Jacob's Salary Cap/Player Builds/Tanking and Draft Pick/League Parity/Trade Deadline Manifesto and Theme Week Entry

[jacobcarson877 2,589]

It’s been a while since I manifestoed so I feel like we’re due for another one. Ironically, the last one was also for a Theme Week, so this feels fitting.

 

Last time I talked about the leagues, the league structures, and how the JST, VHLM, VHLE, VHL and International play could all work together to create one big cohesive experience. A lot has changed since then, with the JST struggling to find the players to warrant a tournament, some changes I haven’t gotten to experience in the World Juniors, and well, the complete and utter destruction of the VHLE.

 

I’m not thrilled about how it all turned out, and I know I certainly wanted to feel better about it. I leapt for a VHLM role, and honestly beyond the first couple weeks, there hasn’t been a ton to do. I swap my wonderful goaltenders to roughly split them starts, sign a few random Free Agents coming back from Inactivity, remind my players to earn and give them enough build advice to let them run for a few weeks, and then rinse and repeat. Recruitment seems to have some morale again, at the very least, and while I’m not going to be hopping on Reddit as a platform, it is ironically the place I found the VHL. I can’t even remember what I was looking for, but I must’ve just come across it looking something else up. But Reddit always brought in great members and I’d love to see that as a real avenue again.

 

So what am I going to manifesto about this time? Well, it’s not going to be as dramatic and out there as the last one, even though I’d still love to see a world where those measure were put in place. This time we’re going to be talking about league parity, particularly when it comes to Trading, the Draft, and the Salary Cap.

 

THE STATE OF AFFAIRS

If we look at the last chunk of seasons, there are some noticeable trends.

•           Teams that rebuild when they have assets, retain more value and have shorter rebuilds. Teams that don’t, can very easily get caught in essentially endless rebuilds.
•           Asset-rich teams can worm their way into getting essentially whatever they want. They hold all the cards, and with the bankrupt teams rotating managers, core players, and losing just about everything, just about every season, there really is no simple solution to a few teams’ plights.
•       There are a couple classes of Draft Picks. The picks between 1 and 3-8, depending on the “depth” of the class are all essentially the same value. Maybe some positional shenanigans, some personal bonds, or returning vs. first generation considerations. Then there are the “rest of the first round” plus maybe 5 more, that make up the Welfare+ to Consistent Welfare group. Finally, in all honesty, there are the rest. We could have a 1 round draft and have about as much drama as we do now.
•          There are certain thresholds well within the bounds of top-earning builds, where progress is meaningless, but also without risk. It’s a tradeoff, but there’s nothing to gain, and nothing to lose. It’s like the game is missing its final level.

 

The league is lopsided, and really there’s no incentive to not be the best or worst team in the league. There’s no incentive as a player to stick through the process with a worse team, and there’s very minimal chance that a team is even going to retain enough talent to get out of the hole. Losing sucks, losing is exhausting, and losing is long, hard, and slow.

 

So teams will sit, in mediocrity with nothing to do but wait and hope. Players will waste half of their careers and then jump ship. GMs will burn out and have literally nothing to do.

 

So in general:

•           Sustained competitiveness should always be a risk and should always result in talent trickling down the pyramid.
•           Every season, every game, should be one where the players and the GMs have every reason to want to win.
•           Non-playoff teams should be given a boost, in a meaningful, and long-term way, such that they are able to get out of the rut, and back into the cycle.
•           Top players should cost a pretty penny, but also be worth the investment, whereas lower TPA players shouldn’t be worthless, and should have a clear path to relevancy.
   

THE SALARY CAP

 

The Salary Cap is 44 million. It was raised to that number to help make sure players got onto teams. It was an emergency measure, during an emergency time. We’re certainly not in an overabundance of VHL players anymore.

 

So simple things first, the VHL Salary Cap needs to drop at least 2, if not 4 million.  For some teams, that won’t affect them at all. Maybe we won’t see every player getting a huge bonus on a few teams. Maybe, each team will actually carry a decent, active player. Ideally a couple!

 

While that was the meat of this section, there are some other considerations when it comes to the Salary Cap.

 

First is how teams actually spend their Cap Space. Many teams will pick up a couple strong Duos, or perhaps a strong Trio, and maximize their output by throwing them with the cheapest players they can afford to in-game, and as good as they can afford in-cap. While I was in London, defenders were easy cap to shed, and you could do a ton of damage with 600-800TPA defenders, and some beefy forwards. But, back then you needed a HOF-calibre goaltender if you wanted to go the distance. And a couple HOF-calibre goaltenders would note that you couldn’t get very far very often with that top goaltender and a couple of great defenders and that’s it.

 

But the roster construction meta has changed a bit, and now instead of 4F and a G, as your top players, it’s more of a 3F 2D, or 4F, 1D kind of a meta. Goaltenders are out, as the return on investment after about 700TPA isn’t worth the cap space, and goaltender builds essentially cap out around that point too.

 

And when it comes to your top players, there are plenty to choose from. Anyone above like 900TPA can fit the bill, you might just have to wiggle some combinations around.

 

And the rest of the players, in all due respect, are just there. The dying middle class, is, as I officially announce here for you today, dead. Gone are the 6-10 capped TPE/week players that once blessed Free Agency and my locker rooms every season. Press Conferences and Trivia are a thing of the past, and the 4-5 Capped TPE/week players never reach a threshold where they make a significant impact. Whether that’s from the rate of earning, or the rate of inactivity, or just the fact that they’re getting tossed from one pit of despair team to another, we may never really know.

 

And… Transition!

 

PLAYER BUILDS, (UN?)PARITY, and SALARY BRACKETS

 

So here we are, without a real middle class, and anyone who survives through that slog is just as likely to be the best player as anyone else. The players falling short of that 700-900TPA mark never really get to do anything and never get the loyalty or the role to play their part in a meaningful way.

