|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 3, 2021 5:06:47 GMT -5
Age base would fix a lot of that…. I want a thumbs down button 👎 Ya, those execs in the NHL must have no clue what they are doing, using age based free agency like that. That would never work. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 7:03:00 GMT -5
So what’s the reasoning for wanting the change? Is it the amount of money it is for a drafted player that is only playing in the AHL for a couple years? Or is it not wanting to lose years on the contract until the player reaches the NHL?
The first one I can understand, and think it is necessary to find a way for those contracts to be reduced until they play 10-20 NHL games in one season.
If it’s for the second reason, I would say that’s garbage. Imagine an AHL player who has a two way contract not getting years off their contract until they reach the NHL. It just would never happen.
The best way to do it might be with how we treat minor league players. Once a drafted player plays a game in the GHL, the next season their contract increases to what we currently have with what round they were chosen in. Until they play a game in the GHL, we could do something like:
$100,000 for rounds 4 and 5
$200.000 for rounds 2 and 3
$300,000 for round 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 3, 2021 7:28:31 GMT -5
I think we all want realism. The closer the entire experience is the the NHL product is what I like, and I think the majority here feels the same.
There have been 5 different owners wanting a true minor league team for years now. Would this alleviate the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 7:46:40 GMT -5
It would alleviate this problem, but would open up a can of worms elsewhere, especially if people start using the minors as a place to get rid of bad contracts. BUT, a salary cap for the GHL and a salary cap for the minor leagues would fix that, too. Mirror the NHL for the GHL and eliminate the extra 2.5 million we get, and then make the salary cap for the minor leagues like 10 million.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 3, 2021 8:32:53 GMT -5
Boys, I haven't fully digested all of the thoughts in here but I will add my 2 cents of what I know as of right now.
This is being done to properly elevate the commodity weight of draft picks while at the same time being a much more realistic tool for the evaluation cycle of drafted players (draft time/development in the minors as needed/finally NHL game time).
The current cards used last years prospect rules meaning that the 20/10 NHL/AHL gp for the year was the threshold. Next year the code will be modified to use NHL games only in determining if they have played enough games to leave prospect status. As discussed, we might also decide to put a total NHL GP check in there as well that might elevate them out of prospect status.
I was a little confused by some of the comments worried about having all of these prospects causing cap issues as my belief is, I will need to check to be sure, is that these players don't currently hit your cap and certainly wouldn't hit your cap in the new solution. That being the case, you can always fill out your team with 100k minor league players. Even if you needed 30 of them that's only 3M.
I will concede that we might need to lower team roster/goalie limits down to 45 total/4 goalies if we have a bunch of prospects that lower the pool. This year we have 1792 cards which when we divide by 32 (number of teams) that yields 56 per team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 8:54:43 GMT -5
If we're going to do this, putting a cap on the amount of years they can retain prospect status would make it where nothing else really needs to be changed. I would say either 2 or 3 years (or 20 NHL), whichever comes first. Free drop after they lose their prospect status after 2 or 3 years, and then they still have 3 years of the ELC to go. 5 or 6 years is plenty of time scouting to make a second decision, after making the first one when they lose their prospect status.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Jul 3, 2021 14:53:31 GMT -5
Brendan, there’s a bunch of people wanting to change this because they’re upset that the development of a guy they drafted is slower than they would like (despite having at least a full year, if not several, of scouting them after they were drafted in the NHL). At the point they finally “break out” they’re often due a new contract and either don’t continue to develop wasting money because you overplayed them for one good year in their prime, or you underplayed them and didn’t bridge so you lose an amazing player earlier than you would like because you were being cheap. So to save us from ourselves guys who are developing in the minors get stashed until they finally get good, then we can take advantage of the favorable low cap hit we drafted them for several years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 15:17:15 GMT -5
Brendan, there’s a bunch of people wanting to change this because they’re upset that the development of a guy they drafted is slower than they would like (despite having at least a full year, if not several, of scouting them after they were drafted in the NHL). At the point they finally “break out” they’re often due a new contract and either don’t continue to develop wasting money because you overplayed them for one good year in their prime, or you underplayed them and didn’t bridge so you lose an amazing player earlier than you would like because you were being cheap. So to save us from ourselves guys who are developing in the minors get stashed until they finally get good, then we can take advantage of the favorable low cap hit we drafted them for several years ago. I get the premise of what this is about. I’m failing to see what the need to change the prospect rules for. Not all NHL draft picks develop and that drafting team doesn’t get to hold onto them until they do. Not all guys signed to big contracts after one good year turn out well either. It’s risk and reward, just like with everything. With my last post, that would solve a lot of what you guys want. A low (minors like) cap hit until they play 20 NHL games, and then the following GHL season, their co tract goes based off whatever round they were drafted in. Also, having it set where they can only have this kind of prospect status for 2-3 years, and then still have 3 years for their ELC is more than enough time. That’s 5-6 years so these guys are 23-24 at the youngest when they could either be bridged or signed to a new deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 15:30:19 GMT -5
