|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 31, 2021 12:19:44 GMT -5
This thread will be dedicated to the promotion and organization of manager proposals for the annual in-season Cervenka Summit, an online conference of the DHL GMs intended to elicit discussion of league matters and potential rule changes for future seasons.
This thread will be managed by the Commissioner (Moscow/Adam) and the Governor (Portland/Jason), and updated as seen fit.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Nov 23, 2022 23:48:26 GMT -5
Just wanted to kick start this puppy up after a thought on my drive home...
I'd like to propose a minor tweak to the contract system where we are allowed to sign a player to a 1-year contract at whatever price we choose.
I.e. if I want to sign Phil Kessel but only for the remainder of the season, I could bid $34 (or whatever) but stipulate that it's for a Z contract.
That's all.
Thanks for having me
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jan 21, 2023 2:13:16 GMT -5
I know we've had previous discussion on EL Players and their contracts, etc., with there being concern that they often aren't valuable enough to hold onto, are EL Released, and then end up blossoming as a free agent, with another GM swooping in and enjoying the fruits.
We considered adding bonus "developmental" slots to help with this, but it was voted down. Probably for being too complex, and also for increasing our roster slots count even higher.
I also feel that top-end talent EL Players are fine as they are (i.e. high picks like McDavid, Matthews, etc.), and it's more-so the depth picks that may need the help.
So looking for a simpler solution, that may help increase the value of lesser prospects, perhaps we just tweak the Minimum Games Played marks for EL Players before they start to earn a salary?
Right now, it's 41 career NHL games played for Skaters, and 25 career NHL games played for Goalies. If we were to increase that minimum to say 65 career NHL games played for Skaters, at least there is less risk of their salaries starting as "prematurely", costing a manager precious funds when the player is perhaps not really earning it yet. Keep in mind that really good prospects are likely going to be in the NHL earlier than most players, or at the very least play more often early on in their careers, meaning this likely wouldn't affect their value very much. They would probably function just about the same as they do now.
So if an EL Player is developing slower than expected, they'll still take up a roster slot the same as they do now, but at least their salary may be more in line with their developmental time.
I only mentioned Skaters in my example, because I don't really think EL Goalies need tweaking? As they tend to arrive in the NHL later than Skaters, they seem to be a more "complete package" by the time they start earning a salary in the DHL. That's something we can discuss, however, as perhaps not everyone feels the same as me. The games played number of 65 is likewise up for discussion, but regardless I think it should remain less than 82 so as to not potentially increase higher-end EL Players.
I also propose that if this were to pass, any EL Player already earning a DHL salary would NOT retroactively have their clock dialed back (say they are making $1 this season after playing 45 career NHL games last year, but start next season with 62 career NHL games played). I'm not sure if this even applies to any player in the league, but I'm sure the question will come up.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Mar 30, 2023 10:23:49 GMT -5
I've pitched an idea like this before, but there was no traction on it. Going to try again. know
I propose that we hold a playoff consolation bracket each year during the Wuest Memorial Trophy Playoffs. The 5 teams that miss the playoffs compete in their own tournament, with a round-by-round incremental bonus funds for the next season as the prize. It would add a little fun for them at that time of the year, while also giving them a tiny boost towards competitiveness in the following season. The delicate balance here is that we'd need to find a fair prize amount, which I'm set on only being a pittance. It can't be enough to encourage teams to miss the playoffs, nor be a strong enough draw for teams to avoid being sellers at the deadline.
Consolation Winner + $3 202X Total Funds Consolation Runner-up + $2 202X Total Funds Consolation Eliminated + $1 202X Total Funds
The prize(s) are completely negotiable by the way, I'm fine if these are just placeholders. Perhaps only the winner gets any funds? Maybe only the final 2? Maybe we can go $4, $2, $1? Up for discussion.
It could potentially help with winning/losing turn-over as well, even if it's a minor impact in that regard. It all helps though, as we aim to shake-up the winners circle a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Apr 4, 2023 18:04:29 GMT -5
Point for discussion:
Once a team is eliminated for the season, should any potential F.A.I.R. Replacement players be automatically purged from their roster and made available to remaining teams? As it is right now, F.A.I.R. Replacement players stay locked to their existing roster until the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Apr 8, 2023 21:25:05 GMT -5
As it stands now, our Standings Tie Breaker Rules are as follows:
I propose we rearrange/add to the options to as follows...