 

When it comes to in-game results, we only have a couple things we can interface with. Those are primarily the player builds, and the sliders. Sure, GMs will fiddle around and get some minor advantages, but they’re never going to break the bounds of the circumstance they’ve been given.

 

If we look at all of the player stats today, there are about 60 players at a point per game or above, across for the sake of easier math, 140 players. To be pacing for 100 points at about 50 games in, you’d need to be one of the top 15 players as of today, with 69 (nice) points. And we’ll have many more that fall just shy, maybe 10 more.

 

So of 140:

• 15 break 100 points
• 25 break 95 points
• 60 break point per game
• 80 break 60 points
• 100 break 50 points
• and the remaining 40 players won’t cross 50 points.

And if you compare that to the TPA levels:

• 25 will be >1100TPA
• 35 will be >1000TPA
• 50 will be >900TPA
• 65 will be >800TPA
• 85 will be >700TPA
• 110 will be >600TPA
• And the remaining 30 will be 300-600TPA.
   

So the distribution of TPA is pretty well even across the salary brackets, but the scoring doesn’t really represent that. Yes, I understand that there are different positions, and different teams, and different build qualities. This isn’t meant to be a perfect science, but we can say that being in the top salary bracket is essentially being a top 25 scorer, if it were that simple, which I can assure you, it is not. And you could be anywhere 800TPA and above and be about as likely as anyone else to be anything above a point per game. Over a 2 year career, let’s say 100 weeks for easy math, we’re talking about at least 4TPE/week more considering both the additions to the build and the depreciation, and 4 is obviously very conservative of an estimate.

 

So what am I working towards? Well, in general, I think the VHL needs another tier of excellence. And I have no idea whether STHS has that much nuance in it, but I would love to see it try. And assuming I’m right and we can find that next gear, we’d need to appropriately charge teams for it. Building above 800, or even 900TPA should be worth the investment, at least a reasonable amount of the time. There should be a noticeable difference in talent, and a worthy investment from the team. The hybrid attributes are primed to be super high TPA builds, since we’re never going to reach outlandish values in anything valuable in our limited career lengths. Somehow, we have both too much TPE, and also nothing worth the time to spend it on.

 

So I think we need another Salary Bracket. Call it 1200TPA, call it 1300TPA, I don’t know what it would end up being, but there’s a userbase for it, and they deserve to be able to break away from the pack, and inspire others to keep up.

 

But first, we need to revamp player building.

 

PLAYER BUILDS AND THE UPDATE SCALE

 

I’ll start off with a couple things. I’m not touching the skater attributes or their ratios. That is one element that I’m controlling for, and I don’t think they’re the enemy here, I just want to actually have a reason to use them.

 

I’m also going to make the general assumption that at some point down the line, we will make hybrid goalie attributes. We just had a ton of top members make goaltenders and all of them are capping themselves off to conserve cap or just recreating. It’s not good for the league, and this current roster meta is essentially scrapping a whole position.

 

Finally, I throw numbers out as a visual to support the words. The numbers are fake, the words are real. If you don’t like the numbers, read the words. I just say numbers. Okay here we go.

 

As a VHLM GM, it has been exhausting getting players to a competitive level. Do I have a hunch that it’s a slider issue? Yes. Does it support my point anyways? Also yes, so I’m rolling with it.

 

Getting attributes to 70 is wonderful and fantastic and should never change. 1TPE per tick is perfect, and 70 in the 4 most important hybrid attributes gets you some moderately competitive STHS attributes. From there, the update scale climbs exponentially, and it’s bearable for a while, but once you get things to 90, it becomes a nightmare. So most of the VHL gets smushed in together with STHS attributes hanging between 85 and 90, give or take 2 on either side for a slightly better or worse build, and we get boring, sloppy results. It takes weeks to get above that little range, and even then, you’re watching months go by and getting luck-of-the-draw levels of better. Sometimes, it even feels like you’re getting worse!

 

This is where the 900+ TPA is all about the same all ties together, because in the sim, they literally are all about the same, even if the work to get there was noticeably different. The cost must cap at some point, or there will be some optimization that makes investing more not worth the effort. So, in my head, increasing something to 80 follows the same path as it always did. But 81 and above, is all 5TPE per tick. Means that for the max earners, you’re clicking 5-6 buttons every 2 weeks. Jumping about an STHS attribute a week. You’re going to be able to push STHS attributes at the top end back towards 95-97, but you even out for it, because the higher those hybrid attributes are, the more that they drop in depreciation, so the tradeoff for cost of each tick going down is going to be partially comparable with the overall number of ticks a player goes down. This also helps balance out the Jagr vs. TPA debate, where Jagrs right now are disproportionately the best Store Purchase since you get to push a hybrid attribute to 99 and save 10 per tick that it would have gone down.

 

So, in this world, we push TPAs up, maybe have slightly less devastating depreciation, get some separation from the pack, maybe introduce another Salary Cap bracket, and make that 4TPE/week, and likely more, worth the effort. Players are improving until they bank, and depreciation becomes a little more complex than just buying a Jagr every season to go on your anchor of a 99. Oh and of course, make goaltenders a worthy investment of peoples’ time, teams’ salary cap, and of course, our the leaderboards’ ordering.

 

Bonus points for making the best of the best stand out the most on the World Cup stage, and I think we have ourselves a useful addition.

 

But enough about the players, lets get to…

 

LEAGUE PARITY, THE TRADE DEADLINE, and of course THE DRAFT

 

It all comes down to this, my favorite things to talk about. How would I structure the league to incentivize forum content, earning, building, hype, meaning, and of course, optimization?

