Media Spot Largely About The Draft

[MubbleFubbles 1,197]

The draft just happened so may as well write about some of the stuff that happened.

 

Doomsday Goes 1^st For The 1^st time

Good to see a great member like Doomsday get their first ever first overall selection. This draft actually had a fair few former first overall picks from different eras (Enorama from Season 63, Hybrid1486 from Season 22, Nykonax from Season 71, .sniffuM from Season 43). Doomsday actually got pretty close to first overall in the past when they were picked 2^nd overall in the Season 41 Draft behind Niklaus Mikaelson.

 

GM’s Back To Picking Themselves

Remember that Season 85 draft where we had three GM’s given the opportunity to draft their own player but declining to do so (Vancouver passed on John Jameson, Prague on Matt Murdock, Helsinki on Halvar Torbjorn)? Well it looks like we’re back to the norm as both the General Managers with players in this draft (Toronto and Seattle) picked their own player.

 

Some Solid First-Gens, But Not Many Active Ones?

It was nice to see Catia Goncalves able to get picked at seventh overall despite this draft having quite a few top recreates, but this draft was definitely lacking in first gens overall. Going off my data from the visualizer, we only had nine active first gens in this draft class, which is maybe a little concerning given that is the same number of first-gens we had in the Season 80 class hit 200 TPE in their career, and that was our worst season for first-gen development since recruitment became a big focus (S63-Present). There is at least a valid reason for this lack of recruitment for this season’s class (the recruitment team faced a lot of turnover during the recruitment window for this class), but at least success was seen in other areas as this class saw a fair few members who had previously created return from hiatus.

 

Let’s Sign Them All This Season?

The last few seasons of drafts have unfortunately had a few situations where General Managers haven’t offered contracts to their draftees by the time the season starts. This previous season saw the long-standing VHL rule on the matter (that players not offered a contract by that time will enter Free Agency) actively applied for the first time since the portal’s introduction, so hopefully GM’s will now be more alert to fulfilling their responsibilities and offering their draftees the contracts they are due in a timely manner or risk losing them for free.

 

Will Chicago Get Issued With A Louth Rule Penalty?

My last podcast (posted with four games left in the season), I pointed out that Chicago had broken the Louth rule and this ultimately led to Chicago playing their backup for the final four games and ultimately losing all four games despite heavily outshooting Warsaw in one and being pretty much level for shots with their opponents in their final two games. However, I still haven’t seen a punishment posted for Chicago breaking that rule heading into this season, so I’ll be interested to see if they face any repercussions or not for not playing their goalie enough last season.

Edited August 14, 2023 by MubbleFubbles

[badcolethetitan 802]

36 minutes ago, MubbleFubbles said:

Will Chicago Get Issued With A Louth Rule Penalty?

My last podcast (posted with four games left in the season), I pointed out that Chicago had broken the Louth rule and this ultimately led to Chicago playing their backup for the final four games and ultimately losing all four games despite heavily outshooting Warsaw in one and being pretty much level for shots with their opponents in their final two games. However, I still haven’t seen a punishment posted for Chicago breaking that rule heading into this season, so I’ll be interested to see if they face any repercussions or not for not playing their goalie enough last season.

 

We have to play extra backup games, I already was given the punishment.

[Beketov 8,647]

1 hour ago, MubbleFubbles said:

Will Chicago Get Issued With A Louth Rule Penalty?

My last podcast (posted with four games left in the season), I pointed out that Chicago had broken the Louth rule and this ultimately led to Chicago playing their backup for the final four games and ultimately losing all four games despite heavily outshooting Warsaw in one and being pretty much level for shots with their opponents in their final two games. However, I still haven’t seen a punishment posted for Chicago breaking that rule heading into this season, so I’ll be interested to see if they face any repercussions or not for not playing their goalie enough last season.

We don’t always post Louth rule punishments but there is always some punishment and this is no different. Changing GM’s doesn’t negate the need for a punishment, not that I think you were advocating that it did.

[MubbleFubbles 1,197]

7 minutes ago, Beketov said:

We don’t always post Louth rule punishments but there is always some punishment and this is no different. Changing GM’s doesn’t negate the need for a punishment, not that I think you were advocating that it did.

The main reason I bring it up is that there has been two instances in the last ten seasons where a team broke the Louth rule and didn't go on to play the catch-up backup games the following season (Morgan Karlsson starts 67 for NYA in S81, but starts the standard 64 in S82. Augustus Kennedy starts 66 in S86, only starts 63 the following season so only missed one start but started two extra the previous season) so when the rulings aren't announced publicly and the starts don't fit the usual "extra starts next season" punishment, from the outside it looks like the original cases have been missed.

[Beketov 8,647]

8 minutes ago, MubbleFubbles said:

The main reason I bring it up is that there has been two instances in the last ten seasons where a team broke the Louth rule and didn't go on to play the catch-up backup games the following season (Morgan Karlsson starts 67 for NYA in S81, but starts the standard 64 in S82. Augustus Kennedy starts 66 in S86, only starts 63 the following season so only missed one start but started two extra the previous season) so when the rulings aren't announced publicly and the starts don't fit the usual "extra starts next season" punishment, from the outside it looks like the original cases have been missed.

Fair enough.
 

Depending on the circumstances it isn’t always extra starts, sometimes it’s cap penalties, sometimes it’s playoff starts, etc.

 

But yes, we will try to be more transparent with this. Or GM’s could just stop breaking the rules