expectations. No one would ever be able to plan long-term with the uncertainty that the league is going to make retroactive changes to contracts.

Look at this trade:

To the Edmonton Oilers: Jakub Voracek (78) and 2nd DAL 2014

To the Tampa Bay Lightning: Brad Richards (75) and Alexander Avtsyn (44) *

Do you think I would of made it if I knew AA's contract was going to snap back up every off-season to the new minimum? Heck no.

SharksGM wrote:Announcements ahoy!

3. The salary cap will rise to 72.5M next season (+2.5M). For the moment, we will do all calculations under the current system just to make life easier, so consult the spreadsheet to re-sign your free agents as usual. After the draft and re-signing phase, but before the UFA period begins, all of the salaries in the file will be multiplied by 0.8, bringing the cap down to 58M. Next offseason, the cap will go up again to 60M and will stay put at that level from then on to prevent annoying crashes.

Questions/comments?

Quick clarification on this one, will this affect bought out players? Or players that have retired with cap hits on the books?

Just wondering as it looks like I will have to buy out Zdeno Chara (current rules pretty much state he is retiring... unless something has changed or I misinterpreted... ideally I would like to play him another year). ie If he has to retire, can I still buy him out after the rollback? When in the offseason are the retirements calculated?

Good questions.

The retirement thing is very much up for debate. We'd like to change it but we're still not sure what's the best way to go.
I don't think he'll retire as we've kept other old irrelevant players for too long anyway and you actually want to play him but that's nothing set in stone as we speak.

The buyouts are defenitely going to be rolled back too.

Are we set with the underager rule now?

Also...

Vik (Habs) wrote:Can we at least stop counting players sent back to junior against the 50 contract limit?

Underagers is set. We're still talking about the contracts, Vik.

Calgary.Flames wrote:We're still talking about the contracts, Vik.

Well then I'm going to give some thoughts on why they shouldn't count:

• - They don't in the NHL.
  
  - They'd also be subject to the slide rule in the NHL but we aren't going to do that so it's kind of hurting us in more than one way to have them signed right now.
  
  - With the new underager rule, there's no shuffling players to and from juniors so it's not something that can really be taken advantage of.
  
  - It's no extra work for the simmers (it's barely any work for me).
  
  - There's no benefit to having them signed except for those that might get POT boosts. And teams are already taking a risk on a player if he's a booster without having to waste a contract slot on them too (says the guy who recently drafted Klim Kostin).

Ok, I'm onboard with not counting the prospects. No need for AHL contracts then, right? You'd have a couple more spots to satisfy your need for a huge farm team roster.

I'd keep the 50 contracts limit, just like in the NHL. This way, we make sure no team takes all the decent talent in the UFA pool, among other things.

flyergp21 wrote:I'd keep the 50 contracts limit, just like in the NHL. This way, we make sure no team takes all the decent talent in the UFA pool, among other things.

Someone could argue that most of these "talented" guys would need to clear waivers first. But yeah, keeping it like it is and not counting prospects would be the best.

I would still like the option for AHL contracts.

I offer my services for tracking it down (AHL contract players) for the whole league. (if needed)

Calgary.Flames wrote:

Dallas Stars GM wrote:Maybe we just need some limit.
For example, 5-8x Xtra practice's per season and 1 or 2 per post-season.

Keeping track of this = extra work.
This is the most unlikely scenario.

In other leagues I've been in, there was a spot on the forum to say when you wanted extra practices. It was usually 3 per season with someone editing the master list.

We'll try this season without XPs. If we're not satisfied with the result we can certainly re-visit for the season after.

No AHL contracts and no XPs next season?

We'll probably stop counting the signed prospects towards the contracts limit to allow more overall contracts per team and keep it low maintenance. That should be enough.

XPs are as good as gone.

If you want junior contracts not counted, I don't see why you'd need AHL contracts. 23 NHL + 23 AHL still leaves 4 slots free. There's no reason to have 27 players on your AHL roster. We can still have fast-signing if we really need it.

On the other hand, free releases are definitely going away. This offseason will be your last chance to get rid of <=1M salary players with no penalty.

