Aviator News

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

I confess!

I confess! I have no motivation to user Blogger anymore. Yesterday, as I tried to post an article, I kept getting an error message. No, the error message didn't say the article was too long (smartass). The error message just said that my submission didn't go through. So, I'm making the move official: Aviator News 2.0 will be effective immediately, and it will be hosted by WordPress. Please update accordingly: http://rhlaviators.wordpress.com/ And don't be freaked out by the guy looking at you from the title bar.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Moving? Blame (Credit) Daniel!

Has anybody checked Daniel's blog recently? He moved it from Blogger to WordPress, and I'm very tempted to do that same. I've always liked the WordPress blogs, but I didn't realize they were free. For a while, I've been tolerating Blogger, but it's been extending my loyalties a bit. I'm not thrilled with its sketchy reliability ... Yet I've been using Bloger for over a year. I have almost 500 posts here. Should I be constrained by this legacy? I think ... maybe, so for now Aviator News, 2.0 should be considered a test release, until I make a decision. I'm going to be posting content here until that decision is made. Credit to Daniel for making the leap.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Sneak Peak: RMHL Ratings; AHL

I'm going In the end, Oh, letting me know: The goal for NOTE: 500 Bell, Brendan CRY Wellwood, Kyle TME Colaiacovo, Carlo AVI Newbury, Kris THU Kondratiev, Maxim REA Moore, Dominic 500 Wiseman, Chad ROA Healey, Paul SOC Lampman, Bryce YDP Labarbera, Jason YDP Gaustad, Paul CAP Pominville, Jason THU Novotny, Jiri TME Paetsch, Nathan CAP Grebeshkov, Denis YDP Clarke, Noah ROV Lehoux, Yanick ROA Scoville, Darrell TME Leclaire, Pascal ROA Woywitka, Jeff CAP Lynch, Doug ROV Bishai, Mike ROA Bekar, Derek GAR Dubielewicz, Wade GAR Dicaire, Gerard SPE Bacashihua, Jason SPE Goc, Marcel SPE Zalesak, Miroslav THU Boyes, Brad ROV DiSalvatore, Jon GPS Stafford, Garrett 500 Murray, Doug VAM Schaefer, Nolan 500 Patzold, Dmitri VAM Pivko, Libor THU Gamache, Simon EAG Shishkanov, Timofei GPS Upshall, Scott EAG Budaj, Petr ROV Perrin, Eric VAM Craig, Ryan STR McCormick, Cody AVI Artukhin, Evgeni STR Niitymaki, Antero MOU Jones, Randy 500 Meyer, Freddy AVI Seidenberg, Denis MOU Wanvig, Kyle REA Roche, Travis 500 Foy, Matthew THU Schutte, Michael MOU MacDonald, Joey STR Leneveu, David SOC Westrum, Erik TME Podlesak, Martin EAG Vauclair, Julien SOC Laich, Brooks ROV Schubert, Christoph ROV Emery, Ray VAM Thomas, Tim 500 Jurcina, Milan ROA Samuelsson, Martin 500 Toivonen, Hannu GAR Fussey, Owen GPS Bryzgalov, Ilja DEF Aucoin, Keith THU Perreault, Joel SOC Popovic, Mark DEF Olson, Josh SPA Campbell, Gregory GPS Krajicek, Lukas DEF Lajeunesse, Simon SOC Krahn, Brent SPA Babchuk, Anton CAP Keith, Duncan AVI Kukkonen, Lasse ROV Barinka, Michal SPA Perezhogin, Alexander THU Plekanec, Tomas ROV Higgins, Christopher SOC Beauchemin, Francois AVI Ferland, Jonathan DEF Hemingway, Colin ROV Glumac, Mike THU McClement, Jay SPE Fast, Brad GAR Nolan, Brandon TME Reid, Brandon YDP Ouellet, Michel YDP Suglobov, Alexander SOC Demarchi, Matt AVI Foster, Kurtis ROV Lehtonen, Kari through today an finalizing the AHL ratings for the RMHL. This is really the folcrum of the whole project, as the AHL has players within the NHL ratings to whom I can compare ratings, and the AHL also shares performances, within a given season, with all the major junior leagues. So far, I'm happy with how the analysis turned out for most of the ratings, and today I'm going through and filling in those ratings where I couldn't write a program to estimate the value. the difference between a 2 and 3 in any category is secondary to just getting the job done and playing games, so I'm not spending a ton of time on any single rating. If you have input, just let me know. USE DAVID'S FORUM!!! Start a thread there in addition to commenting here. Take over David's forum with RMHL talk! this weekend is to finish the AHL ratings. Next weekend, I want to finish the rest. Done!!! With the AHL, that is.

TEAM PROSPECT NAME             POS RLG RTM        GP  G  A  PIM  DEFENSE FAT    SH/S+ SHOOTING    SSP 4PIC RPBF PN IN AS D   AHL St.John's  74  2  7  41   00022   17:00   7/3  46/20/15/18 332 0322 0000 6  6  10 F   AHL St.John's  78  6  13 3    20000   14:00  20/4  60/11/8/20  333 2110 0002 1  4  17 D   AHL St.John's  62  2  10 29   00022   19:00   6/3  50/17/13/19 333 0222 0000 2  18 16 F   AHL St.John's  74  1  6  88   12000   12:00   5/3  63/10/7/17  222 2320 0001 38 8  8 D   AHL St.John's  18  1  2  6    00033   18:00  11/4  48/17/13/22 333 0212 0000 5  64 11 F   AHL Hartford   72  4  10 35   22200   13:00  11/4  77/8/5/10   443 3320 0002 5  10 14 F   AHL Hartford   62  7  10 26   02000   15:00  20/4  61/11/8/20  333 3220 0000 5  18 16 F   AHL Hartford   69  4  6  33   00200   11:00  12/4  58/12/9/20  222 2320 0000 7  13 9 D   AHL Hartford   70  1  4  29   00033   17:00   8/3  46/19/14/20 342 0323 0000 14 12 6 G   AHL Hartford   65  .911  8/40/4/47 F   AHL Rochester  80  3  8  97   21100   12:00   7/4  59/11/9/20  222 3430 0003 23 2  14 F   AHL Rochester  68  10 11 17   00200   14:00  21/5  72/8/6/13   443 3210 0000 3  14 16 F   AHL Rochester  49  0  5  9    20000   12:00   0/3  56/13/10/20 332 3330 0004 3  33 10 D   AHL Rochester  55  1  2  28   00033   17:00  10/3  47/17/13/21 342 0212 0000 16 27 4 D   AHL Manchester 44  1  3  20   00022   17:00   5/3  41/21/16/22 342 0333 0010 10 38 7 F   AHL Manchester 73  7  10 14   02000   14:00  21/4  62/11/8/19  323 3110 0000 2  9  14 F   AHL Manchester 68  4  11 13   20000   14:00  16/4  69/10/7/14  333 2110 0002 2  14 16 D   AHL Syracuse   72  3  12 42   00022   20:00  10/4  66/11/8/13  223 0322 0000 15 10 17 G   AHL Syracuse   47  .897  10/35/4/50 D   AHL TorontoR   84  2  17 119  00022   20:00   5/3  54/17/12/16 323 0434 0000 26 0  20 D   AHL TorontoR   76  3  10 44   02233   18:00  11/4  67/11/8/12  332 2322 0000 10 6  13 F   AHL TorontoR   49  3  8  10   20000   15:00  15/4  70/9/7/13   323 3320 0002 5  33 16 F   AHL Bridgeport 78  7  4  33   02000   11:00  17/4  62/11/8/18  322 2320 0000 10 4  5 G   AHL Bridgeport 36  .928  8/46/3/41 D   AHL Utah       54  1  3  21   00022   17:00   4/3  41/21/16/22 332 0212 0000 10 28 6 G   AHL Utah       40  .898  10/35/4/50 F   AHL Cleveland  80  5  8  14   20000   12:00  12/4  76/8/6/10   342 2220 0003 4  2  10 F   AHL Cleveland  74  10 15 46   00100   15:00  23/5  68/9/6/15   443 2210 0000 12 8  20 F   AHL Cleveland  80  7  13 22   20200   15:00  20/4  61/11/8/19  333 3220 0004 3  2  16 F   AHL Cleveland  76  6  9  17   02200   13:00  15/4  61/12/8/18  222 4220 0000 5  6  12 D   AHL Cleveland  75  3  13 41   00022   20:00  11/4  50/16/12/21 333 0322 0000 5  7  17 D   AHL Cleveland  74  3  5  43   00022   16:00  14/4  47/18/14/20 222 0443 0000 8  8  7 G   AHL Cleveland  28  .907  8/39/4/48 G   AHL Cleveland  28  .897  10/35/4/50 F   AHL Milwaukee  67  3  8  29   03300   12:00  13/4  79/8/6/7    343 3220 0000 10 15 12 F   AHL Milwaukee  69  6  12 17   11100   15:00  21/4  62/11/8/19  343 2220 0001 2  13 18 F   AHL Milwaukee  65  7  8  26   02200   13:00  21/4  62/11/7/19  442 2220 0000 12 17 12 F   AHL Milwaukee  32  4  4  24   02200   13:00  24/5  65/10/7/17  333 4430 0000 17 50 13 G   AHL Hershey    47  .898  10/35/4/50 F   AHL Hershey    71  6  21 28   20000   15:00  16/4  69/10/7/14  323 3210 0002 4  11 30 F   AHL Hershey    63  1  3  14   33300   10:00   6/3  60/11/8/19  222 4320 0001 6  19 18 F   AHL Hershey    32  1  2  35   11100   10:00   6/3  60/11/8/19  211 3440 0001 16 49 6 F   AHL Hershey    37  1  1  64   01100   9:00   21/3  46/15/11/27 421 4550 1000 102 45 3 G   AHL Phil       50  .909  8/40/4/48 D   AHL Phil       56  2  9  36   00022   20:00  10/3  47/17/13/22 333 0222 0000 18 26 18 D   AHL Phil       60  4  5  29   00022   18:00  21/4  53/15/12/19 332 0223 0000 10 22 8 D   AHL Phil       34  2  5  18   00022   19:00   8/4  47/17/13/21 333 0212 0000 9  48 15 F   AHL Houston    74  7  6  85   00200   14:00  23/4  57/12/8/22  212 3330 0000 15 8  8 D   AHL Houston    62  2  11 10   00022   20:00   9/3  47/17/13/22 333 0212 0000 6  20 18 F   AHL Houston    52  3  5  43   02200   13:00  19/4  53/13/9/24  222 3320 0000 13 30 10 D   AHL Houston    49  2  1  18   00022   17:00  11/4  50/17/13/20 211 0211 0000 2  33 2 G   AHL G. Rapids  39  .917  8/44/3/44 G   AHL Springfld  39  .899  9/36/4/50 F   AHL Springfld  57  4  7  52   21100   13:00  10/4  59/12/9/19  212 4330 0003 18 25 12 F   AHL Springfld  58  1  3  12   20000   10:00   7/3  59/11/9/20  332 3210 0002 4  24 7 D   AHL Binghamton 80  3  11 22   00022   20:00   8/4  47/17/13/21 333 0211 0000 5  2  16 F   AHL Binghamton 66  4  8  30   22200   14:00  22/4  61/12/8/19  223 4330 1000 10 14 12 D   AHL Binghamton 70  1  4  40   00022   18:00   3/3  40/21/16/22 322 0322 0000 8  12 6 G   AHL Binghamton 54  .904  8/38/4/49 G   AHL Providence 44  .922  8/45/3/43 D   AHL Providence 75  1  5  30   00022   18:00   8/3  46/20/15/18 332 0320 0000 5  7  6 F   AHL Providence 57  0  3  9    03300   10:00   0/3  56/13/10/20 432 4220 0000 4  25 5 G   AHL Providence 37  .903  9/37/4/49 F   AHL Portland   71  2  3  13   02200   10:00   9/3  59/11/8/20  232 4430 0000 3  11 4 G   AHL Cincinnati 66  .901  9/36/4/50 F   AHL Cincinnati 82  5  11 37   11100   14:00  16/4  64/11/8/16  322 2220 0002 10 0  14 F   AHL Cincinnati 67  4  5  22   20000   12:00  15/4  64/11/8/16  332 2110 0002 6  15 8 D   AHL Cincinnati 74  1  4  36   00022   18:00   6/3  46/20/15/18 342 0223 0000 8  8  5 F   AHL S. Antonio 75  6  6  19   02000   11:00  19/4  64/11/8/17  112 1350 0000 3  7  8 F   AHL S. Antonio 78  4  6  42   12200   10:00  14/4  65/11/8/15  332 3320 0001 9  4  10 F   AHL S. Antonio 55  1  5  14   00022   19:00   9/3  48/18/13/20 342 0212 0000 4  27 8 G   AHL S. Antonio 8   .859  12/31/4/59 G   AHL S. Antonio 22  .876  11/28/3/58 D   AHL Norfolk    73  2  5  51   00033   18:00   6/3  46/20/15/19 222 0444 0010 16 9  7 D   AHL Norfolk    77  2  7  25   00022   19:00   8/3  47/20/14/19 322 0211 0000 6  5  10 D   AHL Norfolk    60  1  4  33   00022   18:00   5/3  41/21/26/22 332 0333 0000 12 22 7 D   AHL Norfolk    41  1  1  46   00022   16:00  12/3  48/17/13/21 332 0333 0000 17 41 2 F   AHL Hamilton   77  7  10 30   02200   13:00  16/4  68/10/7/14  443 3320 0000 5  3  11 F   AHL Hamilton   76  7  16 52   22000   14:00  16/4  68/10/7/14  443 3220 0002 14 6  22 F   AHL Hamilton   67  6  10 10   22200   14:00  16/4  68/10/7/14  433 3210 0003 2  15 15 D   AHL Hamilton   79  3  10 33   00022   19:00   5/4  66/13/10/11 333 0222 0000 9  3  13 F   AHL Hamilton   70  1  4  25   00200   11:00   7/3  55/12/9/23  212 1210 0000 10 12 6 F   AHL Worcester  13  1  0  6    00200   10:00  16/4  68/10/7/15  221 2210 0000 14 69 0 F   AHL Worcester  82  8  9  43   00300   13:00  19/4  62/11/7/18  222 3320 0000 6  0  12 F   AHL Worcester  71  3  5  12   30000   11:00  19/4  59/11/8/21  342 3220 0004 2  11 7 D   AHL Lowell     79  3  10 20   00022   20:00  11/4  62/12/9/17  333 0211 0000 4  1  13 F   AHL Manitoba   48  2  4  10   22000   11:00  18/4  65/11/8/15  322 2220 0002 4  33 8 F   AHL Manitoba   73  5  15 11   20200   15:00  16/4  67/10/7/15  443 4220 0002 2  7  22 F   AHL Wilkes BS  81  8  7  20   00100   13:00  22/4  63/11/7/17  332 2110 0000 2  1  9 F   AHL Albany     36  3  5  31   00200   14:00  24/4  61/11/7/20  332 3330 0000 24 46 14 D   AHL Albany     52  1  4  45   00022   19:00   7/3  46/20/15/18 222 0443 0000 22 30 8 D   AHL Chicago    69  3  7  55   00022   18:00   9/4  62/12/9/17  223 0222 0000 17 13 10 G   AHL Chicago    40  .912  8/40/4/47

Friday, August 25, 2006

New Venue: RHL Forums

David Bailey has stepped up and provided the RHL Community by providing a message board/forum environment for the league. For more information, check out the Freeze Blog: http://freeze.baileyweb.ca/ Or, you can go directly to the forums via the link to the right (in red) or by clicking below: http://rhl.baileyweb.ca/forum/index.php If you go diectly there, this note from David's post might be important, regarding site registration: The forum-only site registration requires the administrator (me) to authorize your registration, so there’ll be a time delay before you can actually post. If you register, please use the format of TeamAbbreviation_Firstname eg: FRE_David. If you think this kind of functionality will be useful in the league, please try to support David's effort, especially early in the process. I am very excited about having this kind of place to interact with people.

