Clean up roster / tanking /

[jlapo11]

Personally I think that this clean up should be done before the draft in order to make sure that a team has already space in his minor roster for his projected draftees

For several teams clean-up will just mean move up all their extra prospects to the main NHL in order to keep them even though there will be a big possibility that they will never play a game during the season. By doing that we could already assume that their NHL team will not be very competitive and most of the time guarantee a place in the bottom of the league.

Before the draft we should only be allowed to move up a certain number of prospects and any extra over the 12 limit back to the pool draft to allow other GMs to have the chance to repick them

During the season do we have a minimum of real NHL players required in our main roster to guarantee a so call NHL team and not a Junior team in our NHL team?

I know that it is maybe too late for this year but if that topic was never discuss it should be this year if we want a competitive league and not an already guarantee standing at the beginning of the season. This way we will be forced to manage our Minor Farm as well as managing our NHL roster.

Maybe we should have a rule that say that any (p/n-a) with no game before the NHL star game should be back in the Minor Farm and any extra player in the Farm after the move back to the FA for next year.

Maybe this should be a new topic to discuss in a separate thread?

Any comments?

[snugerud]

*I will bring my comments over as well.*

Although I hate seeing any teams intentionally tank, I dont think forcing forfeiting young players/picks is the way to go about it.  I dont think tanking is really a big issue in this league as all teams have access to their own teams first 3 picks in every draft.  So even if you have the 1st overall pick in our draft, its not typically going to be the 1st overall pick in the NHL's draft so there is limited value to tanking. 


I would be in favour of a rule that states each team must at least field 3 active NHL Centers, LW and RW ,  6 active NHL D and 1 active NHL goalie. Our league has more than enough active players in the FA pool that this would not be overly burdensome to comply with. 

[GypsieDeathBringer]

I think the only reason teams like Florida and Philly are where they are at now is that the league let them stock as many young pieces as possible.  Prospects are always a crap shoot, so if you are relying on them to either develop or use as trade chips you need a ton of them to allow for the ones that amount to nothing.  If keeping our current system lets a team go from garbage to competitive in 2 years I am for it.  Placing roster restrictions just makes that struggle even more difficult for managers.  Especially when someone inherits a wasteland of a team.  Why would anyone want to have to grind their way through 4-5 years to make DNHL enjoyable for them?  I like our current approach which allows for quicker turnarounds.

[jlapo11]

I agree that the tanking is not a major issue because of the way we do our draft (NHL and Supp) but when I see after the draft day teams moving players with (p/n-a) to their NHL roster only to create some space for their new acquisition I think that there is a problem there.

The main reason is that teams are hidding their prospects at the NHL level because they don't have enough spots in the minor.

As suggested by I agree with the rule proposed and that the roster in NHL should be field by active NHL. I am also not sure that we need 30 players on our NHL roster. If we reduce the number of players at the NHL level, increase it at the minor level and field NHL roster with active players it will reduce the need to tank at the NHL level. Maybe only a certain number of (p/n-a) could also be allowed at the NHL level

I still think that if a player has no game played at the All Star Game he should not be on the NHL roster but on the minor roster. He should be called down and if this causes an overcrowded minor roster too bad extra players should be sent to FA for the next summer draft. It will force GMs to manage at the same time their NHL and Farm team.

[snugerud]

I agree that the tanking is not a major issue because of the way we do our draft (NHL and Supp) but when I see after the draft day teams moving players with (p/n-a) to their NHL roster only to create some space for their new acquisition I think that there is a problem there.

The main reason is that teams are hidding their prospects at the NHL level because they don't have enough spots in the minor.

As suggested by I agree with the rule proposed and that the roster in NHL should be field by active NHL. I am also not sure that we need 30 players on our NHL roster. If we reduce the number of players at the NHL level, increase it at the minor level and field NHL roster with active players it will reduce the need to tank at the NHL level. Maybe only a certain number of (p/n-a) could also be allowed at the NHL level

I still think that if a player has no game played at the All Star Game he should not be on the NHL roster but on the minor roster. He should be called down and if this causes an overcrowded minor roster too bad extra players should be sent to FA for the next summer draft. It will force GMs to manage at the same time their NHL and Farm team.

I would highly disagree with any changes to the number of roster spots.   Some teams have built on depth while others have built on superstars. That would unbalance the league.  If a team is needing to use some of their active roster spots for prospects that is done to their detriment on their weekly scoring.  That is more just a statement to how bad their team is at that time as you dont see many contending teams doing that. 

