VHLE Death - Inheritance or Draft?

[Plate 386]

Just now, LucyXpher said:

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.   

I think this argument is flawed because of the intention of the trade. If I'm a GM trading a player for a pick, then I want that pick to be a long term asset for the team. Whereas if I'm trading for a 200 TPE player at the deadline I'm saying goodbye to them at the end of the season.

Something that is critical to think about is the current status of teams going into this next season. I'll use Halifax as an example. Last season they traded for a bunch of players and made a cup run, expending all of their picks to do so. Then this season, after all their players left, they traded assets away for picks to start a rebuild. To be then given 5 players back on top of having a potential A class draft would put Halifax on a level that could never be replicated outside of similar circumstances. 

Gms that have more assets to gain will favour inheritance and GMs that have less will favour a draft. 

My opinion is that a draft will sustain the status quo. Equally inflating each teams TPE levels is a much healthier option. While it's true a team that sold would get better players (Since you're talking about raw TPE), in this case a 400 TPE player is worth the same as a 200 one, since the cap has now doubled. And a 1st round pick being worth 200 TPE last season is an equivalent to a player being worth 400 TPE next season. Again, the difference being service time which was not an addressed argument. 

[LucyXpher 1,420]

5 minutes ago, Plate said:

Something that is critical to think about is the current status of teams going into this next season. I'll use Halifax as an example. Last season they traded for a bunch of players and made a cup run, expending all of their picks to do so. Then this season, after all their players left, they traded assets away for picks to start a rebuild. To be then given 5 players back on top of having a potential A class draft would put Halifax on a level that could never be replicated outside of similar circumstances. 

As the GM of Halifax I strongly disagree.   No but seriously, I think you’re dismissing the value of those picks that were traded away which have also gained value (as I explained above).  The fact is, our draft picks that were traded away are still out there and can’t be accounted for in a dispersal draft.

Think of it this way: for example, the intention at the time was to swap a 1st for a 200TPE rental player to push for a Cup.  The value we received in the trade doesn’t change with dispersal, but the value we sent out in that 1st has changed because players will play more seasons in the M.  So instead of swapping a 1st under the old system for an end of season rental player, we’ve given up a 1st under the new rules for that rental under the old system.  That’s not fair value and benefits the team with the draft pick now.  

[Plate 386]

17 hours ago, LucyXpher said:

As the GM of Halifax I strongly disagree.   No but seriously, I think you’re dismissing the value of those picks that were traded away which have also gained value (as I explained above).  The fact is, our draft picks that were traded away are still out there and can’t be accounted for in a dispersal draft.

Think of it this way: for example, the intention at the time was to swap a 1st for a 200TPE rental player to push for a Cup.  The value we received in the trade doesn’t change with dispersal, but the value we sent out in that 1st has changed because players will play more seasons in the M.  So instead of swapping a 1st under the old system for an end of season rental player, we’ve given up a 1st under the new rules for that rental under the old system.  That’s not fair value and benefits the team with the draft pick now.  

 

Okay let me put my point of view in a theoretical trade between two teams under the old rules. With these assumptions - Team Champion are doing an all-in trade for their current playoff push and team Rebuild has a player they want to sell for a pick. 

Team Champion acquires - All-Star player (200 TPE). Duration of time spent with the team - 1 playoff run.
Team Rebuild acquires - 1st Round Pick (200 TPE player in the future). Duration of time spent with the team - 1-2 seasons.

Now this is the same trade with the new rules.

Team Champion acquires - All-Star player (400 TPE). Duration of time spent with the team - 1 playoff run.
Team Rebuild acquires - 1st Round Pick (400 TPE player in the future). Duration of time spent with the team - 2-3 seasons.

Whether at 200 or 400 TPE the championship team has acquired a maxed out player for the league for the same duration as if they were in the new or old rules. That's the risk of the investment. With little time spent with a player, being an asset used for one playoff run, the championship team has given up a long-term asset for a short term one. When you look back at playoffs you don't see the TPE of the team you only see their placement. As winning the cup is the only thing that matters for a team going for it that season. 

Rebuilds don't care about that. A rebuilding team wants futures in order to construct a core for the future and make attempts at the cup down the line. 

Under both "systems" the championship team will always give up their futures, no matter how many seasons that negatively affects them, for the short term. That is the price they are paying. To get a maxed out player now and give away a maxed out player in the future. Under both systems the RELATIVE value is the same against the maximum. 

A 200 TPE player is worth the same now as a 400 TPE one in S96. A 1st round pick this season is worth the same as next season even with the transition of the rules. Simply because you can bet that a 1st round pick will turn into a maxed out player in 2-3 seasons. It just takes longer and having the player in the system longer is neither a benefit or a negative.

TLDR:
With inheritance, teams that went all in get two seasons worth of service for maxed out players, which is simply impossible under the old and current maximum TPE caps. 

[LucyXpher 1,420]

48 minutes ago, Plate said:

Team Champion acquires - All-Star player (200 TPE). Duration of time spent with the team - 1 playoff run.
Team Rebuild acquires - 1st Round Pick (200 TPE player in the future). Duration of time spent with the team - 1-2 seasons.

Now this is the same trade with the new rules.

Team Champion acquires - All-Star player (400 TPE). Duration of time spent with the team - 1 playoff run.
Team Rebuild acquires - 1st Round Pick (400 TPE player in the future). Duration of time spent with the team - 2-3 seasons.

Whether at 200 or 400 TPE the championship team has acquired a maxed out player for the league for the same duration as if they were in the new or old rules. That's the risk of the investment. With little time spent with a player, being an asset used for one playoff run, the championship team has given up a long-term asset for a short term one. When you look back at playoffs you don't see the TPE of the team you only see their placement. As winning the cup is the only thing that matters for a team going for it that season. 

I don't disagree with your above examples, but I'm not arguing against those cases.  Here's what I'm talking about in your terms:

 

Team Champion acquires - All-Star player (200 TPE). Duration of time spent with the team - 1 playoff run.
Team Rebuild acquires - 1st Round Pick (400 TPE player in the future). Duration of time spent with the team - 2-3 seasons.

 

It also may not be a 1st, but a 2nd that translates into a 3-4 season player.  I think it's also true that a 400 TPE player is worth more than a 200 TPE player, which is why the same trade might hold up with new and old rules.  The time it takes to develop a 200 TPE player vs a 400 TPE player are also very different, which is another reason why a 400 TPE player would be worth more IMO, even if they are both "capped".  

 

Regardless, there are so many trades that don't fit this neat little box that wouldn't be addressed by dispersal vs inheritance.  I wrote up a more complete proposal HERE if you want to see what I'd propose as a solution because it's not pure inheritance anyway.  I just prefer inheritance as a starting point.  I don't like the idea of a dispersal draft in this case. 

 

Also, the notion that Halifax stands to inherit a bunch of rental players is untrue.  There's only one active player that we might potentially inherit that fits that description.  I'd be interested to know how many other teams might get? If we allow teams to keep currently rostered players at or over 200 TPE, then there are definitely a bunch of teams with players matching this description.  Which I'm okay with. 

Edited September 16 by LucyXpher