Jump to content
zinnyzxx

Player Hoarding Absolutely Needs to Stop

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Promoting to the GHL is a difficult thing to do. 

Promoting and surviving your first season at this point is extremely difficult because the free agency is garbage. It's been garbage for many seasons now. Why is the FA trash? Because managers have entire team's worth of players just rotting away in the minors with no intention of bringing them up, or trading them. So then the very very few players available in the FA are bid on wildly getting double the salary that they ask for because the demand is so high. 

Whether the fix is creating an engine to make players refuse to sign with a manager known for player hoarding, or just putting a 6-8 player cap on the minors... Something needs done because this is embarrassing. 

Here's the proof. Harrow, Batchawana, Oshawa, and to a lesser extent - North Shore since most of those players are from his SHL club and just recently promoted - are prime examples. Think of the value these players could add to promoting teams. It's a s*** way to manage a team and screw over other managers. 

 

Screenshot_20210328-233859_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20210328-233723_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20210328-233511_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20210328-233428_Chrome.jpg

Edited by zinnyzxx
Accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the sentiment, but disagree with some of the reasoning.  This conversation had been had before and I think needs to continue until there is a fix.

I agree that hoarding is an issue.  Not one of the games main issues, but definitely an issue.  So how do we fix it?  I am not a fan of gentleman's agreements, so if the game allows it, it's not cheating.  Asking managers to drop players or trade players is asking them to help the competition and why would they do that?

My solutions would be:

1. Roster Limits.  There's no reason a GHL team needs more than 30 players.  I understand this can be tricky with promoting teams, but I don't see how any team would have a major issue with this if managed properly.  It would also force teams to make quality decisions on which players to start, put in the affiliate or drop.

2. Better contracts.  Right now contracts are way too low and allowing managers to sign players too cheap.  Cheaper players means more players (and/or a team of all 90+ overall players, which is probably an even bigger issue).

Until those two things are resolved, hoarding will happen - and again, it's not against the rules.

 

But I'm having trouble with why you called out the teams you did given that your roster is 37 players.

1. The Hawks only have 31 players.  I'm not sure why you guys hate on him so much.

2. North Shore has 40+, but like you stated, they just promoted as well.  They only have 2 players 90+ on their roster, so any ill will their way is just misguided.  The reason for the post is to help promoting teams, but they just promoted 3 seasons ago and did fine with a not so stacked roster.  That should be appreciated.

3. Oshawa and Batchawana are on their own.  Their rosters are high and stacked.   Bash that all you want.

Could the bigger issue possible be teams like the Hawks and Black Devils who both have 12 players 90+ overall on their roster??  Number of players aside, this would be a bigger reason why promoting teams don't have success.  At least IMO.

If you want to read prior discussions on this topic, you can view them here (they are from 3 years ago): 

 

 


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Paul T said:

My solutions would be:

 

1. Roster Limits.  There's no reason a GHL team needs more than 30 players.  I understand this can be tricky with promoting teams, but I don't see how any team would have a major issue with this if managed properly.  It would also force teams to make quality decisions on which players to start, put in the affiliate or drop.

2. Better contracts.  Right now contracts are way too low and allowing managers to sign players too cheap.  Cheaper players means more players (and/or a team of all 90+ overall players, which is probably an even bigger issue).

Until those two things are resolved, hoarding will happen - and again, it's not against the rules.

 

I can see a legitimate argument for 30 but not much more than that. The bigger thing that will go into fixing a lot in terms of player hoarding and a lack of FAs is having players demand more salary.

 

To give everyone a perspective on how easy it is to keep an absolutely stacked team together top players ask for around 6-7 million a season tops, unless they are greedy. The cap at the GHL level is 71.5. So top players are only asking for typically, at most, 10% of the cap available to a team. That means that teams can easily hold onto 6-7 of the top players in the league and still have enough room cap wise to fill the rest of their team with high end players. Those high end players playing more depth roles will, because they are playing depth roles, never ask for much more than depth role money even though they are players fully capable of playing top line roles in the league. Compare this to the NHL where top players get paid at least, with new contracts, 15% of the cap when you ignore the AAV adjustments due to back-diving contracts.

