CDCGML 2012-13

[canuck2xtreme]

In the spirit of the CBA talks, I would like to invite the GMs around the league to voice their concerns with the game and discuss ways we can improve and grow our game. Any and all topics are on the table, such as:

• Front office budget benchmarks

• Possible limits on contract terms (ie: maximum 5-6 years?)

• Adjustments to draft rules

• Free agency (UFA, RFA, cutoff dates, arbitration)

• League parity

• Re-alignment

Any other topic I've overlooked can also be discussed.

Unlike Bettman and the NHL owners, I can guarantee will have a season next year, on time. As I've said before, if I have to create the league in NHL13 and sim it until the NHL gets going again, I will

[Tony Romo]

Parity

Top 6 forwards shouldn't be on the 4th line like some teams have

[Sharpshooter]

What a beauty! Bonus points for wearing white gloves

[Sharpshooter]

In the spirit of the CBA talks, I would like to invite the GMs around the league to voice their concerns with the game and discuss ways we can improve and grow our game. Any and all topics are on the table, such as:

• Front office budget benchmarks

• Possible limits on contract terms (ie: maximum 5-6 years?)

• Adjustments to draft rules

• Free agency (UFA, RFA, cutoff dates, arbitration)

• League parity

• Re-alignment

Any other topic I've overlooked can also be discussed.

Unlike Bettman and the NHL owners, I can guarantee will have a season next year, on time. As I've said before, if I have to create the league in NHL13 and sim it until the NHL gets going again, I will

[canuck2xtreme]

CDCGML Canucks Clip of the Day!

[Sharpshooter]

Juice!

[greensman]

Juice! What a great moment

I`ve been recovering from a massive party weekend at a festival in Squamish... as soon as things stop spinning and the thump, thump, thump in my ears stop, I`ll get back into agent and gm duties.

Hope y`all are having a great summer so far...

Greensie...

[Primal Optimist]

I would like to add my thoughts to the round table, but I will get them posted on a morning so I have time to debate them internally and make sure I don't make a knee jerk statement, or harsh out on any one team/gm...off the top of my head, I think the game is great, and any little tweaks ought to be just that, little tweaks. Catch you all later, and yes, i saw the gloves and thought, 'takin it serious'. Good. haha...i have a great pair of white gloves for light bulb changing and trophy handling..everyone needs a pair..now i need to win some CDCGML hardware.

OOooooo Point 1: Maybe some real hardware. lol....talk to you soon.

[Otis]

Parity

Top 6 forwards shouldn't be on the 4th line like some teams have

[arby18_]

The Habs would like to terminate the contract of Clay Wilson, who has signed with Donbass Donetsk of the KHL. We are sad to see him go, but would like to wish him and his family well in their future endeavors.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/04/clay-wilson-heads-for-khl-flames-void-contract/

[Tony Romo]

The nba just got worse today

[canuck2xtreme]

The nba just got worse today

It turned into baseball? .....?

[Sharpshooter]

The nba just got worse today

[y0shi]

• Front office budget benchmarks

I would say that we're a few years into the season now and should look to expand the budget especially for the minors. Teams now have a number of prospects and with the roster maximum, there should be some balance of having room to have enough prospects without sacrificing other front office aspects.

• Possible limits on contract terms (ie: maximum 5-6 years?)

I would keep this in line with the CBA. How many super long term deals have we seen in this league anyways? (Doughty, Kovalchuk, that is all).

• Adjustments to draft rules

I think keeping it at 3 rounds is good enough. Like Sharpie said, I'd prefer lowering the UFA signing age to 20

• Free agency (UFA, RFA, cutoff dates, arbitration)

Arbitration would be really interesting. In light of the big 2013 free agency year, I would also be open to more preliminary discussions prior to the deadline.

• League parity

Like Romo said, Top 6 forwards on the 4th line is a big no-no. However, I think it has more to do with enforcement of unhappy playing time. Also, not that every prospect is a Cody Hodgson, but there are a few teams that have established NHL players on ELCs on their 3rd/4th lines.

• Re-alignment

I would follow the NHL's current system until they actually realign the conferences.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to emphasize regarding parity is that it should not just be the league coming down hard on GM's that did the work to acquire the players like OTTS said. Teams that complain (like myself) need to put in the time/effort (which I have) to make the team better. The first couple years I took a wait and see approach to trading, and tried to land the big fish or two. But if a team isn't actively trying to get better throughout the year, why would a free agent want to come there? Without making improvements yourself, it'll perpetuate the downward spiral to a bottomfeeder. add that many of the lower-ranked teams love trading 1st rounders for border line top-6 players that would be first liners on their teams... and BOOM there's the reason why you'll never improve.

