Potential 2020 Rule Changes

[SharksGM]

Dear GMs,

Since the playoffs are going to end by Friday at the latest, I thought now would be a good time to go over some rule changes I have been considering for the next season. Before that, though, I should say that I've made some progress on the 2020 draft class, and as always you can follow along with the changes to the draft sheet here. Just bear in mind that these ratings are preliminary and you'll find out as soon as they're final. As always the class will reflect reality as much as possible, so it will be very heavy on offensive forwards - it's a pretty weak year for high-end defensemen, especially two-way types, and for power forwards. There will be some of those players in the mix to make things interesting but mostly further down the rankings.

Now back to rule changes, I am still somewhat unhappy with progression for young players. Prospects probably still develop too quickly, but many are left to rot in the AHL because they're competing with cheaper UFAs for roster spots, and then ask for large raises without having proven anything in the pros. I have a couple of fixes in mind to address this:

1. The salary slots for draftees haven't been changed in many years. The main issue is that it's only by pick #105 that the minimum ELC drops to league minimum (600k). Similarly, the max salary is 2M for top 10 picks, but there's a huge gulf in value between the #1 pick and the #10 pick. I think the progression should be smoother, starting at 3M for the #1 pick (sorry Alex but Lafreniere will be worth it), dropping to 1M by #30, and hitting league minimum somewhere between 60 and 75. This way late 3rd and later picks won't be competing with cheaper vets before their ELCs are up.

2. ELCs are ending too early, even before a player has played an NHL game, and especially for boosters. The NHL has a simple mechanism to prevent this - letting ELCs slide in years where a prospect players fewer than 10 NHL games. I think we can adopt this pretty much as-is *starting next year*, with perhaps a tweak or two for practicality (e.g. we'll have to adjust the contract limit rules because I don't want everyone signing all of their players and letting them slide repeatedly).

3. I've considered dropping the age for waivers and at which players's salaries no longer count against the cap in the AHL (they're the same now - 24; but eligibility is slightly different). I'm not sure if I want to drop it a full year or just part of it, and/or tie it to ELC status. But with the previous two rule changes and EHM's rapid development, GMs should have more than enough information to decide on whether to offer a second contract or not.

4. A full revision of suspension rules is in order.

I've discussed some of these ideas with Justin at various times but not all of them, so now we're all on the same page. Thoughts, comments?

[TorontoGM]

ABOLISH THE LOTTERY!

[NYRNYRNYR]

This is only my 2nd season here so I am speaking with only some knowledge and willing to listen more than speak.

The first rule change seems legit. I was quite surprised learning the salary cap rules that the draft functioned the way it did. I think getting those in line with your suggestions seems fair, and not back-breaking by any means.

I would be very curious how the ELC change would work. I know I have a few prospects I'd be very curious to try it out with. If you signed them, and after trying them in the NHL <10 games you still want to keep the year, would they return to juniors or head to the AHL?

[SharksGM]

I would be very curious how the ELC change would work. I know I have a few prospects I'd be very curious to try it out with. If you signed them, and after trying them in the NHL <10 games you still want to keep the year, would they return to juniors or head to the AHL?

I read a little more about how the NHL does it and it actually only applies to players signed when they're 18 or 19. If we went with that - and I don't think it makes sense to extend it past 20 seeing how quickly players develop attributes (besides STR) in EHM AHL - then this would only really apply to POT boosters and designated underagers. I have to think a bit more about the implications of that. I'm not sure if I want to keep the 10 game rule exactly as written because of the added hassle of manually sending a bunch of players back to juniors when they would've otherwise just gone back automagically after preseason.

ABOLISH THE LOTTERY!

Hmm, what a great idea! Let's have even more lotteries! Or, maybe expand the lottery to all 30 teams and even out the odds! I love it!

[DetroitGM]

I'm not sure if I want to keep the 10 game rule exactly as written because of the added hassle of manually sending a bunch of players back to juniors when they would've otherwise just gone back automagically after preseason.