 

Crosby, when he signed his current deal, signed for 8.7 million against the cap, due to the contract being back-diving he was getting paid 12 million actual, when the cap was at 64.3 million. Cap wise he was getting paid 13.5% of the cap while salary wise he was getting paid 18.7% of the cap. It was rumored that Crosby was going to get 10 mil a season average against the cap. He would have if the last 3 seasons of his deal weren't 3 mil each. Either way, we can't back-dive contracts in this game so I am removing those 3 seasons from the discussion. Crosby demanded, and got, 18.7% of the cap.

 

The next big contract to look at is Malkin. He signed for 9.5 the next season when the cap was at 69 million. That is a cap hit of only 13.8%. Why was his lower? He took a "home team discount," partially forced by Crosby's contract the season prior and partially because Malkin didn't want a back diving contract. His cap hit should be higher as he is clearly the statistical outlier as I will show later.

 

The next big contracts were the duo of Kane and Toews. They both signed the exact same back-diving contracts of 10.5 aav and 13.8 actual when the cap was 71.4. Because we can't do back diving contracts the actual salary is what we are concerned with and 13.8 is 19.3% of the cap.

 

The next big contract to look at is McDavid's. AAV of 12.5 but a slight back-diving contract means that his actual early salary is 15 mil when the cap was at 79.5. That is 18.9% of the cap.

 

We are missing one massive contract example though. Ovechkin's 08-09 resigning. The AAV is just over 9.5 million but his contract was 13 years total with the first 6 being 9 mil a season and the last 7 being 10. So how do we calculate this one as it isn't back diving? It really won't matter as the cap was only 56.7 million that season. It is going to be 16.8% if you use the 9.5 something AAV or 17.6% if you use the 10 mil seasonal pay.

 

That is what NHL players are getting payed relative to what the cap is. The closest example we have to go by to our cap in the game is Kane and Toews. If we go by that and compare what top player demands are for us in game you will find that top players are asking for about half of what they should be percentage wise. Imagine McDavid getting paid around 7 million a season and how much that would help the Oilers cap wise. That is what is going on in our game at the moment as top players should be asking for about double what they are actually asking for at the moment. This doesn't mean that all players should be asking for about double what they currently are. However, players that fall just under the top rate players should easily be asking for 7-8 million rather than the ~5 million that they are asking for at the moment while 3-4 million players should be asking for 5-6 million.

 

Players asking for more appropriate salaries relative to their actual skill level, as well as relative to the cap, would go a long, long way into fixing both of the issues presented here. I'd even go so far as to say that a roster limit would be made redundant with the increased salary demands. Also note that I only think that player salary demands need to be adjusted at the GHL level. They seem fairly appropriate at every other level.

Edited by rainsilent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paul T said:

Agree with the sentiment, but disagree with some of the reasoning.  This conversation had been had before and I think needs to continue until there is a fix.

I agree that hoarding is an issue.  Not one of the games main issues, but definitely an issue.  So how do we fix it?  I am not a fan of gentleman's agreements, so if the game allows it, it's not cheating.  Asking managers to drop players or trade players is asking them to help the competition and why would they do that?

My solutions would be:

1. Roster Limits.  There's no reason a GHL team needs more than 30 players.  I understand this can be tricky with promoting teams, but I don't see how any team would have a major issue with this if managed properly.  It would also force teams to make quality decisions on which players to start, put in the affiliate or drop.

2. Better contracts.  Right now contracts are way too low and allowing managers to sign players too cheap.  Cheaper players means more players (and/or a team of all 90+ overall players, which is probably an even bigger issue).

Until those two things are resolved, hoarding will happen - and again, it's not against the rules.

 

But I'm having trouble with why you called out the teams you did given that your roster is 37 players.

