Pier 21: VHLExtinct

[LucyXpher 1,136]

So the VHLE is officially going the way of the dodo...  

 

With news of this decision coming down this past week, there's so much still to be determined about how things will change around the VHL and particularly the VHLM.  In some ways it's a bit sad to say goodbye to those six great European teams. I personally enjoyed my one season in the VHLE playing for Vasteras and I found the jump up from the M was something new and exciting to build into my player's lore.  I had a lot of fun writing my "Hello Europe" career point task and I'd love to see another career point task added as a replacement in the future.  I know there are mixed feelings about career point tasks around the forum, but I personally love them.  It was an opportunity in each of my first three seasons to shamelessly write about my player and build up a backstory, obviously with the reward of a little bit of TPE being a sweet incentive.  As a way of breaking up that early career grind, I thought the E was a great league for keeping things fresh and providing a stepping stone to launch into the VHL.  It wasn't without it's problems though, and on the whole, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy it's being abolished.  

 

Over the past couple seasons following the influx of players in S92, the VHLM has been a bit starved for players with some teams languishing at the bottom of the league with empty rosters, doomed to get stomped on the daily by teams who managed to collect more players either through the draft or through waivers.  With top prospects flying through the league in 1 season or less and a max expectancy of 2-3 seasons for most other players, the M was  a league where teams struggled to stay competitive over the course of a long window.  Some teams found a way to stay in the mid table season to season via waivers and constant retooling, but to really compete, a boom-bust mentality seemed to be the way forward.  Tank for a season or two, build up picks and prospects with term, compete for a season or two, sell, rinse and repeat.  I don't know, maybe I'm misrepresenting things a bit because I've only been a GM in that league for three seasons, but it seems that the league rules sort of lent to that kind of build-rebuild mentality by GMs with inevitable player turnover.  
 

With the VHLM's league cap being raised to 400 TPE and a swath of players becoming available to return to the M, the VHLM player pool will become much healthier for competition and should help bring more parity to the league in the longer term.  I also look forward to the prospect of having players remain with the team for a longer duration, even if that is only extended by a season or two.  One of my greatest laments about the M in the past was how sad it was every season to say goodbye to great people and players who had become part of our Halifax community.  1-2 seasons is such a short time and increasing that to even 2-3 seasons makes a world of difference for building team culture and having that culture continue on season-to-season, even as players move up eventually.  Team building in the VHLM becomes less volatile with this change, I think, and it seems there will be more room for a diversity of trades beyond the usual buy-sell transactions that happen around the deadline every season.  Maybe now we'll see more "hockey trades" where it's a little more ambiguous what each GM's direction is. Beyond the movement of players, I think these changes have the potential to make building for a wider competitive window much more viable.  With the increase to VHLM player careers and the availability of more players, GM's will have more ways to build competitive teams that can stay competitive for a longer period fo time.  Overall, I think this is a very exciting change for VHLM teams and GMs and should bring some more stability and competition to the community's league of entry.  

 

Heading into this important offseason, there are still many details about the transition that will need to be ironed out, first among them is the problem of how to disperse eligible E players below 400 TPE onto VHLM teams.  Let me preface the following thoughts by saying I have full faith our VHLM commissioners, @Spartan  and @Gustav , will find a solution that is fair for teams and players, but will also promote the health and competition of the league.  It's certainly a complicated problem and, while I have ideas, I don't envy the task of making a final decision that will try to please everyone.  I suspect that not everyone will be 100% happy, but with teams across the VHLM standing to lose and gain through this process there will likely have to be some compromises for the good of the league going forward.  At the end of the day, however this is handled, I'm still going to be excited for the VHLM moving forward!

 

The way I see it, there seems to be three potential ways to address the problem of player dispersal from the E to the M: Inheritance (players return to the their last M team, or the team that has their rights), Dispersal Draft (players are distributed evenly among VHLM teams), and Free Agency (players sign with teams that offer them contracts-- potentially controlled by a limit on the number of players a team can sign).  A solution could also combine two or all three of these things for the most fairness.  I'm not going to try and hide the fact that implementing an inheritance system would benefit Halifax to some degree.  As it stands, regardless of how players are categorized (i.e. drafted players, or acquired through trade) Halifax would receive more inheritance from the VHLE than most other teams.  Of course I want that, who wouldn't? Having spent the past few seasons with some of these players, they are people I have become familiar with and could even call friends.  That said, I have tried to keep that bias separate from my thoughts on this problem since having a healthy, fun, and competitive league is important to me as well.  Without that, the potential of winning honestly doesn't mean as much anyway.  

