The VHLE IS BROKEN (and I can fix it)

[JeffD 648]

1 hour ago, BarzalGoat said:

TBH I think this is a super lazy answer and I know you're a busy guy, but it might've been better not to comment something so entirely dismissive of a fresh and interesting way to solve the league's apathetic GM problem in the VHL. 

 

Bad team does not equal apathy. 

[Spartan 4,419]

11 minutes ago, Fire Fletcher said:

 

Not saying it is a problem, but the answer is VHL GM term limits.

Ain't no way. Institute performance evals or something, firing people just for longevity makes no sense. We're not overflowing with qualified candidates like the league was before the E. 

[Shindigs 1,771]

Reiterating what Frosty said and what I said when you proposed this in GM chat. You cannot have relegation in leagues with drafts. There is a reason you don't ever have both IRL. Because it doesn't work. Your solution only works under the completely unrealistic case where no one ever trades draft picks. But people do, so it doesn't work at all. Because if you trade for Chicago's pick and Chicago is no longer in the league. That pick doesn't exist, and you can't just replace it with the pick the promoted E team would have had in that draft either. Because A) it fucks the team that traded for Chicago's pick. As they now get a worse pick, and B) it also fucks the promoted team. Because someone else just traded away their draft pick with them having no say in it. While also receiving no assets in return. So they are just going to go straight back down again. (After spending one season doing exactly what you want VHL teams to stop doing, as they have no players)

 

The same thing goes for the E and the team that promoted out of there. Their picks also just disappeared/got replaced. Then there is the fact that relegation leagues IRL don't magically have good parity. In fact they systematically have bottom feeding awful teams in them. Because that's how relegation work. You have a revolving door of awful teams in the bottom. Who never get enough time to build up the assets to compete before being demoted and starting from square one again.

 

Edit: I totally spaced on writing the other side of the trade issue. The demoted team could very well possess picks belonging to other teams. What happens to those in the case of a demotion is every bit as problematic as their own picks disappearing.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Shindigs
Forgot the other side of the trade issue.

[BarzalGoat 728]

2 hours ago, Shindigs said:

Reiterating what Frosty said and what I said when you proposed this in GM chat. You cannot have relegation in leagues with drafts. There is a reason you don't ever have both IRL. Because it doesn't work. Your solution only works under the completely unrealistic case where no one ever trades draft picks. But people do, so it doesn't work at all. Because if you trade for Chicago's pick and Chicago is no longer in the league. That pick doesn't exist, and you can't just replace it with the pick the promoted E team would have had in that draft either. Because A) it fucks the team that traded for Chicago's pick. As they now get a worse pick, and B) it also fucks the promoted team. Because someone else just traded away their draft pick with them having no say in it. While also receiving no assets in return. So they are just going to go straight back down again. (After spending one season doing exactly what you want VHL teams to stop doing, as they have no players)

 

The same thing goes for the E and the team that promoted out of there. Their picks also just disappeared/got replaced. Then there is the fact that relegation leagues IRL don't magically have good parity. In fact they systematically have bottom feeding awful teams in them. Because that's how relegation work. You have a revolving door of awful teams in the bottom. Who never get enough time to build up the assets to compete before being demoted and starting from square one again.

 

Edit: I totally spaced on writing the other side of the trade issue. The demoted team could very well possess picks belonging to other teams. What happens to those in the case of a demotion is every bit as problematic as their own picks disappearing.

If you read my post you would know that the relegation involves the VHLE teams joining the VHL draft and owning their own players. Because it is one consolidated draft and player universe, this solves all of your problems.

[Shindigs 1,771]

22 minutes ago, BarzalGoat said:

If you read my post you would know that the relegation involves the VHLE teams joining the VHL draft and owning their own players. Because it is one consolidated draft and player universe, this solves all of your problems.

It really doesn't though. From what little I saw about what you wrote for the draft, that I didn't interpret as that. But that's whatever. It doesn't actually solve it. Because if it's just one big draft you end up with a tonne of players who get drafted to teams that will never leave the E. But their player will eventually out-TPE the E. Which makes them a free agent? And it still doesn't solve the relegation issue of having players who get relegated with their team but are above the cap. Because they need to have their rights dropped at that point so they can actually still play in the VHL.