[Wilb]

• "Front office budget benchmarks

I would say that we're a few years into the season now and should look to expand the budget especially for the minors. Teams now have a number of prospects and with the roster maximum, there should be some balance of having room to have enough prospects without sacrificing other front office aspects."

I think we would have to be careful with this one, as this aspect of the game is very important in the strategy of this game. Some teams have a very large minors system, and have allotted a large part of their budget to the minor system; these teams obviously have an advantage over teams who haven't built their minors in player development-----Some teams have allowed a large amount to their player relations, which should also create an advantage for that team in signing free agents etc... And believe it or not there might be teams with room on their minor budget who are salivating at the possibility of picking up prospects as some teams may have strapped themselves with their minor budget, and have to potentially make trades to dump some of that minor salary to make room for new signings.........Anyway, I think managing your budget is a very important part of the game, I think sacrificing in other parts of the budget because a team wants a huge minor team is the name of the game, and if the budget isn't managed properly, there should, and will be consequences---(such as losing some bargaining power because your cap is maxed out).

[canuck2xtreme]

I hate this statement for so many reasons.

People have good teams because they put the effort in and make smart moves, there already is enough in place to give everyone a level playing field, IMO.

I agree that the GMs that make smart moves and put in the effort will likely have better teams as a result, but I don't see any reason for you to dislike that statement, as it's completely accurate and in accordance with the rules. Top 6 players don't belong on 4th lines and top defencemen shouldn't be 3rd or 4th on a team's depth chart, and that really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Since day one the rules have asked for a realistic roster. I'll also agree that there is enough currently in place to ensure a level playing field, but one of those things, if not the biggest single thing, is the requirement for a realistic roster.

Those GMs that put in the effort and are making moves to improve their team should have to take that into consideration and ensure their team that's being built with those smart moves actually reflects a realistic roster, as that is part of the game as well. That's why I've made a few trades that I did, because I needed to ensure my roster was realistic, even though I would have rather not moved the player. While I'm glad we have so many quality GMs that put in the time and effort, just because someone puts in time and effort does not give them a free pass to push and exceed the boundaries of the rules.

Teams that insist that they should be able to keep a top line guy on the 3rd line and see no issue with it are the ones that make it difficult to enforce those roster guidelines. And when they start pointing to other teams with the usual 'but this team has this guy on the 3rd line!!!" stuff, it drives me nuts. You get everyone playing that game and nothing ever gets done. I'll put teams on notice right now, that argument will not work next season. The biggest area I feel I need to improve on is the enforcement of that rule, and it will be addressed next season. I will look at every team as often as possible (and at least four times a month) to ensure their roster is realistic and address the glaring issues. Does that other team have an issue? Maybe, but I'll find it, and maybe I already have discussed it with that team. I always try to do it quietly so as to give the team the best possible bargaining position so to give themselves the chance to make the best of the situation. Complaining will only lessen your bargaining position. If it starts showing up on the rumour mill (likely will be the new name of the trading block section) and going public that a player is unhappy, I doubt teams will be willing to give up as much to get the player.

It doesn't take a great GM to load up on top end players and watch points roll in. It takes a great and savvy GM to build a balanced, complete and realistic team that can outperform other teams on a nightly basis.

[y0shi]

• "Front office budget benchmarks

I would say that we're a few years into the season now and should look to expand the budget especially for the minors. Teams now have a number of prospects and with the roster maximum, there should be some balance of having room to have enough prospects without sacrificing other front office aspects."

I think we would have to be careful with this one, as this aspect of the game is very important in the strategy of this game. Some teams have a very large minors system, and have allotted a large part of their budget to the minor system; these teams obviously have an advantage over teams who haven't built their minors in player development-----Some teams have allowed a large amount to their player relations, which should also create an advantage for that team in signing free agents etc... And believe it or not there might be teams with room on their minor budget who are salivating at the possibility of picking up prospects as some teams may have strapped themselves with their minor budget, and have to potentially make trades to dump some of that minor salary to make room for new signings.........Anyway, I think managing your budget is a very important part of the game, I think sacrificing in other parts of the budget because a team wants a huge minor team is the name of the game, and if the budget isn't managed properly, there should, and will be consequences---(such as losing some bargaining power because your cap is maxed out).