Aviator Prospect Report

An organization which was dry of prospect resources one season ago has pushed itself the to middle of the pack, and while San Diego may lack the elite prospects other systems can brag of, the Aviators have a number of players on track to become contributors within 5-6 RHL seasons. Rank. Player Name, Pos., Age 1. Dustin Brown, RW, 21 2. Enver Lisin, RW, 20 3. Kurtis Foster, D, 24 4. Bruno Gervais, D, 21 5. Nigel Dawes, LW, 21 6. Stefan Ruzicka, RW, 21 7. Patrick Sharp, C, 25 8. James Wisniewski, D, 22 9. Dennis Seidenberg, D, 25 10. Lasse Kukkonen, D, 25 11. Ivan Khomutov, C, 21 12. Kevin Nastiuk, G, 21 13. Jason Ryznar, LW, 23 14. Kris Newbury, W, 24 15. Tyler Plante, G, 19 16. Evgeny Artyukhin, W, 23 17. Jonathan Ferland, RW, 23 18. Viktor Alexandrov, RW, 20 19. Mike Brodeur, G, 23 Dustin Brown Right Wing 21 years old Expected Arrival: RHL19 Projection: 2nd line forward Dustin has been consistently good throughout his major junior and minor league careers - good enough to always been considered a legitimate prospect. Yet, he has always been just under the level of an elite prospect, neither performing in a truly dominant manner nor exhibiting the raw skills which would lead you to believe him capable of dominating in the future. Despite these things, Brown has shown he is about ready to contribute, already making his way through many of the hurdles that have tripped up greater prospects. How the Aviators utilize him over the next few seasons will be telling as far as his development. Enver Lisin Right Wing 20 years old Expected Arrival: RHL20 Projection: 2nd line forward Enver has spent his last two seasons fighting for ice time on a loaded Kazan team in Russia. Despite its veteran-laden roster, the Ak-Bars could not keep Lisin out of the lineup as the speedy wing put up 7 goals and 5 assists in 43 games. Lisin has already committed to coming over to North America to play in the RMHL during RHL16, hoping to compete for a roster spot in San Diego within two seasons. Kurtis Foster Defenseman 24 years old Expected Arrival: RHL17 Projction: Top 4 defenseman Nobody doubts Kurtis's ability offensively. He will be able to man a spot with Mathieu Schneider on the Aviator power play for seasons to come. Doubts come in to play when considering his defensive ability. He has not developed as a skater, and his instincts in his own end lead to too many opportunities for opponents which could otherwise be stopped. To become a player who can man the top two pairs on a good team, Foster will need to improve enough to justify the role. Else, he will be a specialist. Bruno Gervais Defenseman 21 years old Expected Arrival: RHL18 Projection: Top 4 defenseman Gervais has never been highly regarded by scouts, but when the puck is dropped he always finds a way to distinguish himself amongst his peers. At every level he has both been underrated by scouting services but acknowledged through playing time and results as a viable prospect. Acquired in mid-season of RHL15, Gervais immediately impressed himself upon the Aviator staff as a player who has a strong future with the team. Do not expect this organization to undervalue his contributions. Nigel Dawes Left Wing 21 years old Expected Arrival: RHL20 Projection: 2nd line forward A truly gifted player who is a threat to create an opportunity on every shift, the questions surrounding the diminutive Dawes is whether he can adapt to the physicality and style-of-play at a higher level. His first year out of major junior will be spent in Las Vegas giving himself and his new team an idea as to whether the success he's had will continue as his career progresses. If he can, the Aviators could have more than your typical second line winger. Stefan Ruzicka Right Wing 21 years old Expected Arrival: RHL20 Projection: 2nd line forward Ruzicka possesses and shows the skill set you expect from an elite prospect, but his infrequent application of those skills forces us to wonder what his ceiling is. Truly elite prospects dominate at the lowest levels of development, and although Ruzicka has always caught the eyes of scouts and coaches, he's never put up a stand-out season. Hopefully a change of atmosphere and organization will shake something loose, and Ruzicka could be a valuable contributor to future Aviator teams. Patrick Sharp Center 25 years old Expected Arrival: RHL17 Projection: Third line forward Sharp has always been a good player, no matter the level. Although his potential is limited, we should expect him to also be a good player in the RHL. And really, he's already at that level, being kept in Las Vegas based on Aviator whim, not need for development. While many prospect rankings overlook the accomplishment inherent in being a third line forward, we should remember how difficult it is to climb each rung of the development ladder. That Sharp has reached the apex of his professional journey makes him a significant prospect. James Wisniewski Defenseman 22 years old Expected Arrival: RHL18 Projection: Top 6 defenseman Similar to Gervais though one year older, Wisniewski has always been acknowledges by coaches and awards but not by scouts. The same process is happening within the Aviator organization where, despite drafting him, the scouting department has failed to advocate the virtues Wisniewski brings to a team. Those virtues are a surprisingly solid all-around game and a high degree of adaptability. Now that the Aviators have signed him to a new deal, expect the organization to take notice of their up-and-coming defenseman. Dennis Seidenberg Defenseman 25 years old Expected Arrival: RHl18 Projection: Top 6 defenseman Seidenberg has been a long time coming, but it looks as if he's becoming a viable candidate to compete for an Aviator job over the next two to three seasons. The Aviators would like to see him take one more step forward before bringing him up for good, which means he has one or two seasons in the RMHL ahead of him. How Dennis responds to this will determine what role he has in San Diego's future. Lasse Kukkonen Defenseman 25 years old Expected Arrival: RHL18 Projection: Top 6 defenseman This Finnish national has engaged in a prolonged flirtation with North American hockey that seems destined to last a few more seasons. One of the better offensive threats from the blue line in Finland, the Aviators can expect a nice addition to the defenseman depth should Kukkonen decide to join their team. It won't happen in RHL16, the Aviators have already been told. But the fact that they were told anything shows Kukkonen is considering hopping the pond. Ivan Khomutov Center 21 years old Expected Arrival: RHL22 Projection: 4th line forward Can you call somebody who does everything decently but nothing well an all-around player? That's what the Aviators appear to have with Khomutov. He does everything you want a center to do, but he stands out in none of those areas. He's a player bound to fit in on a fourth line at some point in the organization's future, but he's yet to show that his potential is more than a space-filler. Kevin Nastiuk Goalie 21 years old Expected Arrival: RHL22 Projection: Back-up goaltender A player that has shown improvement in each season, Nastiuk has slowly put himself on the Aviator radar. In an organization down on the idea of goaltending prospects, the mere fact that General Manager Richard Farley is willing to common on him is an accomplishment for the young netminder. "Who?" Farley optimistically says about Nastiuk. Who indeed. Jason Ryznar Left Wing 23 years old Expected Arrival: RHL18 Projection: Checking forward When a forward has enough skills to make it to the RHL but lack the ability to ever be an average offensive player, he deserves a special label: fungible. While we can all admire the contributions players like Kirk Maltby, Mike Keane, and Claude LaPointe have made throughout their careers, they aren't the players in whom lore is founded. They are often indispensable parts of championship teams, but they are also readily available in trades and free agency. And nobody should draft something they can get on the open market. Kris Newbury 24 years old Right/Left Wing Expected Arrival: RHL18 Projection: Journeyman Newbury has shown some scoring touch in the last few seasons, but as that's been as much of a product of his acclimation to leagues as his raw skillset, Newbury's going to have to get by on those things which have always come naturally: hard work, the willingness to be physical. To that end, his upside is limited. He might explode for a 12-14 goal season in his eighth of ninth year, but that will be the high point of an otherwise pedestrian career. We might be looking at one of the first RMHL veterans in Newbury. Evgeny Artyukhin Left/Right Wing 23 years old Expected Arrival: RHL17 Projection: Journeyman At 6'4", 254 pounds, this Russian bear is on the ice to punish opponents. Beyond this, it's unclear what he brings to a team. Still young, Evgeny has a chance to develop into a productive role player for the Aviators. But unless he adds some more dimensions to his game, odds are he'll be contributing to the Pilots rather than the Aviators. Tyler Plante Goalie 19 years old Expected Arrival: RHL23 Projection: Back-up goaltender Recently acquired in the Kyle McLaren trade, Tyler is still too far away from the RHL to reasonably project. That he has performed will in major junior play says only that he hasn't precluded the possibility of an RHL career. For goaltenders, the road is long an filled with an unreal amount of competition. It's far to see to say whether Tyler will see an RHL game. Jonathan Ferland Right Wing 23 years old Expected Arrival: None Projection: Journeyman Ferland has more potential to flame out than anybody on this prospect list, but if he does hit he's likely to score some goals. He's not making the RHL as a "complete" player. Well, he's probably not making the RHL at all. But if he does, it will be because he finally developed enough of an all-around game to justify giving him more than the paltry ice-time he's gotten over the last few seasons. But it's doubtful he deserves it. Viktor Alexandrov Right Wing 20 years old Expected Arrival: None Projection: "I always said we should have gotten him into that Bloomingdales' executive training program!" Viktor took a step back in Russia during RHL15, regressing from his performance of the previous season. Unlike Enver Lisin, Alexandrov has not had to fight hard for playing time, making his inconsistent and disappointing results more telling. Unless he takes an unexpected step forward in development, Alexandrov will not see an M contract. Mike Brodeur Goalie 23 years old Expected Arrival: None Projection: Will be busy during intermissions If you said that Brodeur's development has stunted you'd be erroneously acknowledging preceding development that never existed. Mike Brodeur looks like a prospect who's always been behind somebody or something, but there has been insufficient upward movement in his career to label him a prospect. Something could click and he could into a valuable RHL commodity. But that seems unlikely, at this point.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Let's Take a Step Back

Tonight's article is going to attempt to be a catharsis. There are some apologies, a lot of self-deprication, and (of course) some finger pointing. But the finger pointing (tonight) is designed around a theme: taking a step back, back away from those things we may be dwelling on. But before that, let's get to the bullet points:

You may have seen Andy and Brad came up with a deal. I'd like to congratulate them both and thank them for working through it. It was tough for both owners, as AVI had a terrible roster while MOU was put in a bad position of being forced to deal. Cudos to both of them.
Steve Stringer is reporting that Sandis Ozolinsh has found a new home. That's another mark on the ledger for Steve in the Francis race, as he just made that Pronger deal look better.
We are on schedule for RMHL ratings, with a good deal of work done this weekend. Remember: Since we are using 2003-04 NHL ratings, I will be making a rating set based on 2003-04 prospect data.
Finally, a reminder about the Hall of Fame. With preseason winding down, the Board of Regents will be winding up. Send any Hall of Fame thoughts to rhlhalloffame@gmail.com. To answer a question I get sometimes: Yes, I'm working on the web content.
Only 12 more days on the job for me! Then, new life starts.

And now to your Feature Presentation ("Silence is Golden"):

Let's all just take a step back for a minute. I say that to me. I say that to my team. I say that to the league as a whole. Now that a particularly volatile period of free agency is over, perhaps we should put some things into perspective. Finances First, finances. There are (at least) three teams who are playing roulette with their finances, according to an email Paul sent out earlier this week. These teams are defined as those having payrolls which exceed the amount of RHL16 revenue they can expect to take-in plus their bank balance. There had been some talk during the off-season of capping the amount a team could bid in auction, bringing in some FHL rules to help make sure people aren't gratuitously overspending. But I think we should just take a step back and give teams the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps teams plan on cutting players, or maybe they're confident in their ability to trade away payroll. Regardless, part of the point of this league is to see who's better at managing the constraints that payrolls and revenue place on a franchise. Take away some of the means by which to fail and you're taking away one of the means by which owners distinguish themselves. If people have differing strategies for managing this, so be it. We should embrace the diversity, because this would be a very boring league if the rules forced us all to act too similarly. With the bankruptcy rules in place, teams should have a sufficient deterrent to overspending. If those rules are applied correctly, nobody can get away with overspending for too long. I spoke of giving teams room to fail, and you can reverse that and see the view as giving teams the ability to better themselves relative to other teams. After all, if one team is allowed to fail then there has to be one (or more) relative beneficiaries. I would caution against this kind of logical reversal, as I am against people purposely exploiting other owners. Out-draft somebody? Fine. Pick the right free agent? Cool. Use an owner as a well of assets for your team? Not so cool. But let's not think about this. I'd rather we all just take a step back and give these teams the benefit of the doubt. For now. Bidding Secondly, bidding. I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to reading too much into what people's bids in free agency. I'm sure subscribers to this blog can recall me picking out Brad, though he wasn't the only person with those bidding patterns. I need to admit that no matter how much I tried to qualify the behaviors I described, they still came off as me calling Brad out. But let's take a step back for a minute. Rather than point out (again) that Brad has done nothing either unethical or illegal, let's approach this from a different tact - a tact which I fully embrace (at this moment): In lieu of any firm evidence to the contrary, shouldn't we give owners the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're acting in good faith? It makes for a much easier RHL life if we can stop thinking about people ninja'ing players. When I brought up Brad's name in the eight rules article, it started as a joke. When I pointed out his Sanderson bid, the joke was coupled with evidence, but it was still delivered with some flippancy. But when I brought some of those emotions into the article of this weekend (summarizing San Diego's second week of free agency), I failed to sufficiently delineate between isues. Those failures created an undercurrent of acrimony that I'm not happy with. For that, I apologize to Brad and the readers of this blog. Taking a step back, my intentions fell victim to my zealousness. This overzealousness became apparent this weekend, as Brad and Andy started to get closer to a deal. Ultimately, the problem between to two sides seemed to be one of perception. San Diego's perception was that Brad was focused on Cole. His perception seemed to be that we were focused on Walz, who he didn't want. Once Cole was out of the way and the conversation shifted from Walz, the discussions were (relatively) painless. So my article this weekend was not only laced with an unhealthy disregard for the fact that Brad was losing a valued player, but it was also written in the middle of a mutual miscommunication. Had I taken a step back and given Brad the benefit of the doubt, the malice that seeps through that article could have been left out. But in the wake of that article and some criticism derived from it, let me reiterate something: I find it hurtful, the insinuation that San Diego bids on players to drive up prices. The Aviators have a long (and unfortunately) notorious history of bidding on restricted free agents, so long that it seems less price fixing and more a continued strategy of roster building. In light of this, I find it a stretch to read the article I wrote this weekend and conclude San Diego was attempted to merely drive the price on a player. Just because we were surprised that Brad elected not to match does not mean that we never wanted Drury to begin with. I honestly don't even know how to get to that conclusion from the article that was posted. I say this already having emailed Daniel personally on the matter. I recommend you read his articles, but I also feel the need to say my piece. Again. People who have been in other simulation leagues with me might know that Chris Drury is somewhat of a personal hero of mine. He is one year older than me, and when I was eleven years old and about to start my final year of Little League baseball, he was leading a team from Trumbull, Conencticut to a win over a Chinese Taipei team that had won the Little League World Series title every season of my memory and was notorious for stacking their team with overage, out-of-region players. For a kid whose life was baseball, Chris Drury was part of my folklore long before he was winning Bean Pots or Stanley Cups. That we bid on him in restricted free agency was not influenced by this childhood memory, but this childhood memory pretty much precludes any possibility that I would be anything but ecstatic to put " Drury " in my line form. He's the fourth restricted free agent I've ever gotten (Primeau, LaFlamme, Weekes) but the most cherished. Restricted Free Agency And that brings us to the third issue of the night: Restricted free agency. After our experience with the Drury negotiations and what Daniel wrote about the Langkow bid I placed five seasons ago, I started thinking that restricted free agency needs to be eliminated from the league. The conclusion was derived from the apparent inability of owners to deal with my bidding on restricted free agents. Daniel didn't talk to me for a year, and the Mountie negotiations were difficult. Wasn't this evidence enough that the system's negatives were excessive? Not nearly, and after thinking about it, I've again become an advocate of the defined compensation model, previously discussed. Looking at the Langkow and Drury situations finds the problems with owners, rather than the system. With Langkow, there appears to be some feeling of entitlement to not only have the rights to the player but to also to the rights to have the player cheaply. And I shouldn't single out Langkow and the Bees in this critique. It's my opinion that most owners view restricted free agency as a formality, rather than a stage in the negotiation of a contract. The idea of restricted free agency as a formality engenders the view of the player to a team cheaply. But if this is the point of restricted free agency, why have it at all? Clearly, this is not the point. Restricted free agency isn't the problem. Our attitudes towards it are. Daniel's critique brings up the idea that bidding on a restricted free agent requires the bidding team to consider the personal expense - a potential severed relationship. How has any owner gotten to the point where they take restricted free agency so personally? We need to take a step back. Restricted free agency has been in the rule book, in this same form, for a long time. Nowhere in that ruleset is there anything defining a particular entitlement on the part of the owning team that would give them just cause to feel personally slighted by a restricted free agency bid. And if this would be the motivation for scrapping the system, it's a faulty motivation based on an emotion that should not exist. This is why in the last two days I've shifted from an abolitionist to an advocate. Restricted free agency should stay in place for realism's sake (NHL has it, as do most leagues in some form) and as a means to add depth to our financial model. The only problem I see with restricted free agency is the nebulous nature of the current compensation model. When somebody can look at Erik Cole and Chris Drury and think the former is fair compensation for the latter, it shows a willingness to wrong the owner of Cole. Cole's contract is such that his value, as a commodity, is much more than Drury's. Again, I don't blame Brad for asking for Cole or trying to steer the negotiations in this direction. But if an arbitrator awarded Cole to Kitchener for Drury, that arbitrator would be dismissing a fundamental fact of the league: Cheap contracts are the lifeblood of a team. They enable you to do things like overpay for Chris Pronger and Shane Doan. Without cheap contracts, you end up in a state of constant financial crisis which leagues to having to blow up the whole operation. The Reapers are going down this road right now. Recognizing the value of these contracts, it would be impossible to award Erik Cole for Chris Drury, given how similar their output would be. Cole is clearly the superior commodity. Alas, San Diego recognized that some owners would not agree with this view and traded Cole. This has been called a "panic" move, but trading Cole to Mark was always part of the plan. Even before bidding on Drury, there was a conscious "and if this happens, we start talks with Mark" line of reasoning. Given the return we got for Cole, it's hard to see the deal as a dump of Erik; rather, we traded present for future. We need to take a step back, look at restricted free agency, and address this compensation problem, because no team deserves to be wronged in arbitration. The specter of being wronged by an ill-defined arbitration process is restricting bids on free agents (which in turn affect our demand system). Once we define a firm compensation schedule (like the NHL has), teams will be able to factor this in to their demand decisions, their decisions to match bids, and the decisions to let players go. The compensation paradigm shifts from a nebulous "fair", arbitration paradigm to a firm target around which people can plan with some sense of objectivity. What's more, we can start to move away from the idea of restricted free agents being specially entitled to teams, as with a firm schedule of compensation bids should come with less of a "and he's trying to give me this" quality to them. This One's For Me The fourth issue we need to "step back" on has nothing to do with you (the reader, the RHL community). As with most things I think about, this issue is all about me. I need to take a step back from taking myself so seriously. An embodiment of this was my reaction to Daniel's blog posts. I've provided somewhat of a rebuttal here, but why do I feel the need to do this? Can't his words and my words speak for themselves without me having to directly reference them? For example, I told Daniel I had an issue with the way he used a quote in this piece. While I firmly disagree with that representation, why can't I just rely on readers to discern these problems on their own? We all know Daniel to be a good, sensible man. Why can't I let his words be merely a point-in-time statement of feeling? I need to take a step back and realize that Daniel's views are fine. They're just content in our RHL universe. At first, I was like "Oh man, Daniel's really ripping me." But so what if he is? Within our RHL universe, what's wrong with some criticism? This is clearly something I need to grasp, and I need to improve upon not taking myself so seriously. Else, I open myself up to the criticize of hypocrisy, in light of the typical Aviator News content. To that end, I'd like to suggest a contest, for all those in our blog community. I challenge each of you to provide on article on your blog which either parodies or criticizes the Aviators or me (please, leave Andy out of it). I will announce the winner at this time next week. Your goal is to be as merciless as possible. As a prize, I will feature the article in a permanent link on this blog and (as graciously as possible) post a note to the main list advertising your work. Clearly, I need to be taken down a few notches, and I can't think of a better way to take a step back and do that. Find the Fun The final point I'd like to make, keeping with the theme of taking a step back, is a plea for fun. Free agency is not the most enjoyable time of the RHL season. It is necessarily filled with highs and lows, expectations and implicit denunciations. Now that we're through that point in the process, I want to encourage all of us to take a step back and identify the fun parts of the league, actively embrace those things, and move on from free agency. For me, the fun parts of the league are working with Andy, competing with the Aviators, forming relationships with you all, writing these blogs, and developing my special RHL projects. Trading isn't on that list, so I don't do that anymore. Maybe next year I'll let Andy handle free agency, too. But for now, let's all take a step back and have some fun. With that, I'm off to work on the RMHL rating set!

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Week 2 of Aviator Free Agency: The Storm After the Calm

Saturday morning in La Jolla is a beautiful thing. The signature grey shoreline skies give you a timelessness, a placelessness that's the perfect tonic to the five day work week's passed. When the marine layer breaks two hours from now and the postcard clear skies bring me back to the world, I'll start looking forward to tomorrow morning when I can be back here, without place and time: the La Jolla morning I can never believe exists. Today I'll use my morning to reflect on the week that was for the Aviators, the second week of free agency. If you've followed the transactions and signings you've seen Week 2 of the Aviator free agent period was as active and exciting and the first week was mundane and pedestrian. More on that below. First, the typical quick hits.

The response to the RMHL starting has been more than I anticipated. Half of the league's general manager positions are already filled:

Team	Conference	General Manager
Atlanta Dogwoods	Southeast	Mark Benvenga
Charlotte Coastal Cats	Southeast	Howard Wong
Colorado Springs Cadets	Mountain	Jun Kokaji
Henderson Dammers	Mountain	Chris Bourdeau
Las Vegas Pilots	Mountain	Richard Farley
Tampa Bay Manatees	Southeast	Steve Stringer

For more RMHL-related content, I highly recommend the following:

Rovers Announce Affiliation Agreement - this team is loaded.
Eagles roll dice on new minor league team - The Mountain conference favorites.
Rocky Mountain High - the benefits of training at altitude?
Baby Penetrators Head to Charlotte - Goalies and D-men OK ... Forwards? Not so much.

General managers interested in running other teams should let me know. I would also encourage co-GM relationships where two owners want to run a shared affiliate (unlikely). In conjunction with a project I'm working on for Andy's main league, I'll be completing a lot of the core analysis today. The next two-three weeks will be spent augmenting the results of this analysis. My goal isn't a perfect rating set. My goal is to get something in place so we can start having fun.

