|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 12, 2011 17:46:30 GMT -5
One of the first rule modifications I will be proposing is the elimination of trading keeper slots.
In a constant effort to promote league parity, this seems to be the most logical next step. Although I am an avid supporter of "free market" and limiting restrictions, I find myself torn between the two concepts (parity/limited restrictions) in this instance. However, I feel as though taking the step of eliminating trading keeper slots will go a long way, both long and short term in making this league stronger and more unified in the name of parity.
Feel free to state your case for or against.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 12, 2011 18:04:37 GMT -5
Things to consider/Other options considered:
Top 6 teams only keep 9/Bottom 6 teams keep 10
My concern is that this will take far too long to "turnover" players from the top teams to the bottom teams and/or just not work at all. As it stands right now, the bottom 6 teams already trade away keeper slots because they don't have enough keeper worthy players. Just because the number of keeper slots is increased doesn't mean the teams have the players to make them useful. One could argue that the bottom 6 teams could trade this extra keeper slot for assets to help, but this seems highly unlikely that the return would be anything substantial, especially with the value keeper slots have seem to be depreciated to.
The idea behind eliminating the trading of keeper slots is that while the bottom 6 teams might not have 10 keeper "worthy" players in any given year, in trading away a keeper slot the top 6 teams annually horde all the talent, thus making players who would be available to be drafted in the waiver draft now unavailable. It is a never ending vicious cycle. So essentially, eliminating the trading of keeper slots:
*Promotes league parity by redistributing talent
*Provides more available/quality talent for the Waiver Draft
*Makes the league more competitive
*Opens up other possibilities/incentives for trade
Other possibilities for trade/alternatives may include, but are not restricted to:
*Awards for having the real life Art Ross, Rocket Richard, Norris, and Vezina Trophy winners and/or NAFHL team equivalents
*In conjuncture with the possibility of trading ones 1st Round Waiver in for an Extra Keeper Slot
*"Awards" may include one hour deadline extensions (keeper submission, drafts, etc), extra waiver/ prospect picks, one extra farm roster spot for a year, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 13, 2011 1:45:03 GMT -5
I feel like we should keep it the way it is. Some of us have been working for 5 years to compile our teams, trading for keeper slots has always been part of a liberal and free flowing league, which I very much prefer. As I've said in the past, I'd actually prefer a dynasty league to this format just because I don't like the idea of having to lose so many players that we've groomed and scouted. It's almost like 'what's the point?' in building a team identity. This current format is still limited but leaves room for compromise and growth, while I think your new proposal shuts down everything we've done up until this point just because other teams aren't quite as good yet. Or some managers just aren't up to the strenuous task of building a competent club.
These teams shouldn't be worried so much about keepers, but more so younger players, trading assets they don't need (slots) for picks and younger players is exactly what will cause parity. This is how the real NHL works, bottom feeding teams trade away productive players (keepers) for younger players and picks to improve for the future. It was always my understanding that we would attempt to emulate the real NHL. I feel like the more pressing concern with changing the league isn't to limit players but to expand our rosters with the addition of an OHL/WHL team for prospects with 10 games or fewer. I'm interested in a deeper fantasy experience, I'm not so much into it for casual reasons.
It wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to the league and I would accept it if it's what the majority wants but I feel like it would be a huge mistake and a step backwards instead of forwards. It would hurt my experience with this league and that's why I would vote to keep it the same. If managers need their hands held through this whole thing I'm not so sure they belong here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 13, 2011 22:20:02 GMT -5
I'd actually prefer a dynasty league to this format just because I don't like the idea of having to lose so many players that we've groomed and scouted. It's almost like 'what's the point?' So your complaint is that our current setup forces us to lose too many players we have groomed and scouted? But go on to say that weaker teams need to acquire a bunch of these very same players that will be lost to make their teams stronger? Our goal is to emulate the NHL as closely as possible. However, the NHL has the salary cap to contend with, and keep all roster players and prospects (dynasty league) so long as the salary cap provides for it that makes this scenario unfeasible to replicate under the current settings. I am for expanding rosters, but the league voted it down. Of course a team expansion would benefit my team, and so would allowing keeper slots to be traded, but I am not so naive that I can't see the vicious cycle that results, and the detriment it brings the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 14, 2011 0:05:37 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what you're trying to spin with that first point. I'd prefer to play in a dynasty league, this isn't a dynasty league, I understand that. My comments from your second quote are for this format only, it makes sense for teams to trade away something they don't need for further picks and younger players they can keep for free. These players can be potential stars and a sight better than keeping a fringe player that'll only amount to so much. Isn't it better to build by going young?