Would this be easier if it was treated like the free agency window? As in, rather than using a set number of games, you use a specific date. For ex, all U-20 players get returned to junior on October 31st unless a GM writes they want a player staying up (or vice versa, I don't know whether opt-in or opt-out is better).

At least then the added hassle would all be on a single day, rather than having it potentially spread out over months, is what I'm thinking.

[SharksGM]

I'm not sure if I want to keep the 10 game rule exactly as written because of the added hassle of manually sending a bunch of players back to juniors when they would've otherwise just gone back automagically after preseason.

Would this be easier if it was treated like the free agency window? As in, rather than using a set number of games, you use a specific date. For ex, all U-20 players get returned to junior on October 31st unless a GM writes they want a player staying up (or vice versa, I don't know whether opt-in or opt-out is better).

At least then the added hassle would all be on a single day, rather than having it potentially spread out over months, is what I'm thinking.

Well, there's not much of a benefit to keeping an U20 player as a healthy scratch either way, so maybe this won't be too much of a problem. I'll have to consider it more carefully.

[TorontoGM]

ABOLISH THE LOTTERY!

Hmm, what a great idea! Let's have even more lotteries! Or, maybe expand the lottery to all 30 teams and even out the odds! I love it!

Hey man, no lottery would mean less work for you. Also, pretty sure this is the second time I've slid out of the top 3 in the draft, let me vent my rage!

All that aside, I like the potential changes.

[DaveG-Canes]

abso fucking lutely on pending changes 2 and 4 for sure.

3 would make sense with the change to 2 as well.

[SharksGM]

abso fucking lutely on pending changes 2 and 4 for sure.

I'm not sure if you'll like the suspension changes. I'm not thinking about making them shorter overall, but rather more proportional to injury length, and with more explicit rules for preseason and playoffs. Also apropos: the game gave Eric Staal the Lady Byng for this season.

[SharksGM]

Ok, here is what I propose:

1. ELC salaries will change to the following, in millions:

1: 3.0
2: 2.75
3: 2.5
4: 2.25
5: 2
6: 1.9
7: 1.8
8: 1.7
9: 1.6
10: 1.5
11: 1.45
12: 1.4
13: 1.35
14: 1.3
15-16: 1.25
17-18: 1.2
19-20: 1.15
21-23: 1.1
24-26: 1.05
27-30: 1.0
31-34: 0.95
35-38: 0.9
39-42: 0.85
43-46: 0.8
47-50: 0.75
51-55: 0.7
56-60: 0.65
61+: 0.6

These are all strictly lower than the current slots, except for the top four that are higher (#5 is unchanged). These will only apply to 2020+ draftees; currently unsigned prospects from 2019 and earlier will continue to use the old slots.

2. ELCs will slide for players in their 18 & 19 year old seasons who play fewer than 10 pro (regular+playoff) games. I will figure out exactly how to implement this without encouraging everyone to sign all of their prospects right away and just return them to juniors after an October tryout, although roster limits should prevent that for the most part.

3. The waiver eligibility age will change to players who are 23 or older as of September 16th (as opposed to the current rule, which is 24+ years of age as of the demotion date). For the most part, this means depth prospects who are on their second contract and have had the chance to play three full seasons in the AHL.

4. Next season, the cap exemption age will also change to 23 or older (it is currently 24 years of age as of October 1, the nominal start of the regular season). I'm proposing this now before contract re-signing to give people a chance to reconsider whether they want to extend marginal players with 0.8M+ contracts. I don't think it's fair to implement this right away because there are a number of 2015 draft picks who haven't fully developed and are earning over 0.8M. Rule 3 already makes them waiver-eligible so I don't want to further punish teams who have such players and don't get them claimed.

5. Players will be eligible for the AHL if they are 20 years old as of September 16th, rather than by December 31. The old (NHL) rule gives an odd and unnecessary incentive to draft older players since they'll be eligible to play in the AHL in their draft+2 year.

The goal of changes 3-5 is to align all of these dates with draft eligibility, so waiver and cap exemption status depend only on a player's draft year.

