Results Released, Rovers React
Iqaluit, NU (CP)
RHL Commissioner Paul Myers released the detailed results of the much-anticipated RHL Owners Survey on Thursday. Contrary to the feelings of some that the RHL was headed down a road which would lead to its possible demise, the feeling among the large majority of franchise owners appears to be optimistic about the future of the league. Iqaluit Frozen Puck Weekly's own Nikki Siqiniq had a chance to sit down with Rovers owner and GM Steve Stringer on Sunday before he hosted Baffin Bowl, a Super Bowl party that was free to Rovers season ticket holders at the Igloo.
IFPW: Before we start, are you expecting a good turnout for Baffin Bowl?
SS: Yeah, we did this last year for the first time and had a blast, so we plan on it being an annual event. This year will be even better than the first.
IFPW: So the results of the owners survey came out on Thursday. What was your general reaction to the document?
SS: Frankly, I was both relieved and excited. First relieved because we've had a few guys floating the idea that there was significant unrest with the league, to the point that there could be a mass exodus among senior, influential owners. This was especially troubling a season after losing five long-time owners. However, I think the results are saying that most guys are pleased with the league overall, but are just looking for minor changes rather than a complete overhaul, or worst, a way out.
IFPW: One of the recommendations appears to be a return to a divisional format. You consider this to be a minor change?
SS: Well, really yes. I consider that to be less drastic than altering the way we fundamentally do business with respect to signing free agents or drafting young players. I was a proponent of the two-tiered league, as I believed that the concept of fighting to get to the top league and avoid relegation would be something that would keep all owners interested and on their toes. While I think it did have merit, and that some - perhaps many? - owners did like the idea and were buying in, I feel that it failed in its original intent, which was to increase overall league interest. I don't think it was successful in that; the guys that paid attention in the old format were generally those that seemed to buy into the new format, and those that were hanging on the old way didn't seem to perk up after the change. So, if it was an exercise in boosting interest, it's probably best to revert to the old style. But I still enjoyed the experiment, and do think that perhaps after three or four seasons it might have caught on in a more meaningful fashion.
IFPW: Do you have any feelings on what kind of re-alignment you'd like to see?
SS: Well, I believe we came into the league in the toughest division, the old Malone division. With the Vampyres, Funboys, Sockeyes, Bees, and Aviators, we had our hands full as a young team each and every night. I mean, in our first season five of the top seven teams in the conference were from our division. But we quickly developed rivalries, especially with the Vampyres and Bees. As an aside, I'm very pleased to see Victoria returning to the league. I'd like to maintain some of those rivalries, even if it would make for more difficult competition.
IFPW: Aside from re-alignment, what else caught your eye in the report?
SS: I'm a big proponent of the drafting process, so I think we have a chance to come up with some significant reforms to the draft and the prospect list to make them work better for all clubs. I believe that cheaper base salaries, longer J contracts, and cheaper minor-pro contracts would eventually take some of the upward pressure off the free-agent auction. If more teams can draft players and develop them into useful RHLers, not the marginal player that costs twice the league minimum, then more teams will be able to fill high-end talent slots from within and demand for free agents may weaken slightly. Now of course teams will always want to sign the best available talent, so the top guys will still get their money, but the pressure to sign the second and third line players for big money might relax a bit.
IFPW: Anything else?
SS: Well, I think the rules committee will have a few things on its plate in the coming weeks besides the draft and prospects. I'd like to see tweaks in the demand formula and also I think we could simplify the definition of RHL service years, but I think we're headed on the right track and can make the league even better with just a few small modifications rather than wholesale changes. There's a lot to be positive about today, and I'm very excited about the future of the league. I can't wait to lead the Rovers in the RHL15 playoffs, and then to RHL16 and beyond.
posted by Steve @ 10:13 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Let's face it; most of the guys that are destined to be stars get there within the timeframe we currently work under. However, a longer prospect period could help us to develop these complementary players for the middle lines from within rather than having to pay $1.8M-$2M for wingers like Korolyuk and Ulf Dahlen.
Now it will probably take a prospect cycle to fully see the results, so I'm not naive enough to think it will happen overnight, but eventually I think we could develop more guys and hence have to shell out less often to less than stellar UFAs.
Love the proposal of a longer development period and a lower base salary. In addition, I think the base for 'poor' draft years needs to be reduced big time. If that doesn't happen, the value of picks during those years will only decrease.
Take the top 10 selections of the last two 'poor' drafts (RHL12/14), half of them aren't playing at a high level in the NHL. Versus the last two good drafts (RHL11/13) where 7-8 are playing at a decent level in the NHL. But all of them command the same intro salary.