Boys, I haven't fully digested all of the thoughts in here but I will add my 2 cents of what I know as of right now. This is being done to properly elevate the commodity weight of draft picks while at the same time being a much more realistic tool for the evaluation cycle of drafted players (draft time/development in the minors as needed/finally NHL game time). The current cards used last years prospect rules meaning that the 20/10 NHL/AHL gp for the year was the threshold. Next year the code will be modified to use NHL games only in determining if they have played enough games to leave prospect status. As discussed, we might also decide to put a total NHL GP check in there as well that might elevate them out of prospect status. I was a little confused by some of the comments worried about having all of these prospects causing cap issues as my belief is, I will need to check to be sure, is that these players don't currently hit your cap and certainly wouldn't hit your cap in the new solution. That being the case, you can always fill out your team with 100k minor league players. Even if you needed 30 of them that's only 3M. I will concede that we might need to lower team roster/goalie limits down to 45 total/4 goalies if we have a bunch of prospects that lower the pool. This year we have 1792 cards which when we divide by 32 (number of teams) that yields 56 per team. Is there a way to see how many players there would be in the GHL currently who have played over 20 NHL games in their career? If so, that would tell us what we’d be looking at a few years into the future how many non prospects there would be. Or even just how many AHL only cards there are currently would help. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 3, 2021 15:34:09 GMT -5
Current prospect $ = not NHL realistic
Proposed prospect $ ideas = closer to NHL realism
That's all....closer to realism. No need to all 'flapped out' aboot it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 15:44:55 GMT -5
Current prospect $ = not NHL realistic Proposed prospect $ ideas = closer to NHL realism That's all....closer to realism. No need to all 'flapped out' aboot it. Yes, NHL realism. But, we're required to have 45-50 players, which is an entire organization (NHL and AHL). So saying NHL realism doesn't work here. We should be going with either entire organization realism or NHL realism. If we go NHL realism and go with the proposed prospect idea, just make the max number of players on a team 30 (4 goalies) and be able to have a max of 15-20 prospects (3-4 full drafts). |
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 16:01:01 GMT -5
Current prospect $ = not NHL realistic Proposed prospect $ ideas = closer to NHL realism That's all....closer to realism. No need to all 'flapped out' aboot it. Yes, closer to realism. Prospects not getting paid in the minors (at all) and not having years run off their contract towards getting a new deal. All realistic  I'll say it again. Keep the current prospect rule in place where if they play less than 20 professional games, the contract slides. Over 20 professional games, start the contract with this in place: 1st round pick: $300,000 until they play 20 NHL games. Then to what it is currently. 2nd and 3rd round picks: $200,000 until they play 20 NHL games. Then to what it is currently. 4th and 5th round picks: $100,000 until they play 20 NHL games. Then to what it is currently. If it really is just about the money, then this would be more than fair. It's what actually happens for your realism. Those are the two way deals where a player makes more in the NHL than the AHL. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 3, 2021 17:38:09 GMT -5
Because I'm not sure. Once a drafted player signs a deal with an NHL club, do their contracts slide? I know that once drafted, NHL teams have 2 years (I believe) to sign them to a contract or they become free agents. Is there a reason why we just couldn't do something like this? I keep seeing realism cited, so that's as real as it gets. Just make all draft picks prospects until their team decides to sign them to an ELC. Once that decision is made, the contract hits the books. If they are not signed within 2 years (or whatever the NHL uses) they become UFA's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 3, 2021 17:47:11 GMT -5
Because I'm not sure. Once a drafted player signs a deal with an NHL club, do their contracts slide? I know that once drafted, NHL teams have 2 years (I believe) to sign them to a contract or they become free agents. Is there a reason why we just couldn't do something like this? I keep seeing realism cited, so that's as real as it gets. Just make all draft picks prospects until their team decides to sign them to an ELC. Once that decision is made, the contract hits the books. If they are not signed within 2 years (or whatever the NHL uses) they become UFA's. Yes, they slide provided they don't play more than 9 NHL games (if CHL eligible). They don't slide if a player is ineligible for CHL and plays in the AHL. It's 2 years to sign for junior players and until the summer after a player's senior year if playing college hockey. I like this idea. A lot actually. But I have a feeling some will still say something about the money. This idea plus the lower cap hit I suggested ($100,000-$300,000) in my earlier post until a player plays in a GHL game or played 20 NHL games in ONE SEASON would solve everything. If they played over 20 NHL in one season, then next GHL season, they'd have what the current cap hit for whatever round they were drafted. Up to two years not on the books, plus a lowered cap hit for 3 years (ELC) provided they don't play in a GHL game or have played 20 NHL games the season before sounds like a winner to me and gives it the true two way feel a prospect should have. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 3, 2021 18:44:10 GMT -5
I DO NOT 'member Brenden as being 'chatty' at ALL, let alone this level of vociferousness.
....odd......
|
|
