|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 27, 2010 16:25:01 GMT -5
With the overall talent level of players increasing yearly, as well as the sheer number of talented players increasing, the prospect pool has seen an explosion in talent. It has often been cited that NAFHL is not keeping up with this inflation, and as a result of limited farm teams (19 players), a number of talented prospects go unrostered each year.
With that said, I want to bring up several possible options we could use to solve this dilemma, if interested.
Solution 1: Increase the Farm Limit from 19 to 25, 30, or 38 keeping the same rules in place that we use now.
Solution 2: Increase the Farm Limit from 19 to 38, having our current farm system, in addition to 19 spots reserved only for Prospects (or any restriction placed upon them).
Solution 3: Increase the Farm Limit from 19 to 38 where ANY player can be sent (not signed) to the farm, but must test waivers, with 19 additional spots reserved solely for Prospects.
Each of these options present unique modifications to our current some of rules. Some have more restrictive implications, while others abolish rules we have grown used to. Option 3 especially. Regardless, a pseudo-farm draft (12-15 rounds) would be implemented and likely take place before this year's prospect draft. Let me know what you think and which option you support (if any). Feel free to suggest, detest, or modify. It is just something to think about.
|
|
Jason
Third Liner
30%
Posts: 187
|
Post by Jason on Apr 28, 2010 10:34:20 GMT -5
I vote that we keep the propect rules and numbers status quo. This forces you to make some tough decisions with respect to who you call up and for how long. It makes keeper decisions more challenging and forces owners to scout who they want to keep on their farm, not allowing people to sign prospects and hope they turn into something special.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 30, 2010 5:26:43 GMT -5
I think it's a great idea, it's the right time for some kind of expansion/improvement on the current rosters given how jam packed the talent pool has become with only 12 teams. Going into our 5th NAFHL season we have half a decade's worth of scouting compiled into only 19 prospect roster spots. Consider this, NHL franchises (30) have several development systems/leagues (AHL/OHL/WHL/KHL/SEL/etc.) where they can send their players to be developed. We all have 3 draft picks in each upcoming prospect draft, meaning you'd either have to drop 3 of your current prospects to make room (pretty tall order and not exactly progressive), trade them, or call them all up to your main roster (sometimes not possible because of lack of production.) You'd have to do this every single year. Another roster specifically for drafted players/minimal NHL experience would also increase the value placed on prospect picks, which have become pretty much a joke to the entire league outside of the top few picks, a shame because I'm all about competition where hockey knowledge goes deeper than building a main roster, it makes things fun and interesting watching your players slowly develop. It's key in a keeper league in my opinion. Personally I'd love to see something like this... NHL Roster (19) AHL Roster (19) - Prospects and minor leaguers, up to 150 games played for prospects and 200 games played for minor leaguers.* OHL/WHL Roster (19) - Prospects with less than 10 NHL games experience. *I'd also be in favor of increasing the games played rules slightly because as of now it gives a pretty small window to let your players mature and develop under you without having to blow a keeper slot. Perhaps 164 games played for prospects (2 full seasons for prospect status) and 220 games played for minor leaguers or so, giving you about 2/3's of the 3rd season to develop, I think that's sufficient time and makes a little more sense...to me.  After all, these are the players we've groomed and become accustomed to. It's all about the dynasty! The fact that some teams don't carry a full 19 player prospect roster is also a joke, these people should be weeded out if they're not wholly committed to a deep and competitive league. I know it might be pretty intimidating at first but I'm assuming the other managers of this league are as interested and committed to hockey as I am, and if not do you want to be? |
|
|
|
Post by Krzysztof - NAFHDL Predators on Apr 30, 2010 15:11:36 GMT -5
Granted, I don't have any past experience to base this on, but I am worried about teams piling on prospects. I think as it stands right now, we have a fairly big difference between the top teams and bottom teams in this league. I think limiting the number of prospects helps give everyone a chance.
For example, I would have never gotten Neal last year if Nos did not have an overflowing farm team.
Just my thought. I would welcome changes that bring us closer to a more even league. Not so much on that ones that help you hang on to assets for longer than usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 30, 2010 19:33:21 GMT -5
I think the gap between teams has been rapidly closing. Shouldn't these new rules aid lower placed teams? Lower placed teams get the higher picks, and in another farm draft I'd assume they'd also get first crack. Should I have a better farm team than the Atlanta Thrashers? No, which just goes to show the lack of dedication with some managers. I want this league to be as competitive as it can be. I believe the players you scout, draft, pick up, should be yours to groom and use, much in the same way RFA's are to NHL clubs. Give some time and space to let them develop under you. Teams should benefit from hockey knowledge rather than winning the lottery when a strong farm team has to trade away solid prospects for peanuts because of lack of space. In my opinion this just allows for further laziness.
|
|
Jason
Third Liner
30%
Posts: 187
|
Post by Jason on May 1, 2010 11:02:06 GMT -5
I'm with Krzysztof - seems like an opportunity for the higher ranked teams to hang on to their talent longer. Bobby Ryan is sitting on Derriks farm team because his NHL roster does not have a spot for him. Adding additional farm spots would only add to hanging on to players longer.
