Offseason 2019

[SharksGM]

Alright, it's time to get this show back on the road. If you were waiting for an announcement for trades re-opening, you didn't need to. Go ahead and post them.

First things first, let's get an activity check/roll call. A few of you haven't logged in in quite a while, which is understandable given that there wasn't much to do in the playoffs for most of us (sigh). Still, we need to know who's committed for next season as there are a lot of holes to fill. Similarly, if you're managing a second team, let me know if you're willing to continue doing that for another season, or if you want to switch to a different second team. Otherwise, we'll prioritize finding spots for teams without interim GMs (Calgary, Arizona again).

The draft is going to be in early July as usual. Last year we started on July 13; hopefully we'll get going a week earlier this year. Discuss the draft here. The only thing we may have to think about is what to do with interim GM-managed teams. I'd prefer for every team to get sensible picks rather than auto'ing (although the auto formula is reasonable), but it's obviously an advantage to know what a second team is planning.

Now, rule changes for next season aren't decided, but here's what I've been thinking:

- Extra practices: one per month per team seems reasonable to me. If we start a new thread each month it will be easy enough to keep track. First come, first served.
- Scoring levels used to be higher than the NHL's but they turned out a bit lower this year. On the other hand, playoff scoring levels were probably too high, so I don't see a need for a big change here.
- On the other hand, goalies still suck really bad. I don't know how to fix it. I'm tempted to just bump every goalie's ratings and POT by 2 points and see what happens. This should affect everyone equally.
- I thought about not having goalies enter the draft until they're 20. Teenage goalies just don't play in the NHL anymore anyways, and then I wouldn't have to rate goalie prospects until they're further along in their development. The only downside is that we'd be looking at two drafts without any goalies, but I'm fine with throwing in some young UFAs to replace the retirees.
- I'm also not thrilled with the trend of good young players getting healthy scratched in the AHL for cap reasons. I understand why it happens - once they're fully (or over-) developed, playing in the AHL doesn't help - but it's unfair to the fake players. For that reason I'm considering lowering the waiver age to 23 and/or adding an NHL games played cutoff. The NHL does have the latter and I think the only reason we haven't introduced something similar is that it's a pain to check a player's career GP total.
- POT and CON boosting ... well, they're just not implemented well in EHM. We could certainly do better. It's not hard to add some randomness to player development, but I can't think of a satisfying way to do it while still giving GMs some control over the process. I have considered adding an opt-in lottery for prospects where they can get random boosts (or declines) while playing in juniors to make late round picks more interesting and get the odd first round bust here and there.
- In general I'd like to give GMs more meaningful strategic choices to make, especially in player development. We've leaned towards keeping EHEC realistic but it is a game first and foremost and fun should be the priority. If you have any ideas, share them here.

[Vik (Habs)]

Similarly, if you're managing a second team, let me know if you're willing to continue doing that for another season, or if you want to switch to a different second team.

Would prefer someone else take the Jets but I can do it if no one else wants to.

- Extra practices: one per month per team seems reasonable to me. If we start a new thread each month it will be easy enough to keep track. First come, first served.

One issue that comes to mind: can you see when posts are deleted in a thread?

- On the other hand, goalies still suck really bad. I don't know how to fix it. I'm tempted to just bump every goalie's ratings and POT by 2 points and see what happens. This should affect everyone equally.

So long as the contract calculations are adjusted accordingly. Though, I think it's more of an EHM thing anyway. We try to keep the scoring similar but there are fewer shots in EHM so the only way that happens is for goalie numbers to decline.

- I thought about not having goalies enter the draft until they're 20. Teenage goalies just don't play in the NHL anymore anyways, and then I wouldn't have to rate goalie prospects until they're further along in their development. The only downside is that we'd be looking at two drafts without any goalies, but I'm fine with throwing in some young UFAs to replace the retirees.

How about just no goalies as underagers? Whether they're 18 or 20, it's still pretty much a complete guess on ratings.

- I'm also not thrilled with the trend of good young players getting healthy scratched in the AHL for cap reasons. I understand why it happens - once they're fully (or over-) developed, playing in the AHL doesn't help - but it's unfair to the fake players. For that reason I'm considering lowering the waiver age to 23 and/or adding an NHL games played cutoff. The NHL does have the latter and I think the only reason we haven't introduced something similar is that it's a pain to check a player's career GP total.