 

For those who care, here's what I would propose: VHLE players should be returned initially to the last team they played for via inheritance at the end of the S95 playoffs.  Before the S96 VHLM Dispersal Draft, teams must drop all inherited players with expired rights.  In the time between the end of the playoffs and the VHLM draft, GMs will have had the opportunity to reconnect with all former players to explore the possibility of re-signing with the team.  Players who's rights have expired would then become free agents at the conclusion of the VHLM draft and available for any team to sign.  To avoid teams collecting too many players, a temporary roster cap (e.g. 8F-5D-2G or something similar) could be implemented prior to free agency, allowing for teams that need players to sign more as needed.  Note: Teams with players that are currently at the 200 TPE VHLM cap can keep those players at the end of the season instead of dropping them.

 

I can think of some concerns people might have with this solution, and I'm sure there may be more, but I'll do my best to answer some of them here briefly.  

 

1. Why should teams inherit players initially based on the last team played for and not only by active rights?

• Firstly, regular VHLM players with expired rights often have the chance to discuss re-signing with their current team before reaching free agency.  Returning all players to their most recent team allows first negotiation rights to the team that player was last on since those rights were acquired via draft or trade.
• Secondly, by allowing teams to reconnect with former players between the end of playoffs and the beginning of the draft, there is a possibility for greater continuity from past seasons in the league and for players to have some agency in where they continue their career.
• Thirdly, returning players to their last team preserves continuity and value in prior trades.  With the length of VHLM careers extending, the value of picks made in trades over the past couple of seasons has increased-- or at the very least, changed.  A high 1st round pick, for example, used to represent a high-earning capped player for 1 season.  With these new changes, that pick is probably a player between 200-400 for two full seasons in the VHLM.  Any pick traded in the past couple of seasons has likely gained value, provided the pick is unused or the player chosen is still VHLM eligible. 
  • My thinking is that through full inheritance, players are reunited with their last VHLM team to balance the increased value of picks used to acquire them-- keeping in mind that teams would have already missed out on at least one season with those returning VHLE players as they played the last season or two in the E.  
  • I think the simplest solution here is the best one since it doesn't attempt to artificially balance any trades that already occured.  
  • Aside from clear cut buyer/seller trades, there are so many other trades with asset values impacted by the VHLE/M merging that won't include inheritance players.  I think it's best just to let them all stand as they are.
• Fourthly, because I propose teams keep players that are currently at the 200 TPE cap who would normally be lost to the VHLE (regardless of how they were acquired), the same reasoning should be applied to players being returned from the VHLE.  
  • For anyone concerned that Halifax would somehow be receiving a bunch of players back that were considered deadline "rentals", there is really only one player with the potential to return via inheritance that would fit this category.  Funny enough, that player-- completely unsolicited-- actually reached out to me this week expressing interest in returning to Halifax after hearing the news about the VHLE ending.
• Fifthly, (lol this is becoming un-brief), the proposed solution keeps to the current rules of the VHLM regarding player rights and free agency without adding in anything artificially.

 