[Primal Optimist]

Having now finally seen almost a full cycle with the league, my initial concerns have somewhat abated.

1)Parity. Early in my first season I felt that bottom rung teams, and significantly the ones whose GM's had been replaced, were handicapped to a crippling point in trying to catch up. Credit to the top teams GM's of course, who are year in and year out great teams with a boatload of depth, but these bottom ranked teams appeared, to my new GM eyes to be sadly outclassed and stuck in a system that perpetuated the rule of the long term GM.

Now, a year later, I am not so concerned about that. At least, I have no good suggestion on how to accomplish a move towards parity that won't punish GM's who put in the time. I do think the system is such that said bottom feeders with new GM's DO have a rough time. However the difference now is that I understand the dedication, investment and skill that the 'long term GM' has utilized to get his team where it is. That should not be punished in order to help out new GM's who have inherited poor teams with not many resources. There could be other ways to give a little push for new GM's that does not involve a 'transfer of wealth' from better teams. To a degree the salary cap goes a long way towards parity that a new GM who is invested can overcome the obstacles by simply playing the game and making trades, moves and drafting well. All in all, i would like to see just a small 'welcome' for a new GM taking over a lower ranked team..something to help them out, without punishing the other GM's. Any ideas?

2) playoffs. I am very interested in a 7 game series style playoffs series. I sampled one during our last playoffs and it would work out well, but require slightly more work from our President and his executive. We know the night the NHL's round 1 starts and ends, it is fairly easy to then divide round one into 7 games. Several different ways to do it, but if its done in advance of the round, no one gets an unfair advantage. Generally speaking 2 days worth of game nights in the NHL would equal 1 CDCGML playoff game..winner is the team with most points after midnight the final day of the 'game'...carry one till one of our teams wins 4, that team advances. Easy concept, with a little extra work involved. I would like to see it tried as it would seem to me to be more 'edge of your seat' than to have to wait for 10 days while a blowout simply goes through the motions of finishing the series. Also it would add fun to having some teams sweep a series, some series go to game 7 et cetera. There could potentially be ties: and my suggestion is that in those rare instances the higher seeded team wins the tie breaker for a 'game' that is literally tied in fantasy points. Thus adding another reason to finish better in the regular season.

3)player/line realism. We have talked about good players stuck on bottom lines or pairings, and I think its more a perception than a reality, but in some cases it happens. I have an idea that may be interesting..If we add a game mechanic where the executive, along with C2X were to identify by consensus, the single biggest case in each conference where this is thought to be happening each year, and sometime between November and January declare that 'Magnus Verkison, of the Trimark Mariners, disgruntled with his ice time, has publicly demanded a trade, resulting in his being benched until such a trade occurs'. If we all know ahead of time that at least one player per conference per year is going to have 'icetime drama' and have this happen, then its a 1 in 15 shot it will be your team..and GM's will have to work to make sure their team is not the one caught in the icetime drama mechanic. IMO its worth talking about, as it might put an end to any more blah blah blah about deep teams getting away with top end talent on bottom lines and pairs. Hopefully no one would be too butthurt about it if its their team that is the consensus decision 'stacker'. After all, you would still get to make the trade and not simply lose the player for nothing in return, so it would add fun and action to the game as well. *might also help bottom teams to work at getting these 2 players that will be forced into play per year, and as protection, maybe if your team is hit this year, it is ineligable next year? Just a thought on it..something to talk about.

4) hits and blocked shots. I have spent some time researching hits and blocked shots and the league average is pretty close to the vast majority of players rolling 3 year averages. If we award these points it would only dramatically effect around 25 players. In the rare case, 2 or 3 players would gain a huge benefit from being a hitter and a blocker and those players would eclipse their real life value by the addition of these points. If the whole league gets more points on average, then this is simply trying to add value to a small group of players, and the very best in each category would gain value above the rate that the real NHL values them. Think of Ryan Johnson 85 blocks with Vancouver one year with minimal ice time..same year Andrew Alberts 222 hits. Should these two players be making 30 or 40 more fantasy points than they currently are? If a star player gets you 300 points, and a player who like Johnson or Alberts gets you 120 to 150, then adding another 30 to 50 points to their totals puts them up closer to the 200 mark, which is where they would be equal to 2 to 3 million dollar guys, and these players are league minimum guys in real life. I get it, Willie Mitchell, and similar type guys are undervalued in our league, that is a shame,but there is no competent way to compensate for the small hand full of Willie Mitchells without making a farce out of values of other players, who make low end money in real life, but would ultimately be worth far more in the CDCGML.