6. I'm considering making ELCs shorter for players who are signed after age 20, which is how the NHL does it. Otherwise, there will be an incentive to keep players unsigned for as long as possible, especially with future cheaper ELCs. I'm not sure that this is enough a problem to warrant making this change, though.

7. Each team will get to select one U20 player exemption for their AHL teams per season, rather than two. This is because rules 1 & 2 makes this exemption much more valuable. In exchange, the exemption will last for two seasons instead of one. So, you pick one player from each draft and get to keep them in the AHL for up to two seasons. I am considering letting teams pick one 19-year-old (2019 draftee) exemption this coming season to align with how this rule would work in the future.

8. POT boosters (actually, all draftees) will no longer be allowed to sign immediately after being drafted and before the rollover, meaning that they will only get one chance to boost. I think this makes sense for both realism purposes (rushing to sign a player the day after a draft makes no sense), and also for balance purposes. As we found in this thread, even 75 CON prospects with <70 potential have a 70-80% chance to boost each rollover. I think this is already high enough and going down to just one boost opportunity will make drafting boosters a more interesting choice and make the draft slightly less predictable.

[Jets_GM]

7. Each team will get to select one U20 player exemption for their AHL teams per season, rather than two. This is because rules 1 & 2 makes this exemption much more valuable. In exchange, the exemption will last for two seasons instead of one. So, you pick one player from each draft and get to keep them in the AHL for up to two seasons. I am considering letting teams pick one 19-year-old (2019 draftee) exemption this coming season to align with how this rule would work in the future.

I think that's a rather unique way of increasing the value of the underage player. Theoretically, if you're always choosing your 18 year olds top draft picks it makes no difference (unless your 19 year old becomes ready in which case, boohoo). I agree that if this change is implemented though a temporary allowance for an additional 19-year-old should be made for this coming season for a smooth transition.

8. POT boosters (actually, all draftees) will no longer be allowed to sign immediately after being drafted and before the rollover, meaning that they will only get one chance to boost. I think this makes sense for both realism purposes (rushing to sign a player the day after a draft makes no sense), and also for balance purposes. As we found in this thread, even 75 CON prospects with <70 potential have a 70-80% chance to boost each rollover. I think this is already high enough and going down to just one boost opportunity will make drafting boosters a more interesting choice and make the draft slightly less predictable.

I mean as a person who would be likely betting on some boosters I don't like it, but for realism it makes sense.

[SharksGM]

Having had minimal complaints, I'm going to go ahead with these rule changes. I'll starting updating the rulebook in the next week.

Also, since it's Canada Day, I thought I'd give you all a gift. Since everyone seems to be up to their eyeballs in salaries, I took a look at the formula for RFA and UFA salaries again. As you might know, greed factors into UFA salaries but not RFAs, since the latter don't have much bargaining power. I used a greed of 100 as the baseline, but the weighted average of UFAs this year is closer to 95, meaning that UFA salaries were roughly 5% higher than RFA. Well, at least at the top end - there's also a discount for mid-low tier RFAs that I honestly don't even remember implementing.

Anyway, I've decided to put in a 10% cut in RFA salary demands, effective immediately. Enjoy.

[Bernyhawks]

We’ve had the same restictions for lines for quite some time now I would not mind a little tweak. Ex: you are allowed to use 10sec extra or less on any line of your choice (H&G 60sec, D&C 10sec...)

Just throwing it out there

[Dallas Stars GM]

4. Next season, the cap exemption age will also change to 23 or older (it is currently 24 years of age as of October 1, the nominal start of the regular season). I'm proposing this now before contract re-signing to give people a chance to reconsider whether they want to extend marginal players with 0.8M+ contracts. I don't think it's fair to implement this right away because there are a number of 2015 draft picks who haven't fully developed and are earning over 0.8M. Rule 3 already makes them waiver-eligible so I don't want to further punish teams who have such players and don't get them claimed.

Does this mean that 23 and older in the AHL making more than 800k (all the amount above 800k) will count to salary cap since next season?!! I do NOT see this as a good idea. Too soon.

I really REALLY liked Vik's ideas for Draft (fog of war in their cellings, potential etc), so maaaybe, we could think about implementing it to the next year's draft ?

