Solution to "prospect upgrades?"

[Deleted]

What's up folks, how are ya?

I remember back in the day there was a league like this and I was a fan (in some sense) just because it allowed everyone to see the value that each player had (as prospects). 

I'll show you what the players looked like on the roster:


LW Alexis Lafrenière PLY 84 (18) 3.775M RFA 2023 [94]


As you can see, it's pretty much the same, but with the added [94]. This shows the max overall that a player can be (unless you include MPU's later on?). 
The upgrade system is quite simple then: rather than basing the upgrades on performance (tough to judge for TWF, DFD, etc. because we value offensive stats here over +-, hits, blocks, etc.), players receive an automatic +3 every offseason until they hit their potential max. 

Example:
2021 offseason - Alexis Lafrenière PLY 84 (18) + 3 = 87
2022 offseason - Alexis Lafrenière PLY 87 (19) + 3 = 90
2023 offseason - Alexis Lafrenière PLY 90 (20) + 3 = 93
2024 offseason - Alexis Lafrenière PLY 93 (18) + 1 = 94

Some pros to this system:
- There isn't a blurred line in trades. We can easily see the potential and gage whether or not a trade is beneficial to a team in the long run or not
- The draft becomes more interesting as you can have players with a low overall (68), but a high potential [90]. It means that it'll take a lot of work (like a Datsyuk) but he'll get there. It also means that you can have an NHL ready player instantly (80) but with a low potential [84]. 
- It gives rebuilding teams a sense of how long it'll be before their team will be competitive again, and they can better pick the players they want in trades
- Players that are more defensive obtain the same amount of upgrades as offensive players
- The simmer is able to do upgrades during simming (because they're predictable), allowing a shorter offseason

The Cons:
- It removes the opportunity to have a draft "bust" or a draft "steal". 
- It may lessen the excitement of putting a young player (Cozens for me), with talented all-stars in hopes that they become your next star as well and up their value. 
- Performance is somewhat irrelevant to upgrades. A player who performs well, will get the same upgrade as a player who does poorly (but sometimes a player who does poorly, lights up the league in the next year. (ex. Mackinnon was a good forward, but one year it all of a sudden took a giant leap). 


What are your thoughts? 

[Winnipeg Jets GM]

There should be no blurred lines in trades if folks valued developers properly, instead of valuing them at their max potential.

Upgrades shouldn't be guaranteed, so upgrades being determined on performance is just fine. If you develop your prospects correctly, you'll have a good team... If you don't, don't expect your prospects to get huge upgrades when they don't meet the requirements. 🤷 Simple as that.

More defensive players aren't upgraded or downgraded based on their offensive stats... It's, in fact, actually easier for TWFs, DFDs, etc. to upgrade or stay the same. So there shouldn't be any issue here.

This "solution" you have here just continues to perpetuate the concept that prospects are the only players with any value & veteran players are "useless", which isn't right either.

[Philadelphia Flyers GM]

Interesting concept. I like it

[Colorado Avalanche GM]

Dec 5, 2020 10:50:09 GMT -8 Winnipeg Jets GM said:

There should be no blurred lines in trades if folks valued developers properly, instead of valuing them at their max potential.

Upgrades shouldn't be guaranteed, so upgrades being determined on performance is just fine. If you develop your prospects correctly, you'll have a good team... If you don't, don't expect your prospects to get huge upgrades when they don't meet the requirements. 🤷 Simple as that.

More defensive players aren't upgraded or downgraded based on their offensive stats... It's, in fact, actually easier for TWFs, DFDs, etc. to upgrade or stay the same. So there shouldn't be any issue here.

This "solution" you have here just continues to perpetuate the concept that prospects are the only players with any value & veteran players are "useless", which isn't right either.

well said Kruze. We already have a system in place that works.

[Montreal Canadiens GM]

Interesting concept, here are some changes I’d make.
- +3 until they reach their potential is way too op imo. There should be an age where they stop growing, something like 22-24.
- PR should be able to raise a players potential based on performance, makes room for more steals.
- Similarly, PR should be able to lower a players potential based on performance, more busts.