[BarzalGoat 728]

3 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

It really doesn't though. From what little I saw about what you wrote for the draft, that I didn't interpret as that. But that's whatever. It doesn't actually solve it. Because if it's just one big draft you end up with a tonne of players who get drafted to teams that will never leave the E. But their player will eventually out-TPE the E. Which makes them a free agent? And it still doesn't solve the relegation issue of having players who get relegated with their team but are above the cap. Because they need to have their rights dropped at that point so they can actually still play in the VHL.

you'd have to remove the TPE cap and the way it'll work naturally is that the teams who have the most tpe in the E will collectively graduate out and the teams with the lowest tpe in the VHL would go down... 

[Shindigs 1,771]

1 minute ago, BarzalGoat said:

you'd have to remove the TPE cap and the way it'll work naturally is that the teams who have the most tpe in the E will collectively graduate out and the teams with the lowest tpe in the VHL would go down... 

That's a pretty big assumption and could still leave very high TPE players stuck in the E for significant portions of their careers. Which isn't really healthy for the M players filtering up to the league. Not to mention what it would do to contracts. Why would you ever sign long term if you can get stuck in the E for your entire contract in your peak years?

[BarzalGoat 728]

2 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

Why would you ever sign long term

Why would you ever sign long term like, even in today's VHL?

[Shindigs 1,771]

3 minutes ago, BarzalGoat said:

Why would you ever sign long term like, even in today's VHL?

Loyalty? Masochism? Liking the team name? Being the GMs super secret multi? I mean the possibilities are endless.

[BarzalGoat 728]

7 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

Loyalty? Masochism? Liking the team name? Being the GMs super secret multi? I mean the possibilities are endless.

Those players sound like they might stay with the team even through a relegation stint then 

[Shindigs 1,771]

1 minute ago, BarzalGoat said:

Those players sound like they might stay with the team even through a relegation stint then 

Probably would. Which would dilute the talent pool in the VHL even more. Which would make the problem you're trying to solve worse. So I'm not entirely sure how that's helpful.

[BarzalGoat 728]

2 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

Probably would. Which would dilute the talent pool in the VHL even more. Which would make the problem you're trying to solve worse. So I'm not entirely sure how that's helpful.

I mean I just don't agree with this, but I also don't have the energy to continue bc you're not changing my mind and I'm not changing yours so who cares

[Shindigs 1,771]

Just now, BarzalGoat said:

I mean I just don't agree with this, but I also don't have the energy to continue bc you're not changing my mind and I'm not changing yours so who cares

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[KaleebtheMighty 1,509]

In light of all that has been discussed, I do think communication is the biggest culprit of the current issue. However, I would like to mention how @Spartantook care of business with their call up.

 

Not only was the player reached out to immediately when they were going to make the call-up, I was also DMed about the decision and notified that it would be happening. While the situation did stink for my team, that’s how the E functions and I respected the notification. It allowed me to piece together a goodbye message to the player and hype up the fact that they were called up to the VHL for the fact that Moscow wanted him which made the whole experience easier and more exciting.

 

While my team lost a key player for the season, I feel that this experience for the player was much better than just being called up with no warning. At the end of the day, we as management across the VHL and the VHLE should be working together in tandem to make this whole league experience amazing. How this situation was carried out was ideal in my eyes, and I really appreciated how it all went down.

[Dom 1,445]

It’s not so hard to take 5 minutes of our time to let the VHLE GMs know when we call up a player. In my opinion, worse case, if you call up multiple players, copy/paste the message to the GMs. I did it for a player that was at 390 tpe and obviously going up, you can do it for those 350 tpe players.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Dom

[NSG 498]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:38 PM, Spartan said:

Ain't no way. Institute performance evals or something, firing people just for longevity makes no sense. We're not overflowing with qualified candidates like the league was before the E. 

I'm very late here but

 

The reason we're not overflowing with qualified candidates anymore is because we hired most of 'em when the E was created

[Daniel Janser 2,186]

I have a (probably unripe) suggestion. Why do we not make it a hard requirement, that a player and his VHLE GM are notified 24h in advance that a call up will be happening/is required? Such communication (with time stamp) to be posted in the auto-generated call-up message. If this is not met, league will not approve of the call up and the player cannot be called up by the same organisation again that same season?