This proposition is saying 'hey NAFHL, you don't know any better than to trade your keeper slots, you don't know their value so we'll just stop you from making dumb mistakes'. It's actually rather insulting to the league as a whole and those who have traded keeper slots to get better. Would I have traded Antti Niemi if it weren't for that keeper slot? No. You take the good with the bad, some trades work out better than others but at least you had the freedom to make that decision.
This should be called 'The Babysitting Clause'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 14, 2011 1:31:10 GMT -5
'hey [body of constituents], you don't know any better than to [insert action here], you don't know their value so we'll just stop you from making dumb mistakes'. This should be called 'The Babysitting Clause'. This is basically the foundation and basis of EVERY government/governing body. The point is not to insult anyone but to make changes for the betterment of the league. Only rhetoric could turn this cause into an "insult." |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 14, 2011 1:39:58 GMT -5
...and I don't believe this is for the betterment of the league. I've argued that pretty clearly, I'll step back now and let others speak their minds or vote. I've said what I need to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Apr 14, 2011 7:30:35 GMT -5
Voted no. Being able to trade away a keeperslot for a top notch prospect or a combination of draft picks for example actually helps a rebuilding team a lot. Surely it might make the powerhouse teams even stronger in the short term, but it will end up hurting them in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Apr 14, 2011 12:31:13 GMT -5
Theoretically, I agree with Markus. Realistically, I disagree and voted yes to eliminate trading keepers. I have been on both sides of the discussion (I have traded away keepers & traded for them) and I think I have a good feel for what's going on. Derrick brings up a lot of good points.
For the most part, keeper slots are almost never traded for full value and there is debate on the exact worth of a keeper slot. When I traded for extra keeper picks, I felt that I got a bargain each time considering the quality of player I was keeping as opposed to what I gave up. I never hesitated to make those deals. When I traded away my keeper slot, I hesitated a lot because I never felt I received full value for what I was giving up and the opposing manager didn't want to offer the equivalent to the player he'd get to keep for an extra year.
I think there is a large divide between the top 2-3 teams and the rest of the league & I have debated quitting the league on more than one occasion because I have lost my passion (at times) because of this. By not trading away keepers, the turnaround for quality players going to other teams will be faster than waiting and hoping for a prospect/pick to develop into a quality player. I think this will increase parity in the league, which will ultimately help keep managers in the league for the long-term. I am in another league where the top 3 teams are so much better than the rest of the league, we are ultimately folding this offseason because so many managers quit during the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robyn - Flames on Apr 14, 2011 16:42:19 GMT -5
I think it would be best for the league if we eliminated the trading of keeper slots. We need more parity in this league or we're going to see the same two champions for the next decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 14, 2011 18:15:29 GMT -5
I was gonna write a separate post but might as well just copy what I said to Derrick privately...
In a 12 team league there's always going to be a difference between the top teams and the bottom teams. It's like that with every single league. We can't all be equal, some teams are years away from competing and that's due to things not working out or bad management. It's to be expected I guess is what I'm saying. If the alternative was expanding rosters I think that should have been addressed first and if it was shot down again, a year after it was first proposed, then maybe start in on these limitations. Going by the current poll the teams that are closest to competing are going to want to eliminate the trading of keeper slots as evidenced by Boston and Calgary, but the teams who actually need to be trading slots for picks/young players will want to keep it the way it is. I think that says a lot about who this actually favors in the long run.