 

I think it’s easy to see some examples of a couple teams that have been in the pits for a long time. And a couple more that are going to be in the pits about as long. That doesn’t leave us much room for an interesting playoff race, a dynamic trade market, and any incentive to explore Free Agency, or an extension with an eternally losing team past your ELC.

 

I think it’s easy enough to see that the Draft isn’t the answer. If a barely-missing-the-playoffs team is getting roughly as good of a player as the worst team the league has ever seen, how does that help that team get any further ahead? So of course, if we make it so the next tier of players exist, perhaps there will be 1 or 2 players that break free of the pack and are worth tanking for. But to tank, one must essentially have no team. And without a team, you have no assets. And without assets, you can’t pivot, or really make any meaningful changes. So sure, you tanked for your one player, but you need 5 at least, and good ones too, to be a Cup contender. So how are you going to line up 5 glorious picks, in at most 3 seasons to get a little old Cup window of about 2 seasons? Even if you picked first overall every season for 8 seasons, you’ll get just barely get your 5 players in their prime at a time, and you’ve probably lost a couple of them along the way.

 

So the real question, is how do we make it so that teams that are bad, still get good draft picks, but also have assets?

 

Well, the Cap going down would certainly be something to help move some talent down the ranks. And if those top players cost more, you’re probably sending a couple more of those players specifically down the mountain. You make goalies worth investing in, and maybe you get some more TPA in your toolbox. But I’m personally sick of watching the bottom teams sign a bunch of IA players, watch them score 60+ points for simply existing, dealing them to a contender at half price at the deadline, and never getting a draft deep enough that it was worth the effort. There has to be a reason beyond perpetuating the cycle and literally hitting the roster minimums for bottom teams to have players at all.

 

And those bottom teams, might even luck their way into getting some live players! Maybe they even want to see that bottom team escape the bottom! But are they really going to waste a year or more, hoping others might too and start a movement? Yeah probably not right?

 

So what if there was a way to keep active players engaged, give bottom teams a reason to sign, interact with, and maybe even re-sign players, encourage growing and building, and also reward them for it?

 

Oh wait, they figured that one out in 2012, and most notably implemented in the PWHL for their Entry Draft. I’ve talked about it before, I love it, and I will always love it, it’s the Gold Drafting method!

 

Long story short, and I’ll link the long story long version later, but the idea is that the draft picks for those teams that don’t make the playoffs are not assigned in reverse standings order, but by number of points earned after being eliminated from playoff contention.

 

So, the worse a team is, the earlier they get eliminated. Which means more opportunities to earn points. And even if they win at a lower clip, they are bad after all, they should get a high pick more often than other teams. The teams that are in the playoff race until the end may not even get an opportunity to earn any points after they are eliminated, since they may even be eliminated in their final game. But, what this means is that every game matters. The playoffs are about standings positions sure, and not everyone loves the whole conference setup, but I think it’s dodging the real point.

 

Everyone wants their games to matter.

 

If you’re a pretty decent team in a stacked conference, you’re forced to either buy a ton and maybe miss the playoffs, or sell off and try again another day. But what if there was another option? What if your team was really actually a decent team, and you could win some games after being eliminated? Well, then you would be playing for a better draft pick! And hey, that means you can keep your core, and get better next season!

 

And if you’re a bad team, you now have every incentive to win as many games as you can. You’re going to be eliminated, and probably pretty early on. But you’re going to need to keep a team of some sorts if you want to get the top pick.

 

Imagine a final sim. You’ve got one team on one end fighting for the Victory Cup, and on the other end, a team fighting for the first overall pick. Simon does his thing and you get a huge upset, the underdog wins the first overall pick, and the favourite loses the hardware. In our world, that game would be just a stupid game.

 

You’re a player on a bad team. You’re eliminated, it’s going to be a long couple of seasons. But you can actually make a difference. You can win some games, you can earn some TPE. You can literally help bring your team out from the gutter. You mean something, and every day you’re showing up to do something meaningful.

 

That’s Gold Drafting. Players want to win, teams should be incentivized to want to win. Every game should matter, and Draftees shouldn’t be tossed to the wolves.

 

Oh yeah, and here's the link to the best explanation I have found.

 

So imagine with me a VHL where the bottom teams are made up of scrappy players who will steal some games and earn their next start teammate. Top teams are forced to make real, tough decisions, and the cycle will actually turn.

 

Continue to imagine with me the Trade Deadline. Here it is, here’s where I make my TPE. Imagine a top team. Strapped for cash as usual, but instead of throwing pennies at the peasants for their players that are winning them games they never wanted to win, this time you have to convince those teams that they won’t need those wins more than your measly 3^rd rounder. Ignore whatever went on this season, with depth players costing a fortune, but imagine with me a world where trades become more and more about timelines, and getting some of those iconic player for player swaps where positions, ages, you name it are interchanged in the most controversial of moves.

 

Bottom teams might even try to buy some failing depth from the top players in an attempt to kickstart their draft pick comeback. There might be an honest threat of top teams’ players being lost to Free Agency, and those contenders may even look to downgrade to sutain their competitive window.

 

And sure, we’re all just imagining here, but this is a thought that is possible, but not like we play today. The game experience is always about incentives and how you can shift them to serve the experience better. We’ve struggled for a while to incentivize effort, creativity, investment, and improving.

 

So to incentivize effort:

•           Plateau the TPE Scale so improvement is valuable for a lot longer without sacrificing the hybrid attribute guardrails.
•           Add a new Cap Bracket for the top earners to separate from the pack.

 

To incentivize creativity:

•           Make the Salary Cap more restrictive so the best laid plans allow for sustained competitiveness.
•           Increase the amount of hybrid attributes one increases in builds to allow for more diversity.
•           Revitalize the goaltending position by introducing Hybrid Attributes for real build strategy.