I brought this up in a Rover Report comment, but I wanted to draw attention to it: it would be interesting to establish a continuous dialogue regarding potential Francis and Blake award winners. Often these awards are based on a retrospective analysis that can overlook early season moves when the votes are cast at season's end. Let's not forget the good work that Chris Bourdeau and Steve Stringer have done thus far. Also, I would like to point out the value free agent signings Jun Kokaji made. Look at the ratings of Steve Thomas and Brett Hull and tell me those weren't great signings, given the Spartans' financial constraints and place in their success cycle.
In my last post, I wasted some space talking about the blog community that's been created. This week may have been the most active week I've experienced with this informal community - the group of owners who read the blogs but do not a,) have blogs, or b.) post in the comments. These people are starting to email me more often, which is great. I'm having longer, more informative conversations with a wider array of owners. In particular, the draft analysis article generated a lot of traffic. I learned a lot about how people approach prospect evaluation and was able to identify a number of ways I can improve how I look at things. Without this implicit community (which seems to be growing stronger and stronger), I wouldn't be getting this level of feedback.

But before we become bogged-down by these bullet points, let's get to today's (destined to be lengthy) article.

Introduction: The Week that Was I. Mathieu Schneider: Making the Commitment II. Shane Doan: Because Some Players Just Fit III. Geoff Sanderson: So Much Trouble, So Little Reward IV. Chris Drury: The Price, and then The Cost Conclusion: Where San Diego Sits, RHL16 Introduction: The Week that Was My summary of San Diego's Week 1 foray into RHL16 Free Agency was characterized by missed opportunities, regret, and befuddlement. After aggressively courting Wade Redden, Shane Doan, and Geoff Sanderson, the Aviators were left with a couple of nice signings (Bryan Smolinski and Brent Sopel) and big bag of "Sorry, maybe next year." As the first days of Week 2 unfolded, the same tone persisted, and Aviator management started embracing the idea of a long RHL16 of low payroll and low talent. That's an attitude which is far too meek for the Aviators, a team taht - for better or worse - has always acted decisively. After the forward market in unrestricted free agency shifted and San Diego signed former Mountie restricted free agent Chris Drury to an offer sheet, the whole tone of the the free agent season changed. Decisive action, back on the table, shifted the whole karmatic alignment of the team's aura. Things started falling into place, and the Aviator team which leaves the second week of free agent has an entirely different look than that of the two weeks prior. As this week played out, the Aviators were able to get a version of The Big Three as well as add Drury. There was a cost to the moves, though. Erik Cole, the player outsiders felt to be the cornerstone of the franchise, was traded to Indianapolis. By themselves, the moves were compelling; however, the back-story on each, played out like the RHL-version of a bad spy novel. Back room dealings, sabotage, and high-level diplomacy hung over each acquisition, makes this week the most dramatic in franchise history. In the wake of Week 2, the San Diego Aviators have been reborn a new organization, though it came with a price. Adding the Drury saga to our update on The Big Three, here's a recap of the week that was in Aviator free agency. Mathieu Schneider: Making the Commitment On Monday night, Wade Redden make it official. He's returning to Saskatoon for RHL16, possibly longer. The length of the contract has not been officially disclosed (the league's rosters nor the Saskatoon blog give us a hint). Scott Niedermayer and his representation await the decision. With this other key player of the Funboy lineup due for a contract extension at season's end, the Redden signing could be a seen as a choice: Redden over Niedermayer. If the reigning Eddie Shore Award winner garners the contract he is expected to request, it will be difficult for Martin Baldwin to allocate $9 million to two defensemen. In the interim, the Funboy decision shifted San Diego's focus to Mathieu Schneider. Thought headed to Edmonton to sign with the Eagles, the former Thundercat rearguard was hesitant to rejoin an Aviator team which had dealt him to Washington prior to the RHL6 season. His short stay in San Diego left a player who'd hoped to lay roots in California hesitant to trust that the Aviator intended to retain his services for longer than a few months. An initial offer from San Diego of three seasons, $8.4 million would be bettered by Edmonton, Schneider's agent was told. When the Aviators came back with an offer of three seasons, $9.8 million - a contract that would be very difficult to trade - Schneider started warming to the idea of joining San Diego. This is not to say that the defenseman did not give Edmonton the chance to offer a better deal. Last season, the Eagles were the better of the two teams, and though the Aviators have been competitive as recently as RHL14 (finishing sixth overall in the league), most experts predict a better RHL16 for Edmonton when compared to San Diego. Schneider would get to return to a U.S. team with the Aviators, but he might be sacrificing team success. Furthermore, San Diego has been practically Calgarian of late as it concerns player loyalty. Is a contract with Richard Farley worth the recycled paper it's printed on? Ultimately, these issues were inconsequential, as the Eagles notified Schneider's representation that they would be unwilling to improve on their previous offer, a contract with a $2.8 million seasonal average. When Schneider made his decision on Friday night, the Aviators had signed Shane Doan, Geoff Sanderson and Chris Drury in addition to the previous week's signings of Smolinski and Sopel. Though they weren't the Eagles, they were making a commitment to winning - enough of a commitment to rationalize accepting the last Aviator offer. Schneider's representation notified San Diego just after midnight eastern time that Mathieu would sign with the Aviators. Though they had made a series of other signings throughout the week, the Schneider was arguably the most important, solidifying an Aviator team which lacked a key defenseman for both the present and future. With a series of young blueliners coming through the system, the Aviators were faced with an RHL17 where, after Brian Leetch's contract expires, nobody would be in the fold to groom and augment Bruno Gervais, James Wisniewski, and Kurtis Foster. With Schneider in the fold, the team can concentrate on the continued development of Shaonne Morrisonn and Bryan Allen while only having to break in one of the younger rearguards (most likely Foster). The other two can continue to develop in Las Vegas while Mathieu Schneider shapes in the next generation of Aviator defensemen. Now with the flexibility to trade their other high-priced defenseman, it's unclear how long the top pair of Leetch and Schneider will be together. But for San Diego, it's been a while since the team had options. Shane Doan: Because Some Players Just Fit The secret within the Aviator front office, one to which nobody will admit to on record, is that they overpaid for Doan. At least, that's what they feel. What's more, in giving him a four year contract, Richard Farley concedes to locking himself in to a what he calls a "net-loss": a contract that loses money when compared to performance. For a team that is has become renown for a spreadsheet mentality, this represents a huge departure from recent policy. Why, in the case of Doan, did the Aviators revert back to a previous, extravagant model of spending? As the second week of free agency progressed, two facts which would define Aviator spending had surfaced. First, the forward market shifted, drastically. The range of players getting elite player prices had expanded farther than San Diego had anticipated. Second, the idea of going into the season trying to patch-together a first line became unacceptable. These facts led to a new policy being developed in the wake of the failed, original version of The Big Three. The Aviators would be willing to overpay for one forward - the idea being that they would offer a lucrative one year contract and then try to negotiate a more sensible deal before RHL17. If that deal had to wait until after RHl16 to be negotiated, so be it. The Aviators would not go through RHL16 with the same uncompetitive group that closed out RHL15. The new policy enacted, San Diego considered the options available on the market, knowing that the Edmonton Eagles were committed to keeping Doan. With the market shifting on players like Brian Rolston and Mats Sundin (options two and three on San Diego's board), the Aviators nonetheless decided to give Doan one more offer, hoping to get the player they wanted all along. On Tuesday, Richard Farley informed Shane's representation that they would be willing to offer a base of over $3.3 million dollars. It was their best and most likely last offer, and they needed a response before other players signed with teams. In the interim, the Eagles and Aviators realized that they were in a two player bidding war. It's unclear which team contacted the other first, but Edmonton and San Diego started talking at midweek in an attempt to size each other up. The idea of splitting the players - where each team would agree discontinue negotiating with one player - was broached. Additionally, one team offered to sent a draft pick to sell a draft pick to the other if that team would just disappear from the bidding. But as talks progressed it became clear that the Aviators has placed a high value on both Schneider and Doan, a probable effect of their first week disappointments. For an Eagle team whose prime commitment is the continued development of their youthful core, the expenditures on Doan and Schneider were becoming more difficult to justify. By Wednesday night, when it became clear that no deal was possible with an Aviator team that seemed intent on getting both Doan and Schneider, the Eagles adjusted their plans. Their RHL16 campaign would be waged without either Shane Doan, their former captain, or Mathieu Schneider. On Thursday, Shane Doan informed the Aviators he intended to sign with them and had instructed his agent to negotiate a contract for whatever contract length the team desired (given the agreement the sides had reached on the annual salary). To the surprise of Doan, his agent, and to a certain extent the Aviators, Doan was offered a maximum-length contract (4 seasons) worth $15.4 million dollars. It will be another contract that will be hard to trade, should the Aviators ever decide to try. For now, it appears as if the Aviators see Shane Doan as a cornerstone for the franchise's future. What started out as overpaying for one forward ended up as a building block for the next four seasons. "Shane just seems right," Richard Farley said. "I wish I could explain it in a more detailed, analytical way. But this is a deal that I can only explain in terms of emotion. When I got a copy of the contract Shane had signed and I looked at the signatures, I immediately felt better about this whole team. Shane is a player I trust to be there for us. I think that's all I need to say." Geoff Sanderson: So Much Trouble, So Little Reward "I suspect that Kitchener was never serious about signing Geoff," was what Sanderson's representation said as the winger inked a two season, $2.4 million deal with San Diego. "It's an interesting way of negotiating [Kitchener] has. We had a ten minute phone conversation and then a fax. When we tried to call them back after talking to the Aviators, they didn't even return our phone call." It's difficult to be excited about signing a player under such circumstances. Sanderson, almost begrudgingly, signs with San Diego after a brief period of flirtation with the Mounties. As with affairs which never were, the knowledge of the love that will never be stains the love you already had. It's irrational, but it's true. Having jumped between three teams in RHL15, Sanderson should be happy with the contract he has. The circumstances of signing it, however, engender a bit of bitterness. "I can't say I'll never negotiate with [Mountie GM] Brad [Schott] again," expanded the agent, "because it's better for my client if I do. I would prefer they either change how they deal with people or not contact me at all. But when they call, I'm obligated to pick up the phone." Likewise, the signing was without excitement for the Aviators. Having made a final offer to Geoff sometime over the weekend, San Diego was sure that Sanderson would go to Kitchener. When, on Wednesday, the Aviators were informed that the veteran winger would like to sign in San Diego, the reward was anti-climatic. "It just seems like a lot of trouble," said Richard Farley. "You sign a player, you should be happy. And our team is much better with Geoff. He's a quality person, a quality player, and we are glad he decided to join us. But the whole process was almost poisoned. Yes, I do feel a little bitter now." Asked during a Saturday press conference if his feelings were still consistent with the luke-warm defense of Brad Schott posted last week to the team's web site, Farley dodged the question. "I feel Brad is one of the best owners and coaches in this league - destined for the Hall of Fame. We are in negotiations with the Mounties regarding compensation for Chris Drury. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on anything else at this point." But as that press conference - scheduled to announce the arrival of Chris Drury - wore on, Farley would jump back-and-forth across the line of what was, by his definition, appropriate and inappropriate. Chris Drury: The Price, and then The Cost Faced with the rising costs of forwards in the unrestricted free agent market, the Aviators signed Mountie center Chris Drury to an offer sheet, providing him with a four season, $10.2 million dollar contract which the Mounties had the right to match. Anticipating that Kitchener would match the deal, the Aviators prepared to bid on a second restricted free agent. But then, on Thursday, San Diego's wildest dreams came true, and a counter to the argument of Schneider as the more important Aviator signee could be made. Early Thursday morning Pacific time, the commissioner's office notified the Aviators that the Mounties would not be matching the offer sheet signed by Chris Drury. Chris Drury would be an Aviator, a result that stunned even the player. "Honestly, I was shocked," said the Connecticut-born center. "I wanted to stay with the Mounties, but I guess they didn't see me as part of their future. It was baffling. I suppose I'm happy to be in a place where I am really wanted. I would be lying if I didn't concede that I'm still somewhat of a Mountie, in my head." It soon became clear that the Mounties were trying to "game" the arbitration system, as the Aviators found out once Assistant General Manager Andy Bartalone attempted to agree on compensation with Kitchener. Schott made it apparent to the Aviators early on that he had no interest in negotiating compensation for Drury; rather, he was more concerned with how Drury could be used to compensate San Diego for Erik Cole. In an RHL world were getting players on premium contracts is the ultimate value, you can't blame Schott for asking about the availability of Cole. However, the Mounties' inability (unwillingness) to even discuss other options portended to a long, unsuccessful negotiation. Schott told San Diego that Cole was the only Aviator he saw fitting his team, an interesting idea of compensation. Whereas restricted free agency should be viewed as requiring a team to "compensate" another for a player lost, Brad Schott was willing to take the negotiations to arbitration as a means of acquiring a more valuable commodity than the player he was giving up. In short, Schott was trying to work the system to his favor, approaching the deal as he would a trade negotiation rather than a discussion about compensation. In three cases in their history, the Aviators (who have been the most active team in restricted free agent markets) have been involved in a restricted free agenct process that came to the point of compensation. In RHL5, compensation was worked out in one day for Keith Primeau from the Anteaters. In RHL7, the same happened for Christian LaFlamme from the Indianapolis 500s. In RHL8, and acrimonious negotiation with the Roadkill, who had bid on Sebastien Bordeleau, led to the only arbitration case in the league's history - a casse which San Diego lost. "I feel terrible thinking about that negotiation," said Farley when asked about his previous experience with arbitration. "I didn't like the Roadkill roster because it was loaded with bad contracts, but I had a totally distorted view of what compensation should be. Ultimately, I lost the case. I'm not sure that the offer I submitted to the panel was unfair, but I think the offer Craig submitted was fair. Unless the offering team is failing to compensate fairly, I think the owning team has little recourse. They have to ability to match the contract, but restricted free agency isn't about the owner who's losing the player. It's about the player getting a fair deal, in my opinion. I was making that arbitration case too much about the Aviators, not enough about merely compensating me for losing Bordeleau. "One day, a while ago, I apologized to Craig for the way I'd acted. I still don't think I've made it clear to Craig how bad I feel about that negotiation." Now in their first negotiation since the Bordeleau case (for whom the Aviators were awarded Josef Beranek and a third round draft pick by an arbitration panel), the roles have been reversed. With the Aviators offering various ways to augment Wes Walz's short contract in compensation for the unmatched Drury, Schott has refused to look at the process at compensation as much as a trade negotiation. "The first email Andy [Bartlone] sent to Brad after we were informed that we were willing to throw in anything reasonable with Walz," Farley said. "We didn't even need to base the deal around Walz, necessarily. The only person we couldn't include was Cole." It became clear that no negotiation, let alone a deal on compensation, would be worked out unless Cole was part of the equation. Thus, reviving talks that had been going back-and-forth between San Diego and Indianapolis about both Cole and Scott Hartnell, Andy Bartalone pulled the trigger on a deal that the two teams had slowly and implicitly worked out over the course of two months. The Aviators would take on some salary to get three prime prospects for Erik Cole. One of the prospects is actually Indianapolis's first round draft pick, hopefully putting the Aviators in position to an elite player in the next entry draft. What the Cole deal was really intended to do was make the acquisition of Chris Drury as positive as possible. Blessed with the surprise decision of the Mounties to not match the very reasonable contract Drury signed, the Aviators do not want to have yet another acquisition spoiled by Mountie tactics which seem derived from a view that the RHL exists to serve the Kitchener organization. While the Aviators can see the value of being condescended to every now and then (we certainly deserve to have our arrogance checked regularly), one email's worth is sufficient. The Aviators respect the Mounties' right to explore whether we're willing to redefine the purpose of compensation (so that they can get Cole), but it is not incumbent on us to oblige the request before being able to discuss compensation. The process is about Drury and compensating Kitchener. It is not about spinning the situation so the Mounties can profit off a decision not to match a reasonable contract offer. "One part of me wants to hold back as much as possible at this point," Farley said in the news conference. "I think we can all empathize with the position Andy's being put in here. It's not news that this negotiation is difficult. It's hard to lose a player like Chris. We obviously value him highly, so to a certain extent I see what Brad might be feeling. But thankfully, Andy is much better at these kinds of things than I am, and I hope he can get a deal done which avoids arbitration." When asked if he felt Andy Bartalone will get that deal done, Farley said "he will get a deal done if Brad wants to deal. I see no evidence that's the case. Brad has clearly been willing to go to arbitration since he decided not to match Chris's offer sheet. It's the only logical reason why the offer sheet was not signed. "But I hope a deal can get done. I know [Commissioner] Paul [Myers] wants nothing less than another arbitration. I almost felt bad bidding on Drury for that reason. Knowing who owned Drury, I didn't think the negotiation would be easy. But Drury was the best option out there, and I wasn't about to pull punches and cost my team an opportunity. I mean, look how much better off the Aviators are now than we were last week? "I don't think Paul wants an environment where people are scared to bid on restricted free agents. "Will we avoid arbitration? From what other owners have told me, we've already offered two or three fair compensation deals. With that in mind, knowing those offers haven't worked, I'm skeptical. Let me put it like this: If San Diego was intent on going to arbitration, we'd be going to arbitration. However, I'm intent on letting everybody know that we are going to try our absolute hardest to get a deal done. Unfortunately, either party in the negotiation can decide that arbitration is what they want." With the difficulty of negotiations and the trade of Erik Cole, the question has to be asked: Is Chris Drury worth the price? In that same press conference, Farley summed up his feelings on the cost: "Not since we acquired Roberto Luongo, who I still hold the highest respect for as a player, has our franchise been as excited about a single acquisition. This player represents the rare combination of talent, professionalism, and an overall player who you are proud to build your franchise around. He is a player whose brings a respectability to an organization that goes beyond contract. His acquisition has been complicated, but in introducing him to the Aviator fans I know they will feel the same excitement I have when I say: I am proud to introduce the newest Aviator, and co-captain for the RHL16 campaign, Mr. Chris Drury." Conclusion: Where San Diego Sits, RHL16 In introducing Chris Drury, Farley let it be known that for the first time in franchise history there would be a shared captaincy for the season. Inaugurating the idea of a new direction for the franchise, three captains, all recently acquired, will lead the team into the next era of Aviator hockey. Chris Drury will serve along side Shane Doan and Mathieu Schneider as the teams' leaders. Though it did not unfold exactly as the team had predicted, The Big Three (a different big three) did come home, all of whom will be captains this year. Their additions have led to a drastic makeover of what was a lacking team. Last week at this time, the Aviator top forward line was Wes Walz, Erik Cole and Bryan Smolinski: two second line centers and a forward whose best days were still at least 66 games away. Today, the Aviators have a top line of Shane Doan, Chris Drury and (because his linemates should promote a great season from his skillset) Pierre Dagenais. Last week at this time, the Aviator top defensive pairing was Brian Leetch and Brent Sopel. Today, Leetch is accompanied by Mathieu Schneider, allowing Sopel to slide down. "We are still rebuilding, despite these acquisitions" explained Richard Farley. "We're going to make moves throughout the season which will continue to solidify this franchise. But what we've achieved in bringing in these three players goes beyond wins and losses. I feel that a franchise in danger of falling into irrelevance now has a direction. "And that direction is forward."