SharksGM wrote:If you want junior contracts not counted, I don't see why you'd need AHL contracts.

Because EHM development can be stupid and I don't want to watch some guys suffer by being forced to play in the AHL.

Vik (Habs) wrote:

SharksGM wrote:If you want junior contracts not counted, I don't see why you'd need AHL contracts.

Because EHM development can be stupid and I don't want to watch some guys suffer by being forced to play in the AHL.

I'm not sure what you mean. If we don't count junior contracts against the limit, you can keep 19-year-olds and this year's boosters in junior without wasting a contract slot. If for some reason you want to keep a 20+ year old signed without playing in the AHL, you have up to 7 contract slots for AHL scratches. What else would you need?

JetsGM wrote:Quick clarification on this one, will this affect bought out players? Or players that have retired with cap hits on the books?

Just wondering as it looks like I will have to buy out Zdeno Chara (current rules pretty much state he is retiring... unless something has changed or I misinterpreted... ideally I would like to play him another year). ie If he has to retire, can I still buy him out after the rollback? When in the offseason are the retirements calculated?

Everything will scale down by 20% so that it won't matter if you buy him out before or after the changeover.

Chara might have another season left in the tank; we'll review the relevant retirees before UFA starts.

SharksGM wrote:

Vik (Habs) wrote:

SharksGM wrote:If you want junior contracts not counted, I don't see why you'd need AHL contracts.

Because EHM development can be stupid and I don't want to watch some guys suffer by being forced to play in the AHL.

I'm not sure what you mean. If we don't count junior contracts against the limit, you can keep 19-year-olds and this year's boosters in junior without wasting a contract slot. If for some reason you want to keep a 20+ year old signed without playing in the AHL, you have up to 7 contract slots for AHL scratches. What else would you need?

It ain't the young'ns I'm worried about, it's the guys that have already overdeveloped some/need some overdeveloping. Any rating that's overdeveloped will tend to regress as a result of playing in the AHL and I've got more guys that I want scratched to avoid that than I do spots in the press box with a 50 contract limit.

I agree with Vik
It would be a help for GM's who take pride in building depth and turning "diamods-in-the-rough" into a real gems. AHL contracts would be a real help and it would also be another step towards the real NHL.

I don't really see the justification for implementing AHL contracts so you can keep 7+ guys with NHL deals as AHL healthy scratches to avoid regression. It's not realistic and we're trying to get away from stashing useful players in the AHL indefinitely, not encouraging it.

SharksGM wrote:I don't really see the justification for implementing AHL contracts so you can keep 7+ guys with NHL deals as AHL healthy scratches to avoid regression. It's not realistic and we're trying to get away from stashing useful players in the AHL indefinitely, not encouraging it.

It's not terribly realistic that guys get worse simply by being in the lineup either but there's a not a lot we can do about that. And it's not unrealistic to see a player that may have a chance at being a big leaguer get stuck behind some waiver eligible options and have to bide their time in the minors. It doesn't even have to be stashing a useful player, it can be trying to develop a guy so he that he will be useful. For example, I've got Ronald Knot who is no star but isn't far off being a useful piece. But I'd like to see his skating and endurance get to something more reasonable before forcing him in my lineup so he's likely to start the year in the A. Unless I make some moves (and I have definitely been trying), there's a good chance he'll have to be in the lineup in which case his skating/endurance will, in all likelihood, go down rather than up and I won't get the chance to make a useful player out of him.

Vik (Habs) wrote:For example, I've got Ronald Knot who is no star but isn't far off being a useful piece. But I'd like to see his skating and endurance get to something more reasonable before forcing him in my lineup so he's likely to start the year in the A. Unless I make some moves (and I have definitely been trying), there's a good chance he'll have to be in the lineup in which case his skating/endurance will, in all likelihood, go down rather than up and I won't get the chance to make a useful player out of him.

Are you saying the only way for him to improve SK/EN is by being an AHL scratch?

