I read Steven Brunt's column in the Globe this morning, about how the new salary-cap economics are being used by some teams, but no-one in management seems to have mastered the art of the calculator quite yet. That's where this thought is coming from.
My impression is that the FUNHL attempts to mimic the NHL to the greatest extent possible. (see: RFAs, waivers, IRs, and prospects.) Has there been any consideration of introducing a mimic of the salary-cap system to our entry draft?
My father's baseball pool uses a bidding system on each player. The league-fees for them are $20, so they all have a salary pool of 20$, with which to go after their 24 players. As each player is drafted, every team gets a chance to bid on them. Every player on the roster gets a salary of at least a dime, so it's possible to take yourself out of bidding early by reducing yourself to a dime for the remaining slots on your roster. (Nothing sadder than having 3$ left, and no outfielders and just 1 pitcher as I recall from the one draft I participated in.)
What might it look like in the FUNHL?
Trading for players then recieves an extra-dimension, as you begin to consider their worth not only for points but also their impact on your bottom line. Prospects, at a dime apiece for 5 years become wildly valuable. RFA contracts also become interesting, if, for example, I can renew Brindamour for another year at $0.60, or whatever he would have been drafted for, might make him much more valuable.
To accomodate WDs, and give Bob/Brian/Dan and the other monster-traders some flexibility, I'd suggest that the cap grow through the season. So, going into the ED your total salary cap might be $20.80 (including 8 prospects); after the ED through to WD1 total salary cap goes to 23$; after WD1 through to the end of the season you'd get a 25$ salary-cap.
Bidding on just waived-players means you'd have to match their contract in a WD. This would make WDs a chance to slough over-priced deadweight from your roster.
I suspect FPs would have to go. You want Brodeur, you bid for Brodeur; he's not magically in the same equivalent class as Jovanovski "just 'cause."
An immediate downside is that this makes the FUNHL very much a spreadsheet & number crunching league... that may not appeal to a lot of GMs. But, it does get that touch of realism.
Anyway, throwing it out there for thoughts... because I like my number-crunching and spreadsheets.
Richard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Richard,
I'm pretty sure most GMs would say this pool is fairly complicated right now and adding an extra layer to it at this point would be unnecessary and unwelcome.
We sort of already had our CBA/"cap" system put into place when we got rid of ED pick trading a few years ago. Essentially having 22rounds with no one able to have more than one pick in any round - this is our "cap".
The value of almost every player (FPs and prospects excluded) is set by the market of 12 GMs. Jason Spezza will be drafted high next year because he's deemed worth to be worth it by the GM who drafts him.
Like the NHL, having good young prospects can be a real boost to your team but it isn't determinative.
There are certainly pools out there that dispense with a draft and use a bidding process to apportion players but I don't see the advantage to changing our pool to emulate this.
One reason to have this change is that a salary cap is something real hockey GMs have to deal with, and that isn't reflected in our current system.
Another reason is that it eliminates the clunkiness that our current FP system generates allowing for more trades of the bigger players.
A third reason is that it more accurately generates a market value for each player than randomly putting them in a line up. Do you really feel that Sedin lived up to being the 2nd most valuable player overall this year? Including pre-drafted FPs, did he live up to being the 24th most valuable? I think Sedin's actual value would have been reflected in an auction; where I think he would have gone for less than Alfreddson. The current system is more random than any reflection of real value.
A fourth reason is that it gives GMs the flexibility to try prioritizing different positions for a different team. Someone who believes that the secret to the predator cup is drafting the two best goalies has a chance to put that strategy to the test, because they'll have a chance to bid on them, instead of watching them get eaten up by other GMs.
One - this is a pool. Real GMs have to deal with much that we don't have to, 'tis true. Not all of it needs to be reflected in a pool.
Two - are you going to actually argue that there were too few trades in our pool? Seriously? In fact, a financial cap would actually make trades harder, not easier, to consumate. Some may find that a good thing but Bob would be heartbroken.
Three - real life / pool life, GMs overpay for talent and occaisionally find gems in the rough. Good/lucky drafting is rewarded, bad/unlucky drafting is punished. It is the way of things.
Fourth - Prioritizing can and still does occur. I put a premium on defensemen - Cam does not. This year it looks like a good strategy, next year it may not.
1) "Just cause the NHL does it doesn't mean we have to." Well... yeah... but then there's all kinds of weird stuff we do (like a trade deadline) with no justification other than it's what they do in the NHL.
2) I'll absolutely argue that there's not enough trades; the FP system is brutally crippling to effective trades. Every team has to have two, they are determined in September, and can only be changed in September. There's no rhyme or reason to what position they hold, other than someone thought it was cool back when. An expanding salary cap through the year would grant enough liquidity that it's not hard to manage the trading, but it does have to be monitored.
3) NHL: Players--after they're done being prospects--go to whatever team gives them the best contract. It falls to GMs, under a salary cap to prioritize their needs, and offer to players accordingly.
FUNHL: Players--after they're done being prospects--go to whatever team happens to draw their name from a hat. How canny a GM is isn't really tested, because who you pick is limited only by who is available, not how other GMs happen to strategize.
4) Prioritizing can occur, but it's not really possible. You might like your Ds, but if I draft Gonchar before you, cause his name doesn't have an "e" in it... well, you're not getting Gonchar, your strategy be damned. An effective way to test how valuable Ds are is to let people bid for them.
Well rule proposals are entertained in the off season - make your pitch then.
Post a Comment