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Auction Reform; Demand Reform; ______ Reform

A few quick hits before getting to tonight's main content: 1. Blogger supports emailing blog articles and comments as they get posted. I have the emails coming to my Gmail account, which then bounces them to my UCSD account. If anybody wants the Aviator News posts in their InBox, I can have Gmail forward those blog posts to your mailbox. Please drop me a line and let me know. 2. Don't ask how this came up, but one RHL'er asked me a question to which my response was, "None. In fact, I'm relatively stimulant free, too." The question should be easy to figure out. I thought it was funny. 3. If anybody wants to coach one of the minor league teams (preferably your own) or serve as general manager (decide the roster, sign free agents), speak up. The ratings will be done over the next month (good amount of Python code to write there). In general, you're going to want to focus on current (as opposed to potential) value when choosing a team. Even though somebody like (the much discussed) Luc Bourdon is an A-/B+ prospect, he's still going to get rated like a 19 year old defenseman who had an average year in the QMJHL. And now, your Feature Presentation ...

With some distance between us and the end of RHL15, these are the distinct stories from last season which stand out in my mind: 1. The Sockeyes broke through and won the title. The other distinctive championships during my tenure have been Steve's and Martin's (as both were somewhat surprises in those years) as well as Daniel's (to see him break through). 2. The last season of the two league alignment. Does anybody miss it? I didn't think so. I'm waiting for Wade Redden and HC Saskatoon to come to town for the first time in two seasons. 3. Mass exodus of owners. Thankfully, the league has already forgotten that less than one calendar year ago there was an unprecedented level of uncertainty surrounding this league's future. Many thought we were in the last days of the RHL. Now, the league seems as healthy as it has been in at least ten seasons. This could be an article on its own. 4. The Blog Explosion. The blogs have redefined the way many of us interact with the RHL. Before, I would interact through lines, trade offers, and the auction. With the blogs, I have a heightened sense of interest in the nine other teams who make up the blog community. And it really is a community. For better or worse, this community's presence can be seen in the way the Aviators do business. When fellow blogger Chris Boudreau upped the last bid I made on Mathieu Schneider, I quickly rebid, partly in deference for the Eagles. I knew I had every intention of rebidding on Mathieu, and I didn't want to do the two round stall to a team for which I've established such empathy. That empathy is a result of the blogs. The idea of community has been entrenched. Though this community was one of the goals we had in starting the blog-o-verse, none of us thought one season would see growth from two or three blogs to ten. The amount of team-related content being produced by the league has never been higher, and I'm convinced that the readership covers a majority of the league. The explosion of blogs has been a mini-revolution. It's reshaped how teams communicate with the league and redefined the identity of some teams. I doubt it will make it onto a ballot so soon (let alone get voted in), but I kind of want to bring up Blogger as a potential Hall of Fame nominee (Google's technology makes is very easy to keep these blogs going). Of the four storylines at the top of this article, this one will have the most lasting impact on the league. Eventually (ten seasons from now) the blogs will die out, but only once an better technology comes along to replace it and all of us migrate to that new format. But the community is here to stay. This past week, my mailbox has seen some of ancillary benefits of the community as behind the two "independent" projects pick up steam. The project with the most momentum will address some of the issues people have with the free agent auction. The second project, my RHL Demands Project, seems to be leaching off of the momentum of the free agent auction changes, as nobody much wants to think about demands when the auction is at the forefront of our minds. Tonight, I want to give you an update on what I know about each project, hopefully raise awareness of each movement (and encourage you to contribute ideas), and share how I see free agency and demands intersecting. Free Agent Auction Whether he likes it or not, Martin Baldwin has been the leader of this movement. The SAT analogy for this one is Richard is to Demands what Martin is to Free Agency. The thoughts he's shared with me are as ambitious and more detailed than my recent diatribe on RHL demands, converting me into the unofficial cheerleader for his cause (No, I am not getting an HC Saskatoon tattoo. My fanboy-ism goes only so far.) During the last week, there have been two email threads featuring Martin and I where the idea of auction reform was discussed, and the tenor of the conversations leads me to believe something will happen before the next auction. It's not so much that Paul has said or hinted that changes will definitely happen. He hasn't. But between the people on these emails and posts like Howard made to his blog last week, I think we've reached the Gladwellian tipping point regarding the auction. People want this to happen. There is already a basic agreement on the obvious changes (forcing people to declare a contract length at the time of bidding), and other more complex ideas (like reforming player loyalty) has been greeted with tons of positive energy. That positive energy is also turning into an actual willingness to put forth work. Not only have these brainstorming email threads (and blog posts) started to solidify ideas, but we have people who are willing to do the work to get some of these changes implemented. After so many seasons in the league, we know finding time to do work is not trivial. Often times good ideas die on the alter of our regular lives. Few people have time to tackle a web application's overhaul. In the case of the auction, I think four people have previously contributed code to the project, and any programmer knows that your willingness to be involved in a rewrite should be inversely proportional to how many sets of fingerprints you're going to find on that code. Regardless, one person has already volunteered to contribute to a rewrite, and this should open the door to changes. The contract length issue is one that Paul has committed to in the past. It's an idea that has been successfully implemented in the FHL auction and has been left out of the RHL's auction only because of time constraints. Next season, instead of bidding bases, we should be bidding lengths, bases, and having to match and improve offers based on the player's real salary, length adjustment included. The other ideas which have been discussed have not reached enough consensus where I feel confident talking about them. I don't want to leading people to believe something will happen when it probably will not. I can only tell you my ideas and warn you that I have no clue as to whether these things will actually happen. One thing I'd like to see is less information on previous bids made available to owners. A lot of problems (like ninja'ing) are caused by knowing the round number of the previous bid, though that round number doesn't seem germane to an owners' assessment of player worth. Likewise, knowing which team holds the high bid seems to have no benefits, though it could cause problems. In less need of being hidden, I don't think showing the current high bid is necessary. I would just prefer people go to auction and offer a player a value they feel the player is worth. "Your bid has been rejected," will be the feedback when your bid is not good enough. Still, withholding the high bid becomes problematic because owners will probably start low, incrementally raise a bid until they find the lowest value acceptable, hitting the auction tens of times just to find that lowest number. In this light, withholding high bid is just a waste of time. So I'm not sold on the benefits of withholding the high bid, but I do think the auction would improve if the other two pieces of information were kept secret. That's one of many ideas that have been floating around. If you have ideas regarding potential improvements to the auction, now is the time to put them into the public domain. We're on that other side of the auction tipping point. RHL Demands Project But the RHL Demands Project? Not so much. There were only a couple of emails in response to my call-to-arms for a demands reform project, and none of them volunteered to take part. I have to admit that was the expected result, and as I was writing my demands post of weeks ago, I felt a little like a low-grade William Wallace attempting to rouse troops on the battle field. Though it's true that I tend to wear the war paint when I write my blog posts, nothing else in my emotions justified war cries or pleas. I knew that the project would probably have to be centered on this blog. While that is the way the RHL Demands Project will move forward (periodic postings to this forum as a means of getting feedback as ideas evolve), the free agent discussions have started the ball rolling on ideas which I had been saving for demand reform. Through those discussions, it seems clear to me that the idea of a player profile governing behavior would make for a better financial model. What do I mean by a player profile? In real-life, I have a concept of player's decisions on teams and contracts as being the result of a set of dispositions. For example, most players are disposed to accept the most money, but not all players are willing to forgo a reasonable offer from their hometown team for a small pay increase. Likewise, players often value how competitive a team is. Some may value this highly while others may not, and this type of valuation might change for a player as he ages. Players also have different ways of developing loyalty (some may never be loyal, period). But the most important disposition is the idea of self-worth: how good a player thinks he is. In the RHL, we call this demand. All of these factors (and more) determine a player's disposition towards looking upon offers favorably. A player with a high self-worth wants big contracts and is less likely to settle quickly for small offers. A player with high self-worth and a disposition toward elite teams will not settle quickly and certainly not settle quickly for a contract from a team that has not been competitive recently. These two players represent different profiles: one greed in a balanced way, the other greedy and biased towards elite teams. It's a level of nuance in demand generation which our current system does not try to implement, but it's something which may add a lot of value to the league. This nuance is the player profile: a set of dispositions which influence demands and auction behaviors. Coming Together: A Hypothetical Let's walk through the hypothetical of Wade Redden to construct a profile. 1. Redden has spent his whole career with Saskatoon, so he is highly loyal. 2. At the same time, he is scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent for the first time. 3. Since he's a relatively young free agent, the specter of moving to a bad team doesn't bother him as much as it would somebody at the end of a longer career (he'll have other contracts to sign with winners). If we consider these three traits, we get somebody who wants top dollar but would ideally like to get that money from Saskatoon; else, he's not scared to move to another team. His demand would probably come in at the top of the defenseman list but not hugely over it. We're talking Lidstrom, not Pronger. In addition to affecting the right-to-keep/in-season demands, this more intelligent way of forming demands can be used the define auction behavior. Redden's $3.8 million demand (random dollar figure) is his idea of self-worth, an idea that doesn't go away once he heads out into free agency. He's going to be looking for teams who are willing to pay him what he feels he's worth. As such, if Redden goes two rounds with a bid of $2.0 million, he would be unlikely to sign on Day 3. It takes more than a week for a player to change how he feels about his value. On the other hand, if somebody offered Redden $4.5 million on Day 1 he might call Martin Baldwin and say "I've got this great offer and you need to match by tomorrow or else I'm signing it." He might sign at the end of Day 2. He might sign between Day 1 and Day 2 - in between rounds. Player profiles would allow for this more varied set of outcomes. This is where I see the demand system and free agency coming together. The player profile model would allow for a more nuanced way of creating demands (which will hopefully be more accurate, too, as it considers more information) and give a more logical model of player behaviors at auction. We can move away from the Ebay auction to one that has more dynamism, ultimately producing results more like the free agency periods we seen in the sports worlds. Both the auction and the demand generation script have been spectacular successes for the league - technology that's lasted in its near-original form for over ten seasons. But ten seasons of using the systems have shown us some issues that we'd like to address. Now is our time to do this. The momentum is picking up for each project. The auction is on the table now, but within months the issues of the demand system will again draw our attention. Let's get the ideas on the table now. Let's run with them. RHL17 is not that far away. Think of the excitement of having a new, up-to-date auction with the player profile idea built in. An exciting, brave new world.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Realistic Minor Hockey League: Consummation Day

On Sunday, August 12, the details of the Realistic Minor Hockey League (RMHL) and its first season were established during a day-long meeting of governors in San Diego. The group kept a public blog of the decisions. Here is how the meeting transpired:

Sunday, 2:15pm - Board finalized business by establishing a timeline to have the first RMHL games played by RHL16, Day 30. Until that day, RMHL will ask the minor league teams to work with the parent organizations to identify coaches for the teams. RMHL teams without coaching options from parent organizations will receiving coaching staffs appointed by the RMHL league offices. RMHL established procedure for changing minor league team affiliations and partnership deals, to be considered come RHL17. Board establishes current cities and alignment on as an on-trial basis to be evaluated at season's end.

Sunday 2:10pmRMHL board identifies interim presidents for each organization and conference, establishes budgets for each team, and sets timelines for each team to have secured basic infrastructure (arena agreements, office space, etc.). Team presidents will be responsible for working with parent clubs should personnel fro those organizations be assigned to govern minor league teams.

Sunday, 2:09pm - Four teams from each conference will make the playoffs, establishing an eight-team, three round posstseason. The first two rounds will be intra-conference, with teams seeded 1-to-4 by order of finish meeting in best-of-five series, 1 versus 4 and 2 versus 3, following a 2-2-1 format. The winner of these series play each other in the subsequent playoff round, the the winners in that round playing in the championship series. The championship series will be Best-of-7 and follow a 2-3-2 format (potentially reducing travel costs).

Sunday, 2:06pm - Teams will be limited to 25 players on their roster, with roster changes possible after each 10-day period. roster changes may also happen before the playoffs, though not between series. The 25 player roster can be composed of any players identified as prospects by the parent team(s).
Sunday, 1:58pm - Final league alignment and team names codified:

Mountain Conference	Southeast Conference
Colorado Springs Cadets	Atlanta Dogwoods
Denver Bricklayers	Charlotte Coastal Cats
Henderson Verdin	Columbia River Jockeys
Las Vegas Pilots	Jacksonville Timucua
Phoenix Scorpions	Richmond Jeffersonians
Tucson Sonorans	Tampa Bay Manatees

Sunday, 1:38pm - Atlanta requests to change nickname from Peaches (identified on a preliminary application) to Dogwoods, the name which has always been intended for the team.

Sunday, 1:30pm - U.S. Texas group, having lost out on their bid for the second RMHL conference, notifies the Board that they intend to continue developing their group's proposal with the hope that growing prospect resources in RHL teams will allow for a third conference in the near future. Board recommends to the U.S. Texas group that their back-up sites need to be improved to ensure the long-term viability of the region for the RMHL.

Sunday, 1:27pm - Team associations are assigned to the Mountain conferences minor league teams:

U.S. Mountain Conference
Colorado Springs - South Edmonton (25), South Calgary (11) 
Denver - Calgary (36) 
Henderson - Edmonton (24), Waterloo Roadkill (12)
Las Vegas - San Diego (22), Guelph Reapers (16) 
Phoenix - Airdrie (20), Waterloo Thundercats (18)
Tucson - Grand Prairie (21), Albany (11), Victoria (6)

Taking a break from the updates, we have received our first question of the day. Hopefully it will clear up some confusion: Q: What's with all the back-up teams? I detect cynicism. Can't we have a little positivity? Do you know how much vitriol this blog usually spews? Each group submitted six main cities and a series of back-ups. Without these fallbacks, the RMHL Board would not consider a group's application. Some groups had a number of backups, while others had very few. That the back-ups are being evoked by both the Southeast and Mountain groups should not serve as a reflection on the strength of that group's bid. In most cases, there was a very thin line between being a main and back-up city. All back-up cities are fully capable hosts.

Sunday, 1:17pm - Jacksonville representatives inform RMHL that the team will be nicknamed the Timucua, honoring the region's Native American heritage.

Sunday, 1:00pm - Further evidence that food is a stimulant for negotiation, two decisions are surprisingly made over lunch. First, the U.S. Mountain group looks to have been awarded the second RMHL conference after pitching a twin-cities model. The model would have three pairs of cities form the six-team conference, with each pair of teams playing each other 12 times, playing each remaining team in the league 7 times. As a regional accommodation for the twin cities model, two back-up cities have replaced Salt Lake City and Albuquerque amongst the six cities forming the conference. Henderson will serve as Las Vegas's twin, and Colorado Springs will be Denver's twin. Phoenix and Tucson remain and will twin with each other. Second, the Southeast group has replaced Miami amongst their six cities with Jacksonville, electing not to wait for the Miami group's response.

Sunday, 12:35pm - Board breaks for lunch.

Sunday, 12:32pm - U.S. Southeast conference and RHL affiliations descided:

U.S. Southeast Conference
Atlanta - Indianapolis (29), Lethbridge (6) 
Charlotte - Yellowknife (27), Guelph Spectres (10) 
Columbia - Kitchener (20), Chicago Gargoyles (11), Seattle (7) 
Miami or Jacksonville - Chicago Capones (27), Kansas City (5), Winnipeg (4) 
Richmond - Washington (21), Saskatoon (14) 
Tampa - Baffin Isle (29), Cleveland (6)

The remaining associations will be placed in the other conference. Specific alignment will be determined once the group (Mountain or Texas) is selected.

Sunday, 12:20pm - Board quickly agrees to the following associations between RHL teams as it concerns their minor league teams:

Team A - Calgary (36) 
Team B - Indianapolis (29), Lethbridge (6) 
Team C - Baffin Isle (29), Cleveland (6) 
Team D - Chicago Capones (27), Kansas City (5), Winnipeg (4) 
Team E - Yellowknife (27), Guelph Spectres (10) 
Team F - South Edmonton (25), South Calgary (11) 
Team G - Edmonton (24), Waterloo Roadkill (12) 
Team H - San Diego (22), Guelph Reapers (16) 
Team I - Washington (21), Saskatoon (14) 
Team J - Grand Prairie (21), Albany (11), Victoria (6) 
Team K - Kitchener (20), Chicago Gargoyles (11), Seattle (7) 
Team L - Airdrie (20), Waterloo Thundercats (18)

Numbers in parentheses are the number of prospects a organization will contribute to the minor league team's player pool. Teams were matched-up based on this number, with no teams from the same RHL division being associated with each other. The Board shifts to allocating these teams to the two conferences, with the city-assignments to be decided for the Southeast conference.

Sunday, 12:06pm - Board decides (as a practical manner) against reviewing the list of 439 prospects to eliminate potential ineligibles. Instead, the Board decides to associate RHL teams with RMHL teams in such as way that each RMHL team has access to a number of players sufficient to account for irregularities. RMHL teams will also be able to sign free agents, RHL or otherwise, though all free agent acquisitions are subject to league approval and must be made from players who have been eligible for at least one prior RHL Entry Draft.

Sunday, 12:00pm - Board reviews prospect lists submitted by teams to help determine potential players for RMHL16. The following summarizes the number of prospects available from each RHL team's system:

36 Calgary
29 Indianapolis
29 Baffin Isle
27 Yellowknife
27 Chicago Capones
25 South Edmonton
24 Edmonton
22 San Diego
21 Washington
21 Grand Prairie
21 Airdrie
20 Kitchener
18 Waterloo Thundercats
16 Guelph Reapers
14 Saskatoon
12 Waterloo Raodkill
11 Chicago Gargoyles
11 South Calgary
11 Albany
10 Guelph Spectres
 7 Seattle
 6 Lethbridge
 6 Cleveland
 6 Victoria
 5 Kansas City
 4 Winnipeg

Sunday, 11:53am - Board tables discussion of Miami and Jacksonville to give the Miami coalition time to gather information. The board shifts to discussion of player distribution, player eligibility, and roster construction.

Sunday, 11:45am - The Board takes a five minute break and will informally consider the Miami situation.

Sunday, 11:41am - Board is informed that the coalition representing the prospective Miami team reports they may not be able to negotiate a lease with the city for the facility proposed in the league assessment plan. The City of Miami is now unwilling to provide rent-free facilities to the RMHL. The plan's first alternative site, Jacksonville, has already responded affirmatively to the prospect of replacing Miami's entry into the RMHL. The Miami group told the Board that they will have more information on Monday regarding the lease situation. The next back-up location in the U.S. Southeast plan is Birmingham, Alabama.

Sunday, 11:37am - Board quickly accepts a proposal which will have the two leagues, RMHL16A and RMHL16B, joining into one (RMHL16), where each group of six teams will be organized as conferences with no inner-conference play in the regular season. Each team will play a forty game schedule, with four home and away games against each other their five conference opponents. Playoff format is to be decided, but a seven game championship series amongst the top two teams will be the goal. The details of determining the top two teams are being discussed.

Sunday 11:27am - Board decides to pursue two league model and to discuss the details, including whether the league will support 6 or 12 teams, whether players can cross-over in a 12 team model, whether the leagues will play simultaneously, and whether there will be a championship round. The U.S. Mountain and U.S. Texas groups are notified that each group's proposals will be heard in the afternoon, with the goal of deciding before the day's session ends.

RHL16A Teams
Atlanta Peaches
Charlotte Coastal Cats
Columbia River Jockeys
Miami Viajeros
Richmond Jeffersonians
Tampa Bay Manatees

Sunday, 11:08am - RMHL Board finishes a thirty-minute conference call with Richard Farley, league owner and chief executive. Farley advises against voting and asked the group to seek consensus. He endorses both the U.S. Southeast group and the two-season structure. Farley also offers that the two league structure should have twleve independent teams, if possible, with the winners of the two leagues playing in a championship series at leagues end. The call ended with the RMHL board awarding one league to the U.S. Southeast group.

