VHLM Cap Rule

[Victor 10,938]

It's not that bad any more in terms of activity. Obviously there's 3-4 teams per seasons with realistic shots at the cup (quite often 1) but LRs are going well for most teams. Oslo and Ottawa last season missed the playoffs with active member cores.

I don't know what can be done to change the situation, that's for someone better versed in the ways of the VHLM.

[Beketov 9,022]

In the case of Olynick he would be. Which is actually a point Victor brought up earlier too. They will make rare cases where players can stay down. I for one would hate to see an active member be screwed over getting sent up to back up 8 games.

I had to do it with Young in Seattle.

Not saying it's the same situation, that Olynick deserves it, or that it's even relevant (that was like S11 or something). Just wanted to point out that it can happen and it really sucks for the goalie when it does.

[Guest]

Yeah not really an issue but more so an observation is that we have less guys eligible in for VHLM member-wise. There is no cap in the VHL so realistically and currently you'll always have more. So 3-4 teams competing in the VHLM will always be the case unless you raise the cap to 200 or you limit their rosters to 12 players. I'm not saying we do that either. 

 

Can I also just point something out regarding Carryover in terms of new members. New members have the ability to grab 10+6+6+6 = 28 TPE right off the bat. Most carryover's that I've seen are anywhere from 20-75 (rare 75 case come twice a year) which means a new member isn't exactly behind anymore. So for people like Coach D, I still fail to see the argument that's it to ally impossible.

[Guest]

I had to do it with Young in Seattle.

Not saying it's the same situation, that Olynick deserves it, or that it's even relevant (that was like S11 or something). Just wanted to point out that it can happen and it really sucks for the goalie when it does.

Oh I totally agree that it sucks, I never went through that as a goalie in this league (have in others). But in rare cases of course we can look at them.

[JardyB10 4,865]

limit their rosters to 12 players.

I was actually thinking something like this, yeah.  Or 15.  Or neither, and just do a better salary cap.  VHL teams rarely have more than 11 players on the roster.  I find it ridiculous that last season, Bratislava managed to rock ~18, with most of the best draftees AND some of the best inactives.  I understand you can't compare the VHL and VHLM side by side, since the VHL doesn't have to rely on inactives as much, it's just that the spread is so extreme.  It would be like if Davos added Taylor, Osborne, Webber, Gallo, and another 200-300 TPE inactive this off-season. 

 

I guess it's not terrible how it is now, I just find it ridiculous that a GM can build a super team so easily, while other teams can barely get players, full stop.

Edited March 13, 2014 by JardyB10

[Retired MF 36]

OKAY... So, what is the rule? If I am under 175 TPE on what date can I stay in the VHLM?

[Higgins 3,618]

OKAY... So, what is the rule? If I am under 175 TPE on what date can I stay in the VHLM?

 

Start of season.

[d3vilsfire 132]

Expansion of VHLM and/or VHL

 

VHLM limit of 5 active players per team?

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Expansion of VHLM and/or VHL

 

VHLM limit of 5 active players per team?

 

We have enough of a problem defining what constitutes active or not.

 

I don't necessarily agree with it, but if we wanted to limit the super teams, we could go back to an older rule that was something like you can't have more than 3 first round picks in any given draft and a certain amount (don't remember what the number was) in the entire draft.

[d3vilsfire 132]

We have enough of a problem defining what constitutes active or not.

 

I don't necessarily agree with it, but if we wanted to limit the super teams, we could go back to an older rule that was something like you can't have more than 3 first round picks in any given draft and a certain amount (don't remember what the number was) in the entire draft.

 

Active player = 4 logins a week?

[diamond_ace 3,112]

We have enough of a problem defining what constitutes active or not.

 

I don't necessarily agree with it, but if we wanted to limit the super teams, we could go back to an older rule that was something like you can't have more than 3 first round picks in any given draft and a certain amount (don't remember what the number was) in the entire draft.