Plus, I have an idea that for example the best scorer or the player with best rating in the AHL (of the month or of the season) will get +1 or +2 celling points or skill points to attributes or something along these lines. Just thinking out loud. I just think that we should try making AHL a little more relevant to some extent.

Other than that, I think the league is transparent and excellent.

[SharksGM]

We’ve had the same restictions for lines for quite some time now I would not mind a little tweak. Ex: you are allowed to use 10sec extra or less on any line of your choice (H&G 60sec, D&C 10sec...)

Just throwing it out there

I like them the way they are. 20 sec shifts already make no sense and I'm pretty sure the game doesn't actually have players change that quickly.

4. Next season, the cap exemption age will also change to 23 or older (it is currently 24 years of age as of October 1, the nominal start of the regular season). I'm proposing this now before contract re-signing to give people a chance to reconsider whether they want to extend marginal players with 0.8M+ contracts. I don't think it's fair to implement this right away because there are a number of 2015 draft picks who haven't fully developed and are earning over 0.8M. Rule 3 already makes them waiver-eligible so I don't want to further punish teams who have such players and don't get them claimed.

Does this mean that 23 and older in the AHL making more than 800k (all the amount above 800k) will count to salary cap since next season?!! I do NOT see this as a good idea. Too soon.

Yes, that's what it means. The current rules make it far too easy to keep unreasonably old players in the AHL at no penalty. It doesn't make sense to be able to keep a guy as a healthy scratch in the AHL 5 years after they're drafted.

I really REALLY liked Vik's ideas for Draft (fog of war in their cellings, potential etc), so maaaybe, we could think about implementing it to the next year's draft ?

It's a fine idea but I couldn't think of a way to do it that wouldn't make it even more work than it is now and also make it more interesting than just adding pure randomness. Note if I did this though that it would go in the way of making prospects less likely to develop to their full ceilings (i.e. maybe 1/4 of second round picks should turn out better than expected; in later rounds almost every pick is a bust).

Plus, I have an idea that for example the best scorer or the player with best rating in the AHL (of the month or of the season) will get +1 or +2 celling points or skill points to attributes or something along these lines. Just thinking out loud. I just think that we should try making AHL a little more relevant to some extent.

Justin was against having ceiling boosts to already good prospects and I think that's right - first round picks are already basically a guarantee to be full-time NHLers so they don't need any bonuses. The LE boosts will continue and I'll offer ceiling bumps to later round picks for articles written this season (before UFA starts).

Other than that, I think the league is transparent and excellent.

Thanks.

[Dallas Stars GM]

. Yes, that's what it means. The current rules make it far too easy to keep unreasonably old players in the AHL at no penalty. It doesn't make sense to be able to keep a guy as a healthy scratch in the AHL 5 years after they're drafted.

Well, this is a problem and for many teams I think. You could have said sooner and I think lot of us wouldn't make some trades with this in mind. This new rule will be applied on the next season 2020/21 ?? I think it would be fair to apply it for the 2021/22.... This is a dagger to the cap-heart. Or could be the cap lifted to 63M or something like that ?

[SharksGM]

Well, this is a problem and for many teams I think. You could have said sooner and I think lot of us wouldn't make some trades with this in mind.

You can say that about any rule change. There's no way to make rule changes without immediately affecting player values.

This new rule will be applied on the next season 2020/21 ?? I think it would be fair to apply it for the 2021/22.... This is a dagger to the cap-heart. Or could be the cap lifted to 63M or something like that ?

There will not be any further cap increases. The whole point is to keep the cap at a level where EHM doesn't choke on salaries.