 

To incentivize investment:

•           Make >1100TPA players noticeably more valuable than their 900TPA counterparts.
•           Make player time, effort, and risk used as a driver of future assets, wins, and satisfaction.
•           Give VHL teams a reason to commit to their cores, and even their depth, as a means to secure a stronger future.

 

To incentivize improvement:

•          Never give anyone a reason to stop all of the above.
•           Providing a clearer, and more streamlined approach to returning to contention.
•           To make supplemental, and Uncapped TPE opportunities dramatically effect the effectiveness of players through increased build strengths.

 

 

Well, that was certainly 500 words, while tying in at least a significant enough to Trade Deadline, so I hope that was worth the read. It’s been a while since something got me thinking in the VHL as much as this topic has, which of course was inspired by what little work I have been seeing around the forum these days. Some days it feels like the VHL is on the down, and maybe that’s just me getting old around here, but there’s still a lot to fight for, a lot to improve, and a lot that is worth my time. I may not be as obsessed with this as I once was, but it’s nice to get the blood pumping and dumping 4000 some odd words into a Word Document for the first time in a while. I hadn’t really thought much about Theme Week until like 2 hours ago, because I couldn’t come up with any puns, or sneaky misinterpretations to play on. But hey, it all worked out!

Edited yesterday at 05:07 AM by jacobcarson877

[Gustav 6,495]

I really just skimmed this (for now), but it was the first time I've heard of Gold Drafting and I think it's cool.

[tcookie 944]

Lots of good points!

 

And I don't know why the Gold Plan for draft order isn't more standard to be honest. It's a great system.

[rory 1,960]

big ahhh post here you go everyone:

The author reflects on past league structures and current challenges in the VHL, noting issues with the JST, VHLE, and overall player retention. They critique the imbalance in competitiveness and propose solutions like lowering the salary cap, improving player builds, and introducing new tiers of player excellence to promote meaningful competition. They argue that rebuilding teams need better incentives, such as drafting based on post-elimination performance (Gold Drafting), to break cycles of mediocrity. Suggestions include revamping the update scale, making goalies more valuable, and creating a more dynamic trade market to ensure every game and season feels significant for both players and teams.

[Spartan 4,584]

10 hours ago, jacobcarson877 said:

Add a new Cap Bracket for the top earners to separate from the pack.

I could get the rationale for most of the things you said, but I don't get this part. Sure you pay high earners more money so they can buy more TPE while also protecting for depreciation, but these players price themselves off of teams. We already saw how marginally better goalies were getting moved by teams for costing 5.5/6m in favor for cheaper, slightly worse 3-5m goalies. I guess if you make a 1300 TPA player worth 7m, their production would probably look better since their teammates are going to be worse. 2 7m TPA players on a team means that you likely lose a 4 or 5m teammate for a 2/2.5m body.

 

I think the main hurdle with the "middle class" or so is the hurdle we discussed when removing the M - making the M TPE cap 400 and making the bar to reach insanely high for a new user who isn't investing a lot of time into the league. Just clicking welfare and PF each week is not going to get players to the VHL anytime soon and then they end up too old to really be invested in by a team.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,934]

Really interesting article, I do enjoy the behind-the-scenes discussions. Some thoughts while reading:

 

1. Spartan already said the same thing I was going to about a new cap level. As a 1300+ TPA player, would push back hard against that because of being a burden to my team. If you think it's rough finding a landing spot and cap space for final season players now...

 

2. To that end, if you really want to encourage people to shoot for higher salaries, it would take a fix not discussed here: the Players Store. Already, a lot of people just save for regression, because there really isn't that much of worth in there. (A free PT that gives me 2 more points than Welfare? Oh joy.) Especially since I fully agree that things really level out above 900-1000 TPA, it could be a disincentive to earn more as is because you're actively harming your team. But if there were a more tangible benefit for individual production (a flat +1/2/3 on an attribute, perhaps?) that might encourage shooting for more spending.

 

3. I'd agree with lowering the cap. But I've said this in the Davos LR, I find it funny that the league is tending towards a goalie meta away from large TPE goalies... right after a finals of Syko v. Dilson. I honestly think goalies are fine as is and the current meta is not necessarily correct or set in stone. People get frustrated with high-TPE goalies because they see it as a definite thing, when it's never going to be a definite thing with any player. But anecdotally, as somebody who's made multiple high TPE goalies, I find they have a greater level of success on average - and to the earlier point, you're probably getting a higher return on investment if your goalie goes from 800 to 1100 TPA than if one individual F or D did. If I were a GM right now, I'd honestly zag away from the meta right towards high-TPE goalies because that's seemingly where the value is.

[Pifferfish 635]

11 hours ago, Gustav said:

I really just skimmed this (for now), but it was the first time I've heard of Gold Drafting and I think it's cool.

I shared this opinion and got so much hate for it. Because it "rewards" better teams. 

[Pifferfish 635]

1 hour ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Really interesting article, I do enjoy the behind-the-scenes discussions. Some thoughts while reading:

 

1. Spartan already said the same thing I was going to about a new cap level. As a 1300+ TPA player, would push back hard against that because of being a burden to my team. If you think it's rough finding a landing spot and cap space for final season players now...

 

2. To that end, if you really want to encourage people to shoot for higher salaries, it would take a fix not discussed here: the Players Store. Already, a lot of people just save for regression, because there really isn't that much of worth in there. (A free PT that gives me 2 more points than Welfare? Oh joy.) Especially since I fully agree that things really level out above 900-1000 TPA, it could be a disincentive to earn more as is because you're actively harming your team. But if there were a more tangible benefit for individual production (a flat +1/2/3 on an attribute, perhaps?) that might encourage shooting for more spending.

