VHLE Death - Inheritance or Draft?

[Plate 386]

This is a personal article I’m writing as an individual and does not express the opinions or values of VSN. I'm a VSN writer and felt the need to share that. I also forgot to include Ottawa in the conversation but uh yeah my points still stand without the team involved in the discussion, sorry! 

So the VHLE is dead and the commissioner posted the following in the eulogy announcement: 

"Exactly how players will be moved down is still up for debate a bit amongst the @VHLM Commissioner team but in all likelihood players will simply revert back to the team that previously owned their rights in most cases and go to a waiver system in a few select ones. If that doesn't prove remotely balanced there could be a draft, again we'll know more details soon." - @Beketov

 

Suffice to say it WONT be balanced at all and I felt like I could put forth an argument to the community as something worthwhile and coherent. The VHLM inheriting assets is dumb, bad for the league, and I will explain with three arguments. In addition to explaining why inheriting assets is a bad idea, I will offer a better alternative free of charge. Here are the three main points why inheritance as an asset strategy is bad. 

 

1. It’s incredibly unbalanced.
2. It hyperinflated “all-in” trades from the previous season.
3. General Managers have no choice.

 

To explain what I mean by it’s incredibly unbalanced, I’m going to give you all a table. The two most important columns are CURRENT and POST. Current is the current TPE evaluation of each team. POST is the TPE evaluation of each team post inheritance. 

 

Img A. sorted by the current amount of TPE on each team.

 

Img B. sorted by the post inheritance amount of TPE on each team.

 

And here’s a TLDR power ranking of each team given the additional assets in the inheritance:

 

Halifax +5

San Diego -1

Miami –

Houston +3

Mississauga -1

Philadelphia -1

Mexico -1

Las Vegas -6

Saskatoon –

 

There would be three drastic changes imposed on the league through no fault of any GM involved. Halifax would get a massive boost in value, basically inheriting an entire team. Houston would pick up all stars on both offense and defense. Las Vegas, of course, would only get one player back from this change and the lack of incoming assets would tank the team to obscurity with a low ranking draft.

 

Halifax and Houston are both important to note in this case. Take a look at the 21st. In the S94 draft, they all-in to finish the rebuild and throw all future assets (draft picks) away for players that clearly will only play one season with the team. Now, with the inheritance setup, many of the players that graduated in S94 to their respective VHLE teams will come back to the 21st in full form to skew the value of all those previous trades. Houston I will also mention did the exact same thing at a very similar scale as Halifax and you’ll also see they get a great increase to their TPE values. 

 

Las Vegas is also an interesting story. This season they went all in. And as you can see they tank in terms of team value. This is because many of the trades they made to all in for the cup wouldn’t have an entire season to simmer in terms of value. They would be a strong team but almost everyone on the roster would turn from all-star to prospect, and this massive shift would see Las Vegas be overwhelmingly competitive later on. 

 

These kinds of wild imbalances will have a negative impact on the league for both players and GMs. General Managers obviously have not had a choice in who comes into their roster. This benefits only a couple of teams, but comes at the detriment of almost every other. In a situation where you could possibly build a new team and gather assets for trade bait in a rebuild, instead you’re given leftovers from past seasons you never were expecting to get back.

 

My suggestion would be to add a competitive balance draft. A snake draft based off of the results of the S95 VHLM standings post playoffs. Each team would get access to 4 players, with the exception being made to the renaissance cup winner. However, I think getting the cup is worth forfeiting one 200 TPE player. 

 

With a draft you completely balance out the redistribution of assets. You get a completely fair and balanced playing field. The snake draft based on standings only enhances the objectives of teams in 95, while keeping it fair. General Managers now have the choice to add who they wish back to their team. If a GM wants to add a player that they had before back to their team, they can do so. All the “all-in” trades made from the past have no reverse effect of being more impactful than the time they were made. 

 

Hopefully the board considers this as an option and doesn’t take, what I believe, the easy way out to a nuanced and critical change that could impact the experience of MANY new potential VHLers. If the VHLM is truly a place for new players to experience the league for the greatness that it is, it would be unfortunate to introduce them to a time period as turbulent as what a complete inheritance of players would provide. 