I think the ELC salaries are part of the issue. Outside of the very top prospects, not many actually hit their bonuses in real life and are doing well if they're making high 6 figures. On their second contracts, it's not unusual for them to take less to avoid the low AHL salaries they make on a qualifying offer. It's part of the reason NHL teams keep them around is the low cap hit.

With the way the quality of drafts has declined over the years here, a late 1st gets you a depth player (when fully developed) who expects a raise on his 1.4M salary whether he's developed or not. Slightly different situation but look at David Cotton. He got a higher contract due to the old POT booster contract bonus and, despite not even playing half of any season in the league (and a career high of 13 points), he expected a considerable raise on that already high salary (at which time I tried qualifying him and some terrible, truly awful person gave him an offer sheet).

It's hard/nearly impossible to find cheap, young players so keeping the waiver ineligible in the AHL is an easy workaround.

- POT and CON boosting ... well, they're just not implemented well in EHM. We could certainly do better. It's not hard to add some randomness to player development, but I can't think of a satisfying way to do it while still giving GMs some control over the process. I have considered adding an opt-in lottery for prospects where they can get random boosts (or declines) while playing in juniors to make late round picks more interesting and get the odd first round bust here and there.

One idea I had: random ceilings. Instead of you giving each draft prospect exact ceilings, give a range each ceiling can fall between. Top players would have smaller ranges that ensure they'll be good no matter what, lower ranked players can have highly variable ceilings where they're probably going to be bad but you might get lucky. After the draft, run random numbers to set the exact ceiling. Goalies could have random POT and CON.

[Bruins_GM]

We'll give it another go.

[Edmonton Mike]

Don't mind having the Flyers as a 2nd team again next season.

[IslandersGM]

checking in I'd just like someone to take Fleury off my hands.

[VancouverCanucksGM]

Here.

Looking to move Vasilevskiy.

[Dallas Stars GM]

I'm here

[Dallas Stars GM]

Extra practices: one per month per team seems reasonable to me. If we start a new thread each month it will be easy enough to keep track. First come, first served.

I welcome this.

- Scoring levels used to be higher than the NHL's but they turned out a bit lower this year. On the other hand, playoff scoring levels were probably too high, so I don't see a need for a big change here.

Okay with me.

- On the other hand, goalies still suck really bad. I don't know how to fix it. I'm tempted to just bump every goalie's ratings and POT by 2 points and see what happens. This should affect everyone equally.

I'd give it a go.

- I'm also not thrilled with the trend of good young players getting healthy scratched in the AHL for cap reasons. I understand why it happens - once they're fully (or over-) developed, playing in the AHL doesn't help - but it's unfair to the fake players. For that reason I'm considering lowering the waiver age to 23 and/or adding an NHL games played cutoff. The NHL does have the latter and I think the only reason we haven't introduced something similar is that it's a pain to check a player's career GP total.

I recommend having the option of having 5 AHL signees per team.

- POT and CON boosting ... well, they're just not implemented well in EHM. We could certainly do better. It's not hard to add some randomness to player development, but I can't think of a satisfying way to do it while still giving GMs some control over the process. I have considered adding an opt-in lottery for prospects where they can get random boosts (or declines) while playing in juniors to make late round picks more interesting and get the odd first round bust here and there.

Sounds good to me.

Random ceilings. Instead of you giving each draft prospect exact ceilings, give a range each ceiling can fall between. Top players would have smaller ranges that ensure they'll be good no matter what, lower ranked players can have highly variable ceilings where they're probably going to be bad but you might get lucky. After the draft, run random numbers to set the exact ceiling. Goalies could have random POT and CON.

I actually LOVE this idea Vik!!! Sounds so much fun and realistic.

Oh, and I'm totally fine with serving as an interim GM for the Capitals for the next season.
But I hope we will be able to land more new GMs to this fantastic league sooner than later.

[Edmonton Mike]

Random ceilings. Instead of you giving each draft prospect exact ceilings, give a range each ceiling can fall between. Top players would have smaller ranges that ensure they'll be good no matter what, lower ranked players can have highly variable ceilings where they're probably going to be bad but you might get lucky. After the draft, run random numbers to set the exact ceiling. Goalies could have random POT and CON.

