|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 13, 2020 9:10:31 GMT -5
Stamina and Fort for minor league players was flipped. These should look better now. A few did go up, but Merkley, Mikkola, Richard, and Sautner are all still appearing with forts of 1, despite 50-60+ games played across both leagues. Has any other team noticed anything similar? EDIT: Radil is also showing as a 2 with 42 AHL/NHL games played out of an estimated season possibility in the mid-60s (regardless of league) I just re-ran the fort calculation to make sure all of the players games (AHL + NHL) were accounted for. Please review now. Note, this is for non goalies only. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Jun 13, 2020 11:07:58 GMT -5
Sorry I forgot what we were talking about.
Derek Grants Carr says last time he was signed it was only on a minor league deal. 100k in 2016. Yet shows up as an UFA. Could we somehow track these cards better to include when you reap them on minor league and then GHL contract? Otherwise I’d believe he should be a RFA as he hasn’t ever had a non minor league contract but I’m. It sure that’s entirely correct. Does that make any sense?
As far as the draft it is talent loss because those players that play at the end of the year for only a game or two are usually the prospects buried throughout the draft, not just the first round, and won’t be included even if they’ve signed a contract during this craziness because they haven’t played any games, which I thought was a requirement (rostered =\= draftable). These aren’t ECHL guys as you believe but guys who finished CHL and NCAA seasons getting a look in the NHL and AHL for a myriad of reasons. It’s not like you’re losing a chunk of guys that would normally go undrafted because the end of the year players are often more developed and the team usually plans to incorporate these players into their system while dumping older, less viable players. If it’d help I’d go through the rest of the draft and prove that this is likely the case but I don’t think you’d see it even if I did that. It’s why I pulled the names of the last two first rounds. What’s going to end up happening this year is you’re going to end up picking players that normally in the 5th round in the 3rd and players that have no reason to be in the draft the next two. Plus I’d imagine next years draft (plus maybe some collateral damage two years from now depending on the way the league restructures) will be inundated with prospects and we’ll be sitting there asking how some of those guys weren’t drafted as you’ll be picking what would normally be a second round pick in the fourth.
Like I said before imagine those past two drafts without those players I picked out, now imagine that for every round. Where else would we be losing that many draftables?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 13, 2020 11:32:39 GMT -5
Sorry I forgot what we were talking about. Derek Grants Carr says last time he was signed it was only on a minor league deal. 100k in 2016. Yet shows up as an UFA. Could we somehow track these cards better to include when you reap them on minor league and then GHL contract? Otherwise I’d believe he should be a RFA as he hasn’t ever had a non minor league contract but I’m. It sure that’s entirely correct. Does that make any sense? As far as the draft it is talent loss because those players that play at the end of the year for only a game or two are usually the prospects buried throughout the draft, not just the first round, and won’t be included even if they’ve signed a contract during this craziness because they haven’t played any games, which I thought was a requirement (rostered =\= draftable). These aren’t ECHL guys as you believe but guys who finished CHL and NCAA seasons getting a look in the NHL and AHL for a myriad of reasons. It’s not like you’re losing a chunk of guys that would normally go undrafted because the end of the year players are often more developed and the team usually plans to incorporate these players into their system while dumping older, less viable players. If it’d help I’d go through the rest of the draft and prove that this is likely the case but I don’t think you’d see it even if I did that. It’s why I pulled the names of the last two first rounds. What’s going to end up happening this year is you’re going to end up picking players that normally in the 5th round in the 3rd and players that have no reason to be in the draft the next two. Plus I’d imagine next years draft (plus maybe some collateral damage two years from now depending on the way the league restructures) will be inundated with prospects and we’ll be sitting there asking how some of those guys weren’t drafted as you’ll be picking what would normally be a second round pick in the fourth. Like I said before imagine those past two drafts without those players I picked out, now imagine that for every round. Where else would we be losing that many draftables?  Jon, I have a wife so I don't usually engage in arguments for the sake of argument but I never said they were all ECHL players. I said some of them, and I believe a significant portion were. Regarding Grant, I will have to look at his case specifically however if a minor league player is not signed to a pro contract then you lose the rights to him if he plays overseas or doesn't have a card for a year. There is something in place to force owners to retain these guys with a pro contract if they playe in the GHL the previous year so I am not sure why you weren't forced to offer him a pro deal since it looks like he has played for the past 3 years for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 13, 2020 11:37:14 GMT -5