First Rule - The team with more wins in the regular season will be the higher ranked team. Second Rule - Should their win totals be the same, the team with the "Most Total Category Points For" will be declared the higher ranked team. Third Rule - Should their FPts be the same, the team with the better Head-to-Head versus record for the season will be declared the higher ranked team. Fourth Rule - Should their Head-to-Head versus record be the same, the team who has a lower Roster Payroll will be declared the higher ranked team. Fifth Rule - Should their Roster Payroll be the same, the team with the lower Games Played total in the regular season will be declared the higher ranked team.
To be clear, this is the "FPts" stat on the front page of our FanTrax (a.k.a. "PtsF" in the Standings section). This is your total tally of categories that your team has won throughout the whole season. I propose this because...
a) It's upfront, accessible, and easy to read. With Head-to-Hear versus records being our current lead standings tie-breaker rules, we have to o back-track through previous matches in Scoring and figuring that out manually if we are curious.
b) It's extra reward for teams that do have those strong 11-2, 12-1, 13-0 match results, which presumably would be "deep" teams that are capable of winning multiple categories.
c) This also bumps the Category Wins stat to the top priority for determining rank in the standings, as otherwise this could empower a team with a lot of ties into out-ranking a team with more actual wins. I think we should handle this like the NHL does with the Regulation Wins > OTL Points.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Apr 8, 2023 22:13:37 GMT -5
I've held of proposing this due to the logistical problems that it may present, but perhaps you guys will have some ideas...
Point for discussion:
Do we want to allow high-ranked playoff teams to CHOOSE their opponent each playoff round?
The [1] seed would still have a BYE to start, leaving [2] seed to choose their Round 1 opponent from any of the other remaining teams. If [3] seed isn't chosen, they then have their choice or remaining opponents for Round 1. If [3] seed IS chosen as [2] seed's opponent, the next choice of opponent falls to [4] seed. At this point, two teams would be left remaining and would default as the final opponents for Round 1.
For Round 2, the process repeats again, with [1] seed having the choice of any remaining teams, leaving two teams remaining to likewise default as the other opponents for Round 2.
I think this would be very strategic, motivating, and entertaining. However, it could arguably lessen the importance of regular-season seeding, and could prove a logistic challenge, with there being a limited window to organize this between the results of the final DHL regular season games and the start of Round 1 games (on what would be a Sunday early afternoon ET presumably). With multiple decisions needed, with a lot of variables involved, we'd need some contingency plans for if choices aren't submitted by a certain time or whatnot... Which I really don't have any concepts about.
But maybe you guys would have some ideas if there's interest in this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Apr 9, 2023 6:51:01 GMT -5
That ‘choose your opponent’ option has great entertainment potential. Marek has been - only half tongue in cheek - been suggesting this for years in the NHL. Even if you’re the 7th team you would still feel slighted to be chosen first up.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 12, 2023 2:11:30 GMT -5
This is a re-proposal of the suggestion that St. Roch/Doug and I (mostly him) submitted last year. It ended in a 6-6 split of the vote, so I figured it was fair to bring up again a year later:
If a team makes the playoffs, they are ineligible to participate in that off-season's draft lottery. Basically, if a playoff team has multiple 1st round picks (no matter who they originally belonged to), those picks are excluded from the lottery process, and would be seeded according to the normal rules, post lottery results.
Example: Team A = Finished 4th place (Playoffs) ----------------------------------------- Team B = Finished 8th place Team C = Finished 9th place Team D = Finished 10th place Team E = Finished 11th place Team F = Finished 12th place
Team A has two 1st round picks: A 1 2024 and D 1 2024
Because they made the playoffs, their own pick (A 1 2024) is obviously not in the lottery anyways. However, they also own D 1 2024. Because Team D finished in 10th place, that pick would normally be involved in the lottery, as it was originally their property. With this proposal, team ownership determines eligibility, instead of the team "minting" the pick originally. D 1 2024 would be excluded from the draft lottery, which would instead involve only B, C, E and F (barring any of these picks were now owned by playoff teams as well). Whatever the lottery results were, D 1 2024 would then be seeded based on the normal rules, no higher than 5th overall (again, barring any of the other lottery picks being owned by playoff teams as well).