 

 

How do you compare my team with the others I listed. Yes I have a decent amount of players in the minors but they're also BHL level players I just signed recently so my prospects would stop getting tired so quickly down there. I have 1 player that's 80 overall and the rest are just fodder that the FA is still full of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, zinnyzxx said:

How do you compare my team with the others I listed. Yes I have a decent amount of players in the minors but they're also BHL level players I just signed recently so my prospects would stop getting tired so quickly down there. I have 1 player that's 80 overall and the rest are just fodder that the FA is still full of. 

Well, because the topic was around "hoarding" players and not the quality of the player.  The original post made no mention of this.  My comparison was clear in that it compared the # of players on each team.  Rainsilent cleared that aspect up on discord and I went on to acknowledge how certain team's approaches are not ideal.  The conversations are still there.

But I also don't think it is up to those managers to make sure they aren't screwing other teams.  Just like it's not up to managers with stacked rosters to worry about other teams.  What they are doing is not against the rules - and if the players or prospects are on two way deals, then they can be put in the affiliate.  But I do think the game should put measures in place to limit that sort of thing.  100%.  Roster Limits + players getting frustrated easier + higher salary demand.

I also took the time to read it, give my opinions and offered some solutions to the problem.  Why not build on that if we want a true solution?

Edited by Paul T

*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"Lesser extent" embarrassing manager reporting. What is embarrassing is generalizing and blaming someone with speculative or nonexistant reasons.
 

Yes, I "hoarde" players for a full AAHL roster. Not for the idea of hoarding, not for the idea of ripping other managers though. If I have "no intention to trade them", that's something to be blamed? If I had, I'd get the blame for ripping other managers. My AAHL players are generally open for trades. And why are they in my AAHL roster in the first place? Because no SHL managers are offering them contracts. If they would, most players would choose one-way SHL contract over two-way GHL contract.

 

As for the reasons for my "hoarding". I like a full AAHL roster for mainly two reasons. 1) Having backup players and securing them gaining and maintaining perfect confidence by having good linemates and 2) Good full AAHL roster stats are fun.

 

And Like Paul T pointed out, much more pressing issue is the ridiculous salaries of top players combined with the fact you don't even need four lines or three pairs of D to be succesful. FA market is dead because you can have 90+ overall third liners because salaries are no issue and you don't even need a fourth line.

Priorities to fix:
1) The best thing should ALWAYS be having 18 skaters playing. No NHL team ever dresses less and even the lesser guys play a couple of minutes, Stanley Cup finals included.
2) Salaries UP UP UP making it necessary to choose who to have in your roster and not just pile up 90+ overalls any which way you can get them.
3) Roster limit would probably be a good idea too, if we're not supposed to have a full AAHL rosters for fun

Edited by Wendel Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Don't disagree with skater limit and salary increases.

But I think we are starting to veer off course. The intent of @zinnyzxx's original post was to highlight some examples of why teams promoting to GHL are currently f*cked when it comes to squad strength. Yes, the salaries are part of this, but there are two equally culpable elements:

1) Smart relegating managers trading away one-way assets ahead of time, preventing them from going to FA, and 2) Hoarding players. The former can't be fixed unless we do something with transfer windows. The latter - can. 

In the case of Fury above, the players aren't exactly GHL quality, and I have no problem with having a full AAHL-LEVEL team in the minors. Where I do completely support @zinnyzxx, is in the case of the other teams he mentioned, who have players in their minors who would walk into the top 6 of any recently promoted team. Yet, they are out of GHL rotation entirely, and the hoarding teams experience zero penalty, team confidence or otherwise, for keeping these players in AAHL - a league way below their level.

It would be less egregious if the managers in questions actually DID something with those players, but more likely than not, they just stay in the minors for a significant portion of their careers, and maybe a few eventually make their way out. This is damaging to the in-game economy. It's one of many elements that contribute to this damage, to be sure - not the only one - but it is the simplest to fix, in my opinion. So let's give @zinnyzxx some support and have Anders set a roster limit. 