Regarding Grant, he was signed to a 2 year deal in 2018 which just expired. So him being a UFA is correct. That makes sense because you would have been forced to do so after using him in the GHL. I will review the portion of the code that handles this to see if these transactions can easily be added to the player transaction details section
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jun 13, 2020 12:07:43 GMT -5
overseas, retain rights for 100K = won't 'lose' the player
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 13, 2020 12:13:21 GMT -5
overseas, retain rights for 100K = won't 'lose' the player Grant wasn't overseas and he is carded this year. So this is just a case where his contract has expired. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jun 13, 2020 12:16:20 GMT -5
sorry, I was making a general statement for retention
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jun 13, 2020 12:49:54 GMT -5
A few did go up, but Merkley, Mikkola, Richard, and Sautner are all still appearing with forts of 1, despite 50-60+ games played across both leagues. Has any other team noticed anything similar? EDIT: Radil is also showing as a 2 with 42 AHL/NHL games played out of an estimated season possibility in the mid-60s (regardless of league) I just re-ran the fort calculation to make sure all of the players games (AHL + NHL) were accounted for. Please review now. Note, this is for non goalies only. Looks good now. Did a double check on Mike Condon, he did play 7 games between two different AHL clubs, so even though it won't be a card I'd probably try to use, he should probably have one. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 13, 2020 14:04:40 GMT -5
Jon,
I absolutely agree with the point you are making. Trust me, I doubt anyone studies the draft as in depth as I do. I literally track prospects long before they are eligible to be drafted here in the G. I have a list of draft eligible players started as soon as the NHL/AHL seasons start and I constantly update that list all season. You are correct about the players you are referring to. They are mostly comprised of college and junior prospects. The key to them being called up at the end of the season for a cup of coffee at the pro level, almost always, is dependant on whether their teams make the playoffs in their respective leagues. The point being that we can't simulate which players would have been called up and which players wouldn't. We can't just formulate a list based on which players we would have liked to see called up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Jun 13, 2020 15:03:52 GMT -5
Glenn, Scott, you guys are right of course and I didn’t mean to start anything (too) crazy. As I’ve said I know the coding alone probably made anything unviable and it is impossible to tell which prospects get kicked out of their respective playoffs to be allowed their cup of coffee in the pro ranks. I’ll drop it, was mostly just explaining my thought process behind this as it seems we are on two different pages, but again, it really isn’t pertinent at this point and you both bring up very valid points. Also I totally understand about having other obligations, this just happens to be one of my major outlets for getting away from my wife and kids plus my professional ambitions as well so I really do get it.
As far as Grant, thank you, I honestly hadn’t looked up his last few cards to see his contract as I was pretty sure he was supposed to be an UFA. Just trying to point out that there may be something missing that would normally update in the transactions portion of the card for guys previously on minors contracts or something, which may eliminate future confusion if fixed or whatnot but not a huge issue , probably more cosmetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jun 15, 2020 11:16:21 GMT -5
Only gripe I have is stamina affecting asking price. Especially with D that jump from 8 to 9 stamina seems to kill asking price.
8 stamina UFA D
Chiarot 55-87 - 6.71 million (23:09) - Price per total point (6.71 million/142=$47,254)
Ekholm 59-89 - 7.48 million (23:22) - Price per total point ($50,541)148
Giordano 59-93 - 9.79 million (23:54) - Price per total point ($64,408) 152
Goligoski 58-77 - 5.28 million (23:03) - Price per total point ($39,111)135
Hamilton 79-97 - 11.22 million (23:17) - Price per total point ($63,750)176
Hedman 76-94 - 10.67 million (24:03) - Price per total point ($62,765) 170
9 stamina FA D
Provorov 61-83 - 8.1 million (24:51) - Priceper total point ($56,250) 144
Carlson 85-68 - 12.1 million (24:38) - Price per total point ($79,085) 153
Burns 65-75 - 9.02 million (25:25) - Price per total point ($64,429) 140
Don't get me wrong I think stamina tied to asking price is a good thing I just don't know if the jump from 8 to 9 or 9 to 10 should be that large. Hedman with arguably better card than Carlson gets a 21% savings per point just because he played 35 seconds less per game.