[NOTE: How Team A acquired D 1 2024 is irrelevant, whether traded for in the season prior, through a third team a day before the draft lottery, or through whatever other means. This also only applies to picks that would normally be in lottery consideration, and does not extent to picks from a playoff-team that are now owned by a non-playoff team.]
The intent of this proposal is to make it so teams that are doing well can't also luck into really good draft position as well. This ensures that teams that are not in the playoffs and still DO have their 1st round picks are more likely to have quality 1st round selections, WITHOUT encouraging tanking (with less teams being drawn, the odds naturally improve for teams involved in the draft).
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 13, 2023 19:11:12 GMT -5
We had a low turn-out for the off-season summit, so I didn't feel comfortable letting that few voices determine the validity of this year's proposals. Regardless, Oslo, Portland and I talked through each of them, and came to the conclusion that any proposal that wasn't "pressing" would just be bumped back until the next conference. There are a few that touch on a more immediate need, however, so will be nominated for a vote this summer. Those proposals are...
- Raising the EL Player minimum NHL GP for activating Skater EL Player salary. - Automatically releasing F.A.I.R. Replacement players from a team after they are eliminated. - Modifying the Standings Tie Breaker rules. - Excluding playoff teams from participating in the EL Player Draft Lottery.
Jason and I will talk things over and the formal polls will be up in the near future. Once resolved, I will be contacting each of you for your 2023 Option Decisions, so keep an eye out for that!
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Aug 14, 2023 11:04:20 GMT -5
I would also like to add limited roster slots (Taxi Squad) for EL players. Perhaps 2-3 slots where an owner can place a EL drafted player and said player does not take up a roster position and he is unable to be placed on a team's active roster for a minimum of 2 years.
We need to allow time for our drafted players to reach an age where they can be either everyday players or released to free agency. We cannot contain our roster sizes with 5 draft picks a year while at the same time allow our players to develop.
|
|
|
Post by Haukiputaan Ahmat on Aug 14, 2023 12:44:55 GMT -5
I would also like to add limited roster slots (Taxi Squad) for EL players. Perhaps 2-3 slots where an owner can place a EL drafted player and said player does not take up a roster position and he is unable to be placed on a team's active roster for a minimum of 2 years. We need to allow time for our drafted players to reach an age where they can be either everyday players or released to free agency. We cannot contain our roster sizes with 5 draft picks a year while at the same time allow our players to develop. This is what I tried to say last year regarding goalies
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 16, 2023 2:11:28 GMT -5
We're reducing the number of draft picks so you'll have less prospects in your minors going forward and I believe that if a guy isn't worth keeping he should be released. The prospect pool is thin enough as it is without adding taxi squads or roster spots so that prospects can sit in the minors for years. This has not been a problem in the past as Simi Valley kept Roman Cervixia (may have gotten the name wrong) on his roster for years despite his potential as a NHL player being eliminated. Clearly roster spots have never been an issue for him and he's the one proposing it!
Let's keep making the few tough decisions we have to make and if you drop a prospect to add an NHL player because you ran out of active NHL players to fill your MAJOR roster then so be it. We have 40 roster spots - that's been plenty to have both a MAJOR roster, depth pieces and some quality prospects.
The champion has spoken.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Aug 16, 2023 4:01:03 GMT -5
CERVENKA!!!
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Aug 16, 2023 8:13:50 GMT -5
Take it from me...I am not going to let the "The Champion has spoken" be a thing.
We should not be worried about the prospect pool as much as the free agency of core NHL players. My point is simply that if you draft someone there should be a means of allowing some time for him to develop. I am not asking for 5 Taxi squad positions. I am asking for 2-3. Jesper Wallstedt was my #1 pick from 2021 and as we enter 2023 he is at best another year away. That one player means one occupied roster slot while I am potentially drafting 8-10 more over the same time period. The math wins and we can't collectively start releasing players 1-2 years after we drafted them. Not everyone is Bedard or McDavid.
The good news is this is what the summit is for and we get to vote and so far the voting is 1-1 as far as I can tell.
|
|