 

Is this too restrictive? Is it feasible to control this stuff from a commissioner pov?

 

Just thinking out loud. This is in my opinion no additional burden for GMs which already communicate, as far as I can tell.

 

Or even more radical, the call up requires the players consent. After all, this league is for the players and not primarily for the few chosen ones who got a seat as a GM. I think therefore that it should be the player's choice where they play (within the limitations a draft based league brings with it). Again just thinking out loud...

Edited February 5, 2022 by Daniel Janser

[Spartan 4,419]

24 minutes ago, NSG said:

I'm very late here but

 

The reason we're not overflowing with qualified candidates anymore is because we hired most of 'em when the E was created

Yes, that was the implication  

 

2 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I have a (probably unripe) suggestion. Why do we not make it a hard requirement, that a player and his VHLE GM are notified 24h in advance that a call up will be happening/is required? Such communication (with time stamp) to be posted in the auto-generated call-up message. If this is not met, league will not approve of the call up and the player cannot be called up by the same organisation again that same season?

 

Is this too restrictive? Is it feasible to control this stuff from a commissioner pov?

 

Just thinking out loud. This is in my opinion no additional burden for GMs which already communicate, as far as I can tell.

I mean, I'm fine with it but the issue for me this past season was that a trade involving call-ups only got finalized the day the season started. I then had to call them up immediately after the trade was approved. It's sort of out of my control or ability to call them up at that point, through really no mismanagement on my own accord. Of course it would be nice to get trades done sooner, but negotiations take time and that's simply how it can go. Should I not have been able to call up those players, and then denied two players over 350 TPE from playing in the VHL because of timing issues?

[Daniel Janser 2,186]

4 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I mean, I'm fine with it but the issue for me this past season was that a trade involving call-ups only got finalized the day the season started. I then had to call them up immediately after the trade was approved. It's sort of out of my control or ability to call them up at that point, through really no mismanagement on my own accord. Of course it would be nice to get trades done sooner, but negotiations take time and that's simply how it can go. Should I not have been able to call up those players, and then denied two players over 350 TPE from playing in the VHL because of timing issues?

 

It is a fair point that you make here and frankly one that I did not consider, thanks for making me aware of this.

 

I am not trying to argue, just for my curiosity and to put it in perspective: Do you think that the trade would have gone faster if all the parties involved are aware that they are running into a timebar? I.e. would you have pushed for a resolution of the trade more persistently? Would your opposite number made up his mind/decided on the trade earlier, if they knew that there is a timebar? 

 

BTW you seem to be one of the GM's who took great care to communicate with everybody involved and I am sure that the league would approve in case of emergency, if a GM can prove that they communicated with the player/GM as soon as the deal was done/asap. Having said that, there should not be many emergency cases, if everyone is aware of the time bars as suggested by me.

[Spartan 4,419]

18 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I am not trying to argue, just for my curiosity and to put it in perspective: Do you think that the trade would have gone faster if all the parties involved are aware that they are running into a timebar? I.e. would you have pushed for a resolution of the trade more persistently? Would your opposite number made up his mind/decided on the trade earlier, if they knew that there is a timebar?

I mean, from a personal standpoint, I would have loved to get the trade done and dusted off as far in advance as possible. I get to have my roster set much sooner. But that's simply how negotiations can be, and there were days when our availability to communicate didn't line up, just how it is. Not something you can just force through.

[Radcow 63]

I've just rejoined recently so I've just become familiar with the whole vhl-vhle dynamics going on, but to my understanding it seems that the vhle is a solution to the vhl getting too big and players need a place to get playing time? It seems as growth increases the natural progress would be to keep adding new leagues in different tiers, kind of similar to the major league and the AAA, AA, etc. It also seems that the solution to a decrease in the player base would mean deleting a league and moving excess players back up to the next tier. 

 

But has anyone ever thought that it might be the case that the vhl could just get too big to be able to function properly? I mean, obviously the idea is that we want everyone to be able to participate and get meaningful playing time, but with the 9 season cap until retirement it also means that, unless you complete tpe whore, you never have a chance of trying to get a full career in the top league and put up a player that can make the record books. So basically most players will eventually just have to be okay with trying to put up numbers in a lower league and that's that. But that also doesn't guarantee that with a big enough player base that anyone, regardless of activity, will get a full vhl career, and thus the record books will stagnate and noone will really get any fulfillment out of trying to be the best. 