Sunday, 10:21am - Discussions during break put the vote on hold. RMHL board is now informally discussing the idea of splitting the first season into two, smaller seasons. The first season would take place over the first 60 RHL days and be located in the U.S. Southeast. The second season would take place over the second 60 RHL days and be located in one of the two remaining groups. The goal of this would not only be compromise amongst the different factions supporting various groups. The split would also serve to promote the league in different regions, make assessments as to the lnoger term viability of each area, and potentailly bring mroe players involved. Each season would be separate: RMHL16A and RMHL16B. There would be two sets of champions. Other details, such as whether teams woulc remaining in tact across different locations or whether coaching staffs would follow teams, have been brought up but not discussed.

Sunday, 10:12am - Group to take fifteen minute break and take preliminary vote on location once they return. Fifty percent rule decided - if no group gets fifty percent, top two groups will run off in a second vote.

Sunday, 10:08am - Concerns over readiness of sites in the U.S. Mountain group bring a previous eliminated group back into consideration. The U.S. Texas group would consist of teams in Oklahoma City, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and New Orleans.

Sunday, 9:55 am - RMHL Board, having decided to locate the league's six teams in a geographical region underrepresented by RHL teams, have narrowed the choices to two. The U.S. Southeast group of sites would consist of teams in Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond and Columbia. The U.S. Mountain group would have teams in Denver, Tuscon, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Albequerque. Board will consider individual city growth factors in determining which group will host RMHL16.

Sunday, 9:30 am - RMHL Board convenes session, decides to get coffee. First order of business will be evaluating where to locate the six teams which will be participating in RMHL16.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Flying Through Free Agency - First Week at a Glance

The Aviator's first week in free agency has been defined by two rules, both slight changes in the latest rule set:

the 23 man roster limit, and
the $21 million minimum payroll.

Having got back more players than we'd hoped in expansion (mostly do to a clerical error on the part of the team's owner), the Aviators had 20 roster spots filled going into free agency. This left the team in need of three players to meet the league's new 23-man minimum roster. Looking at the distribution of positions amongst signed players, we decided to go after one forward and two defensemen as primary targets. We would bid on more than just these three players, but only those who could be had for far under (what we perceived as) market value would be signed beyond these three, needed players. Those three players would get substantial bids, as the Aviators, entering the market with around $15,000,000 in allocated salaries, were six million dollars below the league's salary floor and $12.5 million below RHL16's revenue guarantee. With no notion of competing for a title in RHL16 - only wishing to avoid the fiasco that was last year's campaign - San Diego still needs to spend wisely. Thus, the strategy we adopted was to bid a.) aggressively on the three "core" players who would bring the roster to 23 players, and b.) search out values across the rest of the market. The Big Three Around Aviator head quarters, the three players who would fill out the roster came to be known as The Big Three. Needing to spend money to meet payroll requirements, these were players on whom the Aviators would be willing to overspend. But to make sure this overspending was done as wisely as possible (oxymoron), there were a series of requirements the team imposed on potential big ticket acquisitions. First, positional needs must be met: one defenseman, two forwards. Second, the players had to have long-term value. Future performance potential (RHLs 17 and 18) was an integral factor. Finally, the player could not be injury prone. San Diego had more than enough "talent" in that department. After weeks of research and intenal debate, The Big Three and their understudies were pegged. Wade Redden would be the focal point of the team's strategy, representing the best player on the board (by Aviator evaluations). Needing a top forward, Shane Doan was pegged as the second cog in The Big Three. Anticipating the salaries of Redden and Doan to be high, the Aviators identified Geoff Sanderson as the final member of the trio, expecting him to be more affordable than the higher profile forwards on the market. One week later, with a flurry of signings having taken place, none of The Big Three have signed, with the Aviators or elsewhere. What's gone wrong?

Redden: Home Matters Wade Redden's first taste of unrestricted free agency is turning out to be very profitable. Having played throughout his RHL career with the Funboys, Redden became a free agent after he and the Funboys were unable to agree on a deal prior last season's signing deadline. Immediately after free agency opened, the Aviators contacted Redden's representation and offered the star defenseman a four year contract worth around $14 million. Immediately, Redden was informed that the Funboys had made an offer which was as good. Informed of the biding war they had on their hands, San Diego counter offered: three years, $13.5 million, raising the per-season value by almost one million dollars. It was an offer that made Martin Baldwin and Saskatoon pause. Over the next week, the Funboys negotiated with various free agent options, trying to find an adequate replacement for Redden should he depart. Baldwin targeted former Aviator Ed Jovanovski, offering the physical rearguard a contract worth $2.2 million annually. Jovanovski quickly accepted, becoming what most thought would be Wade Redden's replacement as Scott Niedermayer's partner. But as is the case where emotional attachments (like those between Saskatoon and Redden) are involved, the story did not play out so neatly. Informed by Redden's representation that Wade intended to accept the Aviators offer should a matching contract not be offered soon, Martin Baldwin apparently came to a realization: He did not have a vision for the Funboys that did not include Wade Redden. Though it would stretch their payroll in a manner which had not been budgeted, the Funboys notified Redden on Thursday that they would be willing to match the annual rate offered by the Aviators. Though no deal was agreed to between Redden and the team, Wade's representation informed the Aviators that he would be staying with the Funboys, given the current offers. After receiving the news on Redden, San Diego moved to replace him in The Big Three. Mathieu Schneider was almost guaranteed to move on from the Thundercats, given Waterloo's financial situation. However, since the free agent bargaining period had opened, Schneider had looked destined for the Edmonton Eagles. When Mathieu's agent heard from the Aviators, the bidding on the defenseman went to another level. It is been reported amongst RHL teams that Schneider is shopping San Diego's contract latest offer, which has a base annual salary in the neighborhood of $2.8 million. To this point, Edmonton has been unwilling to match. Whether San Diego gets back into the Wade Redden bidding will depend on what happens with Schneider, but Wade, the main cog of the original Big Three, looks unlikely to be skating in San Diego next season (expect when the Funboys come to town, which will be frequently, as the two teams share a division in the new alignment). What went wrong in the Redden negotiations? If you're a fan of loyalty and of seeing players stay with their teams, then nothing went wrong. To the contrary, everything went right. Wade Redden explored free agency, established a market value, and Saskatoon matched. It's a story that's much simpler than the preceding six paragraphs would imply.

Doan: Market Forces With Daniel Alfredsson, Mats Sundin, Peter Forsberg and Sergei Fedorov all unrestricted free agents, the pegging of Shane Doan as part of this Big Three may seem a reach to even the most ardent Shane Doan fan. If the point of The Big Three is to add to a core while conceding the team needed to overpay to reach a minimum payroll, Alfredsson would seem the better choice. While Doan is acknowledged to be a talent player, a solid first line right wing, he is not in the elite group forwards - forwards who can be the best player on an elite-level team. Alfredsson is that kind of forward. But as with the Sanderson pick, money was a factor. The contract San Diego wanted to offer Wade Redden forced some acquiescence when choosing the first line forward they wished to pursue. Given the need and the market, San Diego felt Doan was their best choice. If he was signed, he would form a first line with Wes Walz and Erik Cole which the Aviators would hope to guide them into the RHL16 playoffs. In the long term, Shane Doan was young enough to serve as a cornerstone for the team until at least RHL20. After some preliminary negotiations, Doan was offered a 4 year, $14 million contract by the Aviators, the maximum length allowed by the RHL-RHLPA collective bargaining agreement. As Redden did, Doan shopped the offer back to his original team. Like Saskatoon, Doan could be signed by the Edmonton Eagles, but their payroll would be stretched out for the upcoming season. Other free agent signings would have to been forsaken. For one week, Eagle general manager Chris Bourdeau considered his options, one of which was allocating money to Schneider. When the Aviators also contacted on Schneider (after Redden informed San Diego of his intentions), Edmonton moved back to Doan, informing him that they would be willing to match that offer. Doan, preferring to stay in Canada if possible, now eyes a return to Edmonton, though he continues to test the market. Searching for places where the Doan negotiation went wrong, it would be easy to identify the Aviator offer to Mathieu Schneider as the key misstep. Many in the Aviators organization and the RHL media felt the Schneider offer was the determining step in Bourdeau's leaning toward Doan. But Aviator owner Richard Farley felt differently: "Ultimately, if Chris didn't feel the offer to Doan was a fair one, he wouldn't have matched the contract. And if he felt the offer was fair, then he probably decided well before Thursday that he would match Shane's offer. I feel the events [Doan and Schneider] weren't completely isolated. The Schneider offer may have exhibited some weakness from us in our commitment to Shane. That wasn't the case, though. I just think Chris was always going to find a way to match our contract offer to Shane." With Doan off the board, the Aviators cycled through a series of replacements in The Big Three. Brian Rolston's Aviator contract offer was rejected by his representation, as the agent quickly found other teams willing to pay more than $11.2 million over four years. Mats Sundin was contacted, but he quickly informed San Diego that he did not feel he could leave Kitchener again unless, as when he left for Indianapolis, he received an overwhelming offer. The Aviators were unwilling to go beyond $8 million for three seasons. Each of these offers were substantial, yet the Aviators were unable to get a even a basic level of dialogue going with an alternative forward. Something in the RHL universe had changed. A market shift had happened with this season's free agent fowards. Whereas past auctions had seen the top-tier of forwards (Iginla, Alfredsson, Jagr, Naslund, Sundin) demand elite contracts, those auctions also saw second-level forwards fall into the low $2 million range (as Cory Stillman did this season). But this season's market shifted, identifying a "proto-elite" class who are bridging the gap between elite and second-level. In that class Rolston, Fedorov, Sundin, and Teemu Selanne have fallen. Alfredsson and Forsberg have surfaced as elites. Had there not been this proto-elite class, it would have been difficult for Bourdeau to justify matching the Doan offer. The contract would not have seemed as fair. As is, it became clear the the Aviators were paying only a little above market value. The contract was destined to be matched. And because of the cost of this new class of forward, no replacement was found for Doan amongst The Big Three. Other names such as Danius Zubrus, Cory Stillman, Anson Carter, Tomas Holmstrom, and Martin Straka have been considered. Though some of those names have heard from Farley, receiving contract offers of one sort or another, none have received the level of offer than Doan had considered. This could be seen as an additional failure of the Aviator Big Three strategy: the inability to identify what course the forward market would take. Establishing the Doan-level player as a $3 million per year player, the Aviators created the market shift that established the proto-elite class. Had they analyzed the dynamics correctly, they would have gone after Alfredsson at the negotiating period's onset, also foregoing Redden for Schneider on Day 1. Now Alfredsson and the other forwards are out of reach, and the Aviators are left scrambling. The result of this scrambling is an offer sheet to Mountie Chris Drury, a restricted free agent. San Diego has offered Drury a 4 season, $10.2 million dollar offer sheet - a sheet the Mounties seem likely to match. Having to give up compensation to get him, San Diego seems unwilling to pay full market value, which would dictate a $2.8 to $3 million contract. At $2.2 million per season, even having to give up compensation, Drury represents the best forward deal on the market. The rumored compensation, a Wes Walz-based deal, is unlikely to keep Kitchener from matching. But the fact that the Aviators bid at all is a result of the increasingly expensive unrestricted free agent market for forwards.

Sanderson: The Ninja Strikes The highlight of this season's particularly vicious auction has been Adam Ardis. I have not been paying attention to Adam's bids (nothing he is doing seems to conflict with my plans), but I did read the email he sent to the list on Thursday night, an email in which he coined the term "ninja" (as a verb!) to describe the late second bidding on players who are minutes away from signing. Seconds after Adam coined this term in an apology to this list for ninja'ing a few players, the Aviators had an unsuspected player ninja'd from the predictable source. If you read last week's rules to the auction, all you need to be reminded of are Rules 1 and 2 and know that the player was Geoff Sanderson to be able to figure out what has happened. While the Aviators offered Sanderson another deal almost immediately and hope to sign him soon, I consider Thursday's Mountie bid on him as a perfect example of what I described in those two rules. I want to try not to unduly dwell on this one bid, but it was frustrating to be within minutes (literally, a few minutes) of signing Sanderson, especially in light of this email I received last week:

Richard
 
I was really surprised that my free agent actions 
were considered annoying by you.
 
I don't go out of my way to make late bids.
 
The main reason I would make a late bid is if I just 
lost the player I had and another player now becomes 
a better deal. I usually wind up bouncing between 3 or 
4 player who I want one of them and I wind up bidding 
on all of them at one time.
 
I son't stay up late. I may put bids before I got to 
bed a 11 PM EST if I lost somebody.
 
So if I bid on AVI players it not in retirbution for 
you scathing article:)
 
Brad

I'm certainly willing to take Brad at his word and merely note a.) the evidence is piling up, and b.) Brad has never done anything unethical to the Aviators. And I want to emphasize that I phrased "b" in the unqualified present tense. I just get frustrated, particularly seeing that I have no clue where Sanderson fits in on his team, the bid came suspiciously close to our bid on Sundin, and despite being active in auction through the first week, Kitchener had not bid on Sanderson to that point. The phrase which stands out from this email (above) is ". . . if I just lost the player I had and another player now becomes a better deal." This suggest a "replacement" paradigm seems inconsistent with jumping from Mats Sundin (first line center, defensive value) to Geoff Sanderson (second/third line forward, one dimensional). Sanderson was also the only potential-Aviator set to sign at the time Brad bid. In light of these events, the relationship between the Drury and Sanderson bids needs to be explained. I make this explanation because I feel the need to highlight one thing: the Aviators would never bid on a player if they did not actually want a player. This goes for both restricted and unrestricted free agency. We will not bid to drive up prices. Ever. The bid on Drury came over one day (24 hour day, not auction day) after Kitchener ninja'd Sanderson. Drury's bid also came after a cascade of bids which saw Rolston, Sundin, and Doan (amongst other forwards) have their offers increased. Were any of those three players at a price that was saw was affordable, it is unlikely we would have bid on Drury. I wanted to be as forthright as possible, given last week's article on the auction in which I used Brad as an example. Let me just summarize:

While I am (again) frustrated by Kitchener,
Brad has done nothing unethical at all,
Let alone illegal. Let my frustration be a me issue, not a Brad issue.
The Drury bid needs to be isolated from the Sanderson situation.
San Diego would loveto add Chris Drury.

The RHL16 Aviators? Through this mess, the Aviators have added two players. On Day 4, Bryan Smolinski has agree to a four year deal worth approximately $2.9 million. Right now, he is the team's first line left wing, though San Diego (obviously) hopes that situation improves. In addition, the team signed Brett Sopel to a one year, $1.265 million deal. As it stands, Sopel rounds out the defense corps, slated to be Brian Leetch's partner in the first pair. Given the two depth chart assignments of the newest Aviators, things are still in dire straits for San Diego. As RHL16 approaches, the team now needs only one more player to be at the minimum roster. This may lead to a "eggs in one basket" strategy that could bring Redden, Doan and maybe Alfredsson into the picture. Given the team's utter lack of talent, this could also mean a series of smaller signings which, while not adding to the "core" of the team (as The Big Three strategy had hoped would happen), would help the RHL16 Aviators could become something other than a spectacle. Regardless, respectability still seems a pipe dream.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Draft Recap Mailbag

Note: The article was edited on Wednesday, 8:19am PDT, roughly twelve hours after its original posting. After giving the world a couple of days to digest Aviator News' RHL draft analysis, it's time to dive into the feedback article. While there weren't a ton of direct questions which came from the piece, there were some general issues (discussed during and after that draft) which carry enough interest to deserve a few paragraphs. Perhaps addressing these topics will lead to further discussion. Taking a cue from ESPN.com's Bill Simmons, I'm going to format this as a mailbag article. Whereas Bill's customary introductory line is "As always, these are actual questions from actual readers," I'll note these are not actual questions. Instead, they're resets on comments the article received. Q: You listed an incorrect position for one of my players! You may be long-winded, but you're also an idiot. -- Danielle, Vancouver, BC Thanks for your support, Danielle! By the way, you should try to avoid using "but" as a conjunction unless the independent clauses conflict. I am both long-winded and an idiot. A better conjunction would have been and: "You may be long-winded, and you're also an idiot." In fact, you can just lose the "may" and say that I am long-winded. Throughout the draft shakedown, I made mistake after mistake. I spent the better part of a day researching and writing the piece. I didn't want to do a disservice to anybody's picks, since I was potentially criticizing time they'd invested into their team. At some point, the task of writing, editing, formatting the article became overwhelming, so I just let it go. Don't take that paragraph as bemoaning the effort the article took. I will be doing this again next season. Though I don't think I saw this effort through, that just motivates me to do a better job on the next article. Write earlier, write more often. You might see nightly updates next year, so I don't have to dedicate a large block of time to the job. Of course, the Aviators will probably have draft picks next year. Grading out the draft was easy this season because we had no picks. When we are picking, how do I select a player who I feel is less than a *****? We might need an impartial reviewer for that one. Q: And are you sure you don't want to expand that entry about the Aviators picks? It's awfully thin in the current version. -- Daniel, Victoria, BC OK, this was an actual question from an actual reader. It was inappropriate to do so in the draft review, but reviewing the trade which took us out of the RHL16 Entry Draft needs to be done: to VAM: FRE1/SOC3 to AVI: Turco/Dawes It's easy to break this down as Turco for the first and Dawes for the third. So, let's do that. Since none of Crosby, Brule, or Johnson were available at FRE1, I'm very happy with this trade. But if Marty Turco were available in this year's draft and taken with FRE1, I'd have given it a ***. He's cheap, rated now, has a good track record, but he's ultimately a goalie - and not a young one. The ceiling for Turco is currently lower than that of a Devin Setoguchi. On the other hand, if somebody took Nigel Dawes with SOC3, I would have given it at least a ****, probably a ****1/2. In keeping with the Bill Simmons theme, we can bring Hubie Brown into the evaluation on Dawes: "Here's a forward who as performed at every level. He has the offensive skills, the mentality to play in the NHL, and in today's NHL his size is no longer minus. He gives you fifteen, twenty goals a year right now, and he's got significant upside. And this is a third round pick." Overall, the trade looks like a good one, to me. We all love drafting. Drafting is fun. It's a way to throw your manhood onto the table and proclaim yourself the alpha GM. But there are other ways to do that. For example, you can write scathing reviews about others' drafts. Q: Why are you apologizing for going this? You're such a wuss. It's only for entertainment purposes. Passive-aggressive-estrogen-laden-babble is not why I read your stuff! -- Marty, Bloomington, IN OK. I promise to stop the implicit disclaimers if you promise to stop the quadruple hyphenates. Just decide on a word. As for me, I'll try to stop being so passive. No! I will be less passive! Q: So would the 500's still rank on top if you added my last pick in round 3, Alexander Edler? :-) -- Mark, Carmel, IN I always feel strange allowing smiley faces in the Mailbag. I picture somebody who sips herbal tea while writing the email. I already added the Edler pick to the evaluation, so you can see how I rated that pick. The rating didn't hurt the 500s draft. In fact, it improved it, if that was even possible. They moved out of a tie for third in overall value, now holding the place by themselves. I admit to being surprised that the 500s graded out above everybody else. When I was tabulating the cumulative results, I kept expecting another draft to usurp their position. I had assumed Grand Prairie, with all those good picks, would take the top spot. But that didn't happen. You could point toward the methodology I developed as undervaluing the Stringer picks, but two days removed and with a settled mind, I'm starting to like the methodology a little more. Sure, it could use a tweak to solve the Selects problem, but the whole goal is to recognize that quality and quantity each have their place. Ultimately, the methodology does a decent job of answering this question: Who did the most with their picks? When you look at the roster of new prospects and where they were selected, I think Mark makes the best case for being the answer to that question. I was so intrigued by the results that I chatted-up Mark up how he approaches the draft. No surprise, he said he puts an emphasis on getting people closer to the NHL. That doesn't sound too hard. After all, the closer people are to the NHL, the more information we tend to have about their skill-set. So why don't the rest of us adopt a similar outlook? The problem seems to be that drafting an AHL'er or somebody like Freddy Meyer - potential to be decent, though never an all-star - isn't as fun or glamourous as sifting through scouting reports or finding diamonds in the rough. All of us like doing these things. Finding a player who is young, investing in them - these things have rewards. Intellectual rewards. Are those intellectual rewards necessarily consistent with building the best team possible? If you're consistently drafting in the top 8, sure they do. Mark conceded that when he has a prime pick, he'll go with the youthful prospect - gamble on the upside. But when your picks fall into a more uncertain area, what's the upside in speculating on a never-will-be as opposed to an almost-there? Reviewing of draft's past finds diamonds-in-the-rough, but more often the "hits" of the third round aren't stars. They're people who became decent players, though their pick came with many more risks. They had those risks of complete failure, but they also had the upside of "hitting." Those upsides are the intellectual rewards of drafting the longer-term prospects. When I hit on Marc-Andre Bergeron and Matthew Stajan, I felt vindicated in my picks. What about Mathieu Brunelle or Nicklas Korovkin? Each year, I try to improve my methodologies to eliminate what I see are mistakes in analysis (in those cases, overvaluing stats beyond the 18-year-old season in juniors), and I'll continue to try and improve how I draft. But I'm always going to wonder if I shouldn't just adopt the Mark and Paul school of drafting. Ultimiately, one doesn't seem a lot better than the other. It's just that one (mine) assumes more risk. Q: Just out of curiosity who would you have taken at the 12th spot? Setoguchi? -- Howard, Yellowknife, NT This was the big question, covering Luc Bourdon, Devin Setoguchi, how the top-half of the draft went, and ultimately Gilbert Brule. I'll start with Bourdon, since deciding his value is necessary to determining whether the twelfth pick is the right slot for him. I originally gave Luc Bourdon a * but upgraded it to a ** after I realized the query I ran on a local stats database only gave me half of his 2005-2006 QMJHL numbers. For reference, here is how Bourdon's profile looks, from the Internet Hockey Database:

Luc Bourdon Defense Born Feb 16 1987 -- Shippagan, NB Height 6.02 -- Weight 199 -- Shoots L Selected by Vancouver Canucks round 1 #10 overall 2005 NHL Entry Draft --- Regular Season --- ---- Playoffs ---- Season Team Lge GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003-04 Val-d'Or Foreurs QMJHL 64 2 6 8 58 7 1 0 1 4 2004-05 Val-d'Or Foreurs QMJHL 70 13 19 32 117 -- -- -- -- -- 2005-06 Val-d'Or Foreurs QMJHL 20 2 18 20 54 2005-06 Moncton Wildcats QMJHL 10 1 7 8 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scouting reports look at Luc as an offensive defenseman who has the ability to be a top pair guy. Some people felt he as the second best blueliner in the 2005 draft. All felt that he had defensive deficiencies with the physical ability to improve upon them. Overall, the scouts seemed semi-enamoured, as evidenced by going tenth in the NHL draft. While I may not have strongly disagreed with that assessment at draft time 2005, what a difference a year makes. Bourdon did not have a good year, particularly when his offense is supposed to be a prime asset. Prorating numbers to seventy games (his highest total), his last two seasons look like this:

Season  Games Goals Assists Pts PIM
2004-05 70    13    19      32  117
2005-06 70     7    58      65  145

That's a lot more helpful to look at ,since we combine the two 2006 lines and then prorate to 70 games. Bourdon's pro-rated point total actually doubled in 2006 from 2005. So what's the problem? Whereas his point total improved, the components of those points switched from goals to assists. His goals went down by half whereas his assists, inherently a more team dependent number, went up over two hundred percent. Not all of that improvement can be attributed from moving from a bad team (Val-d'Or) to a good one (Moncton). Looking at it from that view, you could object that he play most of his games at Val d'Or and still showed improvements in his assist rate from 2004-05. But he Val team of 2006 scored 224 goals, whereas the 2005 team scored 189. There was a huge increase in overall environment and team production. Bourdon's assist numbers would have improved regardless of his underlying ability. If that's the case, how do we tell if 2005-06 represented a procession from 2004-05? The less team-dependent number, the goals, shows that 2004-05 may have been a little above his head. And, of course, 2004-05 is the year on which he's made his name, to this point. The team dependency of assists (and league) is showing up in that 58 total, though there is probably some actual performance increase. But the goals went down, sharply. You never want to see numbers go down in the age 19 season. At the twelfth pick in the draft, that's a mark against a player I'd try to avoid. Bourdon's numbers look even worse when you start considering the league context. The QMJHL, even to a casual observer, seems like a high-goal scoring environment. But just how much higher is the goal scoring than, say, the OHL and WHL? In 2006, it was 11.8% easier to score a goal in the QMJHL than in the OHL. The average player in the OHL averaged 15.03 goals per 82 games; a QMJHL player averaged 16.81 games per 82. How about compared to the WHL? The average WHL player scored only 12.57 goals per 82 games. It was 33.7% easier to score a goal in the QMJHL than in the WHL. That data includes both forwards and defensemen. If you isolate the blueliners, the difference if more pronounced. The average QMJHL blueliner scored 8.01 goals per 82 games in 2005-2006. In the OHL, the number was 5.2. In the WHL, the number was 4.68. The table below show the ratio of goals by defenseman when comparing one league (vertical, Y) to the other (horizontal, Z). I multiply by 100 for readability, then add 100 to bow to convention:

League	OHL	QMJHL	WHL
OHL		65.7	112.4
QMJHL	152.2		171.2
WHL	88.8	58.3

How to used these numbers? You can say something like "The QMJHL's goal rate for defensemen in 2005-2006 was 71.2 percent higher than that of the WHL." Clearly, the toughest scoring league for defensemen was the WHL, almost twice as hard as that of that of the QMJHL. See why I almost gave Alexander Edler a ****1/2? What does this mean for Bourdon? It means that a naturally offensive league is even more offensively-oriented for defenseman, making his numbers less valuable. The ratios I published above change from year-to-year, and 2005-2006 was a particularly good your for defensemen. If I also use the 2004-2005 ratios to adjust both Bourdon's 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 season, we can get this kind of evaluation on his as a WHL'er:

Season  Games Goals Assists Pts
2004-05 70    12    18      30
2005-06 70     4    43      47

Not only do the ratios change between seasons, but their different between assists, goals, and penalty minutes. I left PIMs off this latest "chart" because I don't have those numbers handy. As you can see, the drop off for 2004-05 is not as dramatic: the leagues played much more even then. Still, you would have expected Bourdon to score much more last year, given the easy environment. You're still left with a player that looks like a good prospect. But a year removed from a draft that saw him go at number ten, the drop from twelve to four goals is not encouraging. There is a sample-size issue with Bourdon's lack of games played in 2005-06. I haven't done any analysis on when the sample would be big enough to trust these rate numbers. I suspect that 70 games isn't even enough, and our use of the data will come down to how comfortable an individual feels using the numbers. It's safest to refrain from the specific, keeping statements to general, qualified "Bourdon's thirty 2005-06 games represent a decrease in adjusted goal scoring production from adjusted 2004-05 rates." As qualified as that statement is, I still think it gives us information on Bourdon. Luc still looks like a good-to-decent player, especially if you add in the scouting report raves. I would have certainly considered him near the bottom of the first. Picking at twelve, you don't want to ignore the scouting reports entirely. Ideally, you'd find somebody who has great performance who is also liked by scouts. The player who best fits that description at 12 would be Setoguchi. He was drafted higher and by an organization that does a good job of developing forwards. He played (and performed great in) the WHL, and he has a very consistent track record. Setoguchi graded out at number 4 on the Aviator draft board and would have been our pick had we not traded for Marty Turco. In lieu of Bourdon, I would have advised (from the other first round picks) taking Setoguchi, Nicklas Bergfors, or T.J. Oshie. I used the WHL (above) because it ties into Setoguchi and Gilbert Brule. The ratio goal ratios you see above show an environment that was much tougher in the WHL for 2005-06. While the OHL and QMJHL environments became much more offensive in last season, the WHL retained a 2004-05-level of scouring. Brule's already best-in-minors numbers (when prorated) become much more impressive than Rob Schrempf's when adjusted for league. Incidentally, the player who came out best amongst prospects last season, when using this type of analysis, was Ryan Potulny. And guess who has him? Damn you, Bourdeau. Now my reasons for preferring Gilbert Brule to Jack Johnson might seem a little more clear. It's not just that Brule is a good prospect - he clearly is. Brule was the best performer in major juniors last year. The problem with him was injuries, but his NHL test plus the nature of the injuries (not chronic, more one-time injuries) should offset those concerns. Somebody brought up style-of-play as an injury inducement. That may be true, and that along with Columbus itself might be reason to take Johnson. But after looking at the environments in which Brule has performed, I think he would have been a good pick for either Chris or Daniel at two and three. By the numbers, he was clearly one of the three jewels in the draft. Even add in the scouting report factor, and he still grades up top three (as opposed to top two without the scouting influence). But how much should we buy into these numbers? Is there any reason to believe that Brule's acumen in the WHL should have any baring on his NHL performance? Clearly, yes. People who don't score in juniors are less likely to score in the NHL. How we transcend this divide and identify who is best suited to bridge the major juniors and the pros is where scouting plays its part. For me, scouting is far too subjective, with individual experts unable to agree on what a player is or is not. One person in Atlanta though Braydon Coburn was a better prospect than Dion Phaneuf. Clearly, there is a high fallibility there. This is not to say scouting should not be trusted. You need to consider what scouts say in order to get the full picture on a guy like Bourdon. Scouting primacy, however - or statistical primacy - fails to paint a clear, complete picture. The major junior numbers, and the games I play with them here, only matter in so far as you think scouting is lacking. If you honestly trust the scouts, the Bourdon was a good pick. If you only trust numbers, Alexander Edler might have been a better pick. I don't know (or care) where the truth on this issue lies. I'll just sit in between and lean towards the tangible. Of course, neither Bourdon nor Edler would be as good a pick as Setoguchi. And guess who has him? Damn you, Bourdeau.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

RHL16 Draft Review and Evaluation

While taking on the task of writing the RHL's first large-scale draft analysis, I came to look at the article as a no-win situation. Everybody likes the players they draft, else they wouldn't have been on a draft list. So almost anybody who reads this article is doing to disagree with its content. That's a lovely start. Additionally, I'm in no position to be doing draft analysis. What do I know? Why am I holding myself up above everybody else, passing judgement on what's just happened? If you look at AVI's draft history, it's far from distinguished. It's not bad, either. But there certainly is not cause of grandiosity in my picks. Trust me: I don't see myself as being above anybody. Those drafts I gave the worst grades to, I still acknowledge that I will be wrong on many of my evaluations. I'm just a guy wit an unhealthy amount of time to express his opinions. It doesn't mean those opinion are good ones. Don't trust me. Any ex-girlfriend of mine will tell you that. Regardless, I wanted to do this for my own informational value, for fun, and because whether a player works out, there's still the moment-in-time evaluation, one which matters when you're trying to sift through this mountain of information. If a random player "hits" in two seasons, that doesn't all-of-a-sudden make the draft pick a good choice. It makes the owner lucky despite what may have been a poor decision at the time. That's what this article is really about: gauging decision making processes, ultimately comparing them to what I would have done in a similar situation. As such, the evaluations you see below are not entirely "this player is good!" It's more about "did this owner make a good decision given the draft pick's slot." If I give Carey Price a "*1/2", it's not because he's not a good prospect. He would be AVI's #1 prospect. The score is more about Price going above Brule (and others). To measure the hundreds of decisions, I developed a * to ***** scale, with ***** being the best. I gave a score to each draft pick based on the value the owner got for the pick. Since players taken later have profiles which are harder to measure, there's a natural tendency to award higher scores at the top of the draft. I totally ignored trades, so even though Jean got value for CRY2, there's no consideration of this in CRY's draft analysis. I use the * ratings by assigning a value between 0 to 100 (unevenly) for each level and scoring how a team performed per-pick (SOC had the highest score here) and in totality (no surprise, VAM wins this). The final rankings are a combination of these two performances. On what basis did I evaluate players? If you read the comments, you'll figure it out real quick. There are many references to average and replacement level players. If you used a draft pick on a player who is unlikely to ever give you more than what's available for cheap in each season's auction, that pick is likely to get a "*". This is in addition to my normal biases. Immediately, I see a couple of problems with my methodology. The biggest can be seen in the ranking of SEL at 13. They made a very good pick in the third round, but I should have weighted good picks in earlier rounds higher when creating the "Overall" rankings. Because I didn't, SEL ranked higher in overall than they perhaps should have. I didn't change this before posting the results because it would take too much time. Intuitively, I think SEL should probably be around 16-18. Overall, I'm very happy with the results. The rankings aren't what I would have guessed at the start of the process, but I find the I want to do a follow-up article next week where I answer questions and respond to criticisms, so fill up the comment thread. Please! In the interim, I'm taking the rest of the day off. This article took a long, long time. So, without further ado, here is the overall report card, with teams listed alphabetically by city name afterwards.

Rank	Team	Picks	Average	Overall	Combined
1st	500 - Indianapolis 500s	5	85.8 (3rd)	515 (3rd)	6
2nd	GPS - Grand Prairie Stingers	9	74.4 (8th)	670 (2nd)	10
3rd	EAG - Edmonton Eagles	4	75 (t5th)	300 (7th)	12
4th	SOC - South Edmonton Sockeyes	2	95 (1st)	190 (12th)	13
5th	VAM - Calgary Vampyres	21	50.7 (12th)	1,065 (1st)	13
6th	CAP - Chicago Capones	2	93.5 (2nd)	187 (13th)	15
7th	SPA - St. Alberts Spartans	3	75 (t5th)	225 (10th)	15
8th	COU - Victoria Cougars	6	55.8 (11th)	335 (4th)	15
9th	ROV - Baffin Isle Rovers	5	61.4 (10th)	307 (6th)	16
10th	DEF - Washington Defiance	4	73.8 (9th)	295 (8th)	17
11th	FUN - Saskatoon Funboys	2	75 (t5th)	150 (14)	19
12th	MOU - Kitchener Mounties	7	45.7 (15th)	320 (5th)	20
13th	SEL - Lethbridge Selects	1	85 (4th)	85 (t19th)	24
14th	FAL - Cleveland Falcons	4	50 (13th)	200 (11th)	24
15th	YDP - Yellowknife Dangerous Penetrators	7	40.8(18th)	285 (9th)	27
16th	TME - Airdrie T-Men	3	48.3 (14th)	145 (15th)	29
17th	STR - Albany StrapHangers	3	42 (17th)	125 (t16th)	33
18th	REA - Guelph Reapers	2	45 (16th)	90 (18th)	34
19th	MON - Kansas City Monarchs	4	28.8 (19th)	125 (t16th)	35
20th	CRY - Seattle Crystals	5	17 (21st)	85 (t19th)	40
21st	THU - Waterloo Thundercats	2	25 (20th)	50 (21st)	41
22nd, tie	GAR - Chicago Gargoyles	0	0 (t22nd)	0 (t22nd)	44
22nd, tie	SPE - Guelph Spectres	0	0 (t22nd)	0 (t22nd)	44
22nd, tie	AVI - San Diego Aviators	0	0 (t22nd)	0 (t22nd)	44
22nd, tie	ROA - Waterloo Roadkill	0	0 (t22nd)	0 (t22nd)	44
22nd, tie	FRE - Winnipeg Freeze	0	0 (t22nd)	0 (t22nd)	44

Airdrie T-Men

Trevor, like a few others, was out of town. He got the bad end of the stick in a couple of places. Auto-drafting from the NHL Entry Draft results, he ended up with one of the mistakes of the first round.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	6	Bobby Ryan, F, Anaheim	* 1/2
2	6	Ondrej Pavelec, G, Atlanta	****
3	6	Taylor Chorney, D, Edmonton	***

I like Pavelec as much as it's possible for me to like a goalie. Getting him in the second round seems like good value. The other two picks are uninspiring. Chorney's path to the NHL and RHL may be long, and Bobby Ryan, while a nice prospect, profile at the middle or end of the first round, NHL draft position not withstanding.

Average: 48.3
Overall: 145

Albany Straphangers

A year of near-burn-out from playing games left Adam with his three picks, having made few trades during the year. Taking a couple of Islanders amongst his three picks, Adam stayed cose-to-home, with his favorite team.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	16	Ryan O'Marra, F, NY Islanders	**
2	16	Dustin John, D, NY Islanders	**
3	16	Philipp Gogulla, F, Buffalo	***

Gogulla is good value for a third round pick - the kind of chance I like to see amongst what can be uninspiring third round picks. On the other hand, the O'Marra and John picks left me wanting more, given their positions. Particularly, O'Marra seems like a pedestrian first round pick.

Average: 42
Overall: 125

Baffin Isle Rovers

Steve Stringer's general management skills are well-rounded. In season trades, free agency and the draft: he tends to be equally adept in all areas. While there were a couple of picks I disagreed with, including his first (Bergfors is a world better), Baffin Isle again drafted well.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	22	Ryan Parent, D, Nashville	*1/2
2	24	Marc-Edouard Vlasic, D, San Jose	****1/2
2	26	Daniel Ryder, F, Calgary	****
3	24	Pekka Rinne, G, Nashville	**
3	26	Colby Genoway, F, NY Rangers	***1/2

Perhaps the best second round of the draft following a first round pick that I hate. I wanted to give Parent a * and Vlasic a *****, but I decided to bow to convention a bit. Rinne has a future as something you can get in each unrestricted free agent market. I like the Genoway pick, though his track record at UND portends a drop off from his 77-26-35 performance for this year's wolfpack.

Average: 61.4
Overall: 307

Calgary Vampyres

This may take a while.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	20	Dustin Penner, F, Anaheim	****
1	25	Tim Thomas, G, Boston	****
1	26	Ryan Craig, F, Tampa Bay	***1/2
1	26	Matt Niskanen	*
2	1	Michael Blunden, F, Chicago	**1/2
2	7	Alexei Yemelin, D, Montreal	****
1	7	T.J. Hensick, F, Colorado	***1/2
2	13	Nolan Schaefer, G, San Jose	**1/2
2	15	Blake Comeau, F, NY Islanders	*1/2
2	19	Andrej Sekera, LW, Buffalo	*
2	21	Brett Lebda, D, Detroit	***1/2
2	23	Vladimir Mihalik, D, Tampa Bay	*1/2
2	25	Brendan Mikkelson, D, Anaheim	*
2	26	Michael Sauer, D, NY Rangers	***
3	1	Karri Ramo, G, Tampa Bay	***1/2
3	7	Niklas Backstrom, G, Minnesota	***
3	19	Bjorn Melin, F, Anaheim	***
3	21	Jonathan Ericsson, D, Detroit	*
3	23	Martin Richter, D, NY Rangers	***
3	25	Michal Macho, F, San Jose	*
3	26	Vitaly Kolesnik, G, Colorado	**1/2

When you have this many picks, it's going to be a mixed bag. I think Vlad is doing the exact opposite of what he should be doing with this many picks. He should be tirage-ing high-risk, high-return guys, letting people go in 2-3 seasons if they don't hit. Instead, he's targetting a bunch of replacement level players. How many back-up goalies can you draft? If these older European imports hit, you might have a second liner, but odds are your have a third or forth liner. Hello fungibility!