Calgary.Flames wrote:

Vik (Habs) wrote:For example, I've got Ronald Knot who is no star but isn't far off being a useful piece. But I'd like to see his skating and endurance get to something more reasonable before forcing him in my lineup so he's likely to start the year in the A. Unless I make some moves (and I have definitely been trying), there's a good chance he'll have to be in the lineup in which case his skating/endurance will, in all likelihood, go down rather than up and I won't get the chance to make a useful player out of him.

Are you saying the only way for him to improve SK/EN is by being an AHL scratch?

It could also develop while on the pro team but no sense having him in the press box on the pro team if I can do the same in the AHL and I don't want to force him in the lineup since I'd like to be competitive and my team isn't exactly a surefire contender at the moment. If he's in the AHL, the only way it's likely to get better is if he's watching games rather than playing.

Vik (Habs) wrote:

SharksGM wrote:If you want junior contracts not counted, I don't see why you'd need AHL contracts.

Because EHM development can be stupid and I don't want to watch some guys suffer by being forced to play in the AHL.

I would disagree with the removal of the free release. If a guy gets hurt and we need a fast sign, now there is a contract that is against the cap. Free release should be an option once the injury or suspension is over.

IslandersGM wrote:

Vik (Habs) wrote:

SharksGM wrote:If you want junior contracts not counted, I don't see why you'd need AHL contracts.

Because EHM development can be stupid and I don't want to watch some guys suffer by being forced to play in the AHL.

I would disagree with the removal of the free release. If a guy gets hurt and we need a fast sign, now there is a contract that is against the cap. Free release should be an option once the injury or suspension is over.

+1 on keeping the free release.

On the "fun" non "loopholing EHM to get ahead" level, I love free releases.

A) Let's me try a player out and if things just don't work I can move on easily.
B) Keeps me coming to the boards looking for a free release hidden gem, "that only I can fix".
C) Gives me the ability to juggle overall (NHL/AHL) roster depth after making any deal. ie drop my farm depth D man for a farm depth C after making a C for D trade on the pro roster (keeping roster balance)... hence more trades.
D) Unsure if I am missing something, but isn't this going to add work to admins taking care of cap management?
E) This may be my EHM ignorance showing... but I am missing the advantage this free release rule gives other than providing active GM's an avenue to improve/tweak lower elements of their pro roster and farm, but not really affecting the grand scheme.

Gladly would like to hear the thought/benefit behind removing free releases.

I agree with the guys above on keeping free release option
I also agree with guys on adding AHL contracts

Reading last twenty posts has been tedious.
Is there an option for leaving things the way they are?

I'd be for keeping things as they were last season.

One thing with free agency and assuming we're doing open bidding, it'd be good if we could send initial offers to the free agency account and, once a player gets at least two offers, the highest bid gets posted. Just thinking that if someone does the work to find what they believe could be a hidden gem, they shouldn't have to advertise that to everyone.

Agreed, great idea Vik.

Excellent Idea. I second that.
Hard work - paid off. Should be that way

Ya, it is a great idea if you have never had to manage the free agent account.

I vote for total OPEN BIDDING. Don't be shy. Things get done the quickest this way and we don't have to wait around for staff to check offers.

That was not a problem before, although it could've been. Open bidding's not the problem, that's a new one. But I don't think the search for gold is worth the work. I could argue that a player could be spotted by only two people and that creating an auction would still disadvantage them because it's easier to beat 1 team's offers than 29.

Open bidding's a good enough system I think.

Yeah sorry, I definitely do not want to add another thing to check before posting bids. Open bidding is much less work for everyone and you get instant feedback.

JetsGM wrote:I would disagree with the removal of the free release. If a guy gets hurt and we need a fast sign, now there is a contract that is against the cap. Free release should be an option once the injury or suspension is over.

We can keep free releases for fast signs, but they don't count against the cap unless they play in the NHL. You're not going to get a fast sign above league minimum.

JetsGM wrote: +1 on keeping the free release.

A) Let's me try a player out and if things just don't work I can move on easily.
B) Keeps me coming to the boards looking for a free release hidden gem, "that only I can fix".
C) Gives me the ability to juggle overall (NHL/AHL) roster depth after making any deal. ie drop my farm depth D man for a farm depth C after making a C for D trade on the pro roster (keeping roster balance)... hence more trades.
D) Unsure if I am missing something, but isn't this going to add work to admins taking care of cap management?
E) This may be my EHM ignorance showing... but I am missing the advantage this free release rule gives other than providing active GM's an avenue to improve/tweak lower elements of their pro roster and farm, but not really affecting the grand scheme.