I actually LOVE this idea Vik!!! Sounds so much fun and realistic.

Yeah that's an interesting idea for sure!

[Jets GM]

Im here. I'd like to keep everything as is.

[Bernyhawks]

Here!

I’m super down with a rewards system (random ceiling boost) for prospects that stay in Juniors vs bringing them up to AHL.

[SensGM]

Still around!

[SharksGM]

With the way the quality of drafts has declined over the years here, a late 1st gets you a depth player (when fully developed) who expects a raise on his 1.4M salary whether he's developed or not. Slightly different situation but look at David Cotton. He got a higher contract due to the old POT booster contract bonus and, despite not even playing half of any season in the league (and a career high of 13 points), he expected a considerable raise on that already high salary (at which time I tried qualifying him and some terrible, truly awful person gave him an offer sheet).

Draft quality had to decline because they were, uh, very generous to start with and there's basically no way to have prospects bust.

Cotton is one of the examples I was thinking of. For better or worse, minimum salaries are set by ability, not performance. I think you'll agree that Cotton was too good for the AHL and was only down there for cap reasons, which is what I'd like to discourage.

I'm thinking we may need to revamp the qualifying offer system so that it can be used more easily for youngsters who haven't earned NHL spots yet rather than for players with NHL experience who we'd rather not pay a fair salary.

- POT and CON boosting ... well, they're just not implemented well in EHM. We could certainly do better. It's not hard to add some randomness to player development, but I can't think of a satisfying way to do it while still giving GMs some control over the process. I have considered adding an opt-in lottery for prospects where they can get random boosts (or declines) while playing in juniors to make late round picks more interesting and get the odd first round bust here and there.

One idea I had: random ceilings. Instead of you giving each draft prospect exact ceilings, give a range each ceiling can fall between. Top players would have smaller ranges that ensure they'll be good no matter what, lower ranked players can have highly variable ceilings where they're probably going to be bad but you might get lucky. After the draft, run random numbers to set the exact ceiling. Goalies could have random POT and CON.

I kind of like it, but it would require inputting a lot of extra numbers for draftees. Maybe just one range each for OF, DF, SK?

I have also been considering giving rewards for success in the AHL, either on a team or player level (for prospects), but haven't come up with a satisfying idea yet.

[BLUESGM]

I am here.

[Dallas Stars GM]

I have also been considering giving rewards for success in the AHL, either on a team or player level (for prospects), but haven't come up with a satisfying idea yet.

Potential ceilings? CON? Or other attributes boost ?

[Vik (Habs)]

Draft quality had to decline because they were, uh, very generous to start with and there's basically no way to have prospects bust.

They absolutely were but the decline has complicated things. Rebuilding a team is much harder now (in a league where it's already a tough slog what with the slow sim schedule) and draft picks are worth much less than they used to be. I think the weak (relatively) drafts are also prohibitive to the trade market. I know I have trouble making deals simply because whatever draft pick I end up with is pretty much guaranteed to net me a worse player than the guy I'd be giving up. No one wants to give up a 1st rounder for a 4th liner but they'll use the 1st to draft a future 4th liner on a richer salary. Although, the random ceilings thing could help with that (probably get a worse player but no harm in having some extra lottery tickets).

For better or worse, minimum salaries are set by ability, not performance.

Right and that's not exactly realistic but also not something that would be easy to change so it's going to force people to find some workarounds. Keeping good waiver ineligible players in the AHL seems to be what we've found.

I kind of like it, but it would require inputting a lot of extra numbers for draftees. Maybe just one range each for OF, DF, SK?

Inputting or creating? Creating I wouldn't think it would make things much more difficult, inputting I guess it depends how you do the random numbers. I wouldn't worry about doing the online random numbers like we do for the draft (150 prospects * however many ceilings seems a bit much for that). Just do it in a spreadsheet or however's easiest. I guess you could do the online thing for your draftees just to avoid suggestions of impropriety.

I have also been considering giving rewards for success in the AHL, either on a team or player level (for prospects), but haven't come up with a satisfying idea yet.

Wasn't there supposed to be a leadership boost for players on teams that would've made the playoffs?