 

3. I'd agree with lowering the cap. But I've said this in the Davos LR, I find it funny that the league is tending towards a goalie meta away from large TPE goalies... right after a finals of Syko v. Dilson. I honestly think goalies are fine as is and the current meta is not necessarily correct or set in stone. People get frustrated with high-TPE goalies because they see it as a definite thing, when it's never going to be a definite thing with any player. But anecdotally, as somebody who's made multiple high TPE goalies, I find they have a greater level of success on average - and to the earlier point, you're probably getting a higher return on investment if your goalie goes from 800 to 1100 TPA than if one individual F or D did. If I were a GM right now, I'd honestly zag away from the meta right towards high-TPE goalies because that's seemingly where the value is.

I do get the argument of "we just had a Syko and Dilson final" but Syko really only cost Vancouver $3m (and the pick they traded for him) so they got the benefits of a cheap goalie while also having elite TPE.

 

And for Dilson, Davos as a team was rounding the bend of their competitive window starting with a lot of their core players at their low end of their TPE and cap hit. Now a season later they are totally strapped for cap space with just a 600 TPE Goalie. 

 

Im mainly saying this to point out the meta shift isn't from high TPE goalies per se, but away from them as your long term plan, when you have the room for them, the consistency they offer is obviously a great thing, but if they are costing you up front due to cap space, maybe not so good.

 

In terms of the cap, if it is reduced, I think you'll see the idea of budget goalies further utilized.

[Pifferfish 635]

Last thing I'll say here but hybrid attributes for goalies I think is a change I view as potentially necessary. Like skaters are so interesting and fun to solve. I've had HOURS worth of convos with people discussing builds and how to squeeze out an extra ST but lose a PH for it or maybe this or that. And goalies fucking suck. I'm having a blast seeing my guy play, but the actual building of my character is a drag. Just no juice there. 

[Triller 1,696]

Implement "Gold Drafting" now!  I am surprised that after watching hockey all these years that I have not heard of this.  Great incentives to win and give meaning to every game.  I think declaration will be a learning curve for most GMs and most will try to find a way to "game" the system but as long as limits to that mechanic are introduced and reviews are thoughtful it shouldn't pose too much of a barrier.  Watching two bad teams battle it out for a first overall pick is an amazing prospect and really changes the landscape!  Allowing someone's player to also be the saviour of a bottom tier team is an awesome reason to have to stick around and not meet a trade deadline exit.

 

I think the biggest push back most of this will receive will be from the "generational contenders" who have worked themselves into having too many assets and are able to trade it away for more firsts to draft more assets.  The cycle continues and it is easy for them.  Boring but effective.

 

I agree with basically all of your assessments and I am very glad that you still have this much interest and passion for the league, though admittedly less than you once had, it is still visibly more than most.

[Gustav 6,495]

1 hour ago, Pifferfish said:

I shared this opinion and got so much hate for it. Because it "rewards" better teams. 

I would be interested in seeing the data on it before I develop an opinion on whether we should do it. As of now, all I said was that I think it’s a cool concept. Anyone who shot it down just based on vibes is dumb. 
 

It’s interesting because if it aligns super closely with the standings, then there’s no real point in doing it, and if it ends up being really far off, then it’s probably too extreme. To me, success under this system would look like a.) teams get the best picks when they are clearly non-competitive but at least make an effort to assemble a roster and aren’t openly tanking, and b.) the VHL actually recognizes this and we see a decline in teams that are openly tanking. I see the potential for this to go wrong (let’s say openly tanking still gets you more assets so people do it anyway), at which point I wouldn’t really care about it. But if it went right it would be cool. 

[badcolethetitan 950]

The only negative for "Gold Drafting" is that teams will continue to tank (have same incentive as to) and then refuse to trade players away at TDL, creating a market where there is essentially a fair amount of buyers (as there always is), but no sellers. This would then skyrocket prices to the point where top teams won't be able to improve without giving up a ton of assets that really wouldn't make sense. However, realistically, this isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that these players who are now out of playoffs and fighting for a top pick, GMs will not trade those players as they'll want to win, leading to potential players becoming unhappy with the fact they cannot play in playoffs.

 

Example:

Imagine you're on your last season and you end up going to a team who you think can make playoffs, however, it didn't turn out that way. You ask your GM for a trade, but he wants to keep you to have a higher chance at the top pick, since you're a player that is valuable to the teams success. You now have wasted your last season instead of going for a cup and there's nothing you can essentially do about it. At the moment, we have a smaller player base than in the past and this could make it so people will not want to come back in the future, as they're left with a bad experience, further depleting the small(ish) player base we currently have.

 

However, this could be an extreme and happen to only a handful of people at the end of the day. I think the "Gold Drafting" has it's pros and cons at the end of the day, as does everything. Personally, I don't really care for either (current system or gold drafting) as I'm pretty much go with the flow type of person. I just wanted to point out the potential negatives and pushback on something that everyone is currently seeing as a positive to give you another perspective. I don't want to seem like a negative nancy and shoot you all down, at the end of the day, I don't think it's a terrible idea. I just think it could have negative results that people aren't thinking about. Great article, loved reading it!

Edited 22 hours ago by badcolethetitan

[Pifferfish 635]

2 hours ago, Gustav said:

I would be interested in seeing the data on it before I develop an opinion on whether we should do it. As of now, all I said was that I think it’s a cool concept. Anyone who shot it down just based on vibes is dumb. 
 

It’s interesting because if it aligns super closely with the standings, then there’s no real point in doing it, and if it ends up being really far off, then it’s probably too extreme. To me, success under this system would look like a.) teams get the best picks when they are clearly non-competitive but at least make an effort to assemble a roster and aren’t openly tanking, and b.) the VHL actually recognizes this and we see a decline in teams that are openly tanking. I see the potential for this to go wrong (let’s say openly tanking still gets you more assets so people do it anyway), at which point I wouldn’t really care about it. But if it went right it would be cool. 

