A H L Discussion

[digitalmonkey 929]

Maybe I'm in the minority here (wouldn't be a surprise lol) but I view being able to manipulate your team as a positive. There's only so much influence an owner can have on his team. I think there are enough rules in place to prevent a situation where someone decides to dress a Derek Ryan instead of a Steven Stamkos in an effort to manipulate Stamkos' salary.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Maybe I'm in the minority here (wouldn't be a surprise lol) but I view being able to manipulate your team as a positive. There's only so much influence an owner can have on his team. I think there are enough rules in place to prevent a situation where someone decides to dress a Derek Ryan instead of a Steven Stamkos in an effort to manipulate Stamkos' salary. because obviously Ryan is a better player, as proven by AHL stats.

 

FYP

[Zach6668 513]

Maybe I'm in the minority here (wouldn't be a surprise lol) but I view being able to manipulate your team as a positive. There's only so much influence an owner can have on his team. I think there are enough rules in place to prevent a situation where someone decides to dress a Derek Ryan instead of a Steven Stamkos in an effort to manipulate Stamkos' salary.

 

Yeah, I don't view that as a negative.

 

There's still a ton of risk involved. I tried to baby MacKinnon into a favorable contract and it cost me dearly. Also my awful decision to sign him to an infinity long contract.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Yeah, I don't view that as a negative.

 

There's still a ton of risk involved. I tried to baby MacKinnon into a favorable contract and it cost me dearly. Also my awful decision to sign him to an infinity long contract.

 

What about for a really bad team? Use mine as an example: what incentive would I have to dress a young free against in soft matchups rather than tough ones to keep his PPPG down? It's essentially a form of dumping. Posting an inferior lineup, even if its just slightly weaker, risking absolutely nothing.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Do you have a specific player example because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why we should change a very important rule because a crappy team might lose on a specific night? If we're talking about benching someone like Sébastien Aho to dress Tom Kuhnhackl then I think that's obviously against the current rules.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Do you have a specific player example because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why we should change a very important rule because a crappy team might lose on a specific night? If we're talking about benching someone like Sébastien Aho to dress Tom Kuhnhackl then I think that's obviously against the current rules.

 

How extreme the dumping is, is mostly irrelevant. If you are not posting your best lineup because you are manipulating a players salary, that would also seem to be "against the rules." The spirit of the rule is to ice your best lineups. If you think JoeBlow should avg .350 but start JohnDoe who rates to avg .325 because JowBlow has too good of a matchup, that's not icing your best lineup.

 

I'm fine with things the way they are, but I think this question is worth discussing at least.

[Zach6668 513]

But "best lineup" is not an objective measure.

 

Maybe I play somebody because I like the matchup or I "have a feeling." These are legitimate, no? If best lineup were an objective measure, we wouldn't have to set lineups every night. It could just be automated.

[Zach6668 513]

There's already enough disincentive to tanking. The first round of the draft is almost entirely worthless.

[bigguyren68 155]

The first round of the draft is almost entirely worthless.

 

What do you mean by almost entirely worthless?

[Zach6668 513]

 

 

What do you mean by almost entirely worthless?

 

Not that I want to get into this debate again, but the combination of $3 (and $2.50) salaries and the ensuing raise structure means that the top picks aren't nearly as attractive as they used to be. Not to mention the lottery, where you could fall all the way to the 4th pick, even if you finish last.

 

 

[Zach6668 513]

1st overall will have a good chance at being worth his contract in years 2-4 (as much as $5/6.25/7.25) but guys beyond that, minimum raise for picks 1-10 puts them into a 3.75 per year group and players picked in the top 10 in our draft are probably more likely to not be worth that than have that contract be good value. IMO, anyways.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

1st overall will have a good chance at being worth his contract in years 2-4 (as much as $5/6.25/7.25) but guys beyond that, minimum raise for picks 1-10 puts them into a 3.75 per year group and players picked in the top 10 in our draft are probably more likely to not be worth that than have that contract be good value. IMO, anyways.

 

we changed something last year, didnt we? with regards to the rules to address something like this?

(I think it may have partially even been my suggestion, and yet I still cant recall exactly what it was. lol)

[Zach6668 513]

I wonder how many of these guys are worth a 3.75/3.75/3.75 contract (or the group 1, 2 and 3 alternatives) after their first year in the AHL (at the latest, their 3rd through 5th full NHL seasons.

 

2015 draft. By all accounts, at the higher end of AHL drafts.

 

McDavid? Yes, worth the max tier 1 contract.

Eichel? Yeah, probably worth even group 1 raise.

Marner? Pretty close. Probably not tier 1, but has potential to elevate there.

Strome? Eh?

Zacha?

Meier?

Rantanen?

Barzal?

Crouse?

Connor?

 

Those are all $3 players. If they finish in the 101-200 group you have to give them a raise to $3.75.