2. Inheritance unfairly benefits some teams more than others.  

• It's true that some teams receive more players than others initially, but with the exception of Philadelphia who wouldn't receive any players, and San Diego who would only receive 1 player, every other team would receive 3 players except for Vegas (4), Ottawa (5), and Halifax (6).
  • Of all those players returning to the VHLM, most will have had their rights expire and will need to be re-signed as free agents, therefore putting the onus on GMs to communicate with potential returnees and entice them to re-sign.
• In the case of Philadelphia, they would not receive players because their one former player currently in the VHLE player has since gone inactive.  After winning the Founder's Cup in S92, the team dropped down the standings over the following two seasons, rebuilding their stockpile of draft picks in order to be competitive in S95.  Philadelphia finished 2nd overall in S95 and currently holds 9 rostered players that should be eligible to continue with the team in S96 (4 F, 4 D, and 1 G).  Some of those players are currently at the current 200 TPE cap.  While inheritance might seem unfair to Philadelphia at face value, they'd still have the opportunity to sign free agents with lapsed rights, and select quality players in the S96 draft as they still have a 1st round pick.  It seems likely that they won't struggle to assemble a roster of at least 6F-4D-1G that will be moderately competitive in S96 and that they can continue to build for future seasons.
• In the case of San Diego, of their 5 former players at the VHLE level, 5 are considered inactive, and only 1 of those is within the rights eligibility window of 3 seasons.  The only other player they might add via inheritance is on the fringe of activity.  San Diego currently has 2 forwards and a capped goalie that could return to the team next season.  Additionally, they hold two 1sts and a 2nd round pick in S96 and a 1st and two 2nds in S97.  While the road back to contention for San Diego is likely still a couple of seasons away, they certainly have the assets to begin that process.  Another part of this equation is the fact that San Diego owned the 1st overall pick in each of the last two VHLM drafts.  One of those picks is their current goaltender while the other will already have moved on to the VHL as of S96.  As I see it, they had a very clear opportunity to build these past couple of seasons with such high selections, even selecting 1st and 4th overall in S94.  While the VHLE being abolished might delay their rebuild by a another season or two, San Diego was already poised to be building over the next few seasons via the draft.  I will say, they are one team that I have some concern for reaching the 6-4-1 threshold in S96.  With only 2F and 1G returning, they will need to add 4F-4D (8 players) in order to reach this threshold.  With their current picks, they will most likely add 4 players, maybe 5.  With a couple of VHLE free agent signings, they could be up to 6-7.  Perhaps this is where we could see a hard cap of 9-6-2 implemented to prevent teams from adding too many extra players while teams like San Diego need more.  
• I could go through every VHLM team, but I'm not going to.  To some degree, I think inheritance fairly reflects continuity of the VHLM-- trades, asset management, scouting, etc...-- and the continued trajectory that teams were on over the past few seasons.  
  • I think inheritance offers continuity through this transition while I think a dispersal draft or complete free agency artificially tampers with the continuity of the league.  

 

3. Why not have a dispersal draft or free agency instead of inheriting players?

• Initially, I was in favor of a dispersal draft being the best solution, though my thoughts have changed as I've spent more time thinking about it.
• As stated above, I think it messes with the league's continuity, where teams were at in terms of building, the value of past assets, trades, player management, development, drafting, etc...
• I don't necessarily think a dispersal draft makes the league any more balanced for teams like San Diego who may be short a player or two to reach the 6-4-1 threshold.  With a dispersal draft, they'd be guaranteed 3 players from the VHLE-- which they might get anyway with the inheritance model I propose, and still might be short a player or two.
• Full free agency without a negotiation period creates a high-stress situation for GM's and forces them to compete with one another to sign players in a narrow window of time.  It would probably favor teams trying to re-unite with former players anyway, but I still see the inheritance + free agency model as being a better way forward to facilitate a period of communication and some player agency.

 

I could go on, and maybe I will if people want to continue the conversation.  I'm sure there are more questions and potential issues.  As I said earlier on, I'm confident that our VHLM commissioners will decide on a good solution, and if these thoughts can help make that easier, then great!  If not, then at least I got it off my chest and some media spot TPE!  At the end of the day, it's an exciting time to be a GM in the VHLM and I can't wait to see what the league looks like in S96 and beyond.  

 

༻❁༺

LucyXpher 

2600+ words

1st claim - 09/16/2024

 

Edited Monday at 11:40 PM by LucyXpher

[Banackock 7,972]

Ty blade

[LucyXpher 1,136]

25 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Ty blade

I don’t get it

[Banackock 7,972]

34 minutes ago, LucyXpher said:

I don’t get it

[jacobcarson877 2,432]

51 minutes ago, LucyXpher said:

I don’t get it

Bana is referring to you as legendary, and certainly controversial long lost member BladeMaiden

It's at least 85% compliment?

[Gustav 6,322]

This is one of the busiest offseasons we've had since we first got hired and made our first rounds of big changes. There are very clear reasons for that, of course, but it's also reminded me a lot of how it felt during that time when I got to sit down and think about the issues faced by the VHLM and realize that I had the power to change those any way I wanted.

 

I won't drop the news until we've finalized it, but we have something on the way that I think you'll like. Our goal is to be fair to both players and GMs in this process and I believe we'll get about as close as possible.

Edited Tuesday at 02:50 AM by Gustav

[Gaikoku-hito 1,990]

The boom and bust or is it the bust and boom cycle was just one way of running a VHLM team. It seemed the easiest and most followed this rather then trying other methods. Some of this will still play a role in the new VHLM but most likely won`t punish mistakes as harshly made at the draft table or in planning or even bad luck!!

 

It will be interesting to see how the first few season play-out with length of stay, team strengths etc... as I am sure things will change in unpredictable ways; as they always do!!

[Grape 619]

17 hours ago, Banackock said:

Any woman in the league = BladeMaiden alt account

[Spartan 4,274]

19 hours ago, LucyXpher said:

A solution could also combine two or all three of these things for the most fairness