The difference between NHL and non-NHL draft years could also be addressed, but one thing to keep in mind is that we haven't yet seen the effect of tiering the first-round pay scale. That only started in RHL13, and only a few of the top draftees are rated thus far from that disk. The guys that were discounted in the late first and second round aren't yet rated for the most part. A guy like Bergeron on my team is perhaps an example of how the tiering may be enough, as he's rated and useable right now, but only has a base of 391 (second round). Any change like that takes a full prospect cycle to see the effect, and we still aren't through one cycle for the last change we made.
We could lower the bases again or not, but the key is longer development times, cheaper minor-pros, and doing something about non-NHL drafts.
A different approach would be have a system that more closely resembles the new CBA.
It could be as simple as giving every drafted player the same base salary. That nullifies the draft/non-draft year discrepancies.
When they become rated, they enter the league at X base salary. They could potentially earn more through a simple bonus structure. Say 40GP adds $X, top 5 in team scoring adds $X, or whatever.
The advantage of this approach is it gives teams the choice on how to developed a rated player, a young player's salary better reflects their worth to the team and it encourages development of talent from within (especially marginal talent that will never be a top-line player, but will fill out a roster).
So an Ovechkin in his rookie year who contributes would earn more than say a Matt Spiller who has played one game for me. The fact that I have to pay Spiller $600k to sit in the pressbox affects my desire to want to develop him.
This bonus structure could apply for the first few seasons, say 3-4. At the end of it, you'll have a stronger correlation between value and salary, which will reduce the situations where star players (Kovalchuk) are getting paid almost the same as everyone else.
Chris: Bonuses could effect the desired result, but at the cost of added complexity, a stated complaint in the survey.
Here's another thought; Keep the tiered salary in an NHL-year, but give everyone the league minimum base in a non-NHL year. The rationale is that players in a non-NHL year were already passed over once, and essentially were picked "behind" those in the final round of the draft in the previous season, and hence shouldn't make more than those final round players from the last draft. Now the minimum shifts from year to year, but that's not a major concern. Tiered in an NHL draft, all minimum in an non-NHL draft.. that could also work without involving added financial layers (either signing or performance bonuses).
This commentary should eventually be pasted onto the rules list to perhaps serve as a kick-starter for this discussion.
As you can tell, I don't mind added complexity--as long as it makes the system work better.
I just want some more control in developing players. Right now, the choices we have are pretty much limited to cut'em or keep'em. It would be great if we had some flexibity on how much they get paid depending on the role you chose to play them in.
Anyways, it'll make for interesting discussions as the league goes forward.
Chris: Great ideas, I love it. Unfortunately some of our fellow GMs are barely keeping their heads above water with the current finance rules. I think the complexity can come if the communication is made simplier. So you need a finance guy working out the details with a communications guy that'll spin it properly.
Steve: The leveling of salaries during non-draft years is a good idea. Like you said buddy's been passed over once already.
The one area where we could gain ground on is matching minor league salaries closer to the AHL. I think it's closer to 30%, most guys in the A I don't believe make more than $100K a year. Anyways 50% just seems high.
One last thing Bergeron was selected in the 3rd round (313 base) :), I had 5 chances to select him and didn't. Great scouting.
I think we need to assign salaries to prospects when they get rated, not before. Then, they should be assigned a salary based on their entry ratings into the game. That would keep most of the guys affordable, and it could be simple. I mean, players get signed to contracts based on what their 'numbers' were in juniors, Europe, scouting assessment, whatever. We can't do that, so to arbitrarily assign a salary based on draft position doesn't work, IMO. We should wait until we have the numbers to go on before a salary is assigned.
Richard, can you give me an example of a player like this? If you go by FB (clearly maybe not the best choice), players who have high scoring ratings in their first rate, still don't usually have very high FB's since it considers all categories.
I don't agree that all players should be given similar first contracts, as that is nowhere near being realistic.
Draft position salaries are pretty much a fact in pro-sports. Basketball have defined salaries that each pick can make, football tends to slot guys in behind one another (with some allowances made for the position the player plays), and hockey as well. I think we can come up with a system than is equally as simple as our current system (which would be a plus), but effects the desired change.
Simply lowering the percentage for paid prospects and adjusting the base rates (along with a longer J time) should be able to do what we want. I personally wouldn't mind exploring options with signing bonuses, performance bonuses, and the like, but from a league perspective I think that simple is almost as important as effective (key word is "almost"; the bottom line is it has to work well first and foremost).
Salary cap for NCAA footballers? They don't get paid, they're "amateurs" *wink, wink*. ;)
I think in all this talk we also need to avoid going too far to the other extreme. If prospects can stay on the list forever and then get paid peanuts when they get rated, then teams can fill up on them and then have mountains of cash with which they can pay the stars more money than ever, with the trickle-down that that would have on everyone else in the auction.
If we lengthen prospect times a bit, and reduce minor-league salaries a bit, and maybe fiddle with base salaries a bit, then I think we can get there. Like the survey says, I don't anything really needs a complete overhaul, just some mods.
BTW, it's probably time that we get this to the rules list.
Post a Comment
<< Home