[Tondycek(BUF GM)]

Here

[Jets GM]

As far as most things go, I would rather leave it as is. If we are going to tweak things potentially every year, I think it should be gradual. The league is already complex.

I dont think EP should be allowed in the regular season. Maybe once during the entire playoffs (stop so many of these sweeps).

Maybe a +1 POT/CON/EN boost so the POT boost doesn't just favour those with low pot/high con goalies.

As far as the draft and the trend of draft picks become worth less the last few years, that probably balanced out some of the earlier ones that were done. Instead of doing random ceiling boosts, why not let GMs control the bonus ceiling points. Something where its a sliding scale of additional ceiling points and where the player was draft (the earlier, the less the points). 3rd round = 30, 4th round = 50, 5th round = 70. It would encourage GMs to go after rocks that could be polished into diamonds (or maybe some copper).

I am also okay with draft review ceiling point awards. There would just need to be restrictions on how the ceiling points could be applied (max per category, max ceiling etc.)

Also, we could just have more POT/CON boosters. I always enjoy the 'boom or bust' pick.

[SharksGM]

I went back and added a plot at the top of the draft sheet comparing the strength of every draft year. It shows the projected OV* rating for the 90 best skaters year-to-year. For drafts that I didn't enter (pre-2017), this includes successful boosters like Alt, Brickley, Granberg, Jank, etc.

Anyway, the three strongest drafts were:

2010 - the first draft, with a deep top 20-30 and a great top 5 thanks to Brickley, Granberg and Alt all boosting);
2015 - by far the deepest through the second and third rounds and just as good at the top thanks to McDavid and Eichel;
2016 - second to 2015 in overall depth, with probably the best 5-15 range.

The three worst were:
2012 - just godawful in every way, and probably justifiably so considering how Yakupov and most of the other forwards turned out in real life. You could only really argue that some of the top D were a little underrated in retrospect;
2013 - the infamous "Ryan Pulock #1 overall" draft;
2017 - the first draft I did, this looks like the second weakest until you account for the boosters (the line labelled 2017-B), where it's actually above average in part due to five of the top 10 being boosters. I think I was justified in making the top end weak since Hischier/Patrick is a pretty underwhelming 1-2 and 2015-16 were a bit over the top, but in retrospect I could have made Heiskanen/Pettersson/Makar better and toned down some of the boosters.

In general I think our drafts have turned out reasonably realistic. Of course we don't have busts as bad as Yakupov/Nichuschkin/possibly Puljujarvi, but there's no way to do that in EHM short of making top 10 prospects sub 50 CON. Pat's drafts were probably too strong while Adam's varied more from year to year.

* you might disagree with how I calculate this OV, including how I weight by CON and the relative ranks of forwards/D, but I think it averages out to being reasonable.

[Vik (Habs)]

Don't want to do any kind of deep dive into it but you really ought to compare the draft to the quality of the league. For example, here's the lineup I started with (2014/15 season):

Code: Select all

Joe Pavelski          Marc Savard           Ales Hemsky
Brenden Morrow        Mike Fisher           Andrei Kostitsyn
Alexander Frolov      Kyle Okposo           Colten St. Clair
Valtteri Filppula     Thomas Hundertpfund   Rene Bourque

           Luca Sbisa            Matt Niskanen
           Sheldon Souray        Eric Brewer
           Nigel Williams        Nick Boynton

                      Samu Perhonen
                      Magnus Hellberg

That team had 112 points in the previous season (though they dealt David Backes and Colby Cohen for picks in the offseason). Transport it to today's league and it's got to be a favorite to finish last. If the league gets better and the draft quality stays the same, the draft is getting worse.

Unrelated but I wonder if I still have a file from then that I can check out to see how bad the prospect base was. I seem to remember Rasmus Kulmala and Andrei Mironov seeming like my best youngsters and free releasing over half my AHL team.

[SharksGM]

Uh, probably half of the players in the league now were drafted in the last 10 years.

[DaveG-Canes]

still planning on being around, just waiting for the draft to kick off

[Vik (Habs)]

Uh, probably half of the players in the league now were drafted in the last 10 years.

