Proposed Rule Change - Prospect Determination

[Jon-Seattle]

Will we gradually be lowering the number of active contracts allowed from the 45-50 we currently use to something else? My guess is that we end up playing it by ear, slowly culling the rosters down to minimize cap/contract issues in the short term before finding the right balance. I’m sure it’ll be a little easier to figure out after cards are rolled out but thought I would ask since I haven’t seen anything on it yet other then possibly lowering goalie caps.

[Jedediah-Hartford]

May 25, 2022 9:31:02 GMT -5 Jon-Seattle said:

Will we gradually be lowering the number of active contracts allowed from the 45-50 we currently use to something else? My guess is that we end up playing it by ear, slowly culling the rosters down to minimize cap/contract issues in the short term before finding the right balance. I’m sure it’ll be a little easier to figure out after cards are rolled out but thought I would ask since I haven’t seen anything on it yet other then possibly lowering goalie caps.

I wonder if maybe with prospects keeping that status longer, if they should be incorporated into the roster count?  It would help create a bit more cap space as well since prospect contracts don't currently count against the cap.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

I don't see us necessarily lowering roster sizes as I think 50 is how many contracts the NHL allows max per franchise.

This is being done primarily to allow players time to develop before they start burning the first year if their ELC. In the past this happened all too often with a player who might just be coming into his own (and getting NHL playing time) exiting his GHL ELC.

[Brenden-Oregon]

Unless we have an minor league to compete for, what's the point of having a roster size between 45 and 50 with the new prospect rules? If they are considered a prospect until they play 20/10 NHL, then they will (most likely) have a useable card and won't need to sit on the bench or the minors. I could see us needing/having a roster size of 30 or so (still 7 higher than an NHL roster), but with how this new rule plays out and not having a minor league to compete for, what's the need for it to continue at 50 when prospects (those who are on the books because they played over 20 Pro games but don't have a useable card yet) are no longer taking up a roster spot?

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Teams will still have players to flesh out their roster with. That's why there will be a limit on AHL games played before the player loses his prospect status. Once we have a few years of the new prospect rules under our belt there will be a crop of AHL caliber drafted players.

Prospects do not count against the cap. Teams always have and continue to have the option of signing 100k minimum players to get to the floor of 45 roster spots. Teams can even find diamonds in the rough like I did with AHL carded Palat I signed to a minor league deal in 2012. Once his card blossomed he was a key part of the trade I made with NJ to land Vasilesky.

The new prospect rules will more accurately represent the two way contracts that the NHL has and we don't.

[Jon-Seattle]

Alright. I was just thinking it would lower the available player pool but if you don’t see that happening then I think we’re good

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

I think it might lower the player pool out for a year or two until we get some of those guys playing the per-requisite games in the AHL at which point things will be back to normal. This years skaters file has 1,599 entries in it so I think even if all newly drafted players were prospects, which wont be the case) that is roughly 45 skaters available for each team.

If we do see that we are running a little short of skaters or goalies we will adjust league minimum counts accordingly for this year in the hopes that the churn will allow for standard roster sized next year.

[Scott-New York]

Just for the sake of putting information out...

I have 102 players ranked on this year's scouting report (which is a bit lower than normal) and for reference in this discussion...

87 of those are prospects under the new rule

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

I would think most players drafted will be prospects for at least 1 year. The numbers you show most likely will extrapolate to 25 non prospects of the 160 guys drafted which is to be expected.

So lets use this years draft class of 160 as the basis for a projection.

22-23: 0 cards base, +25 NHL cards added this year, +0 AHL cards added this year, 135 prospects remaining
23-24: 25 cards base, +15 cards added this year, +0 AHL cards added this year, 120 prospects remaining
24-25: 40 cards base, +15 cards added this year, +25 AHL cards added this year, 80 prospects remaining
25-26: 80 cards base, +15 cards added this year, +45 AHL cards added this year, 20 prospects remaining

The remaining 20 prospects might retire or never see significant AHL/NHL time.

[Phil-Cornwall]

this is the better one.

[Matt-Syracuse]

The simple fact of the matter is that if we want more parity, we have to prevent the stockpiling of cheap NHL players. We have to incentivize bad teams from tanking. We claim realism, yet we have no agents, no angry players demanding trades, no loud mouthed local media, no greedy $ owners.

We also have a crystal ball into a players future. The NHL doesn't. We should not slavishly follow NHL models if they do not produce the outcomes we are looking for.

Glenn already pointed to the answer: Franchise Points. Let's discuss creative ways to use them.

Here's my thought: Discontent. For every NHL player who does not receive 50 percent playing time...some sort of Franchise Point penalty accrues. But GLenn can figure out something better. Also, non-playoff teams should be able to use FP to buy lottery balls.

[Jedediah-Hartford]

Jul 4, 2023 12:14:42 GMT -5 Matt-Syracuse said:

The simple fact of the matter is that if we want more parity, we have to prevent the stockpiling of cheap NHL players. We have to incentivize bad teams from tanking. We claim realism, yet we have no agents, no angry players demanding trades, no loud mouthed local media, no greedy $ owners.

We also have a crystal ball into a players future. The NHL doesn't. We should not slavishly follow NHL models if they do not produce the outcomes we are looking for.

Glenn already pointed to the answer: Franchise Points. Let's discuss creative ways to use them.

Here's my thought: Discontent. For every NHL player who does not receive 50 percent playing time...some sort of Franchise Point penalty accrues. But GLenn can figure out something better. Also, non-playoff teams should be able to use FP to buy lottery balls.

Not sure how this connects to prospect determination so I'm guess it was added here by accident.


I'm curious to hear from others if they think parity (or lack of it) is truly an issue at present, it wasn't something that came to mind for me before reading this.

That said, we've just concluded a postseason in which the conference champions were the 7th and 8th seeds going into the playoffs. For several years running we've had 16-18 teams in the league with a .500 record (which I take as 82 points) or better. 28 of the 32 teams in the league have made at least one playoff appearance in the last 5 years. Finally, if counting the last of Cleveland's three-peat, we've had 4 different Cup winners in the last 4 seasons.