 

That’s just my opinion, but what’s yours?

Edited September 16 by Plate

[Ricer13 2,796]

I agree. I think a dispersal draft is the way to go. It will be more balanced across the league as it’s not any GMs fault the E is folding. 

[v.2 1,406]

Yeah dispersal draft is definitely the most sensible route.  Also creates an extra element of excitement for an off-season that will likely be drawn out slightly longer while changes are made.

[LucyXpher 1,433]

I understand your point about the picks traded out to bring new players in, but I would argue that players I just traded this season for picks should have been valued more knowing now that they’ll be in the M for a couple more seasons.  See Gunnarsson and Wazinski.  By your pick inflation logic, which I think makes sense, shouldn’t those players be redispersed since the trade value didn’t reflect this league change?  So maybe a dispersal draft should apply to all 200+TPE players in both the VHLM and VHLE?

 

Another thought is if there was a distinction between players drafted by a VHLM team that stayed with the same team their whole M career and players who were traded? 

I personally feel strongly about the players we selected in Halifax and would love to bring those people back.  I also think that continuity would be good for keeping them engaged since there’s already familiarity rather than subjecting them to another team change.  It also rewards teams who drafted well and committed to developing players all the way through the M whether that was 1-3 seasons.

 

Proposal: Players at or over 200 TPE who were traded at any point during their VHLM career are re-entered into a dispersal draft while players who were drafted and stayed with the same team were returned to that team.

Edited September 15 by LucyXpher

[Plate 386]

19 minutes ago, LucyXpher said:

Proposal: Players at or over 200 TPE who were traded at any point during their VHLM career are re-entered into a dispersal draft while players who were drafted and stayed with the same team were returned to that team.

 

 

So each player that's available and that would return to the VHLM is over 200 TPE. My argument would just be to pick the players you drafted if you wanted them in the draft. Besides, it wouldn't solve the balance issue which is the main problem with teams inheriting players. 
 

I could go through and find the list of players that this would affect but my best guess is it would be a handful and not worth stipulating for the level of tedium and complexity offered. 
 

Again, if you want a specific player, just draft them.

[Plate 386]

And to the point of redistributing ALL 200+ TPE players, I think it's different with players you traded for vs players you're getting for free.

[Grape 680]

Interesting read, especially in how you removed an M team! Ottawa is no more it appears

[mattyIceman 1,214]

You misspelled the team you're on SMH my head, Bowl

 

 

[LucyXpher 1,433]

1 hour ago, Plate said:

 

 

So each player that's available and that would return to the VHLM is over 200 TPE. My argument would just be to pick the players you drafted if you wanted them in the draft. Besides, it wouldn't solve the balance issue which is the main problem with teams inheriting players. 
 

I could go through and find the list of players that this would affect but my best guess is it would be a handful and not worth stipulating for the level of tedium and complexity offered. 
 

Again, if you want a specific player, just draft them.

I mean, it’s easier said than done drafting the players I want lol, that’s every draft.  I might get one or two, but beyond that, who knows.  I just think having some continuity with drafted players who were never traded would be nice for both team and player, while players who were traded away or acquired by trade could all be redispersed because that seemed to be your main point of contention with player inheritance— past trade values not holding up once the E is dissolved.  That and player inheritance causing imbalance, which I don’t think would be an issue if we distinguish between one-team players and traded players.
 

Im not sure if this came across, but there are players currently in the VHLM that are past the 200 TPE threshold that were traded this past season for picks under the assumption that they would be going up to the E in S96.  That’s why I suggested all players over 200TPE in the M and E be redistributed if any redistribution is happening— sorry if that wasn’t clear.  

Edited September 15 by LucyXpher

[Plate 386]

4 hours ago, Grape said:

Interesting read, especially in how you removed an M team! Ottawa is no more it appears

I actually uh LMAO my points still stand

[Grape 680]

9 minutes ago, Plate said:

I actually uh LMAO my points still stand

But I can't say what I support because I don't know which option benefits my team more!

[Plate 386]

2 minutes ago, Grape said:

But I can't say what I support because I don't know which option benefits my team more!

If I forgot your team it means you probably would only inherit like one player instead of a bunch like Halifax. You'd be best to go with a draft in that case so you get more players.