Average: 50.7
Overall: 1,065

Chicago Capones

Consistently having one of the best prospect lists in the league, Walt added two gems in the RHL16 draft. His draft was short on quantity, having only those two picks, but but he made the most of his slots.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	15	Duncan Keith, D, Chicago	****
1	23	TJ Oshie, F, St. Louis	****1/2

I really should give each of these guys *****, but something's holding me back. I wish I could describe it. Maybe it's the consideration of the ceiling on each player. But for value, these are great picks. Duncan Keith was one of the handful of to-be-rated defensemen who will provide immediate dividends. Oshie's freshman year at UND should have moved him higher. He ended up going about where he went in his NHL draft when his NCAA performance justified a bump.

Average: 93.5
Overall: 187

Chicago Gargoyles

I get the feeling that I missed a pick somewhere. Didn't Ted have a lower round choice? Oh well. I'm tired.

Cleveland Falcons

Doug Deutsch wasn't much of a drafter in his first stay in the RHL, toward the end ritualistically trading his draft picks. But when you have the first pick overall in a special draft, it's easy to get into the pick.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	1	Sidney Crosby, F, Pittsburgh	*****
1	31	Kenndal McArdel, F, Florida	****
2	31	Tyler Plante, G, Florida	*1/2
3	31	Chris Durand, F, Colorado	*

The Crosby pick is a no-brain winner. McArdel is good value at 31, though his record is a bit inconsistent. I liked him more at this time last year. Tyler Plante, though, lacks the track record of a goalie that is guaranteed to excel at the next level(s), and Chris Durand has not performed as a prospect should in the NHL.

Average: 50
Overall: 200

Edmonton Eagles

Chris jumped to the league in GM of the Year rankings with his draft maneuvers. He landed two great picks through astute pre-draft dealing and then cashed in his chips.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	2	Jack Johnson, D, Carolina	*****
1	12	Devin Setoguchi, F, San Jose	*****
1	13	Guillaume Latendresse, F, Montreal	****
3	12	Scott Jackson, D, St. Louis	*1/2

Johnson was one of the three jewels. To get Setoguchi at twelve was great value. Latendrasse was an inspired pick, if a bit early. Jackson, however, was a little too by-the-book. My prediction for Jackson's EAG future: Chris saying "I could throw in Jackson ..."

Average: 75
Overall: 300

Grand Prairie Stingers

Pulled off the coup of the first round by trading for MON1, getting Gilbert Brule when the Cougars took Carey Price ahead of them. For what they gave up, it was a great deal.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	4	Gilbert Brule, F, Columbus	*****
1	5	Anze Kopitar, F, Los Angeles	***1/2
1	7	Marc Staal, D, NY Rangers	***
1	17	Niklas Bergfors, F, New Jersey	****
1	27	Justin Pogge, G, Calgary	****
2	4	Petr Kalus, F, Boston Bruins	****
2	5	Perttu Lindgren, F, Dallas	***1/2
2	27	Barry Tallackson, F, New Jersey	**1/2
3	27	Grant Lewis, D, Atlanta	*1/2

I'm in awe over the first seven guys, though I disagree with who they took where. Staal could have been Setoguchi. Kopitar could hit, but has more questions than others that could have gone there. But they got Bergfors in a good place, picked one of the three jewels (at four), and the difference between Pogge and Price is not 26 picks. This is a great group. The last two picks are a little safe, but this was a very impressive draft. Why isn't anybody talking about GPS in the same vein as VAM? Where they lacked quantity, they got quality.

Average: 74.4
Overall: 670

Guelph Reapers

The Reapers mortgaged much of their draft stock to win the Premier League in RHL15. As a result, only two picks, both third rounders.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
3	2	Patrick Davis, F, New Jersey	*
3	17	Keith Yardle, D, Phoenix	****

Two diametrically opposed picks. Davis underperformed at all ages in the OHL. There's nothing to say he will be an average AHLer, let along a good NHLer. On the other hand, Yardle dominating in his only QMJHL season, though defensemen performance in The Q is a funny thing.

Average: 45
Overall: 90

Guelph Spectres

I always thought this team would be better named "The Guelph Spectre!". The punctuation there is important.

Indianapolis 500s

Leaning towards a more pragmatic draft approach, Mark had a good crop of pull from this season, getting Meyer at eighteen.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	18	Freddy Meyer, D, Philadelphia	****
2	18	Bill Thomas, F, Phoenix	***1/2
2	20	Ryan Shannon, F, Anaheim	****
2	22	Marc-Andre Gragnani, D, Buffalo	***1/2
3	9	Sergei Kostitsyn, F, Montreal	***
3	X	Alexander Edler, D, Vancouver	****

Each of these picks was on the verge of being a knotch higher, so I actually like Mark's draft more than the scores will indicate. Shannon's got a logjam in front of him, but he had a great AHL postseason. Likewise, Kostitsyn augmented otherwise pedestrian numbers with a good playoff season. No bad picks here. A draft that will fly under the radar, but on a for-slot basis, one of the best.

Average: 85.8
Overall: 515

Kansas City Monarchs

They made him make picks! It's going to be strange to see prospects on Ward's roster. I wonder how long they'll stay there?

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	28	Sasha Pokulok, D, Washington	*
2	28	Joe Finley, D, Washington	*
3	4	James Neal, F, Dallas	**
3	28	Chad Denny, D, Atlanta	****

Denny's good value at the end of the draft and gets four stars. The rest are bad picks. I originally had Neal even lower, but he showed improvement as the year went on. I would hate to be a Capitals fan with those two first round picks. There were much better defensemen available in each position - NHL and RHL drafts.

Average: 28.8
Overall: 115

Kitchener Mounties

Kitchener's prospect lists are traditionally a mix between high-round prospects and overly conservative, to-be-rated (badly) players. This is how you can get Marion Gaborik and Jiri Bicek on the same prospect list. Here, the two worlds came together, with the Mountie getting conservative with some prospects.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	9	Jack Skille, F, Chicago	*1/2
1	19	Brian Lee, D, Ottawa	**1/2
1	24	Tuukka Rask, G, Toronto	****
2	26	Jeff Frazee, G, New Jersey	*1/2
3	15	Randy Jones, D, Philadelphia	****
3	20	Matt Jones, F, Phoenix	*
3	26	Nathan Oystrick, D, Atlanta	***

I hate to be negative toward Brad (considering the Free Agency article), but why take Skille when you could have had O'Shie? Skille's numbers compare well to Jack Johnson's (too bad there's the positional difference). I'm not as down on Lee, but there were better picks available. Brad looks like he just went by the NHL draft, so he should be lucky he didn't have the second overall pick, to be left with Bobby Ryan. Rask is a good recovery, performing excellently in Finland this season. Good value pick with Jones as a third. Well, the first Jones. What, realistically, is Matt Jones's upside?

Average: 45.7
Overall: 320

Lethbridge Selects

Only one pick for Ryan. Coming off a finals appearance, I'm not sure he should care that much. Ride that high, man.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
3	13	Justin Abdelkader, F, Detroit	***1/2

I'm mixed on Abdelkader. For a third round pick, I think it's good value. I also think it's possible he underperformed in his first NCAA season, and his regression plus improvement may surprise some people. All the same, I've having trouble visualizing what this kid will be. Hence, even though I like picking him up in the third, he gets the lower grade.

Average: 85
Overall: 85

San Diego Aviators

Frickin' losers.

Saskatoon Funboys

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	21	Andrew Cogliano, F, Edmonton	***
3	22	Tomas Popisil, F, Atlanta	***

I feel like I should be harder on Cogliano, but Michigan as a freshman ain't easy and Edmonton's got a good history when it comes to scouting and development. Same thing with Popisil. My first reaction as ** or **1/2, but I gave him a *** as a nod to the North American adjustment.

Average: 75
Overall: 150

South Edmonton Sockeyes

Paul has always been the ultimate pragmatist in drafting, but design met function when Francois Beauchemin went at number seven. With Walt grabbing Keith at fifteen, it's clear that Paul's prize would not have gotten to SOC1. Good trade to move up and get the man he wanted.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	7	Francois Beauchemin, D, Anaheim	*****
2	9	Lee Stempniak, F, St. Louis	****

South Edmonton usually has an array of picks, but most of those were traded off in securing the RHL15 title. Still, despite having only two picks, Paul made good in the RHL16 draft. I'm not sure how good Stempniak's going to be - we might be seeing all he has. Even if that's the case, it's still a good second round pick.

Average: 95
Overall: 190

Seattle Crystals

Jean's big move was trading out of the second spot, electing to stock the Crystals with Eagle depth rather than take Johnson or Brule. I don't see it as a bad move, since neither had spotless resumes. We'll have to see if the return he got measures up.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	30	Paul Stastny, F, Colorado	***1/2
2	2	Adam McQuaid, D, Columbus	*
2	12	Nathan Hagemo, D, Carolina	*
2	30	Shea Guthrie, F, NY Islanders	*
3	30	Ben Bishop, G, St. Louis	*

I think I'm starting to get tired, because I feel like I was harder on Jean than I should have been. Or, at least, harder on these than I was on other people's picks (feedback, please). I like Stastny, but I have trouble seeing McQuaid being anything but fungible. Hagemo's going to be in college a while with that redshirt, and he seems very fragile. Guthrie and Bishop are both young and could improve, but they're bot accomplishing much at the NCAA level (by prospect standards).

Average: 17
Overall: 85

St. Albert's Spartans

Like Adam, Jun came into the draft with his picks and only his picks. There's something pleasantly organic about that.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	10	Marek Zagrapan, F, Buffalo	***
2	10	Ryan Stoa, F, Colorado	***
1	10	Mathieu Aubin, F, Montreal	***

Very good draft by Jun. Nothing spectacular, but solid all the way down. Zagrapan has the exact kind of profile you'd expect at 10 in a weak draft. Stoa was good as a freshmen at UM. Aubin burst our this year in The Q. Expect some regression next year.

Average: 75
Overall: 225

Victoria Cougars

Daniel Robitaille has always highly valued goalies. Keeping with a theme established in the disperal draft, we saw this fetish exhibited. The Cougars passed on a couple of gems but nabbed the future torch-bearer towards Martin Brodeur's thrown.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	3	Carey Price, G, Montreal	*1/2
1	29	Martin Hanzal, F, Phoenix	*
2	3	Matt Lashoff, D, Boston	***1/2
2	29	Fredrik Norrena, G, Tampa Bay	***
3	3	Ville Koistinen, D, Nashville	****
3	29	Joel Lundqvist, C, Dallas	***

Price is a very good player, but we disagree with the use of the pick. Hanzal's USHL numbers are poor for a center. Lashoff was good value in the second, and Norrena could be a find (a *** only because of age). Daniel's always had a knack for drafting the European imports, and Ville Koistinen could be a valuable addition with his third round pick. Joel Lundqvist has decent numbers in the Eliteserean.

Average: 55.8
Overall: 335

Washington Defiance

With so much salary room below the $21M league minimum, Washington fans had been looking forward to free agency and who the Defiance can retain (Alfredsson?). Hopefully, the fans noticed a pretty nice acquisition in Alex Bourret.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	14	Alex Bourret, F, Atlanta	***
2	14	Radek Smolenak, F, Tampa Bay	***1/2
3	7	Kristoper Letang, D, Pittsburgh	****
3	14	Slava Trukhno, F, Edmonton	**1/2

Following up on Bourret, Huy gets great value in this next two picks. Trukhno did not show the increased goal scoring I would have expected. It will be interesting to see how he progresses.

Average: 73.8
Overall: 295

Waterloo Roadkill

Again, I think I'm missing something

Waterloo Thundercats

Left with two picks while on vacation, Jason will come back to find two players who fell from their NHL slots. Of course, there was a reason for that.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	8	Benoit Pouliot, F, Minnesota	**
2	8	Matt Pelech, D, Calgary	**

It's difficult to be too hard on these picks since he's getting them "under slot," but neither of these players progressed in 2005-2006 after being drafted in 2005. You don't have to look far down the draft list to see players who would have been better selections in the draft.

Average: 25
Overall: 50

Winnipeg Freeze

Also, no picks. Ironic that FRE, after sweeping AVI, is left with no picks? Not really.

Yellowknife Dangerous Predators

Finally! I'm to the last team. I'd like to thank my fingers, my sanity, my internet connection ... oh, something about the Penetrators? OK. Howard's used his first seasons in the league to build a deep prospect list, though his choices tend to be a little "by-the-book" for our tastes. "By-the-book" sometimes gets you a pylon with the eleventh pick.

Round	Pick	Player	Rating
1	11	Luc Bourdon, D, Vancouver	**
1	26	Jakub Kindl, D, Detroit	***
2	11	Steve Downie, F, Philadelphia	*
2	17	Dan Bertram, F, Chicago	*1/2
3	8	Tom Fritsche, F, Colorado	**
3	8	Brad Richardson, F, Colorado	***
3	11	Jean-francois Jacques, F, Edmonton	***

This is where the same person who evaluated Jean's draft resurfaces ... but again, we have to ask about upside. What is Bourdon's? If everything works out for him, he'll be .. a very replaceable player. In other words, not what you imagine when thinking about a high first round pick. Howard almost ended up with him and Parent. Same question with Downie, though as a second round pick the context where he's drafted is a little better. Bertram has 19 goals in 75 career NCAA games. That's worse than Fritsche's total, though Tom was a third round pick.

Average: 40.8
Overall: 285

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

The RHL Demands Project

I told you. I told you. I told you. I told you something would come up. The auction kind of opens. The draft goes semi-live. There are a bunch of draft pick trades, including one about which I would like to write a complete article about. The one guy who the Aviators really, really wanting in the draft (Brule) goes to Grand Prairie in a deal which saw Michael Peca, Sergei Brylin, John Erskine and Roman Wick head to Kansas City. Without comment, I'd like to note that Paul Myers paid Calgary a first, second, and Andrew Brunette for a single pick, three spots lower. I'm already feeling an excess of vitriol after writing that paragraph, so it's time to shift to something more positive: the real purpose of today's article.

Last week I listed the three projects I'd like to take on for RHL16: "revitalizing the RHL Convention idea ...; RHL Minor League; pushing live Entry Draft rules through Paul/rules committee." With apologies to myself, I left off a pressing issue in which I have a much more urgent interest. Moving to the front of the list, RHL16 will be the season where the demand system will be tackled. By the end of the season, I want to have a new set of rules, software, and tools to have over to the league and say "This is what we came up with. Use it if you want. We've designed and tested it and feel it is a hugh step forward from what's being used now." Implicit in those statements are a series of assumptions which need to be discussed as part of the demands issue. The first assumption is that there is a problem with the current way of regenerating demands. Even if that is the case, I'm already assuming that the current means of developing rules can not handle this problem. I'm also proposing that a new way of adopting rules be used: Come up with the rules, test them, then submit for approval. It may be foolish to assume any rule can take this course. Additionally, I'm using the pronoun "we," not "I", assuming that there is a community of owners who would be willing to lend their talents and views. And finally - perhaps the biggest assumption of all - I'm still living under the illusion that demands can work, are a good thing, and represent a practical solution/tool for the league. Sounds like I have a lot of issues to address before getting to my proposal. Better get started. First one ground rule: I don't really want to talk about why something's not working. Not only will it take the article off on a tangent, but the why and how or the problem (and solution) aren't the problem itself. For now, I want to just identify the problem and a way of approaching a solution. Assumption #1: The Current Demands Do Not Work To assess whether demands work, we first have to determine the purpose that demands are attempting to serve. That purpose is debatable, so I'm going to come up with a very broad definition upon which I hope we can agree: Demands attempt to assign a value to a player which is in proportion to his league value. The definition does not include how the value is determined, what league value is, or what is done with demands. The definition doesn't I just want to concentrate on the demand itself, and I think that definition is sufficiently broad to encompass our ideas of what a demand's purpose is. If you take this definition and look at some of the examples I discussed last week, it's difficult to argue that demands are working. Are these demands in proportion to any valid conception of league value:

Spezza         1  550  72  3 1   0.85   467.50  Y (CAP, 4P/16, $233,750)
R.Nash         1  692  99  9 0   1.14   790.79  Y (GPS, 4P/16)
Nagy           1  472 109 10 1   1.23   676.78  Y (MOU, 1P/16, $169,195)
Gaborik        1  497  92 10 1   0.85   517.05  Y (MOU, 1P/16, $64,631)
Gionta         1  425  85 10 1   0.85   395.38  Y (MOU, 4P/16, $197,690)
Horcoff        1  373  78 16 1   1.17   695.36  Y (SOC - 4P/16, $347,680)
Martin         2  272  69 21 0   1.01   558.68  Y (TME, 4P/16)

I don't want to spend too much time on this point, though. We all have a relatively high level of exposure to the demands. Either you've come to think these numbers valid or not. I feel these demands are acceptable, as our league is better for having them than it would be should demands not exist. But I see so much room for improvement that I can not consider them valid. They're viable, but they're not valid. Assumption #2: The Rules List is not the Place For This Issue Demands are a very intricate issue, and not just because everybody has a different idea of what they should be. Discussions regarding demands tend to transcend the NHL into economics, labor, and (to actually generate the demands) technology. All of that is on top of the RHL's unique environment in which there are practical considerations which restrain developing anything that's too complicated. While the rules list has its moments in providing Paul and the group feedback on fully developed ideas or new, narrowly-scoped rules, I don't think the rules list is the best place for brainstorming ideas. You can have Martin and Jean going back and forth on an issue, then Ted fires of eighteen emails, the conversation explodes into a tree of off-topic sub-topics, and you end up with a collective "OK, where are we?" This demands task is going to need more direction. There are going to be a series of avenues which need to be pursued: methodologically, technologically, and with the rules. This is going to require more cohesion and organization than the rules list is used to. Ideally, the rules list would get involved in this project once somebody has developed the ideas. The rules list can comment on them, and Paul can use that information as he sees fit. Before that, though, the ideas need to be developed. Assumption #3: Submitting a Batch Proposal Will Work If a group was founded to address the demands issue and came up with a whole package, submitted it to the league and said "Look at the results! These numbers are much better. This is how we did it ..." who is to say the league will accept that? There are so many caveats built into the demands process (like peers, age-sensitivity) that changing those without reaching a consensus on whether people agree to the change could shipwreck the whole project. Why take this chance? Two reasons. First, I've had recent success with this method of rule/suggestion development. The "M" contract idea was submitted in this fashion, as were a couple of preceding suggestions. I prefer suggesting changes in this way because it helps convey to potential readers the amount of time you've put into the suggestion. It gives the impression that the implication of the suggestion are being addressed. Whatsmore, I find it tends to raise the level of dialogue. It's very difficult to respond with merely "I don't like this" when somebody submits a full-blown idea. The full-blown idea usually compels the respondent to say "I don't like this idea because ..." Second, the demands project is going to be determined by the results, not the details. If the new suggestion can be demonstrated to generate more intuitive, consistent, accurate demands, there will be less to say about the details. Those details will be more akin to configuration files for a software application rather than points for debate. Ultimately, people care about what the demands say. We've always approached this problem by worrying about how to get to the end (to get the demands), but if Paul and the rules list received a final product with demand results, the results will become the topic rather than the methodology. Assumption #4: "We," not "I" Despite my skepticism of the rules list's ability to handle this problem, there are a lot of good ideas in the public domain regarding how to deal with this issue. I alluded to a conversation I had (semi-) recently with Martin Baldwin, but I've talked to others about this issue, and there are a lot of creative solutions amongst us. In the conversation I had with Martin, as series of ideas came as responses to my thoughts, ideas which I had never imagined as solutions to demands and other issues with free agency. At that point, I realized that the new demands idea would have to be more than one person. Whatsmore, I don't think this will be a short-term project. I think there's going to have to be a lot of discussions, maybe even some research. It's much easier to stay motivated in developing projects when you have other people along for the ride. If this project were an "I," I think I'd lose too much momentum between school and relocating. I need a "we" not only for the betterment of the project's quality, but also for the project's livelihood. Assumption #5: Demands Are Good. Demands Work. To my knowledge, there are a surprisingly high number of owners who have no regard for demands. They think the league would be better without them. Just let everybody go to free agent auction, let the bidding lead where it might. To be honest, I don't have a good argument to convince somebody otherwise. If you have no problem with players just going to auction as the default, then you're probably of the mindset that having the option to keep players on your team isn't that high of a value. Because ultimately, demands are about favorite players and continuity. If it weren't for people wanting the options to keep certain players - franchise defining players - then players would just drift to auction. Demands aren't about hoping Zdeno Chara comes in cheap or that some player gets a low random number multiplier. Demands are about Nicklas Lidstrom. They're about owners being about to keep players should they be willing to tailor their franchise around this goal. To me, it isn't about whether demands work as much as it's about whether the idea of continuity works for the RHL. As Jeff Berliner left the RHL and Martin Brodeur shifted teams, I saw that there was. Sure, that scenario is rare, where a player stays with one team. But the option is there, and I think there's something to it.

