Prospect development

[Thundercleese]

It's obviously much harder to bring your prospects up to useful status in this game (they made it too hard I think...nobody's even NHL ready in their first year which is a little ridiculous!) and I don't seem to be doing very well at it. So far I've kept my guys in juniors for as long as possible and then hoped they'd improve to their potential in my farm team but that doesn't seem to work so well....a lot of them degrade if they spend time there, even if they're getting plenty of ice time. Any suggestions?

Also, related to this, why can't I invite some of my prospects to training camp?

[Minstrel]

You can't invite college players to camp; to possibly answer your last question first

With prospects keep in mind that the Crosbys/Malkins/Ovechkins of the world are exceptions not the rule as most players aren't near their peak until at least their mid twenties; 26 has been generally accepted as the age at which you'll really know what a player's career role will be, even later for goalies and defense. So if you take the case of a player out of Juniors at 20 it's not unreasonable for an average to very good player to need two to three years yet before contributing in the NHL.

If your players are 'degrading' at the AHL/ECHL level I can only think of that they are getting poor coaching especially due to coaches that aren't good with young players and/or their position; or you may just be projecting that they should be able to develop faster than they are so you're deeming them failures when actually they're just following the natural development schedule. Those are only guesses though.

[Thundercleese]

So I guess that unless I take control of my farm teams I can't do much about the coaching there, eh?

I know that there's not going to be a Crosby or a Phaneuf every year but there are still players in every draft that are NHL ready in their first year out of junior (or before)....I think the development process is taking a bit too long in this game, although I concede it's generally more realistic. Just thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone is paying attention for something to fiddle with for the next patch....

[Minstrel]

You can take over, hire coaches and then put that GM on vacation if youw ant to try to keep lineups intact etc. or you could even just hire the coaches and a good AGM and then have that GM retire.

[bruins72]

You can take over, hire coaches and then put that GM on vacation if youw ant to try to keep lineups intact etc. or you could even just hire the coaches and a good AGM and then have that GM retire.

I hire the coaches for my farm team and then retire but my problem has been that many times they get hired away after I've retired.

[Minstrel]

Always sign your coaches for the lower levels to exhorbitant and long contracts; like 500k for 5 years... then if someone wants to sign them away from you they have to be willing to pay 2.5 mil to do it. That tends to end that problem.

[inSTAALed]

Always sign your coaches for the lower levels to exhorbitant and long contracts; like 500k for 5 years... then if someone wants to sign them away from you they have to be willing to pay 2.5 mil to do it. That tends to end that problem.

That's just flat out wrong.

Gotta go resign my AHL coaches real quick.

[batdad]

JVanderpool says:

How long should you give your young prospect players to actually fit into their role?

It seems like sometimes players like Bobby Ryan, Marc Staal, Jordan Staal, and a few others that I can't name right now will only need a few years. But what about those that you invest more time into and they start to go into their mid-20's and seem to grow a little but not too much.

Do you give up on them or keep going?

I am just curious to know how long it actually takes most of the young prospects on EHM 2007 to grow into something great.

sjsharkz says:

Well it all depends on the player himself, some people like to do it different, and depending on how weak/strong your club is, and if your rebuilding or want instant success. Personally, I let most of my prospects play in the juniors till they are too old, then depending on how they develop and my needs, and if I think there good enough, I usually start them in the AHL, and see how they perform.

But I like to leave them in the AHL for a full season, and see how they handle it, I dont really want to move them from the farm team to the main team all the time.

But as I said some players are good enough to play in the NHL after they finish with there junior team, and sometimes before. I've got one main player that didnt need the full AHL season, and thats Marc-Eduoard Vlasic, who is my future on D, and is more than capable at his age.

So it depends on the player and your situation, but mainly I give them alot of time to blossom, and they work out really good.

Hope this helps.

harmonica says:

A major indication is how high their morale and rating is. If players are getting an average rating well over 8, then its time to challenge them at a higher level. Training camps seem to do a lot for really young players, as do a few games with limited ice time.

If young players have low ratings and bad morale, it is not good for their development. The average player can use 3-5 years of development after being drafted. If a player doesn't look like he will make it into the NHL be sure to let him go. Some of my players have taken up to 24 or 25 before they were ready. Any older than that, and they should be dropped, unless you are keeping them as role players who can pass through the waivers or be leaders on your AHL team.

Taking control of your AHL team and a few extra years can raise the value of late draft picks and score you some good trades to use for the future.

[batdad]

Gentlemen: PLease perform a search for similar threads where you could ask you questions and post responses in the future.

The search function is the magnifying glass. A search for player potential or prospect development will literally bring up 1000s of threads. This is where the question should have been asked.

[harmonica]

This is the oldest prospect thread I could find, so posting here is relevant, is it not?

[bruins72]

Yes, posting here is relevant. That's why batdad copied those posts from the other thread into this one and deleted the other one. JVanderpool started a new thread when there were other threads of the same subject that could've been continued.

We're not trying to be nitpickers here with the threads. A simple search before starting a new thread is all we ask. Nobody likes answering the same questions over and over and over. Look at the mess that the SI boards have become. It's because it's chaos there and everybody starts a new thread every time they have a question or though. By keeping our forums clean and keeping one topic in one thread, it makes it much easier for people to find the information they're looking for and doesn't annoy everyone with the repetition of answering the same questions over and over. Again, we're not trying to pick on people. We'd just like everyone to take a moment and run a search before starting a new topic. That's not asking too much.

[laskey 16]

Look at the mess that the SI boards have become. It's because it's chaos there and everybody starts a new thread every time they have a question or though.

Great point, the SI forums are getting worse and worse. The endless repetition of questions and the number of people who want the football manager forums but go in the EHM have meant that I have I stopped reading them. TBL is much better.