[Beketov 9,033]

1 minute ago, Plate said:

If I forgot your team it means you probably would only inherit like one player instead of a bunch like Halifax. You'd be best to go with a draft in that case so you get more players.

By our internal counts (because yes we did run the numbers) Ottawa actually gets the biggest benefit with 6.

[Grape 680]

37 minutes ago, Beketov said:

By our internal counts (because yes we did run the numbers) Ottawa actually gets the biggest benefit with 6.

I now support inheritance!

[Plate 386]

35 minutes ago, Beketov said:

By our internal counts (because yes we did run the numbers) Ottawa actually gets the biggest benefit with 6.

It's possible you have different numbers than me but I'm about to go back and do a count. It would be interesting to see the list of players beforehand.

I still stand by the draft being a competitive balance for the reasons above, as opposed to teams just inheriting players.

[Beketov 9,033]

34 minutes ago, Plate said:

It's possible you have different numbers than me but I'm about to go back and do a count. It would be interesting to see the list of players beforehand.

I still stand by the draft being a competitive balance for the reasons above, as opposed to teams just inheriting players.

@Spartan  pulled the numbers for us. What he got (plus a few fringe players not counted here) was:

 

Halifax +5

Houston +3

Las Vegas +4

Mexico +3

Miami +2

Mississauga +3

Ottawa +6

Philadelphia +0

San Diego +1

Saskatoon +2

 

There are also 4 players who skipped the M draft an went straight to the E which would need to be placed.

 

Edit: Not sure if these are the exact same numbers you have or not, I realize now that I'm talking amount of players and you are talking TPE / "power ranking" not just straight how many players are added.

[Spartan 4,408]

I don't mind making it public now. to my data. Removed due to avoid complications in a soon-to-be released announcement.

 

Examined all VHLE players, ensured activity, ensured 400 or lower TPE. Again, could change depending on any earning, this is as of this week.

 

Team assigned depended on whether the player was drafted or not, UDFAs received a separate category. The last team to own the drafted player was assigned their "rights" if inheritance was the route we pursued. However, I also recognize that players beyond the 3 season draft rights period weren't classified as such and that could also become a criteria to not make that an inherited player and instead go to a draft. Something I'll have to recheck and rerun the numbers on.

 

Also to clarify, inheritance was *an* idea floated by the BoG, not something the M Commissioners were pushing. We're still evaluating the options and we may make a decision after we see what rosters look like following the post-season when M teams will have to drop their waivers, FAs and graduating players. We also are pretty willing to make a much more complicated decision than just a pure redraft. That being said, appreciate the passion for the M and interesting read!

Edited September 18 by Spartan

[Plate 386]

The larger conversation here is that I don't think it would be a big deal if these players wouldn't turn into the top talent of the league. 
 

Almost every current top player for their respective team has now been replaced by someone else. This is a massive jump both in terms of TPE in the league and team layout for the immediate short term (like the next two seasons before most of these players graduate).

[Plate 386]

On 9/15/2024 at 7:42 PM, Spartan said:

I don't mind making it public now.  to my data.

 

Examined all VHLE players, ensured activity, ensured 400 or lower TPE. Again, could change depending on any earning, this is as of this week.

 

Team assigned depended on whether the player was drafted or not, UDFAs received a separate category. The last team to own the drafted player was assigned their "rights" if inheritance was the route we pursued. However, I also recognize that players beyond the 3 season draft rights period weren't classified as such and that could also become a criteria to not make that an inherited player and instead go to a draft. Something I'll have to recheck and rerun the numbers on.

 

Also to clarify, inheritance was *an* idea floated by the BoG, not something the M Commissioners were pushing. We're still evaluating the options and we may make a decision after we see what rosters look like following the post-season when M teams will have to drop their waivers, FAs and graduating players. We also are pretty willing to make a much more complicated decision than just a pure redraft. That being said, appreciate the passion for the M and interesting read!

"In all likelihood" is a pretty convincing way to say that is both the direction that is being leaned towards and what the current favored option is.

 

Edited September 18 by Spartan

[Spartan 4,408]

Just now, Plate said:

"In all likelihood" is a pretty convincing way to say that is both the direction that is being leaned towards and what the current favored option is.