I hated that rule. Honestly, one of my largest motivations in wanting to become a VHLM Commish back in the day was to get rid of that rule. (Btw it was that you couldn't have more than 6 picks in the first 2 rounds. They could all be firsts, and it didn't matter how many thirds or later)

 

What I'd suggest is a simple roster limiting. I'd say 12 guys, that's 2 lines of forwards, 2 pairs of defense, 1 goalie, and an extra guy. In addition, maybe a roster minimum of 6 guys, that'd give the scrub team incentive to pick up waiver guys because if anything, a new active with 0 TPE is going to be worse for a while than a 30-50 TPE inactive and they'll then want to play the active guy, not only to help the active out (as is their job and as they should be doing anyway) but it would also, in this system, actively help them get worse.

[Victor 10,938]

Active player = 4 logins a week?

Impossible to track.

Yes, roster limits of 2 lines and a goalie (so same as the ideal VHL roster which also equals best ice time for everyone) seem to be the most reasonable and feasible solution.

[Guest]

I hated that rule. Honestly, one of my largest motivations in wanting to become a VHLM Commish back in the day was to get rid of that rule. (Btw it was that you couldn't have more than 6 picks in the first 2 rounds. They could all be firsts, and it didn't matter how many thirds or later)

 

What I'd suggest is a simple roster limiting. I'd say 12 guys, that's 2 lines of forwards, 2 pairs of defense, 1 goalie, and an extra guy. In addition, maybe a roster minimum of 6 guys, that'd give the scrub team incentive to pick up waiver guys because if anything, a new active with 0 TPE is going to be worse for a while than a 30-50 TPE inactive and they'll then want to play the active guy, not only to help the active out (as is their job and as they should be doing anyway) but it would also, in this system, actively help them get worse.

You hated that rule because...? It limited things like Edgar making the VHLM Draft one teams interest. Guess what, the draft where he owned the 1st and 2nd round was one of the worst hyped and less interesting drafts in VHLM history. No one came to find out what team they were on and his team went onto the finals.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Impossible to track.

Yes, roster limits of 2 lines and a goalie (so same as the ideal VHL roster which also equals best ice time for everyone) seem to be the most reasonable and feasible solution.

 

I don't really see what this changes though. I can still acquire a bunch of draft picks in one draft and just release everyone on my team who's inactive. Teams like Turku (and Yukon to some extent) that have 3 full lines of players are the exception, not the rule. Going back to S32, no team that won the Founder's Cup had more than 2 sets of forward lines and defense filled with players of worth. Some teams may have had semi-active waiver players at best or low TPE inactives filling out the 3rd or 4th line, but taking these players off of the Super Teams and moving them to any other team does nothing to change the balance of power in the VHLM.

 

I know you said you hated the rule Jason, but if we really want to promote parity in the VHLM, then I really think you have limit the number of picks (specifically 1st rounders) that a team can have in any given season.

 

S36: Bratislava (4)

S35: Ottawa (4)

S34: Yukon (3)

S33: Bratislava (5) Also worth noting that Kolari had 3 1st rounders in this draft.

S32: Oslo (4) Also worth noting that Ottawa had 6 1st rounders in this draft.

 

These were the Founder's Cup winning teams in each season. The number in parentheses is how many 1st round picks they had in that season. The only team that won that wasn't at least tied for most picks in the first round was Oslo in S32. Coincidentally, the team they beat was Ottawa.

 

Because of the nature of the VHLM where the best recreates spend one full season in the minors at most and most first-gen players spend two, you're going to have a ton of turnover each season. If we really want parity in the minors, I think we have to go back to limiting first rounders in a single draft to at least 3, although I would suggest 2. This way, if a team really wanted to stand out, they'd have to focus on keeping their 2nd and 3rd round picks active, which is something that has historically been hit or miss depending on the strength of the draft.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

The only team that won that wasn't at least tied for most picks in the first round was Oslo in S32. Coincidentally, the team they beat was Ottawa.

