The Value of Draft picks in the FHL

[Scott-New York]

No, they would go to market but you could sign them at 75% on a deal that keeps them under 27, it's called a bridge deal in the NHL. The advantage is that you still have rights to them even after their 2nd contract expires. It gives you an advantage in retaining franchise player type guys.

[Dane-Hamilton]

Yea Im not opposed to that, would it be 75% again after the second contract too then

[Scott-New York]

I suppose that would be up to the Commish

[Scott-New Jersey]

WOW...... I can agree with some of what was said but allot is just shit pouring out of your cock holster with teeth.

This is what the 4ht year that this is been put together and their is allot of growing to do.

[Ian-Halifax]

I think I've said before I am all for the same idea Scott has. I think we would need to use 28 for RFAs since we are a year behind, but I think it would almost make things easier. Anyone under 28 is an RFA, very simple to follow. Drafted players could still be 75% to retain while minor league/UFA signings would still be 90%. The only thing I see difficult with this plan are players who are currently scheduled to be RFAs but are over 28.. I'm sure something could be figured out though.

[Dane-Hamilton]

I think waive the 28 rule for players taken in the initial draft and it'll work fine, No way Malkin and players like him should become a UFA or have his original perceived RFA compensation changed from what everyone assumed for the last 4 years after his first contract is done because he is 29.

[Scott-New York]

Nov 25, 2013 13:43:46 GMT -5 @samsal said:

Glenn I reread this and I'm adding this disclaimer. I'm not trying to take over your league, or run it, but I'm just pointing out the problems that lead to all this. This is not a slight against you.


The reason any of this is a problem is because of all the Glenn rules. If we just get rid of all the Glenn rules these problems fix themselves.

Why are late draft picks not valuable? Because we flooded the marketed with 2099 players. Why do we have 2099 players? To have a roster of 45. Why do we have a roster of 45? So no one can just field a team of 25 Studs. Why not have a a team of just studs? Because that would make those teams get more from the 40% free cap for those that don't spend it on personal and hord it Glen rule or just over pay guys at free agency. Well that hasn't worked to stop any of this and now has backfired and hurt the guys that want to draft deeper. Lets look at Rochester who is in 1st place in his division. He has 25 studs and the rest is 2099 players. Just what these Glenn rules were suppose to prevent. What if the rule was you can only a max of 50 players no minimum? Would everyone stop drafting? No it would be business as usual for most teams. But the 100-200 2099 guys wouldn't be grabbed. Now the draft pool is rich with talent. More guys available. Lots more guys. Guys that some schmo didn't get lucky because the league forced him to pick X amount of guys. Now next year's picks are 200 guys deeper because managers weren't forced to grab guys. This years draft there be 600 more guys to pick and they would have been a much nicer upgrade than what is out now. SOme guys that were 2099 guys last year would be drafted 1st round this year.

How do we fix this? By following the NHL. It has paid lawyers MILLIONS of dollars to come up with this system and the owners have paid their lawyers MILLIONS of dollars to try to game it and find loop holes. THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES in the NHL but in the FHL the Glenn rules make it look like swiss cheese. So we close the loop holes, but getting rid of the rules that make them and replace them with the NHL rule.
-The NHL doesn't give teams 40% extra cap for not spending it on players to make them better; GET RID OF THE RULE
-The NHL doesn't have a 45 player minimum limit, hell some NHL teams don't even have a minor league team, they just disperse players thought the AHL; GET RID OF THE RULE

Unrelated to this but also Glenn rules that are full of loop holes are the player buy out rule and the -3.5 offseason cap rule. Both should just follow the NHL practice and would force managers to be smarter. That is a discussion for another thread.