Now, I don’t want this implemented and I’ll explain myself a bit why. I think after the first year and everyone sees growth - young players will be valued much more fairly than they are now. I realize prospects being overvalued is an issue right now, but one that will fix itself with time. I also think it’s asking way too much of PR, the Admins, or whoever’s task it would be to go about implementing this. That’s not even to mention how there’s without a doubt going to be GMs upset with the potentials their players are given, and create a lot of problems.

[Calgary Flames GM]

Performance upgrades are one of the things that make this league enjoyable imo. Could maybe have an automatic +2 or something for players 18-20, then also have performance upgrades and apu/mpu. But aside from that I don't think growth should be guaranteed for anyone, but stay possible for everyone

[Ottawa Senators GM]

I don't want this to happen, performance based upgrades are definitely more fun, but I do like the nostalgia factor of this suggestion.

I remember the first sim league I joined 12 years ago had this system, and I traded for Milan Michalek who was an 80 (89) and he was my best player. Good times. @rk17 were you referring to the old sim leagues run by a guy called "silence"?

[fisk33n]

To see what they will get to, is not fun imo. I don't know how it works here yet. But performance can make them go up that much I got so far.

But the unsecurity about prospects is fun, and is the way it should be. That is more like IRL, they don't know how well the prospect will fit in and develop in their team when they are drafted.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2020 13:50:52 GMT -8 Ottawa Senators GM said:

I don't want this to happen, performance based upgrades are definitely more fun, but I do like the nostalgia factor of this suggestion.

I remember the first sim league I joined 12 years ago had this system, and I traded for Milan Michalek who was an 80 (89) and he was my best player. Good times. @rk17 were you referring to the old sim leagues run by a guy called "silence"?

Yes!

[viperousperky]

I like this idea IF performance upgrades could still be a thing if the prospect drastically over performs or underperforms. I think the upgrade system right now if quite vague, and this would give it more structure. Think it will be better understood the way it is after one offseason too though.

[Ottawa Senators GM]

Dec 5, 2020 15:25:44 GMT -8 @rk17 said:

Dec 5, 2020 13:50:52 GMT -8 Ottawa Senators GM said:

I don't want this to happen, performance based upgrades are definitely more fun, but I do like the nostalgia factor of this suggestion.

I remember the first sim league I joined 12 years ago had this system, and I traded for Milan Michalek who was an 80 (89) and he was my best player. Good times. @rk17 were you referring to the old sim leagues run by a guy called "silence"?

Yes!

web.archive.org/web/20090208115550/http://thehockeynation.com/

[Winnipeg Jets GM]

Dec 5, 2020 15:30:08 GMT -8 viperousperky said:

I like this idea IF performance upgrades could still be a thing if the prospect drastically over performs or underperforms. I think the upgrade system right now if quite vague, and this would give it more structure. Think it will be better understood the way it is after one offseason too though.

There's nothing vague about the current system except that you're just not privy to how high your players' ceilings are or aren't... which isn't a bad thing, cuz it provides some realism to this.

[Carolina Hurricanes GM]

I don’t really know if there’s a reason to change anything yet. Let’s see how a full season, offseason, and upgrades go before we start to get into any changes on this

[Winnipeg Jets GM]

Dec 6, 2020 10:11:00 GMT -8 Carolina Hurricanes GM said:

I don’t really know if there’s a reason to change anything yet. Let’s see how a full season, offseason, and upgrades go before we start to get into any changes on this

Guys like rk are just wanting to be lazy and continue this overvaluing of prospects even further than it already is. 🤷 There's zero need for a change at all really.

[Columbus Blue Jackets GM]

This option was discussed at the beginning of this league, but ultimately, it's a fuck ton of work. If we were eventually to go down this route, one thing I'd like to see added is the 'franchise' 'elite' 'top 6' 'top 9' 'bottom 6' etc potentials added to players, almost more so than the limiting number. Maybe if a player reaches a certain overall even with having 'top 9' potential, his potential gets upgraded to top 6 the following season, but it'd be hard to implement, track, and manage

[Toronto Maple Leafs GM]

This is like getting a kinder surprise and knowing what's inside before you open it.

Most of the fun is not knowing what the kinder surprise is going to be.