In short: some players make megamillions, some players make 600 thousand. There is a reason. Now, if we want to add something for the end of the year..maybe 20 points to the real NHL team leading hitter and blocker? That may be reasonable...or something similar to that.....examples would be Maxim Lapierre last year would get 20 extra points for being the Canucks lead hitter...Alex Edler 20 extra points for leading the real NHL team Canucks in blocked shots. Again, this is extra work for the executive, but would reward specific role players like Lapierre for their efforts without distorting values all along the cdcgml rosters.

5)Minor league and front office. I love this part of the game, it adds depth and distinguishes us from some silly 7 player pick up league. I would like to think that we 'could' add a certain realism by allowing teams to sign draft picks, but have them assigned to a third tier, like the CHL level for any player under age 20...then have them at age 20 bump up to the minor team league where their salary would count. This could make for top end draft picks being able to jump into the league, under contract, but have that contract 'slide' if they are in the CHL (qmjhl/ohl/whl) level so, if you sign Griffin Rienhart to a three year deal this year, but leave him in the CHL he won't count towards your minor league cap, or your major league cap and his contract doesn't start till the first year he is actually in your minor league team or your main lineup. More work, but more realism too! sign him, stuff him down there till he is 20 and then his contract kicks in...or if he really makes an NHL team you can bring him up instantly and his contract then kicks in and counts towards caps what do you guys think?

Secondly, while I will be one of the guys using the loophole, I don't like the loophole where you don't have to spend a dime on each individual section of the front office. I have a situation where I need to really maximize my minor league budget...so I am not putting much money, if any at all, into Legal and Player Relations. The perks from those two simply don't outweigh the perks from my requirement to have more budget on the minors league team, and also to be able to use LTIR to its fullest possible advantage, as I pay attention daily LTIR perks benefit me more than a GM who would only tune in once a week or once every couple weeks to tweak his lineup. While I am taking advantage of this, I think it is not in the spirit of the concept. I think we need to revamp the front office so that the perks are all of good value, but also so that a GM must have the minimum's, whatever they end up being, in each catagory. I mean a team with no legal budget? hahahaha in real life that would be a joke.

I support revamping dramatically the front office, where using its current setup, each team must have 6, 8 and 6 million respectively used in each of Legal, Medical and Player Relations. This comes to 20 million minimum of the 35million to be spent. Unfortunately, with contracts tending towards the 1m mark for entry level kids these days...one can not realistically see a 15million maximum available to the farm team, its unreal. Teams should have a 50 contract cap, for all levels of players in their system, that is for sure, and assuming 23 on the big team, and roughly 6 draftees from the last couple years in my proposed CHL level below age 20, there could be up to 21 players on the minor league team, but with just the minimums in each of the catagories only a budget of 15 million there....now if you want to pump up any one other section your 15m drops by at least 2million per level attained in the other section..most teams would have, i suspect, less than 10 million on the farm budget. Its not very real.

So, In addition to proposing a CHL level for signed draftees sub 20 years old where their contracts slide and don't count until they are called up or age out of the third teir, I propose a 50 contract cap and forced minimums to each front office catagory, however retool them so that there is some difficult decision making, but still the chance to have at least 5 forwards 3 dmen and a couple goalies on the farm team. 10 guys making an average of a million bucks or more is 10m or more, and as it is currently, that means if your minimums are all covered you want at least one or two bonus level perks, your stuck at 10m or less for the farm...I mean it could go that way and force tricky decisions, that would lead to more parity too...but at the very least impose minimums in each catagory or like I am doing, people will drop the least beneficial perks in favor of needs more suited to each GM's circumstances.

Hrm, I am getting long winded here, time to reflect and edit, then I will post. If i have more I will post another rant tomorrow. Lets hear more of everyone elses ideas...we must all have some opinion on something?

[Primal Optimist]

• Possible limits on contract terms (ie: maximum 5-6 years?)

I would keep this in line with the CBA. How many super long term deals have we seen in this league anyways? (Doughty, Kovalchuk, that is all)

[Sharpshooter]

There is a fine balance between allocating minor league budget for prospects vs. picking up as many players as you can off waivers and leaving them in the minors. Perhaps something that would be beneficial to veterans and teams is if we stop allowing waiver eligible players to be "assigned" to minors once they are claimed. Maybe they should go back on waivers.