|
|
Aubrey
Second Liner
5%
Posts: 202
|
Post by Aubrey on Apr 15, 2011 10:44:13 GMT -5
I voted yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robyn - Flames on Apr 15, 2011 17:16:16 GMT -5
I was gonna write a separate post but might as well just copy what I said to Derrick privately... In a 12 team league there's always going to be a difference between the top teams and the bottom teams. It's like that with every single league. We can't all be equal, some teams are years away from competing and that's due to things not working out or bad management. It's to be expected I guess is what I'm saying. If the alternative was expanding rosters I think that should have been addressed first and if it was shot down again, a year after it was first proposed, then maybe start in on these limitations. Going by the current poll the teams that are closest to competing are going to want to eliminate the trading of keeper slots as evidenced by Boston and Calgary, but the teams who actually need to be trading slots for picks/young players will want to keep it the way it is. I think that says a lot about who this actually favors in the long run. It doesnt help me at all. I've got Benn/Oshie/JVR/Kane about to lose their farm status. I could use all the keeper slots I can grab. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 15, 2011 20:27:49 GMT -5
Hate to say this but I guess you just want to keep the harder working GM's down then. Your situation is exactly what I'm talking about. Why wouldn't you want a chance to retain some of those guys? With this new rule you'd have no chance unless one of those guys usurps one of your current keepers and even then you'd lose another solid piece in favor of a young one. Doesn't that discourage you? You drafted those guys, have had them on your team for years. Why wouldn't you want to fight for them? The option to acquire extra keeper slots is hope and if I can't acquire one at least I knew I could have, so I don't feel as bad losing guys. The new rule takes it completely out of my control. I dislike that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Apr 16, 2011 16:17:07 GMT -5
I think Robyn's post perfectly summarized what Nos doesn't realize or purposely fails to mention. Keeper slots (who turn into proven talent) are quite often traded away for prospects/picks that are not guaranteed to turn into talent (an unknown value). With the rare exception, most prospects don't start to produce reliable fantasy stats until after they lose their farm status or they might not pan out at all. Alex Daigle was the best prospect in the world at one time and look at his career. Robyn will be forced to choose who to keep and who to lose because its not reasonable to think he can acquire four extra keeper slots to keep everyone of his graduating prospects.
I've seen a vicious cycle in NAFHL already happen a few times:
A poor team trades away keeper slots (who would've been a proven talent in the waiver draft) or trades a stud for a bunch of young prospects. Those prospects aren't studs like Crosby, Stamkos, etc (who were producing star stats almost immediately) and need to spend a few years developing in the minor leagues. When the farm players are ready to produce, they've already lost their farm eligibility. In addition to whatever quality players on their regular roster they already had, when you add those young players, they have more keeper players than keeper slots available. The rich teams don't ever trade away keeper slots, so the poor team will lose quality players to the waiver draft once they have the chance to become a good team. The rich teams now have the chance to poach those players and continue to stay rich. So the poor team loses their young player AND they lost the time it took to develop them.
The poor teams will always lose talent... its just the rich teams find ways to delay or prevent losing theirs by acquiring keeper slots. In fantasy leagues, there will always be a divide between good teams & bad, we're just trying to find a way to increase parity and prevent those bad teams from staying bad. It's not hand holding... its a fantasy league version of profit-sharing.
Nos, on more than one occasion you've expressed how you wish NAFHL was a dynasty league. I'll admit you've been a phenomenal GM and built a great team while staying within the rules of the league. But, the NAFHL was never meant to be a dynasty league and trading keeper slots is a loop hole which does just that. We need to close that loop hole and restore parity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 16, 2011 19:36:22 GMT -5
It's hardly a loophole Mark, it's an option, if a manager feels he's not getting what he wants in a trade for a keeper slot he doesn't have to make the deal. It's as simple as that really. Every manager who trades a keeper slot is doing so because he thinks he's getting a better deal than the player he'd have kept with it. You talk about bad strategy with dealing proven players for prospects but that's exactly what you did in an attempt to improve. Are you now saying that was a big mistake? You offered Staal + a keeper slot for prospects. It wasn't me. Markus offered a keeper slot for Ellis. Derrick offered a keeper slot for Niemi. Each of you three offered the deal in question and I made a decision based on my team requirements.
You talk about young players not developing in time but is that always the case? As I've said, you take the good with the bad. Sometimes it works out in your favor, other times not so much, it's up to you as a GM to determine whether the risk is worth the reward and if that reward can be had within your time frame to compete.
Finally, why do rich teams seem to find ways to keep talent and 'poor' teams do not? They have all the same avenues to explore that rich teams do. A 'poor' team doesn't have to trade anything away. The reason keeper slots are given up by poor teams is because the player they'd keep isn't a very solid one. It's a player that could probably be taken in the waiver draft in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th+ rounds. It's a part of asset management. It's not so much about rich and poor, it's what you have to work with and what you believe you need in order to become a stronger club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 16, 2011 21:26:59 GMT -5
I'd like to hear from Chris, Ryan, Tyler...
|
|
Jason
Third Liner
30%
Posts: 187
|
Post by Jason on Apr 18, 2011 17:22:40 GMT -5
Not intersted in hearing from me?
Thanks NOS -
I voted Yes to eliminate the trading of keeper picks. It will create more parity in the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 18, 2011 18:58:10 GMT -5
I wanted to hear more from the bottom 6, that's all. You know, the teams actually affected by this type of change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 21, 2011 1:38:23 GMT -5
Those managers who have not yet voted need to do so, otherwise the poll will be nullified.
|
|
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.