Gladly would like to hear the thought/benefit behind removing free releases.

My reasoning is that unlike real sports, there's no uncertainty in player ratings in EHM and no real risk to signing anyone. It's not like players suddenly decline in their 20s or suffer serious injuries to make them useless.

Free releases used to shuffle around AHLers just makes for tedious and ultimately pointless work between sims, since the AHL serves little purpose beyond prospect development. You have 50 contracts to work with so you can easily fit in 23 NHL + 22 AHL + a few more AHL healthy scratches if you insist. I don't see a compelling need to amass a large collection of AHL healthy scratches. I wasn't even paying attention and just now noticed that Daultan Leveille managed to overdevelop quite a bit playing the whole season in the A.

Free releases for NHL-calibre players just seem odd. We already have waivers if you need to get rid of a useful player's contract and failing that, there's no penalty for playing them in the AHL.

SharksGM wrote:My reasoning is that unlike real sports, there's no uncertainty in player ratings in EHM and no real risk to signing anyone. It's not like players suddenly decline in their 20s or suffer serious injuries to make them useless.

Free releases used to shuffle around AHLers just makes for tedious and ultimately pointless work between sims, since the AHL serves little purpose beyond prospect development.

I think free releases help more with trades. If you disallow them, we're probably going to have to make sure pretty much every trade is contracts in = contracts out. And we're probably going to have to keep a couple spots open just in case someone unexpected ends up on waivers (and I'm pretty clearly for allowing more contracts, not requiring fewer). It's kind of like we're making managing a team more inconvenient to avoid simmers having to do a quick edit to the file every now and then.

SharksGM wrote:Free releases for NHL-calibre players just seem odd. We already have waivers if you need to get rid of a useful player's contract and failing that, there's no penalty for playing them in the AHL.

Can think of that as a Matt Lombardi type deal. Everyone remember his impressive stint with the Rags? They signed him one offseason but he didn't make the team and didn't want to stick it out in the AHL so they terminated the contract and he went back to Europe.

I don't mind the free releases. Although I haven't been simming (yet) myself, I don't see much of a workload involved in the process. I also get Dan's point where it's kind of unrealistic to have teams sign guys halfway through the year only to release them a couple months later. If we're not doing AHL contracts, I kinda see it as a way to manage the farm team's depth since we don't control the ECHL or other affiliated leagues either.

Vik (Habs) wrote: It's kind of like we're making managing a team more inconvenient to avoid simmers having to do a quick edit to the file every now and then.

I wouldn't want people to start having those thoughts ever.

It's true I've been trying to cut on some stuff and I'm hesitant as far as adding any additional work on us but it's defenitely a work still in progress. Before we add new stuff, stuff that could ultimately be a good thing for the league, I think we should get rid of what isn't a great investment of our time in the first place. Things that come to mind... retirement system, staff, schedule, divisional alignment.

I mean, do you guys feel we should put in the time to re-align everything and get NHL playoffs matchups or even draft rankings to reflect real life or you'd rather have us manage things like AHL contracts for example?

I think once we've eliminated the areas where we're investing time with no real benefits to anyone, we'll see how much more we're able to take on our shoulders and then go from there.

I love that you guys are bringing new stuff and it's not because it might not be happening now that it won't the season after. We would not hesitate to change anything that is a major concern but so far, even though the talks have been great, nothing that came up made us feel insecure moving forward.

The league is great, people are managing their teams well, the level of activity is very good and I assure you that Dan and I are taking this very seriously.

Vik (Habs) wrote:

SharksGM wrote:My reasoning is that unlike real sports, there's no uncertainty in player ratings in EHM and no real risk to signing anyone. It's not like players suddenly decline in their 20s or suffer serious injuries to make them useless.

Free releases used to shuffle around AHLers just makes for tedious and ultimately pointless work between sims, since the AHL serves little purpose beyond prospect development.