A lot of the Glenn rules may have sounded like a good idea in theory at the time. like the US policy of "separate but equal" but looking back both aren't helping and are making more problems. Why is the league forcing guys to do anything? If they want to fail let them. Its been 3 years. You know what you have here. It isn't a perfect Sim of the NHL. It is a loosely based game based on most of the ideas of the NHL with 30 guys with there own take on it. Some guys play this purely how the NHL is set up and are wondering why they aren't succeeding. Others have figured out that this is a game plain and simple to to win a game you must play how the game is set up not how the real life idea the game is based off of. Other managers have quickly realized maybe they can play a hybrid of both because what they thought this league was, isn't but they can still tweek their team and salvage it.

These reasons above are why draft picks have lost their luster. We all are clamoring for this to be like the NHL so why isn't it? I'm aware it will take effort and recoding and if that's what it takes to make a adequate product into a great product with no loopholes isn't it worth it? The league goes dark for 2 weeks because of the Olympics. That would be a good time to shut it down and take out any loophole rules and recode them. Right now we are making up new rules to patch up old ones and the new ones open themselves up to more holes. Sometimes you just have to cut the whole faulty part out an replace it with a solid piece, even if it means more work. In the long run it will be better and isn't this league about the long run?

OK, I have to comment on this because it just full of shit. First off, the NHL has a 50 player cap, hmm, just like we do. They can only carry 50 contracted players, that's the rule, look it up. And your dead on as to why we have a minimum, so a team can't just field 25 studs. Period, pretty simple. You are right as far as I know about not have a minimum, other than the 20 'dressed skater' rule. However, the only way you could get what you are after here is to implement a 23 man roster under the salary cap which would entail waivers, which Glenn has said cannot be coded. I would love to see us follow the NHL roster rules but we simply can't at this time as far as I know.

Now, the 25/50 rule you so hated. That simply simulated bigger hockey markets spending bigger money. What drives hockey markets? SUCCESS, hence the 25-50 rule. It's not designed as a rule to allow teams who underspend to have more money to make their teams better. The only people at fault if we allow that to happen is us. We are the ones making the deals which make this possible to exploit. Law of averages says that a team who is way under the cap will have a tough time being competitive.

The NHL has buy-outs yet you say we shouldn't? I'm confused, aren't you arguing to follow the NHL.

The NHL allows teams to go over the salary cap by 10% in the off-season. We set it at a certain $ amount, lower than 10% to avoid mangers way overspending. Guys have had a hard enough time getting under the cap as it is, they'd never get there with 10% allowed.

I'm not sure if I missed anything or not but it certainly doesn't appear to me that we are anywhere near as far off as you'd like to make it sound. The rules are pretty solid. Do we have room to grow? Absolutely, and if there are solid ideas, let's hear them. I want to be as close to the NHL as possible as well throwing out rules that simulate what the NHL uses is not the way to get there.

[Scott-New York]

I would have no problem with us considering sliding closer to the latter two points you mentioned, as the matter of fact, I'm all in on both of them. However, I like having the lower limit roster number to stop teams from spending their entire cap value on 25 guys. How would you propose we keep teams from doing this. The NHL has a waiver system to control roster limits and I don't think we are going to see that implemented here so our rule keeps this competitive. I am not at all for a GM spending their whole wad on a partial team because it diminishes the value of picks greatly and we are trying to increase their value. Guys that have no value in building a franchise could and would exploit this.

[Scott-New York]

The problem with letting guys fall on their face is exactly what you pointed out. They build a team with no prospects, fail, of course, and then abandon ship, leaving bare cupboards for the FHL to deal with. It is obvious that most of the managers we get in don't want empty cupboards. I'm not picking on any specifically because I don't even remember who said it but I distinctly remember one of the newer mangers whining because he didn't get the better team when he signed up.

As far as team building goes, I'm only worried about what one team in this league is building. I don't concern myself with trying to figure out what the other 29 teams are doing. I question things I see at times but in the end, my club is the only one I really worry about. As I pointed out in another thread this morning, I've made enough bad deals to learn my lesson and I know exactly what my strategy is now and I will continue to follow it year after year.