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is as long as everyone is allowed to participate and get a meaningful experience and we try to structure the league to facilitate that, no matter if a player wants to tpe whore or be a welfare player, then this place CAN get too big. I mean think about hockey in the real world. You have the nhl and the ahl and then a bunch of development leagues for younger players whom most eventually hang up the skates because they just aren't good enough to make the big leagues. The Nhl doesn't guarantee a meaningful experience for anyone because they can't, they have 32 teams x 23 player roster size, and then a lower tier farm league, that's it. They can make it work because not everyone is allowed, there are millions of players who play hockey who will never even get a chance to sniff the big leagues because they just aren't good enough. It seems that once something competitive gets too big either the whole structure gets screwed all to hell to accommodate everybody, or some people just get left out. 

 

 

[NSG 498]

Yeah I’m overall not sold on the VHLE

 

I just think that it’s going to become empty over time and we’ll have to contract it eventually, and contraction is not good PR

[NSG 498]

I also remain firmly against the idea of the 8/9 season cap on careers, however, I don’t think we can just change that after 82 seasons of capped careers.

 

1 hour ago, Radcow said:

I've just rejoined recently so I've just become familiar with the whole vhl-vhle dynamics going on, but to my understanding it seems that the vhle is a solution to the vhl getting too big and players need a place to get playing time? It seems as growth increases the natural progress would be to keep adding new leagues in different tiers, kind of similar to the major league and the AAA, AA, etc. It also seems that the solution to a decrease in the player base would mean deleting a league and moving excess players back up to the next tier. 

 

But has anyone ever thought that it might be the case that the vhl could just get too big to be able to function properly? I mean, obviously the idea is that we want everyone to be able to participate and get meaningful playing time, but with the 9 season cap until retirement it also means that, unless you complete tpe whore, you never have a chance of trying to get a full career in the top league and put up a player that can make the record books. So basically most players will eventually just have to be okay with trying to put up numbers in a lower league and that's that. But that also doesn't guarantee that with a big enough player base that anyone, regardless of activity, will get a full vhl career, and thus the record books will stagnate and noone will really get any fulfillment out of trying to be the best. 

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is as long as everyone is allowed to participate and get a meaningful experience and we try to structure the league to facilitate that, no matter if a player wants to tpe whore or be a welfare player, then this place CAN get too big. I mean think about hockey in the real world. You have the nhl and the ahl and then a bunch of development leagues for younger players whom most eventually hang up the skates because they just aren't good enough to make the big leagues. The Nhl doesn't guarantee a meaningful experience for anyone because they can't, they have 32 teams x 23 player roster size, and then a lower tier farm league, that's it. They can make it work because not everyone is allowed, there are millions of players who play hockey who will never even get a chance to sniff the big leagues because they just aren't good enough. It seems that once something competitive gets too big either the whole structure gets screwed all to hell to accommodate everybody, or some people just get left out. 

 

 

The problem with this is that nobody signed up for this to be stuck in the minors. Virtually no one wants to amass multitudes minor league rings, trophies, awards, etc. they want to be in the majors and have success there. So we have to make room for everybody in the league so that they stay in the league and get to achieve at least some of their goals.

[Radcow 63]

12 minutes ago, NSG said:

I also remain firmly against the idea of the 8/9 season cap on careers, however, I don’t think we can just change that after 82 seasons of capped careers.

 

The problem with this is that nobody signed up for this to be stuck in the minors. Virtually no one wants to amass multitudes minor league rings, trophies, awards, etc. they want to be in the majors and have success there. So we have to make room for everybody in the league so that they stay in the league and get to achieve at least some of their goals.

That's exactly why I say the league can get too big. With a big enough player base you literally can't make room for everybody. I guess maybe you could make it to where your nine years start once you hit the vhl, but even then if the player base is big enough it would still take a lot of tpe whoreing to get there. Not everyone wants to dedicate such a huge portion of their time to this place to do that.