Also Burns makes no sense to me, same stamina as Provorov, slightly better offense and worse D but is asking 1 mil more. Does the stated stamina on the card not matter for asking price and TOI is what goes into it? If that's the case does Burns actually have better stamina than Provorov (ie is Burns 9 really a 9.4)? Also is offense more important to D asking price? Only other way i could see Burns asking more than Provorov.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jun 15, 2020 11:57:52 GMT -5
Works for Forwards too but difference isn't as large as with D. Maybe going 8-9 larger jump than 6-7?
7 Stamina
Evander Kane 82-44 7.04 mil ($55,873) 126
Gabriel Landeskog 84-42 7.59 mil ($60,238) 126
JT Miller 94-47 8.91 mil ($63,191) 141
Ryan O'Reilly 86-59 9.13 mil ($62,966) 145
Zibanejad 100-52 10.12 mil ($66,579) 152
6 Stamina
Bergeron 96-60 9.24 mil ($59,231) 156
Brown 70-38 4.51 mil ($41,759) 108
Couture 85-51 6.71 mil ($49,338) 136
Danault 81-61 6.16 mil ($43,380) 142
Giroux 83-45 6.71 mil ($52,422) 128
Hall 84-33 7.04 mil ($60,171) 117
Stamkos 100-37 8.36 mil ($61,022) 137
Nelson 89-36 6.6 mil ($52,800) 125
Just some observations on Forwards
- Hall asking more than Giroux and Nelson despite having worse cards seems wrong
- 20%+ savings by having stamina lower by 1 (Kane vs Danault big one)
- Danault asking less than Giroux is the 2 offense worth more than 16 lower D rating?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 15, 2020 12:17:48 GMT -5
There is not difference in bump size when going up or down 1 step in regards to Stamina meaning each step has the same factor for determining asking price.
Asking price also takes into account Stamina as well when arriving at a price.
Also, and this is a big piece as well, it takes the most recent 3 year average of each of these and uses them in the calculation if they are larger than the current cards value for the particular item.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jun 15, 2020 12:19:15 GMT -5
Is asking price based on multiple years or just last year? I don't recall the official line but for some reason I feel like multiple years of stats contributed towards asking prices to guard against one hit wonders or one year pitfalls having too much influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jun 15, 2020 13:32:00 GMT -5
If I understand correctly now the asking price is based on the HIGHER of 3 year average card OR current years card. Is there any discount when using the 3 year average? If Carlson's game went to hell and had a 35-50 card would he still be asking 12 million because he was good the past 3 years?
Scenarios where I'm not a huge fan of 3 year average.
Brent Burns - 65-75 asking 9 million. He's 35 on the back end of his career but asking based on past performance
Dougie Hamilton - 68-66 is his 3 year average, this year 79-97 and asking 11+ million. If this year is a fluke you are on the hook for the contract, but even worse is if you sign him 1 year and try and get him cheaper next year his 3 year average jumps to a 70-74 even tho he has only 2 years when he's been near that (this year and 15-16)
I don't really have a solution but if using 3 year average (and I believe it is weighted more for recent years) maybe we lower the asking price by a percentage, say 20%. Looking at list I think it is now clear these guys have used 3 year average for their asking price
Brent Burns 65-75 asking 9.02 million
Dustin Brown 70-38 asking 4.51 million
If we did percentage of 3 year average asking vs current card asking and take the higher Burns would be 7.2 mil asking (or current cards asking) and Brown would be 3.6 million. In Hamilton's case if he goes back to a 64-60 next year and was only signed 1 year his new asking price would be 80% of a 70-74 card or 100% of a 64-60 card whatever is higher.
|
|