I think free releases help more with trades. If you disallow them, we're probably going to have to make sure pretty much every trade is contracts in = contracts out. And we're probably going to have to keep a couple spots open just in case someone unexpected ends up on waivers (and I'm pretty clearly for allowing more contracts, not requiring fewer). It's kind of like we're making managing a team more inconvenient to avoid simmers having to do a quick edit to the file every now and then.

Well yes, rules are inconvenient. The cap is inconvenient and so are roster limits. But that's part of the challenge of management. We decided a while ago to keep.rralistic rules similar to the NHL where possible rather than going full fantasy. I don't even remember why free releases were introduced in the first place but they're not really realistic or necessary. Last season a few players got signed, released and signed by the same team again. Stuff like that and stashing dozens of healthy scratches in the AHL (Edmonton had over 60 contracts at one point) is absurd. No player would want to sign with a team with 30+ guys on the roster.

SharksGM wrote:Free releases for NHL-calibre players just seem odd. We already have waivers if you need to get rid of a useful player's contract and failing that, there's no penalty for playing them in the AHL.

Can think of that as a Matt Lombardi type deal. Everyone remember his impressive stint with the Rags? They signed him one offseason but he didn't make the team and didn't want to stick it out in the AHL so they terminated the contract and he went back to Europe.[/quote]

There are a handful of contract termination cases in the NHL, sure, but we don't simulate players getting fed up and going to Europe. My point was more that you have complete certainty in a player's attributes when you sign them and virtual certainty that they won't decline as long as they're under 37, so there's no risk of a sudden unexpected decline.

SharksGM wrote:Well yes, rules are inconvenient. The cap is inconvenient and so are roster limits. But that's part of the challenge of management.

The inconvenient bit was specifically in reference to...

SharksGM wrote:Free releases used to shuffle around AHLers just makes for tedious and ultimately pointless work between sims, since the AHL serves little purpose beyond prospect development.

SharksGM wrote:We decided a while ago to keep.rralistic rules similar to the NHL where possible rather than going full fantasy. I don't even remember why free releases were introduced in the first place but they're not really realistic or necessary. Last season a few players got signed, released and signed by the same team again.

Releasing and signing guys on NHL deals mightn't match reality with the NHL but, IRL, they also have the option of minor league deals and try out contracts, etc. We don't seem to be getting those options so the free releases help mitigate what we lose in that.

SharksGM wrote:Stuff like that and stashing dozens of healthy scratches in the AHL (Edmonton had over 60 contracts at one point) is absurd. No player would want to sign with a team with 30+ guys on the roster.

If the options are to sign with a team with a seeming overabundance of players or sit at home, I think they'd sign. But, ignoring that, if you count AHL deals, teams do typically have over 60 players somewhere in the organization. They fill up three teams (NHL, AHL, and ECHL) with them.

SharksGM wrote:There are a handful of contract termination cases in the NHL, sure, but we don't simulate players getting fed up and going to Europe. My point was more that you have complete certainty in a player's attributes when you sign them and virtual certainty that they won't decline as long as they're under 37, so there's no risk of a sudden unexpected decline.

If you play them in the AHL, they can get worse sooner than that. Look up the worst players in our file and you'll see guys that Vopatized to ~10 in everything as a direct result of playing in the AHL.

For the record, I counted the number of free releases per team over the last season. I might have missed some since I just searched for posts with "release" in them.

DAL: 32
CGY: 19
NSH: 16
PHI: 13
EDM: 10
NJD: 8
SJ: 8
WPG: 8
PIT: 7
COL: 6
CHI: 4
NYI: 3
ANA: 2
NYR: 2
WSH: 2
ARZ: 1
CBJ: 1
DET: 1
LA: 1
OTT: 1
MTL: 1
TB: 1
TOR: 1

Alright, that's what we're doing for the 17/18 season:

- We won't count the signed "prospects" towards the contract limit.

- We will end the free releases sometime soon. You have until then to terminate whatever 800K-or-less contracts you'd potentially like to get rid of. After that, only fast-signed players will be free released.