You could literally test it this season, just need a calculator that tell you when each team gets eliminated.

[Pifferfish 635]

39 minutes ago, badcolethetitan said:

The only negative for "Gold Drafting" is that teams will continue to tank (have same incentive as to) and then refuse to trade players away at TDL, creating a market where there is essentially a fair amount of buyers (as there always is), but no sellers. This would then skyrocket prices to the point where top teams won't be able to improve without giving up a ton of assets that really wouldn't make sense. However, realistically, this isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that these players who are now out of playoffs and fighting for a top pick, GMs will not trade those players as they'll want to win, leading to potential players becoming unhappy with the fact they cannot play in playoffs.

 

Example:

Imagine you're on your last season and you end up going to a team who you think can make playoffs, however, it didn't turn out that way. You ask your GM for a trade, but he wants to keep you to have a higher chance at the top pick, since you're a player that is valuable to the teams success. You now have wasted your last season instead of going for a cup and there's nothing you can essentially do about it. At the moment, we have a smaller player base than in the past and this could make it so people will not want to come back in the future, as they're left with a bad experience, further depleting the small(ish) player base we currently have.

 

However, this could be an extreme and happen to only a handful of people at the end of the day. I think the "Gold Drafting" has it's pros and cons at the end of the day, as does everything. Personally, I don't really care for either (current system or gold drafting) as I'm pretty much go with the flow type of person. I just wanted to point out the potential negatives and pushback on something that everyone is currently seeing as a positive to give you another perspective. I don't want to seem like a negative nancy and shoot you all down, at the end of the day, I don't think it's a terrible idea. I just think it could have negative results that people aren't thinking about. Great article, loved reading it!

Players will have more incentive to not resign with shitty teams if they care to compete. Might make Free Agency actually more appealing. Moreover, as Jacob stated, the difference between 1-5 is not that much, so realistically keeping a player who can net you an extra first round pick might be dumb in the name of getting 1st overall at the end of the day. Lets actually look at a couple of draft classes. 

In S94, 1oa would have gotten you Maverick Goncalves. 5th and 14th would have been Soju and Erik Thorvaldsson. 

S95, 1oa was Spider Panda or Phil Sakic. 5th and 14th was Tano and Weier.

S96, Pan Daffleck versus Deadpanda/Slava Kovalenko and Victory Hockey League potentially. 

Not saying that Maverick is worse than Soju/Thorvoldsson combo, he is probably better, but for a team in a deep rebuild, they'll probably want the volume more than the blue chipper. IMO, maybe I don't know. I think it would slightly increase that price to move those players but in all honesty, I think teams more often than not will make the value judgement that more picks, especially futures with lottery odds, are worth more than increased lottery odds. 

 

[Spartan 4,584]

58 minutes ago, badcolethetitan said:

The only negative for "Gold Drafting" is that teams will continue to tank (have same incentive as to) and then refuse to trade players away at TDL, creating a market where there is essentially a fair amount of buyers (as there always is), but no sellers. This would then skyrocket prices to the point where top teams won't be able to improve without giving up a ton of assets that really wouldn't make sense. However, realistically, this isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that these players who are now out of playoffs and fighting for a top pick, GMs will not trade those players as they'll want to win, leading to potential players becoming unhappy with the fact they cannot play in playoffs.

 

Example:

Imagine you're on your last season and you end up going to a team who you think can make playoffs, however, it didn't turn out that way. You ask your GM for a trade, but he wants to keep you to have a higher chance at the top pick, since you're a player that is valuable to the teams success. You now have wasted your last season instead of going for a cup and there's nothing you can essentially do about it. At the moment, we have a smaller player base than in the past and this could make it so people will not want to come back in the future, as they're left with a bad experience, further depleting the small(ish) player base we currently have.

 

However, this could be an extreme and happen to only a handful of people at the end of the day. I think the "Gold Drafting" has it's pros and cons at the end of the day, as does everything. Personally, I don't really care for either (current system or gold drafting) as I'm pretty much go with the flow type of person. I just wanted to point out the potential negatives and pushback on something that everyone is currently seeing as a positive to give you another perspective. I don't want to seem like a negative nancy and shoot you all down, at the end of the day, I don't think it's a terrible idea. I just think it could have negative results that people aren't thinking about. Great article, loved reading it!

Yea p much feel like it'll be a 0 trading league unless contenders are forced to overpay. Just becomes even duller to be trying to make trades at any point of the season. Not a bad idea though to increase bad team player interest but it'd be real nice if the GMs themselves drove the player experience vs needing the league to do it for them. 

[tcookie 944]

50 minutes ago, badcolethetitan said:

The only negative for "Gold Drafting" is that teams will continue to tank (have same incentive as to) and then refuse to trade players away at TDL, creating a market where there is essentially a fair amount of buyers (as there always is), but no sellers. This would then skyrocket prices to the point where top teams won't be able to improve without giving up a ton of assets that really wouldn't make sense. However, realistically, this isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that these players who are now out of playoffs and fighting for a top pick, GMs will not trade those players as they'll want to win, leading to potential players becoming unhappy with the fact they cannot play in playoffs.

 

Example:

Imagine you're on your last season and you end up going to a team who you think can make playoffs, however, it didn't turn out that way. You ask your GM for a trade, but he wants to keep you to have a higher chance at the top pick, since you're a player that is valuable to the teams success. You now have wasted your last season instead of going for a cup and there's nothing you can essentially do about it. At the moment, we have a smaller player base than in the past and this could make it so people will not want to come back in the future, as they're left with a bad experience, further depleting the small(ish) player base we currently have.