There are 76 players affected by this rule currently making over 800k (there are certainly others with expiring contracts due raises, but re-signing them is optional). Nearly half (35) make 2.5M+ and most already are full-time NHLers, if not stars; the lowest OV are Hintz and Kylington and the latter isn't fully developed. Another 14 have expiring contracts. That leaves 27 players, most of whom are still above 74OV and full-time NHLers. Many are genuine bargains (Matthew Spencer, Alex DeBrincat). Do I feel a little bad about Nick Merkley counting for 400k in the AHL, or a little stupid for signing Chaz Reddekopp to a 850k deal... yeah, but the net cap hit league-wide is very small (certainly much smaller than from the 10% RFA discount I recently proposed), and even more so if you remember that many of these players will turn 24 during the season anyway. Leaving the rule unchanged would see many of them stay in the AHL for another full season and ruin their chances of becoming NHLers.

[Dallas Stars GM]

Kylington is my case and that totally sucks for me. Knowing that, this would totally change my trading philosophy.... I'm preparing tables and calculating everything in advance and what for ?

Now this feels like a shot below the belt.

[NashvillePredatorsGM]

This is wrong.
If i known this change sooner, I would not bring Doughty with 6mil salary, I want to have Gauthier on farm with his age 22.7 and salary 3.4 mil.

You should say about this change a few months earlier to know how to make things in advance.

Im active in this League for years, i think we can debate this.

[DetroitGM]

This is wrong.
If i known this change sooner, I would not bring Doughty with 6mil salary, I want to have Gauthier on farm with his age 22.7 and salary 3.4 mil.

You should say about this change a few months earlier to know how to make things in advance.

Im active in this League for years, i think we can debate this.

To be fair, the change was proposed on June 20th and you made the Doughty trade on July 3rd. I must admit, I'm also curious why you'd want Gauthier on the farm? He's going to get worse, not better...

[SensGM]

This is wrong.
If i known this change sooner, I would not bring Doughty with 6mil salary, I want to have Gauthier on farm with his age 22.7 and salary 3.4 mil.

You should say about this change a few months earlier to know how to make things in advance.

Im active in this League for years, i think we can debate this.

To be fair, the change was proposed on June 20th and you made the Doughty trade on July 3rd.

And the potential upcoming changes were evoked on June 1st:

3. I've considered dropping the age for waivers and at which players's salaries no longer count against the cap in the AHL (they're the same now - 24; but eligibility is slightly different). I'm not sure if I want to drop it a full year or just part of it, and/or tie it to ELC status. But with the previous two rule changes and EHM's rapid development, GMs should have more than enough information to decide on whether to offer a second contract or not.

I've discussed some of these ideas with Justin at various times but not all of them, so now we're all on the same page. Thoughts, comments?

[SharksGM]

Gauthier doesn't belong in the AHL but he also won't turn 23 by September 16, so...

[NashvillePredatorsGM]

Gauthier dont belong to AHL, he will not play games.
I want to trade him but not in hurry.

So Gauthier will doesnt count in salary if he will be on ahl Full season?

[Bernyhawks]

Martin with your trading skills you can easily tweak your team to be cap compliant. Act like a champ!!

[Dallas Stars GM]

. Martin with your trading skills you can easily tweak your team to be cap compliant. Act like a champ!! :)

Yeah, sure. I know that I can be cap compliant but it will hurt me trade value wise etc. Thanks

[SharksGM]

So Gauthier will doesnt count in salary if he will be on ahl Full season?

20+ years old as of Sept. 16 = eligible for AHL
23+ years old as of Sept. 16 = eligible for waivers and counts towards cap in the AHL

[SharksGM]

One last thing - does anyone have any objection to randomizing the click number for 2015 picks, or at least the 95% of them that were set to 1? I'm pretty sure Pat said he would change them at some point, then never got around to it.

I'm still not 100% convinced that click does anything but hey.

[SharksGM]

I've added all of the proposed rules to the rulebook except this one, because I wasn't convinced that it's needed:

6. I'm considering making ELCs shorter for players who are signed after age 20, which is how the NHL does it. Otherwise, there will be an incentive to keep players unsigned for as long as possible, especially with future cheaper ELCs. I'm not sure that this is enough a problem to warrant making this change, though.

I'll consider revisiting suspension rules and buyouts after the draft. I think buyouts are one of the few places where there are unreasonable hard boundaries, so I'm thinking about replacing the percentage-based buyout cap penalty with cap savings that scale from 400k to some maximum, depending on the player's salary.