The design right now forces owners to evaluate talent on an ongoing basis to ensure their farm team is developing as you can't add without subtracting.
|
|
Ryan
First Liner
100%
104-139-33
Posts: 726
|
Post by Ryan on May 1, 2010 12:50:24 GMT -5
NHL Roster (19) AHL Roster (19) - Prospects and minor leaguers, up to 150 games played for prospects and 200 games played for minor leaguers.* OHL/WHL Roster (19) - Prospects with less than 10 NHL games experience. I like this as well as raising the GP, but I think there should be another ranking for prospects/farm........like amount of points to be added in or something, or PPG to more accurately base things..... for an example if a players is putting up a ppg or so and are still farm or prospect player we need a rile that will have them being called up......maybe every year just before the keeper(1 week before) list have a ruling that if a player is on your farm and is averaging .75 ppg or something then they are sent up or dropped(depending on what the GM wants to do) but definately give them a few days for a decision)..... Make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on May 1, 2010 22:29:24 GMT -5
I'm with Krzysztof - seems like an opportunity for the higher ranked teams to hang on to their talent longer. Huh? Why? Why only the higher ranked teams? As I've suggested we'd basically keep the same prospect rules we have, we'd just add an extra roster for minimal NHL experience players. Less than 10 games until you have to be called up to your 'main' prospect (AHL) roster. This just allows for a deeper league with entry draft picks that actually mean something. Bobby Ryan is sitting on Derriks farm team because his NHL roster does not have a spot for him. Adding additional farm spots would only add to hanging on to players longer. Again, why? You have the same amount of time you've always had, the extra roster covers players with minimal experience only. I really want to stress that because it doesn't seem like you guys are getting it. The design right now forces owners to evaluate talent on an ongoing basis to ensure their farm team is developing as you can't add without subtracting. The current design makes for a stagnant farm team where not much action can take place because of limited roster space. It's not 'challenging', this new system is more challenging because of a need to keep up to date with your prospect's progress, it's not designed for you to draft a player and forget about them for 3 years and hope he does something. As far as Ryan's suggestion to have players recording a .75 ppg clip being called up, I don't really like that idea because then you get into forward/defenseman/goalie differences and you get into games played being a factor in a player's ppg average. A player scores 15 points in 20 games and has a ppg average of .75 at the end of the year. We could always have a games played limit put into effect for the ppg averages but I think that just becomes superfluous. I think it's fine, and clear, as is with games played. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on May 6, 2010 15:41:15 GMT -5
For example, I would have never gotten Neal last year if Nos did not have an overflowing farm team. The design right now forces owners to evaluate talent on an ongoing basis to ensure their farm team is developing as you can't add without subtracting. No need to play devil's advocate, Nos. I agree the gap between teams is closing, but not the gap between top teams and bottom teams. Not to be too negative, but from my initial reaction, the two reasons above provide good thought on why the farm system right now isn't all that bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on May 7, 2010 4:16:13 GMT -5
The bottom line is this, a change like this would increase the signed talent within the NAFHL making it a deeper, and therefor, tougher league to play in. Sounds like lots of fun to me, an extra draft, prospect draft becomes a bigger deal, the need to know where your prospects are in their development, and a look at 'lower' tier talent. I don't know what the problem is. 'Top teams' don't hold onto players longer because the prospect time frame remains the same. People really don't like change. Figured this would be something everybody would be on board for. You'd also think this would help lower placed teams because they get the high picks, they should be the ones with overflowing farm teams.
Shoulder shrug boys, shoulder shrug.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on May 15, 2010 10:21:07 GMT -5
Id have to say that Im against the Farm expansion.
Only because in doing so you drive down the cost of Prospect picks and what not they wouldn't be worth as much any more. You also would make it alot easier for higher placed teams to continue to cycle through talent. I like it the way it is. You actually have to do more work to make sure your keeping the right players on your farm and for the same reasons Mark and Jason expressed
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on May 15, 2010 18:59:28 GMT -5
Just to keep conversation alive, I would like to point out several inaccuracies.
1.) Deeper farm teams would mean that prospect picks are worth MORE not vice versa. If most every prospect is owned, this places a premium on Prospect picks and the "better/best" players one would select in the yearly prospect draft.
2.) Farm team expansion would benefit the lower ranked teams MORE than higher ranked teams and serve as an aid to parity and balancing talent among all teams (in theory). Lower ranked teams would have a chance to gain valuable assets via a "Farm Team Draft" to which one could trade those newly acquired assets for immediate or future help.
3.) Expansion of farm teams promotes activity, knowledge, and competitiveness for all involved.
Just some food for thought.
|
|
Jason
Third Liner
30%
Posts: 187
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2010 13:52:48 GMT -5
I would say I have been very against farm team expansion since Gary (Derrick) posted the idea, however I just went through my farm team and do not have any prospects I have given up on, but wouldn't mind adding a few additional bodies.
Some food for thought, again from someone that was 100% against the idea.
Let's take NOS idea of an AHL roster - I think 19 spots are far too many for this type of player but am not opposed to the idea. What if we did 8-10 and cut down the number of games played to potentially force decisions today.
Again, you could take the CHL roster limit this to 15 players under 10 games experience.
This would slightly increase the number of players held.
Thoughts?
|
|
After all, these are the players we've groomed and become accustomed to. It's all about the dynasty!
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.