Propping up the weaker clubs

[Deleted]

A discussion came up in the chat box I think it's worth discussing formally:

1) Can the IFFHL help to recover asset-less clubs to aid their re-build? If so, what can the league do to help?

Ideas previously mentioned including an expansion draft. What about awarding bonus top five waiver selections or top five entry picks?


2) Also, what can the IFFHL do to prevent GMs from declaring full-out "re-build" and then re-signing shortly after?

I think all of us would agree what Jon (Canners) did was quite disappointing thrashing apart his own club for future assets that he will never see realized.It hurts our league and hurts the next GM of the team. Maybe we could create a threshold for which re-building clubs are not allowed to fall below. For example:

- No less than one starting/split time goalie
- No less than 3 (or some agreed upon mumber) NHL player's in the with a fantrax rating equal or above ____ (value to be determined) within the age range of 24-28 (or some other agreed upon age).

Something to this effect.

[Dave (PLK)]

I think we should do something for sure.

I like your ideas Eric. Perhaps we could make round 1 of the waiver draft each year only for the bottom 5-8 teams...

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

I'm scraping them bottom right now because i want to. In a year or two my team could be a middle of the pack team if 2 or more prospects pan out

[Deleted]

I agree with Willy here, there is nothing wrong with 23 teams in this league. The other bottom teams have good building blocks and I'm confident in the GMs too.

But I do think we need to seriously discuss how to give the new Canners team a significant boost. His team has been stripped to the point that it's embarrassing, IMO. Having a team this bad is just not good for the league.

My preference would be some sort of expansion draft.

I'm not keen on giving the new GM extra picks at the beginning of the entry or waiver draft because that process would end up hurting weaker teams more than stronger teams. (I.E. If we give the River GM the first 5 entry picks, or the first 5 waiver picks, that would hurt a team like Ottawa or CRA much more than it would hurt a Kelowna or a Quebec, for example).

Some sort of an expansion draft, where each team can only lost one player, or something, would be more ideal in my mind.

If a bunch of teams lost 1 mid range player, or mid range prospect, it would cripple them. But it could go a long way to making sure we have 24 competitive teams in this league. Right now, only 23 teams are competitive, IMO.

Just my 2 cents.

[Deleted]

He should take over prince valley team and just disband the canners team. Lets put a draft for their best pieces and lets just roll with 23 teams in the future. I think the objective at some point his to win a regular season/ playoff title. Canners team isnt a rebuild team, its a big pile of junk. I agree with Buffalo theres 23 clubs at some point in time will be competitive if the league survive long enough, everyone will be dead before canners will make playoffs.

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2015 23:18:21 GMT -5 @icon said:

He should take over prince valley team and just disband the canners team. Lets put a draft for their best pieces and lets just roll with 23 teams in the future. I think the objective at some point his to win a regular season/ playoff title. Canners team isnt a rebuild team, its a big pile of junk. I agree with Buffalo theres 23 clubs at some point in time will be competitive if the league survive long enough, everyone will be dead before canners will make playoffs.

What about a deviation of this:

Destroy the Canner Franchise and allow Will (Richmond) to have an expansion team? Similar to NHL, we submit a list of protected players, and Will can have free shots at the unprotected players. We'd have to sort out the rules of the expansion, but it is an idea to keep the ever 24 franchises.

[Deleted]

Also, I hate to be this guy but that situation happened because of the trade council been too gentle. Yes, it might hurt someone's ego to get told your trade is awful, but we wouldnt have this problem if trades that deserve to be vetoed STAYED veto. Its a hard task you guys have, but its vital for the balance of a league. Allowing Canners to give away Voracek and Datsyuk for a bunch of trash destroyed his team and create a superpower team. Kelowna will keep on destroying teams every week for the next 3 years (unless of a fluke week). And that Kopitar trade lmao....

Please, use your head and dont let gms fool you coming back with :"Its part of my rebuild plan to trade Kopi for Fred Gauthier and Sebastien Collberg. Trust me I know what Im doing, please dont veto it". End of frenchy rant

[Deleted]

Yeah, I'd also support folding the old-Canners franchise and having an expansion draft for him to start over.

To me, the key is that whatever we do should be done to help league parity. So the top teams should give a little bit more than the bottom teams.

I'm sure we could find a system in which everyone gives a little relative to what they have...that is not too painful, and that brings us back up to 24 competitive teams.

With respect to Quebec's idea....I'm not sure how a schedule would work with 23 teams. That sounds like a nightmare? I'm not opposed to that idea...if it is technically workable.

[Deleted]

I think Eric's expansion team idea is the simplest and fairest. I don't like the idea of changing the draft order unless we are talking 2016/2017 drafts, but that would provide minimal help to Richmond. Just fold current Richmond and allow him to start fresh with Richmond 2.0 (or 9.0 relative to his current roster).