Lastly, I removed the part about UFA bids stepping up by 20k for the 600k-800k range. I think this just makes some bids take longer for little gain, as bids go from 600kx1 to 600kx2 to 620kx1... etc. Also, this is consistent with the cap calculator and the new ELC slots, both of which have 50k steps.

[SharksGM]

Alright, so I had a closer look at the cap calculator and tried to figure out something that was bothering me, which is essentially why Klim Kostin was coming in significantly cheaper than Nico Hischier (sorry Vik). It turns out that part of it is because PE rating goes into the modified overall rating, since players who take more penalties literally cause goals against. However, you've probably noticed that players with high hitting ratings actually don't take more penalties than usual - in fact, Kostin took fewer penalties than Hischier in more icetime despite a significantly lower PE rating (62 vs 83). Part of this is due to usage and tactics, but it's definitely generally true. Most of the non-fighter PIM leaders* are guys with low PE and low HI.

Anyway, my quick fix for this is to treat all skaters with 80+ HI as if they have a PE rating of at least 80. This means that there is no longer any discount for low-PE hitters. Sorry. Everyone else is unchanged.

*Unfortunately PIM totals include non-fighting majors and misconducts, so PIM - fighting PIM doesn't just give minor penalty totals.

[AvalancheGM]

Limiting pot boosters is bad. It particularly destroys the chance of the majority of double boosters working out. Rest is fine I guess.

[VancouverCanucksGM]

Limiting pot boosters is bad. It particularly destroys the chance of the majority of double boosters working out. Rest is fine I guess.

I would tend to agree on that as well. Although the double boost seems rare, it needs a chance to happen.

But, my argument is fueled from my luck with picking POT boosters .

[DetroitGM]

Even though I often pick them (and indeed, traded up to get one this draft), I actually like the pot boost limit. It adds some risk to the drafting process, which is somewhat devoid of it considering we know potential, consistency, and ceilings going in. I like that we're forced to decide between two players, balancing risk/reward, boosts vs reliable projections.

5* pot guys still can and do boost to 7* in one window - I ran 10 tests of the 2021 window for pot boosts in this draft, fifteen 6* and ten 5*. Of the 100 potential boosts for those ten 5* guys, there were 27 double-boosts and 48 single-boosts. So roughly 3/4 will get a boost, but only 1/4 will get a double boost. Personally I think that's good for the excitement of a draft and almost think we should have a higher proportion of the overall prospects available being potential boosts.

[Vik (Habs)]

Gonna move this here instead of muddying up Chris' signings thread.

Foote and Francis are considered 19 for next season (and, therefore, underagers). The new underage rules aren't clear to me so I'll leave it to Dan to clarify what you're allowed to do there but you definitely won't be allowed to send both down.

I was planning on allowing one 19-year-old this season only, in addition to the normal additional underager per year, which is now clarified in the rulebook. So yes, he could select both.

So can we choose a 19 year old in addition to prior year underagers? Because Chris had Guskov and Webber as underagers this season, both of whom are still only 19 (and, presumably, he has no interest in playing Webber on the Isles). Or could he send Webber back to juniors, use Guskov in New York, and pick two new underagers?

[SharksGM]

So can we choose a 19 year old in addition to prior year underagers? Because Chris had Guskov and Webber as underagers this season, both of whom are still only 19 (and, presumably, he has no interest in playing Webber on the Isles). Or could he send Webber back to juniors, use Guskov in New York, and pick two new underagers?

2019-20 underage status is irrelevant.

Every year, you'll get to pick one exempt underager. They keep their exempt status until they turn 20. It's up to you whether you want to pick an 18-year-old and get two seasons of exemption or take a 19-year-old instead.

This year only, you get to pick one 19-year-old, 2019 draftee as well. It doesn't matter whether they were exempt last season or not. The logic is that nobody knew about this rule last year and they might have chosen their underager(s) differently had they known that the change was coming.

[AvalancheGM]

Previous GM gave me almost nothing from the 2019 draft.

I guess Struble is that guy for me.