I couldn't address all the assumptions sufficiently, but I think I've got enough reasoning there to justify the RHL Demands Project. Uh oh. Bold. Yes, bold. Bold for the title of the project which I would like to start today. What I'm looking to go is bring together a group of people who will develop the demand generation-system which can take the RHL through the next ten seasons. I want to start from scratch, pursue new options, and come up with something that is comprehensive: from rules, to scripts/software, to methodology, to implementation. What is a demand? How do NHL players go about creating them? How does this differ from other sports? What modes can we use for the RHL? How do we create those models? How should they be implemented? What are the results and implications: short and long-term? I want to be able to submit a packet to Paul which has the software he'll use, a series of tests the project implemented to show certain stimuli (player ratings?) will generate certain results. And, of course, I want those results to work for the RHL. I want the team to be proud enough of the project to reach out to the league and explain why this effort was needed and why the league will be a better place for it. I want to address this issue once and for all. After an initial adjustment period, I don't want demands to be an issue until there's another major shift in the league. I want the project to be comprehensive, covering all angles and addressing all issues: goalies, young players, freaks, older players on the verge of retirement, franchise loyalty, potentially differing dispositions. I want the project to be creative: designing software, looking for other work which can serve as influences, paying attention to media, researching recent free agent histories in sports. I want to result the speak for itself. I want to start a mailing list/working group immediately and get a dialogue going. The goal will be to have something available by the end of RHL16 (so there would still be one more season of the current system, even if we get this job done). I'm hoping for four to six people, all of who will be committed to the cause. With luck, the group will be in place by the end of next week. Without luck ... I'll probably try to establish a group informally, where I do a little work here-and-there, emailing my thoughts to people who can give me feedback. That would be the group: a cluster around whatever action I do. But that structure has problems, and it is ultimate just Richard doing his own things. As I said, I want a "we" for this one. If you are interested, please let me know. We need people who will develop ideas. You don't need to be a programmer, and you won't have to do research. But you will have to be thoughtful and come up with ideas, respond to email and be willing to find consensus with the group. If interested, you know who to call.

Monday, July 31, 2006

A Beginner's Guide to RHL Free Agency (Well, not really)

Everybody read the new rules? You should. I should (I haven't, yet). Even if you're not one of those types who likes to be aware of all the causes, it would be good to read through it quickly and see if you have any questions. You don't want to be one of the snarky ones who complains about rulings sixth months too late. Again, good job on Paul's part for getting these out before RHL16 starts. He's having a great off-season. Today, I have two things I really want to write about. I want to write about one of these topics much more than the other, but the timing of the RHL world compels me to address what I otherwise would put off for another day. So I may need your help, as I want to write about the RHL Demands Project, but I'm afraid that there will be another time-sensitive project tomorrow. Such is the nature of the preseason. One day it's the draft, the next day Free Agency. There are stories and energies to spare. I'm sure that on Wednesday there'll be yet another time-sensitive topic that needs to be written about, else its significance will be lost. And I'll never get to talk about My Precious demand reform. These kinds of story-choices give me a glimpse at what newspaper columnists have to deal with. Though I've always been interested in writing, newspaper columnist is an occupation to which I have never been drawn. having to write something that I can't get excited about merely to meet a deadline sounds like homework. The idea brings back that feeling of semi-nausia I felt in the fourth grade, when my primary school teacher finally threw me into the world of schooling-outside-of-school. Ms. Spencer started giving me homework. All I wanted to do was play basketball. I imagine newspaper writers across the world writing 300 columns each year, sitting at their computers, trying to write while thinking of all the basketball games they could be playing. To me, it's an abhorrent thought - the reason why this blog will go through periods of both high-activity and low-activity. Sometimes, I just want to play basketball. But today is the other side of that coin. I get to choose between writing projects (as opposed to forcing one out). Today, I've chosen to write my guide to the RHL free agent auction, seeing as the bidding could open at any time. If I didn't write this article today, it would be passé by the time I got around to it. At the same time, I really want to get some ideas about RHL demands into the public domain; but, I'm going to try and put that off for one day. EXACTLY ONE DAY (HELP!). Alas, I'm reminded of an article idea from three months ago, inspired by a topic Mark alluded to in a comment, where I would discuss the idea of not replacing teams when owners left the league. It would be an RHL where there is no set number of teams - where we would only fill vacancies when good owners presented themselves, leaving "slots" in the RHL fabric when current owners left. But that article was always getting pushed back, was never really topical, and it's now just a figment of my over-active imagination. I hope the same fate doesn't await my ideas about RHL demands, because the topic is very important. If you caught my comments from a couple of weeks ago about this seasons' free agent signings (the demands that where met), I hope you see that the league has taken a step backwards in demand generation. I've had detailed discussions with Martin Baldwin about free agency and demands, and I think there is a lot of good energy amongst the owners, enough which would allow us to tackle to problem head-on and find a lasting solution. What's preventing this happening immediately, in my opinion, is a lack of organization. The rules list just isn't going to cut it for this one. We need a project structure more in line with that which you'd find on an engineering project. That's what tomorrow's article should be about. One more topic, before I get to the main article. On the rules list, Paul just went public with an idea that I had shared (either with him privately or on this blog) a few months ago: fixed compensation, in proportion to the size of the bid, for restricted free agent bids. It's something I encourage interested parties to consider, as it will bring meaning back to being a restricted free agent auction that currently serves no practical purpose. This is an idea that the Aviator News editors hope to champion throughout the season. Now, on to today's article.

The RHL free agent auction is one of the distinct features of the RHL - one of the first things to be inducted into the leagues pseudo-Hall of Fame. When first introduced by Jeff Berliner, it represented cutting-edge technology (as far as internet sports leagues were concerned). Now the technology can be found within other leagues, making the tool a little less avant-garde. But that aspect of the auction's distinctness wore off on us long ago. What currently makes the auction a unique RHL experience is the pomp, circumstance, and opportunity free agency represents. It's the RHL's bazaar - pun-intended. With most teams set to rely on the auction to fill some roster holes, I felt obligated to share eight rules every owner must know in order to survive the auction. With all humility I say that I have no idea how any of you survived without me giving you these rules sooner. So rather than risk a mass-exodus from the league when only Andy and I have access to this valuable, VALUABLE information, I'm posting this on the blog - and not behind the subscription-only curtain. No, no. It's my pleasure. Here are my Eight Rules for Surviving an RHL Auction. 1. Yes, Brad Schott's bidding is annoying, 2. But no, it's not personal. I was a little gun shy about this first rule. Maybe it was because I think Brad reads this every once in a while, and I don't mean any offense by evoking him as an example. Maybe I was gun shy because I think I'm being a cry baby by bringing this up. But if I can't write what I want in my blog, what the hell is the blog for? Besides, what I'm about to describe isn't limited to Brad, and the frustration with the practice isn't limit to me. Even though I think using Brad as an example guarantees a bunch of "MOU" bids on top of AVI's offers, I care more about this article than signing free agents. That's just how I roll. What do I mean by calling Brad's bids annoying? Just think back to last season's (or any season's) auction and those moments when you thought you had a player locked up ... The hours right before an auction period ends, right before you're about to sign a player, should be a time of caution. We've all felt the twinge of a last-second bid snatching a player out of our hands, keeping him on the market for at least two more periods. Despite knowing that this last-second bidding happens all the time, we're all human. We construct visions of that guy being on our team - in the line form. Delusions of grandeur enter our being. As two periods pass without action, the idea of landing that player starts to cement itself. It's only natural to get your hopes up. But then you have the action vultures who (as a point of strategy) bid on those players who are about to sign. Maybe because it's easier to only look at the players who are about to go off the table (scouting triage, of sorts). Maybe it's just to try an frustrate the opposing owners. I am not sure why some owners become auction vultures - waiting for the bidding on a player to die down before swooping in to pick at the carcas - but there definitely are auction vultures. To me, the prototypical one is Brad Schott. I can't remember how many times over the last few seasons I've gone to bed thinking that a player was probably mine only to find an outbid notice in my morning's InBox and a "MOU" next to the player's name on the auction server. Being on the West Coast, there is usually only an hour or two between my last log-off and the period's closing time (yet another aspect of the auction that allows me to get my hopes up). But after almost ten years in the league, I should know: Brad goes to bed at 5pm Kitchener time, sets his alarm to go off 30 minutes before the auction period ends, then wakes up, logs on, does a find on "AVI" on the auction server's page, and proceeds to bid. This is the only scenario that explains what has been happening. Of course, this scenario is also ludicrous, and so is my singling-out of Brad. For one, his bidding patterns aren't this bad (actually, they are - I'm just trying to sound even-handed). Secondly, his bidding patterns are perfectly within the rules. Third, this issue is more about my inability to adjust than it is about Brad's behaviors. But, finally, it's important to realize that it's not personal. At least, I don't think it's personal. As I alluded, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I've heard from other owners who've noticed that vultures also seem to circle their players. To us, the people who get worked up at the morning's disappointment, I say this now: Let's declare RHL16 as the year of the Auction Chill-Out. 3. "Ethos" is a four letter word. While the behavior of the vultures is legal (within the rules), I wouldn't exactly call it neighborly. It doesn't seem consistent with the Golden Rule, and I would go as far as to call it a unethical (if only slightly so). I would also caution that I'm completely off-base in saying that. My mistake is trying to ascribe ethics to the free agent auction. The auction is the Wild West of the RHL. It's a place where a password and a budget are the only regulations which matter. Who to bid on, how much to bid, when to bid - there are no rules for these things. Anything goes. Your definition is as good as mine. All the same, I would caution against creating any definitions. They only get you into trouble. So while I certainly would not make a practice to last-second bidding, who am I to be creating those definitions? Let along forcing them upon other people? I know, as a fellow owner, I appreciate more normalized bidding patterns. But again, that's me trying to force my definition of normal on other owners. All this gets so murky. It's better to not bother defining anything that so readily defies definition. Just go to the auction and bid. Worry about your team, but try not to worry about anything else (like who you're bidding against). 4. Unrestricted players don't belong to anybody. Whereas bidders will display an amorality in regards to their bidding patterns, they'll become ethicians when it comes to their players. There's an obvious irony in that (beyond ethics not being applicable to the auction), an irony that's augmented by the precarious definition of who their player is. The easy definition: A player is mine if my team owns the loyalty/matching rights. This is a misguided rule seeing as free agency and possession (owning) are practically antonyms. But there are even more convoluted rules of auction possession than this easy, non-sensical one. What about the implicit rule I mention above? The "I almost signed him, he was mine, and you bid on him at the last minute, you chromosome-deficient bastard" rule. Or the "I sent an email to the list saying he was 'Mine, mine, mine!'" rule that was popular a couple of years back. Or how about the now-outlawed "Technically, he's mine, but I'll use my matching rights and trade him to you" rule? All of these rules fall into a broad category I like to call "No." These aren't rules, no matter who sends the traditional passive-aggressive, Round 8 complaint this season:

I wasn't going to say anything... but I get really
tired of people ..who wait to the very last second
to bit.  On players.  It's just really frustrating; 
That's all.

Again, UFA Auction = Wild West. 5. See those players at the top - under Restricted Free Agents? Ignore them. I blame myself for this. It was something like five seasons ago that, in the context of a trade discussion with Mark Benvenga, I was told that he would agree to our trade only if I also agreed not to bid on Mike York, an impending restricted free agent. Not that I can blame Mark for asking for that. I was the guy who came into the league, immediately used my crappy expansion roster as an excuse to bid on restricted free agents, and then advocated that each succeeding expansion team do the same thing. Not exactly neighborly. The public debates that went along with this "policy" created an a stigma around the restricted free agent auction. I made it into the contentious place where you battle in hand-to-hand (email-to-email) combat, where only one owner could be victorious. I made it into Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves! As exciting as that might be (I need to see that movie again), nobody goes to Bordertown unless they have to. With the depth of unrestricted free agency nowadays, there's no reason to resort to unrestricted free agency. If having to give compensation wasn't bad enough, you might end up in a post-Apocalyptic wasteland with Tina Turner. And ... that reference is dead. 6. No, I don't think he really wants all 27 players. When Vlad (or another owner) opens the auction by bidding on 27 players, don't even waste the electrons thinking about the whys and what-fors. That owner's just bored. True, bidding on that many players is a strategy that has no justification (besides at-the-office entertainment), but he's not going to get Daniel Alfredsson for $351,000. Just remember: RHL16 is the season of the Auction Chill-Out. Be the Buddha. Center yourself around those players who fit into your universe. Let the bad karma flow towards the owner blindly bidding on every player. If it makes you feel better, that bad karma will probably have him stub his toe on the tub tomorrow morning. But that wouldn't make the Buddha feel better. 7. It's not the end of the world. If you don't get the players you want, that one player you wanted, or any decent players, don't worry. Missing out on players in free agency is not the end of the world. If you don't believe me, look at last year's Champions' League results. The top teams in the league were (by standings) Kitchener, Chicago, Baffin Isle, South Edmonton, and Saskatoon. Let's add Lethbridge to this list, based on their postseason performance. Amongst those teams, only Baffin Isle has been a big player in free agency of late. Kitchener tends to rely on trades to acquire its top talent. Chicago has a deep farm system and hasn't spent big on free agents since signing Adam Foote. South Edmonton lost Jarome Iginla last year on their way to the title. Saskatoon tends to use free agency to augment it's core. Lethbridge did use unrestricted free agency to get Trevor Linden and Sheldon Souray, but they had to trade Souray (and Joe Sakic) because of financial problems. There's no question that free agency can help your team, but if you don't get Alfredsson or Forsberg, remember these examples. There is more than one way to build your team. 8. There's always next year. Take a quick look at the rosters and you'll see that unrestricted free agency just keeps getting deeper and deeper. If you don't get the big name guy this year, there'll be another available next year: Chris Pronger and Scott Niedermayer are both due for new contracts after RHL16. So save all the high-falutin' bidding for RHL17. RHL16 is the season of the Auction Chill-Out.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Aviator Awards: RHL15

Though it flew under the radar, the Aviators held their post-season award banquet on Friday. Seasonally held to acknowledge those players who contributed to the preceding RHL season, the RHL15 banquet was different from previous seasons because of the amount of turnover the team undertook during the season. This would also be the last time this group would gather as a team, as the RHL's Expansion Draft started that same night. While the team used the opportunity to welcome Shaonne Morrison and Taylor Pyatt, acquired in the dispersal draft held earlier in the week, the focus of the evening was on the past season. Derek Armstrong, as expected, won the Aviator Ward as the season's best player. In a lineup constantly in turmoil, Armstrong was the rock. His injury right before the playoffs and the Aviators' disappointing results that followed highlighted his value. Coming over in the preseason from the Guelph Reapers, Armstrong finished with 11 goals and 26 assists in 53 games, rating out at +5, one of the Aviators' few plus players. In return, Armstrong received the organization's highest award. The most storied award, the Owner's Award, went to Jeff Cowan. Given to the player who best represents the organization, the ward had only been given to four different players in the preceding ten seasons. Cowan joins Tom Fitzgerald (three time winner), Ian Laperriere (one), Kirk Maltby (five), and Trevor Linden (one) as winners. The positional awards went to Erik Cole (forwards, 65-20-14-34-70) and Brian Leetch (defensemen, 65-11-21-32-20). For the first time in team history, no award was given to goaltenders. Pierre Dagenais (52-19-12-32-28) was named Best Newcome, while goaltender Mikael Tellqvist (15-8-6-0-3.62-.882) was names Best Young Player.

Season	Aviator Award: Season's Best Player	Owner's Award: Player Who Best Represents the Organization	Forward of the Year	Defenseman of the Year	Goaltender of the Year	Best Newcomer	Best Young Player
15	Derek Armstrong	Jeff Cowan	Erik Cole	Brian Leetch	not awarded	Pierre Dagenais	Mikael Tellqvist
14	Jere Lehtinen	Trevor Linden	Craig Conroy	Zdeno Chara	Sean Burke	Erik Cole	Alex Auld
13	Keith Tkachuk	Kirk Maltby	Alexei Kovalev	Scott Stevens	Roberto Luongo	Jeff O'Neill	Daniel Snyder
12	Keith Tkachuk	Kirk Maltby	Alexei Kovalev	Zdeno Chara	Roberto Luongo	Dan Boyle	Mike Comrie
11	Radek Dvorak	Kirk Maltby	Ron Francis	Scott Stevens	Roberto Luongo	Richard Matvichuk	Mike Comrie
10	Scott Walker	Kirk Maltby	Keith Primeau	Bryan Marchment	Roberto Luongo	Trevor Linden	Zdeno Chara
9	Brian Savage	Kirk Maltby	Mike York	Marty McSorley	Scott Fankhouser	Martin Lapointe	Vitali Vishnevski
8	Brian Savage	Ian Laperriere	Joe Nieuwendyk	Patrice Brisebois	Scott Fankhouser	Mike York	Vitali Vishnevski
7	Jaromir Jagr	Tom Fitzgerald	Joe Nieuwendyk	Jason Woolley	Guy Hebert	Marty McInnis	Sebastien Bordeleau
6	Jaromir Jagr	Tom Fitzgerald	Michael Peca	Jason Woolley	Robbie Tallas	Ron Francis	Brad Werenka
5	Michael Peca	Tom Fitzgerald	Sergei Nemchinov	Scott Lachance	Darren Puppa	not awarded	James Black