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Feb 8, 2015 23:40:30 GMT -5 @icon said:

Also, I hate to be this guy but that situation happened because of the trade council been too gentle. Yes, it might hurt someone's ego to get told your trade is awful, but we wouldnt have this problem if trades that deserve to be vetoed STAYED veto. Its a hard task you guys have, but its vital for the balance of a league. Allowing Canners to give away Voracek and Datsyuk for a bunch of trash destroyed his team and create a superpower team. Kelowna will keep on destroying teams every week for the next 3 years (unless of a fluke week). And that Kopitar trade lmao....

Please, use your head and dont let gms fool you coming back with :"Its part of my rebuild plan to trade Kopi for Fred Gauthier and Sebastien Collberg. Trust me I know what Im doing, please dont veto it". End of frenchy rant

The problem is we have certain GMs that bitch and moan constantly about the trade panel saying we shouldn't have it. Being more strict and vetoing more trades is going to result in a whole lot of whining about it. I do agree that Canners made some weak trades, but the main reason his team was shit is he had a terrible draft. His team was bad from day 1 and even if he made no trades it would still be bad.

[Deleted]

I think it's time to just let go of talk re: trade panel as I'm not sure that will get us anywhere, anyways.

I think it's more useful to stay focused on what we can/should do to make the former Canner's team more competitive, for the betterment of the league.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

The problem here was a weak GM - no rule change will ever compensate for that or ever make a team run by one competitive. We didn't have a screening process on league inception and all were welcome, so of course this was one of the risks. But given the focus on fun for this league, this probably wasn't one of the top priorities, and Canners did seem like one of the more active and likable GM's around.

Freedom to run one's team as one chose was also a constant theme. We had other teams who openly focused on the future building route - one can say that can be more fun than being a middle of the pack one. Ottawa actually drafted quite well initially and could easily have been a top half team if he wanted to. Same with LIF this year, with a goalie he could easily been quite competitive. But there was the constant stream of wanting to allow GMs run their teams as they see fit.

I was totally against the Kopitar trade at the time as it made no sense, even for a team bent on rebuilding. It was actually that trade that made me want join the Trade Panel - to ensure I could voice my opinion against such lopsided deals in the future.

If you thought the Datsyuk/Voracek trade was bad, you should've seen some of the other supposed offers he was considering (futures only, like for Kopitar)   I specifically made that deal with him to give him some real tangible NHL assets to work with. Hodgson at the time was the Sabres #1C and putting up more points than Voracek (who had yet to break out - and even so was a one-dimensional asset).   Datsyuk was injured at the time and I actually barely made use of him last season. In return he got 8 assets, 5 which are currently playing in the NHL.   Fasching was another high prospect that he subsequently gave away for almost nothing.   I tried to give Canners some tips on trading and what type of players are valuable in our league - but it just didn't seem to sink in for him.

In terms of addressing this, how about a tiered process where higher teams offer Richmond a greater valued player (with a caveat that all players need to be <30yrs old)

eg.
1-8 Offer > 2100 Fpts Player
9-16 Offer > 1800 Fpts Player
17-23 Offer > 1500 Fpts Player
.. etc or something like that

But I think the key here is there should be a reasonable MAX # players he can pick up (maybe 3-4 from each tier)as to not skew things too much and overcompensate - and be unfair to other lower teams who get nothing. Should do some stats on the bottom 8 or so teams and do some averages to ensure he gets slotted in evenly with them with the pickups.

[Vancouver Canucks]

I personaly think we leave things as is. Richmond still has this years #1 pick and also the 2016 pick. Just needs to be patient and build through the draft and with smart trades. Richmond has 3 picks in the first two rounds next summer.

I have been in the sane situations in other pools and have rebuilt teams and have seen it done by others. Some owners love the challenge of rebuilding a team from the bottom.

[Golden Seals]

I've read countless times how bad the Kopitar deal was but the deal did get approved 3-0, and one panel member said "good trade for both sides".

My team sucks with him and it'd suck without him. Maybe some of you are forgetting how long a rebuild should take. We are not even 2 seasons into this league. Canners may have drafted bad in the inaugural draft, as did I but I was new to this format and didn't have the knowledge I have now (although limited).

That said i'm all for helping riverdogs team get more competitive now but then where do we stop.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

This is my worry too Seals. Perhaps some Riverdog players have good years next season and he gets McDavid or Eichel and finishes ahead of another team. Are we going to then have to help the new last place team improve if we set this precedent or is this a one time only thing and if another team starts doing poorly then too bad for them.

If Riverdogs drafts 4 star players in the next two drafts all of a sudden his future won't look so bleak. I'm not completely against helping him I just don't know where to draw the line and how to determine how "bad" one team is compared to another and how many extra assets should be rewarded to his team because the last GM wasn't the best.