 

And I'm telling you what the M Commies who've been tasked to figure it out are thinking

[Plate 386]

The only info I have about the change is this thread and the announcement. Glad to see the conversation is still being evolved and I'm glad I can be part of it. 

My articles are always meant to start conversation and make people think about the VHL, not merely sit back and accept things for how they are

[Beketov 9,033]

10 minutes ago, Plate said:

"In all likelihood" is a pretty convincing way to say that is both the direction that is being leaned towards and what the current favored option is.

 

That was pretty much just my wording based on what was easiest. I did post the announcement in the BOG in advance and requested feedback if people had any and didn’t receive any notes on that wording but it also wasn’t in there for long.

 

Nothing in this regard is exactly set in stone as of yet.

[Grape 680]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

Also to clarify, inheritance was *an* idea floated by the BoG, not something the M Commissioners were pushing. We're still evaluating the options and we may make a decision after we see what rosters look like following the post-season when M teams will have to drop their waivers, FAs and graduating players. We also are pretty willing to make a much more complicated decision than just a pure redraft. That being said, appreciate the passion for the M and interesting read!

I will say the inheritance option is in a way fair to the M teams. These teams drafted (or traded for) and assisted in the growth and development of these users and their players. Having those players be returned to the teams that fostered that development and growth rewards GMs for their work and allows them to taste the fruit of their labor. For teams like Philadelphia and San Diego, it would seem unfair, and one needs to look at the players that graduated the teams, if they overachieved and broke into the VHL, or underachieved and went IA, but for teams that have been drafting well and developing players continuously, keeping them active and growing, returning the players to where they have some comfort seems right. The dispersal draft is also an interesting idea, and I am not directly opposed to it either. This is a very delicate situation that needs to be handled with care to ensure the transition of players is conducted smoothly and properly.

[Plate 386]

I disagree that inheriting players from trades that served no long term reason is fair. 
 

A large, and arguably the most under rated, function of a trade is the amount of time a player serves their team. High value players purchased as rentals would be worth much less in terms of value, and it's unfair in favour of the teams that bought to be handed a championship contending team simply because of a situation like this. 
 

As stated previously, if there is a player you wanted you can just draft them. You won't get everyone you want but that's the point. Everyone gets someone they want and loses someone they want. That's the point of balance.

 

It seems like GMs have their draft picks in mind and want to retain them though. Again, my problem with the idea of, for example, having a singular round where you can select one player drafted by you, is that it's unfair to the teams that sold their players for a rebuild.

 

The inheriting system is HEAVILY skewed towards teams that made trades for players in a cup run. Punishes teams that wanted to rebuild, and more importantly will straight up give teams championship level rosters on the basis they ended the season with the player. 
 

Just because you ended your season with the player does not mean you were the lionshare owner of their development. It means you contributed, yes, but for most of these players (since most players are shifted around on deadline week) means for one playoff run and the tail end you aided their development. This argument also really only counts against 1st gen players, as recreating members are pretty self sufficient in their earning

[LucyXpher 1,433]

3 hours ago, Plate said:

The inheriting system is HEAVILY skewed towards teams that made trades for players in a cup run. Punishes teams that wanted to rebuild, and more importantly will straight up give teams championship level rosters on the basis they ended the season with the player. 

But hasn’t the value of the assets gone up now as well?  Like a 1st round pick used to get you a recreate that plays 1 season before moving on, for example.  With the E being dissolved you now might get a 2-3 season player.  So teams that sold should still have assets with increased value to make them better in future seasons while teams that inherit won’t retain those players as long, presumably.  
 

You could argue that doing a blanket dispersal draft unfairly benefits teams that sold players for picks since they’ll get the same number of players back as teams that spent assets in previous seasons and they’ll retain the assets they traded for with increased value now.   
 

Edit: I know I’m kinda contradicting part of my previous post, but the more I think about it the less I’m convinced inheritance really favors the teams that acquired players for playoff runs.  Add to that the factor of player/team familiarity

 

I think I’m in favor of full inheritance— no dispersal draft needed! 

Edited September 16 by LucyXpher