[bruins72]

Okay, we're getting off topic in this thread now. This thread is for discussing prospect development in EHM!

[harmonica]

One thing I like to do with some prospects who spend time in the AHL, is to get them working on a secondary position. This is especially good when you draft the BPA instead of trying to fill your depth chart and have a backlog of a certain position and you would like all of them to make the big club. Good prospects have the ability to post enough points to get them high ratings while keeping a high morale and getting good minutes at that position.

I remember reading somewhere that working with youngsters is only beneficial for 21 years old and younger. Not sure if that is 100% accurate, can anyone confirm or deny this?

[bruins72]

I can't recall if "working with youngsters" is only helpful to 21 and under but I usually make sure to get coaches with a good rating in that skill for my AHL affiliate. You've got to figure there are enough younger players down there that they'll need it. If I can, I even try to get my NHL coaches to have a decent rating in that too. I can't say how it works for sure but the way I think of it in my head is that these are the coaches that work well with players that are still developing. They're not going to make as much of a difference to the vets but they're great teachers.

Good call on the "training new position". I always plan to do that and never bother. From what I hear, there is a hidden stat that determines whether or not a player will learn a new position. It's best to try and get them to learn when they're playing on the farm though. If they struggle down there it doesn't make much of a difference. This is yet another good reason to sign your decent Euro-prospects and get them assigned to your farm team. Even NCAA players could benefit from this.

[Shadd666]

I can't confirm or deny it's up to 21yo, but i tend to think it's longer than that. Else, it would be useless to have coaches with a good level in working with youngsters when you are in a NHL team, as very few prospects can make the big league at age 21.

My guess is that working with youngsters work until the age of 24, as your scouts are still talking of a potential talent for those players, not only their actual talent. However, i may be wrong

[harmonica]

bruins72, teaching and learning who can get another position early also helps me determine who stays and who I let go or trade. I think the stat they base it on is called versatility (found in the editors), but I could be mistaken. I should test it out.

I have no idea either, but I remember reading that 21 and under is the age it works for, 24 makes sense to me as well. However, it doesn't stop me from trying to make sure all of my coaches have a good rating.

[V4ND3RP00L]

Sorry about making the double thread somewhat, but things happen from time to time.

Aside from that, thanks to the rest of you who have talked or shared your information about the whole prospect development.

I was just curious as to when I should just give up on a player when they are getting any better. I don't want to toss away players on account of them not being well by the time they are 22 and then seeing them become NHL superstars when they are 25, you know?

I'll just start giving them more and more time to see what happens.

Thanks again!

[harmonica]

It really is up to you when you want to get rid of people. If you draft a lot of players each year and like trying to develop them, you will need to get rid of guys so your system isn't stagnating. Some people like trading away their 'junk' when their value is the highest. Which is usually after the draft, or if they have great seasons.

You also have to remember that their are not an unlimited number of contracts, so clearing out some extra space saves money and allows you get bring in more players.

One of my friends plays and always has that problem, he never wants to get rid of any of his guys.

[V4ND3RP00L]

I have had the problem of signing too many people and keeping them around too long. That is why I brought up the issue of age and development for EHM 2007 players.

All in all, I have been giving them until about the age of 25 and then I am letting them go to other teams.

I usually can pull out a good draft pick for most of them or atleast a good prospect in most trades.

Aside from that, I tend to give goaltenders and defensemen a little longer then I do forwards. I see that goaltenders really need more time to get into a nice groove and turn into NHL type players. As for defensemen, it takes awhile for them to get their defensive skill. It isn't hard to get them good with skating and everything else, but it all takes time.

Thanks for your input, harmonica.

[harmonica]

No problem.

One of the great parts of the game is developing players, so attachment to them is something you have to kind of fight against. But I think we are all 'guilty' of that at one point or another. After the 2010 draft, there will be a lot of drafted players that can step in right away, but there is nothing better than making an NHLer out of somebody that may have never made it without your hard work.

I meantioned in the thread about morale that getting players to hit often will increase their morale because their game rating should be higher. This is something I try and do with my young players. For some it works and others it doesn't, regardless of their stats. It all depends how involved you want to be with your AHL team.

Another great thing about this game is you can make some truly great players even if they have lower potential. I have made Malone into a 100 point player and he continued at a high pace after I let him go for financial reasons. His stats did not reflect it and I was shocked, but making him into that was rewarding. I always play somebody based on their strengths and then adjust their offensive or defensive level depending on the line they are on. I think this is just as important as the training schedules. I am sure Crosby can smoke Gretzky's records in the game; maybe not the assists per season, but he isn't even a point per game player under computer control. Like everyone, he needs to be played based on his strengths. The better a player does, the more they develop.

[V4ND3RP00L]

It isn't too hard to get players like Crosby, Malkin, Ryan, Ovechkin, Jordan/Eric Staal, or any other good player in the game to score points for your team.

It all depends on whether or not you want to coach the game yourself. If you just simulate, then it is hard to see them actually play to their full potential. But if you run your own team practices and setup your own tactics, then you will easily get them doing what you want for your team.

All in all, I have found that just giving some players a little extra time pays off big time and then sometimes it can ruin them if you let them go too long.

[Saranis]

I usually give players until age 26 before declaring them garbage (or trade bait if some other teams are still intrested) A lot of the time other teams will give you SOMETHING for a player (unless they are UFAs at the end of the season) even late round draft picks can be traded for early ones.

I drafted a Goalie in the fourth round in the 2007 draft and midway through the next season I get the Flyers coming to me asking to aquire him for a 1st round pick in 2008. This goalie had a scouting report from all my scouts as a "Third String" with stats in the 16 and 17 range (using Alternate stats, normal would be 3-4) so I was HAPPY to ditch him.