 

It makes zero difference whatsoever to your point, but Oslo actually beat Brampton, who had upset Ottawa in the NA Conference finals behind Evgeni Chekhov and Filip Forsberg.

 

The devil's advocate part of the argument is that super teams are full of players who are relatively active, and thus in turn can inspire their teammates to be as active as well in a way that complete parity cannot. Who's to say that, for example, Phil Villeneuve and Kai Randal (Bratislava's 4th and 5th picks last season) would still be here if not for their active team?

[Retired MF 36]

Question: Do I get to stay with Moscow if I don't reach limit? I was a draftee but dealt.

 

Statement: It is good when teams will release/deal you to a team with less actives to get PT, helps people like myself stay around.

 

Statement 2: That up there is the point in the VHLM. It's like AAU sports, nobody remembers who won the AAU national champ but never forget who wins state titles in HS. VHLM, meh... who cares. We remember the VHL titles baby!

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

A: Yup, when you're drafted it's like a 3 year VHLM contract, only without the actual money. That goes with you even when traded.

[sterling 1,997]

Impossible to track.

Yes, roster limits of 2 lines and a goalie (so same as the ideal VHL roster which also equals best ice time for everyone) seem to be the most reasonable and feasible solution.

agreed

[sterling 1,997]

It makes zero difference whatsoever to your point, but Oslo actually beat Brampton, who had upset Ottawa in the NA Conference finals behind Evgeni Chekhov and Filip Forsberg.

The devil's advocate part of the argument is that super teams are full of players who are relatively active, and thus in turn can inspire their teammates to be as active as well in a way that complete parity cannot. Who's to say that, for example, Phil Villeneuve and Kai Randal (Bratislava's 4th and 5th picks last season) would still be here if not for their active team?

pretty sure Phil would still be here lol

[diamond_ace 3,112]

pretty sure Phil would still be here lol

Throw in Kez Kincaid instead of Phil. Actually, he's the best person to use. He was a waiver guy, so in a world with parity, he'd definitely still have been on the team, which may not have been the case for Randal or other picks (if we were limiting the picks). If Bratislava hypothetically still won the league but did so by barely scraping by, if the league had maybe 7 teams within 10-15 points of each other, does it appear equally as interesting? Is the locker room as active? Spread it too thin, give everyone a little bit of activity, and in some cases it might douse the fires of people who'd need more teammates. This is all hypothetical of course, and merely playing off of Warren's devil's advocate idea.

[sterling 1,997]

I think 11 or 12 members is more than enough for any team. imo of course that third line minutes are worse on a good team than first line minutes on a mediocore to bad team

[d3vilsfire 132]

if we added lets say 5 more teams, wouldnt the number of players per roster drop dramatically? there isnt enough actives to load up on 15 teams.. that way the teams are much closer together in overall talent. Through adding teams, you also fix the issue of firsts..  there wont be enough assets to to trade to acquire 10/15 of the first rounds (Turku had like 5 of the 10 first rounders this past draft right?).. you would be lucky to acquire 4/15 first rounders imo. It would also allow more people who want to become GMs become GMs which will increase activity.

 

my vote is for an expansion to the VHLM and if the VHL deems it a good idea, maybe expand them too..

Edited March 14, 2014 by d3vilsfire

[sterling 1,997]

if we added lets say 5 more teams, wouldnt the number of players per roster drop dramatically? there isnt enough actives to load up on 15 teams.. that way the teams are much closer together in overall talent. Through adding teams, you also fix the issue of firsts.. there wont be enough assets to to trade to acquire 10/15 of the first rounds (Turku had like 5 of the 10 first rounders this past draft right?).. you would be lucky to acquire 4/15 first rounders imo. It would also allow more people who want to become GMs become GMs which will increase activity.

my vote is for an expansion to the VHLM and if the VHL deems it a good idea, maybe expand them too..

No, sorry. This is not a feasible idea.

[d3vilsfire 132]

No, sorry. This is not a feasible idea.

 

why?

[Smarch 3,150]

If this league ever expanded again i'd be quite impressed.