 

I just think it's crazy to assume players drafted 5-10 are worthy of that contract, so I find 1st round picks to be very low in value. The odd one will be worth that, but vast majority, imo won't be.

 

These are still quality NHL players. They still have a place on an AHL team, but to get them at fair market value you have to open them up to everyone. Fine, that's part of the reason we jacked contracts and draft salary, but it just totally devalues non-premium 1st round picks.

 

IMO.

[Zach6668 513]

 

 

we changed something last year, didnt we? with regards to the rules to address something like this?

(I think it may have partially even been my suggestion, and yet I still cant recall exactly what it was. lol)

 

Did we? Entirely impossible for me to stay current on the rules in this league.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Im guessing it was something like this, essentially my idea was that we work with what NHL does, a 3yr entry level deal:

Any player that is called up as an NHL rookie (defined as having played 25 games or less) after October and before spring call ups can be signed for two more years at his entry level contract no matter how he does that season. So if you have a 3.00 first round pick, you get two more years at 3.00 with no increase.

[Zach6668 513]

That's pretty useful. I'd support that change.

[Zach6668 513]

So if Barzal makes the Isles this year, I should call him up immediately, then I'll get 2 more years at $3 before I have to make a decision on him at $3.75 or $5 or whatever? I like that considerably more than the previous iteration.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

So if Barzal makes the Isles this year, I should call him up immediately, then I'll get 2 more years at $3 before I have to make a decision on him at $3.75 or $5 or whatever? I like that considerably more than the previous iteration.

 

fyi, its supposed to be implemented in 18-19, not yet now.

 

Dale, you mention in that thread that you were working on the rules, were you able to finalize anything? would be great to have one place to check all this instead of fishing thru discussions

[Zach6668 513]

 

 

fyi, its supposed to be implemented in 18-19, not yet now.

 

Lmao of course it is.

[digitalmonkey 929]

 

 

fyi, its supposed to be implemented in 18-19, not yet now.

 

Dale, you mention in that thread that you were working on the rules, were you able to finalize anything? would be great to have one place to check all this instead of fishing thru discussions

 

You guys are talking about the Aho Rule, I believe.

 

I have a bunch of stuff written down, but the only Internet I have is on my phone and data is killing me lol

 

I'll try to have something for the draft.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

fyi, its supposed to be implemented in 18-19, not yet now.

 

Dale, you mention in that thread that you were working on the rules, were you able to finalize anything? would be great to have one place to check all this instead of fishing thru discussions

 

Aho rule is for this season for the call up and your signing decision is for 2018-19.

 

We'll make sure everybody understands it fully after the draft and before the season starts.

 

It will increase the value of draft picks.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I listed the Aho Rule on in our forum: http://www.alternativehockeyleague.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10019

 

The Aho Rule

Any player that is called up as an NHL rookie (defined as having played 25 or less NHL games) after October and before spring call ups can be signed for two more years at his entry level contract no matter how he does that season. So if you have a 3.00 first round pick, you get two more years at 3.00 with no increase. You are not obligated to sign this player at season’s end to two more years, but if you don’t, he cannot be sent back to the farm and will go into the free agent pool. If a rookie is picked up in the free agent draft or waiver wire, he can also be signed to a two year extension with no increase at season’s end.

 

 

Next off season you can use this rule. So if you have a rookie you can call him up this season and guarantee his salary for 3 years. A rookie is defined as a player who comes into the season having played 25 games or less.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

So if Barzal makes the Isles this year, I should call him up immediately, then I'll get 2 more years at $3 before I have to make a decision on him at $3.75 or $5 or whatever? I like that considerably more than the previous iteration.

 

Correct. It forces people to call up more rookies which we want, and you don't get penalized outside of the fact that they probably aren't worth $3 in year one for the most part. Too many teams just never call up rookies because of salary constraints and just use them for playoff callups until Toewes rule sets in. This way, you can either wait on an iffy player you aren't sure about and Toewes him, or put him right on the team at 3 years.

 

Also, it's important to note that in order to take advantage of the Aho rule you MUST call him up either before the season starts, or after October and before spring call ups. You have to commit to him being a part of the team. At season's end you can choose to sign him for 1 or 2 years at same price, or you can dump him.

[Zach6668 513]

Oh cool. I get it. So rookies in this upcoming season will be eligible. That's nice.

 

I was thinking about this more on the way home.

 

Here's the trade off.

 

 

 

Conclusion: There's some give and take, but it's great to have a second option for managers that isn't "bring them up and give them a huge raise right away."

[Zach6668 513]

This certainly helps with higher end rookies, but I don't see it doing much for the middling guys. The guys who take a few years to break out. Certainly Toews' rule is the way you want to go.

 

I'm not sure this entices me to call up someone who wouldn't definitely be among my best players.

 

They'll need to be at least as good as their draft salary for two years vs what that cash can do in the auction.