 

I feel like that all assumes draft positioning holds similar value to real life drafts, but at the end of the day, it's incredibly rare in a VHL draft that an extra spot or two in the draft order is worth more than the asset you would gain from trading such a player away anyway, even ignoring the whole "doing right by the player" angle. There's no reason for prices to change much. It makes perfect sense for a rebuilding team to trade a good older player for a late 1st or early 2nd even if it means drafting a spot or two later. See Piffer's post above.

 

Also, I think you will lose way more players because they are new to the league, they have been through a VHLM season and a couple VHL seasons and they're still on a team that shows no signs of ever being good. Someone who has already played through an entire career is more likely to come back anyway, and if they choose to retire because they missed the playoffs ... I mean, that's up to them I guess but seems a little weird.

[badcolethetitan 950]

Trading is already very scarce now. Wouldn’t this make it worse?

 

If you think it’s a good idea and the majority does, my opinion does not matter at the end of the day. It seems the majority would want the change so my argument is essentially invalid. I don't really care if it becomes a thing or not, because at the end of the day, I play in the league and I manage a team. I will just have to adapt and as someone who values my players decisions, I wouldn't care about hostaging players to get a better pick regardless. I would just trade them away if they wanted to leave and that's just who I am. It doesn't matter who it is, if they're not having fun on my team and they asked to leave, they will be traded. I want everyone to enjoy their experience in the VHL even if it means hurting my team slightly.

Edited 20 hours ago by badcolethetitan

[Pifferfish 635]

1 hour ago, badcolethetitan said:

Trading is already very scarce now. Wouldn’t this make it worse?

 

If you think it’s a good idea and the majority does, my opinion does not matter at the end of the day. It seems the majority would want the change so my argument is essentially invalid. I don't really care if it becomes a thing or not, because at the end of the day, I play in the league and I manage a team. I will just have to adapt and as someone who values my players decisions, I wouldn't care about hostaging players to get a better pick regardless. I would just trade them away if they wanted to leave and that's just who I am. It doesn't matter who it is, if they're not having fun on my team and they asked to leave, they will be traded. I want everyone to enjoy their experience in the VHL even if it means hurting my team slightly.

I mean your opinion matters I think we are more so presenting a counter to your take on trading going down. For an example, would that Burns trade to Moscow happen? Prolly not. But the Last one to DC I feel would still have occured. Because the value makes sense. You'll also see more call ups at the 300 TPE mark which could be good or bad. We said thing good, you says it bad bc of X, we say X may not be as concerning as you think. 

[Pifferfish 635]

1 hour ago, badcolethetitan said:

Trading is already very scarce now. Wouldn’t this make it worse?

 

If you think it’s a good idea and the majority does, my opinion does not matter at the end of the day. It seems the majority would want the change so my argument is essentially invalid. I don't really care if it becomes a thing or not, because at the end of the day, I play in the league and I manage a team. I will just have to adapt and as someone who values my players decisions, I wouldn't care about hostaging players to get a better pick regardless. I would just trade them away if they wanted to leave and that's just who I am. It doesn't matter who it is, if they're not having fun on my team and they asked to leave, they will be traded. I want everyone to enjoy their experience in the VHL even if it means hurting my team slightly.

I also think like for example, a team that should have entered a rebuild and had the MOST desirable assets at this TDL is Toronto, they don't own their first, so they could of traded freely and not cared. Now they decided to prioritize competing but they could have pulled the plug and had better assets than the average rebuilding team's dog shit.

[Alex 3,274]

4 hours ago, badcolethetitan said:

The only negative for "Gold Drafting" is that teams will continue to tank (have same incentive as to) and then refuse to trade players away at TDL, creating a market where there is essentially a fair amount of buyers (as there always is), but no sellers. This would then skyrocket prices to the point where top teams won't be able to improve without giving up a ton of assets that really wouldn't make sense. However, realistically, this isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that these players who are now out of playoffs and fighting for a top pick, GMs will not trade those players as they'll want to win, leading to potential players becoming unhappy with the fact they cannot play in playoffs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but we're essentially already there? The price of fringe VHL players that are IA has gone through the roof, and there really is no reason why the price for these players is so high.

[Pifferfish 635]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but we're essentially already there? The price of fringe VHL players that are IA has gone through the roof, and there really is no reason why the price for these players is so high.

I think part of that is the fact that teams on the fringe like your Legion and Reigns are both denying what their reality is a bit. They are kind of in compete mode when they are at best the 6th and 7th (being generous if I'm honest) best teams in the league. If older teams like that aging out we're more willing to sell and create a competitive trade market, it would make shitty IAs worthless. Like if NYA could have traded for a Walter Fitzroy instead of Joe Block with a similar package, I think that would look like solid health in the league. But idk, I'm not saying those teams are wrong for trying to build on what they have going on just more so pointing out where I think moving talent should be coming from.

 

 

In a healthy situation, your worst teams will have shitty, low value players and be eliminated early, they'll try to get their wins early against each other to build gold points. 

 

The aging middle teams will be your sellers to maximize value and prep for a rebuild, either to contenders or maybe to the younger middling teams trying to get some vets to smooth out their curve to competitiveness. These teams will be eliminated later, have sold down ideally to just above the level of the bottom squads, and likely not amount to much in the gold points.

 

And keep in mind, you only get points once you are eliminated, so there is actually incentive to potentially sell. In the case of a Helsinki, you may want to help Prague clinch to start getting gold points. I think this may be a little silly and probably would be the reason this would have to be implemented alongside cross conference WC spots, even if it's just the last 2 in that can be in either conference.

[Gaikoku-hito 2,171]

4 hours ago, Pifferfish said:

I also think like for example, a team that should have entered a rebuild and had the MOST desirable assets at this TDL is Toronto, they don't own their first, so they could of traded freely and not cared. Now they decided to prioritize competing but they could have pulled the plug and had better assets than the average rebuilding team's dog shit.