The other issue I see with the proposal is that by increasing the MILR spots all that has been done is created a bigger holding tank that makes the prospect holding decision easy.  Rob has always maintained that he wants it to be a hard decision on whether or not to keep/hold a prospect with the limited spots as opposed to a large/hopeful list of players.

Sounds like your concern is less teams tanking and more teams fielding too many prospects and getting bumped into pro rosters.   If this is the case my  suggestion would be to increase the MILR NHL games limit to 80.  This would keep far more prospects that have NHL experience available to be drafted vs.  getting signed up mid season(at 40 games, the surprise players end up getting signed mid season instead of making it to draft day).   

As it stands I find we probably have too many picks each year for the number of minor league spots we have, but if we could draft more players that we know can play on our team that year or within 2 seasons in the supplemental draft it would make more sense. 

[jlapo11]

I would highly disagree with any changes to the number of roster spots.   Some teams have built on depth while others have built on superstars. That would unbalance the league.  If a team is needing to use some of their active roster spots for prospects that is done to their detriment on their weekly scoring.  That is more just a statement to how bad their team is at that time as you dont see many contending teams doing that. 

The other issue I see with the proposal is that by increasing the MILR spots all that has been done is created a bigger holding tank that makes the prospect holding decision easy.  Rob has always maintained that he wants it to be a hard decision on whether or not to keep/hold a prospect with the limited spots as opposed to a large/hopeful list of players.

Sounds like your concern is less teams tanking and more teams fielding too many prospects and getting bumped into pro rosters.   If this is the case my  suggestion would be to increase the MILR NHL games limit to 80.  This would keep far more prospects that have NHL experience available to be drafted vs.  getting signed up mid season(at 40 games, the surprise players end up getting signed mid season instead of making it to draft day).   

As it stands I find we probably have too many picks each year for the number of minor league spots we have, but if we could draft more players that we know can play on our team that year or within 2 seasons in the supplemental draft it would make more sense.

You are right. My main concern is that the holding tank is at the NHL level, which could guarantee high picks at the Supp draft and weekly unequal confrontation sometimes. I prefer to see the tanking done at the Minor level instead of the NHL level and to have more active players at the NHL level

One reason why I think the Minor roster clean-up should be done before the draft is that it will force the team to decide who should be kept and return the others for the draft day if they decide not to tank them on their NHL roster in order to keep open spots for FA.

Increasing the MILR could also be a good solution and make more experienced young players available at the draft day

[Whomp]

"If this is the case my  suggestion would be to increase the MILR NHL games limit to 80.  This would keep far more prospects that have NHL experience available to be drafted vs.  getting signed up mid season(at 40 games, the surprise players end up getting signed mid season instead of making it to draft day)."

1st - Don't really see a problem. But....

2nd - Goalies should have a different game count, a backup could go 4 years on some benches and not hit 80. 

[Rob]

I think the only reason teams like Florida and Philly are where they are at now is that the league let them stock as many young pieces as possible.  Prospects are always a crap shoot, so if you are relying on them to either develop or use as trade chips you need a ton of them to allow for the ones that amount to nothing.  If keeping our current system lets a team go from garbage to competitive in 2 years I am for it.  Placing roster restrictions just makes that struggle even more difficult for managers.  Especially when someone inherits a wasteland of a team.  Why would anyone want to have to grind their way through 4-5 years to make DNHL enjoyable for them?  I like our current approach which allows for quicker turnarounds.

 

This sums up how I feel about the situation. I know it's unconventional and a bit unrealistic, but it's worked out well. Florida and Philly are both completely turned around in a 2 year span. I literally don't mind the strategy if the right person is behind it.

[snugerud]

"If this is the case my  suggestion would be to increase the MILR NHL games limit to 80.  This would keep far more prospects that have NHL experience available to be drafted vs.  getting signed up mid season(at 40 games, the surprise players end up getting signed mid season instead of making it to draft day)."

1st - Don't really see a problem. But....

2nd - Goalies should have a different game count, a backup could go 4 years on some benches and not hit 80.

I dont really see the problem either I was more just brainstorming and kicking cans in the event people did find it a problem. 
The only thing that I do see as a current issue is the cap being too forgiving.  Ideally more teams should struggle to stay under.  But we have already discussed that and I wont beat the dead horse.

[Rob]

I dont really see the problem either I was more just brainstorming and kicking cans in the event people did find it a problem. 
The only thing that I do see as a current issue is the cap being too forgiving.  Ideally more teams should struggle to stay under.  But we have already discussed that and I wont beat the dead horse.

That conversation is coming. I want to see where everyone is at after FA first.