That's the idea. Guys who were late 1st round picks in the early years were better relative to the league than they are now. A fully developed Brock Nelson when drafted was probably a 1st liner (not a star 1st liner but a pretty good offensive threat). Now he's much more of a secondary offensive threat who's more likely to be on a 4th line than a 1st. He isn't any worse than when he was drafted but, with so many good draft picks filling the league, the league itself is a lot better.

[TorontoGM]

I am here.

[Jets GM]

14 of 30 have checked in.

I think the following are still active but haven't seen this thread: flyergp21 (PHI), ted1971 (NJ), ColoradoGM, James (DET), Jonathan (ANA), Hugo (LA), NashvillePredatorsGM

That would leave 9 open teams: PIT, NYR, FLA, WSH, CBJ, CGY, MIN (I thought we had a Wild GM?), WPG, ARI

Let me know if I made any mistakes. Will try to do another recruitment soon...

[Kings GM]

Still IN
I’ll follow what you guys will decide is better for the league.

[Kings GM]

Greg (Flyergp21) he’s no more the Flyers GM

[Vik (Habs)]

That would leave 9 open teams: PIT, NYR, FLA, WSH, CBJ, CGY, MIN (I thought we had a Wild GM?), WPG, ARI

Columbus posted some contracts so he seems to still be around.
Minny checked in a couple days ago but didn't post anywhere.

[Jets GM]

I just saw a Philly GM that was online...

[Vik (Habs)]

I just saw a Philly GM that was online...

That's Mike (Edmonton GM).

[Bernyhawks]

I will take Pittsburgh again for the off-season!

[SharksGM]

MIN already has PIT ( Mario66).

[Bernyhawks]

Damn I was determined this time to tune up my Pens like they used to be. Which teams are orphan?

[SharksGM]

NYR has no GM, interim or otherwise. Jonathan had FLA but he hasn't been on in a while. Hugo, is he around?

[Kings GM]

Always there and each day i’m here to see wich move i can do to beat Mike and win a cup.

Just don’t have much Time for a second team

[The-Boss-GM]

I'm here.

If someone else wants to run PIT feel free.
I was looking at it as more of a stewardship with the hope that a new GM would step in than really getting invested into the team.

[AnaheimGM]

Hello guys. I decided to end my association with EHEC. I don't have the same motivation to put time in this League. It been a fun ride with you guys, I apreciate every one in this league and I really hope that the league will have some more years running.

[Bernyhawks]

I'm here.

If someone else wants to run PIT feel free.
I was looking at it as more of a stewardship with the hope that a new GM would step in than really getting invested into the team.

I will run them for the off-season.

[SharksGM]

Hello guys. I decided to end my association with EHEC. I don't have the same motivation to put time in this League. It been a fun ride with you guys, I apreciate every one in this league and I really hope that the league will have some more years running.

Sorry to see you go, Jonathan. We had some fun in the gruesome Pacific division. Thanks for letting us know.

[SharksGM]

I think I finally figured out what the hell is in draftpicks.ehm, so I'll try to add draft picks to team pages soon.

For the record, I'm pretty sure it's:

150 zeros
The basic entry of:
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
...
Which is team 1 round 1 pick owner, team 1 round 2 pick owner, ... team 2 round 1 pick owner, etc.

The 2019 draft starts on line 2851, with:
20
1
9

NJD, team 20, owns ANA 1st 2019. There are nine years worth of 99's before that, presumably for the nine previous EHEC drafts. I have no idea why they got set to 99. I think the previous 8 sets must be picks from 2002-2009, since the game starts in 2001 by default and thus 2002 is the first draft. I guess someone fastsimmed to 2010 to start the file?

After that, there are entries up to the 2201 entry draft, followed by 120,000 zeros, enough to hold a total of 1000 entry draft pick owners. Okay then!

[SharksGM]

Alright, you can see your draft picks on your team page now. I'll advance the file to June 10th tomorrow and enter trades.

[Bernyhawks]

Alright, you can see your draft picks on your team page now. I'll advance the file to June 10th tomorrow and enter trades.

Love it thanks!!

[Ted1971]

When does the Draft start?

[SharksGM]

I have to finish entering the draftees first. There are a couple of rounds of skaters to go, plus 5-6 goalies (those are easy).

[SharksGM]

I updated the file again after entering all of the trades.