Toronto is the best example of a team that could quickly turn around their roster and be competitive again as soon as next season. With three key players retiring they will be either huge buyers this off season and would benefit if the cap was reduced as suggested. Toronto has a strong core of players that need a bit of time to develop and need a few veteran players to start pushing for the play-offs again next season. What hurts them is the lack of draft capital but I think they should manage alright since they have a majority of the team returning and ready to take the next step while needing to find a two replacements for retiring players; as they have a prospect that should fill one of the holes. So, no I don`t agree that Toronto should have entered a rebuild as a play-off team and Vidarsson in net they might surprise a ton of teams in the NA.

 

Also NA has about six teams that can actually win in the play-off with a bit of luck and small difference between the team builds. STHS does what STHS wants!! I wouldn`t throw away a chance at winning for a small chance at future success.

 

4 hours ago, Alex said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but we're essentially already there? The price of fringe VHL players that are IA has gone through the roof, and there really is no reason why the price for these players is so high.

This is due to the weak drafts as most GM seem to want something back rather then an inactive pick for an inactive veteran!! That means more 2nd round picks or higher for an Inactive veteran; which wasn`t the normal going price even a season or two ago!! LOL!! But it makes sense if you are the selling GM.

[Pifferfish 635]

21 minutes ago, Gaikoku-hito said:

Toronto is the best example of a team that could quickly turn around their roster and be competitive again as soon as next season. With three key players retiring they will be either huge buyers this off season and would benefit if the cap was reduced as suggested. Toronto has a strong core of players that need a bit of time to develop and need a few veteran players to start pushing for the play-offs again next season. What hurts them is the lack of draft capital but I think they should manage alright since they have a majority of the team returning and ready to take the next step while needing to find a two replacements for retiring players; as they have a prospect that should fill one of the holes. So, no I don`t agree that Toronto should have entered a rebuild as a play-off team and Vidarsson in net they might surprise a ton of teams in the NA.

 

Also NA has about six teams that can actually win in the play-off with a bit of luck and small difference between the team builds. STHS does what STHS wants!! I wouldn`t throw away a chance at winning for a small chance at future success.

 

This is due to the weak drafts as most GM seem to want something back rather then an inactive pick for an inactive veteran!! That means more 2nd round picks or higher for an Inactive veteran; which wasn`t the normal going price even a season or two ago!! LOL!! But it makes sense if you are the selling GM.

I disagree with the quick turn around comment, like you said, they have no draft capital. Where will they acquire 2 more forwards to replace not just two roster players but 2 Star players? Like if they were losing depth that's one thing. But they are struggling to win games with Callahan and Machado, where are you replacing their value. Richmond is a comparable player to what Toronto would need to keep this new core and get them competitive and he cost his new team the 2nd overall pick in this draft. Where is Toronto finding that kind of value to get that player? And what team is moving on from that player? As far as my understanding the cap reduction wouldn't be this upcoming season, while that would allow some players to slip to FA and maybe Toronto would get them, it's a similar issue. When they acquired Vidarsson, they were coming off a cup run where G was a glaring weakness. Then they missed the playoffs. I think we just have to be honest when evaluating their future, I respect honoring the core and going for it this season but I think there is NO path for them to be competitive for a cup until at least S100.

 

Just to be clear, I think Toronto is a good team. I picked them to win the cup last season. I But I think Doug is well aware that holding means a period of pain akin to the like of half the EU. It'll be rough for seasons. I was merely pointing at them as an example of a team that in a golden points system would be heavily rewarded for selling big. 

[Pifferfish 635]

Also @Gaikoku-hito I love you. I just like discussing the VHL, I don't want you to feel like that reply is heated at all, just banter about the ongoings of the league. I just read it back and I felt it could come off as heated. Just wanted to clear that up. 

[Gaikoku-hito 2,171]

3 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

Also @Gaikoku-hito I love you. I just like discussing the VHL, I don't want you to feel like that reply is heated at all, just banter about the ongoings of the league. I just read it back and I felt it could come off as heated. Just wanted to clear that up. 

I have thick skin and having different point of views is always a good thing!!

 

All your points are valid but I would hate to see Toronto blow up their roster when they have a chance to actually re-tool. Yes, It isn`t going to easy to find replacements for Callahan and Machado but they do have a core that is developing their. A few teams are already in Cap situations like Moscow, Vancouver, Davos, Calgary; just off the top of my head as I think I had six teams in cap trouble. I know in Vancouver we have no choice but to move at least one 6M player this coming off season; if not more depending on announcement of cap drops. Cap drop would really make it tough for these cap teams and Vancouver btw!! My point is if Doug becomes creative he has a chance at being competitive again sooner then later... It might not be next season but he doesn`t need to go scorched earth like we did in Vancouver and regretted it.  We should have re-tooled but we also go very luck that we were one of the only teams selling at the time and high elite player so we were able to more than recoup our assets back in some deep drafts. These deep drafts simply aren`t around at the moment; which is hurting teams that decide to collect draft pick volume over the value picks. I know from my prospective we will not be going scorch earth when our current core is ready to retire as we will try to re-tool via trades, draft picks and UFA this time around. 

 

But yes, I can also see that Toronto could have benefited from trying to trade Callahan and Machado by this trade deadline but I also think too many teams are already against the cap so have limited room to bring these types of the players on-board. The great thing about this league is their is no right way or wrong way to build a team per say!

Also agree that Toronto if they had their first round pick would benefit from the suggested Gold Draft; is that what is it called?

 

I think it is an interesting idea since I think we would see teams in the 14-12 overall place likely selecting near the top of the draft and since in theory they have better teams getting better higher picks could means moving them faster back to being competitive. I also looked at the current standings and all teams are still eligible for the play-offs with LA in the next day or two likely as the first eliminated so hopefully someone will continue to track this to see how it would work!!