Edited by AlexanderRasputin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, upon further reflection, I don't even fully agree with the opinion that increasing team salaries will affect hoarding. It will affect average team strength and the ability of managers to stack their teams, sure - but what does it matter when you can sign the same player on a two-way 2M contract (instead of, say, 1M), and still stick him in the minors, and be on the hook for only 200K?

A hard roster limit, in my opinion, is the only legitimate solution to this problem. Everything else won't have nearly as much of an impact. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexanderRasputin said:

Where I do completely support @zinnyzxx, is in the case of the other teams he mentioned, who have players in their minors who would walk into the top 6 of any recently promoted team. Yet, they are out of GHL rotation entirely, and the hoarding teams experience zero penalty, team confidence or otherwise, for keeping these players in AAHL - a league way below their level.

So let's give @zinnyzxx some support and have Anders set a roster limit. 

I am in agreement with this.  I think everyone who has responded so far is showing @zinnyzxx support and agrees with the issue by providing multiple solutions.  It's a topic that has been discussed for the past 3 years that I continue to discuss because I think it would greatly improve the game.  Luckily, in a recent chat with Anders, it seems like roster limits, as well as a few other things mentioned here, are on his "to-do" list.  So that's good.

But to dive in a bit - say the roster limit is set at 30.  That is not going to solve the issue, specifically with the Hawks.  Their roster is 31players, so they can just drop the 79 overall and move on.  All the rest are still in the affiliate.  Which is why I agree with @rainsilent that salary demands also need to come up in order to fully solve this.  The higher salary players ask for, the less players teams can sign (or they can still choose to sign many players, but their top talent won't be as good, and I'm fine with that strategy aspect).  Also, players turning 21 won't sign for as cheap or if they are 85+ overall maybe they shouldn't accept 2-way deals.  The reset started off great in this regard, but something was changed around S4 (S8 in buzzer), which made it too easy to sign players.  Right now, the salary demands of 21 year olds are just ridiculously low.  Even 88 overalls are signing SHL level deals, which is crazy.

So again, I think my solutions to the following issue are:

1. Roster limit.  30 seems reasonable to me.

2. Salary demands should be higher.  I don't know what the fix is here or if it can even be fixed at this point, but it would help to solve the "hoarding" issue. 

3. Players getting frustrated or unhappy easier - and having a greater impact on performance, if they don't already.


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/30/2021 at 4:02 PM, AlexanderRasputin said:

Also, upon further reflection, I don't even fully agree with the opinion that increasing team salaries will affect hoarding. It will affect average team strength and the ability of managers to stack their teams, sure - but what does it matter when you can sign the same player on a two-way 2M contract (instead of, say, 1M), and still stick him in the minors, and be on the hook for only 200K?

A hard roster limit, in my opinion, is the only legitimate solution to this problem. Everything else won't have nearly as much of an impact. 

Increased demands would include more 1 way contracts. As it is you can convince 87 overall players, and even higher if the player is green in greed, to take two way contracts and that is quite ridiculous. By 85 overall 1 way should pretty much be the enforced norm with players not willing to take a two way at all at that point. Getting player demands to be more in line with what they reasonably should be would really solve most of this. It would genuinely solve a good chunk of demoting teams trading players away too as there would be fewer teams with the cap space to trade for higher quality players. As I asked when the motion was put forth to increase the cap from 60 million so long ago; "What is the point of having a cap if it isn't forcing you to make difficult decisions on who to keep when you have a good team?"

 

Edit: Look at how trading in the NHL has really dried up over the past two seasons. Why? Because most teams are very close to the cap. As in most teams are within ~ 2 million of the cap. In the past most teams had anywhere from 5-10 million in cap space and there were a lot of trades.

 

One more thing I would like to point out in relation to players at 85 demanding 1 way contracts. Something you see when a player reaches 83 overall is the notion that they feel like they are too good for the affiliate. So why aren't they demanding 1 way contracts in negotiations then? Why are they accepting two way contracts on contract renewals?

Edited by rainsilent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create a GM profile or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create a GM profile

Sign up for a GM profile in our community. It's free & easy!

Create a GM profile

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...