Summer Proposals

[SlackJack]

I still want to circle back to the money league idea

:iatp:

[SlackJack]

I still want to circle back to the money league idea

And I'd like to replace +/- with Blocked Shots.

[jmtrops]

I would only join a money league if it was just starting with a total draft and no attachment to real teams like we have. If you were going to convert this league to a money league I would have to leave

[SlackJack]

I would only join a money league if it was just starting with a total draft and no attachment to real teams like we have. If you were going to convert this league to a money league I would have to leave

We wouldn't want to lose you. There would have to be different buy-in values. It would have to be fair.

[papps]

I’m not really interested in a money league.

[jmtrops]

I just think the only fair way is to start a new league and draft from scratch.

[Rob]

And I'd like to replace +/- with Blocked Shots.

It's come up about a lot since we started.  But I think the FP effect has scared us from changing it.

[WestCoastExpress]

The one proposal that I would throw out there would be in accordance with contract extensions...

Values are fine, but the "minimum number of years" players need to be signed to could be softened perhaps.

I only say this looking at some of the older, but good players that have been re-signed this off-season to 5 year contracts. Sure, no one wants to let a Ryan Getzlaf walk to FA for nothing, but signing him at 33 years of age for 5 years also sucks as he'll be 38 when that contract expires.

Maybe some kind of stipulation that if the player is 31/32/33 years or older (age number negotiable), that they are eligible to be signed to 3-5 year contracts ... But if a team wants to buy-out that player, they would have to pay more than the current amount, say something even as high as 80% of the remaining contract.

You could just put some sort of symbol by that player's contract to indicate he's one of the 31+ contracts which indicates the higher buy-out amount:

C Ryan Getzlaf, $6.7m (2020-2021)^


Because, even if Getzlaf hits FA, he's going to be signed for 5 years... And don't get me wrong, if he hits FA and someone gives him the money for a 5-year deal, that's different. They're stuck with him.

But just to retain your players but not totally screw a franchise long-term is what I'm getting at - especially in Getzlaf's case where the owner is totally new to that team, and had zero chance to trade him. It was either sign him for 5 years, or not sign him and lose him for nothing to FA. Of course you sign him, but that contract sucks down the road.


It's somewhat similar to the NHL's 35-and-over rule:

The collective bargaining agreement also contains a 35-and-over rule. This rule states that if a player signs a multi-year deal when the player is 35 or older, starting in the second year of the contract, that amount will count towards the team's salary cap regardless of whether the player is on the active roster or not (unless the player is on long-term injured reserve).

A player who signs a contract aged 35 or older can be bought out as a compliance buyout, or, as a regular buyout. As a regular buyout, the team does not receive cap relief, but instead they free a roster position.

[izaman3]

The one proposal that I would throw out there would be in accordance with contract extensions...

Values are fine, but the "minimum number of years" players need to be signed to could be softened perhaps.

I only say this looking at some of the older, but good players that have been re-signed this off-season to 5 year contracts. Sure, no one wants to let a Ryan Getzlaf walk to FA for nothing, but signing him at 33 years of age for 5 years also sucks as he'll be 38 when that contract expires.

Maybe some kind of stipulation that if the player is 31/32/33 years or older (age number negotiable), that they are eligible to be signed to 3-5 year contracts ... But if a team wants to buy-out that player, they would have to pay more than the current amount, say something even as high as 80% of the remaining contract.

You could just put some sort of symbol by that player's contract to indicate he's one of the 31+ contracts which indicates the higher buy-out amount:

C Ryan Getzlaf, $6.7m (2020-2021)^


Because, even if Getzlaf hits FA, he's going to be signed for 5 years... And don't get me wrong, if he hits FA and someone gives him the money for a 5-year deal, that's different. They're stuck with him.

But just to retain your players but not totally screw a franchise long-term is what I'm getting at - especially in Getzlaf's case where the owner is totally new to that team, and had zero chance to trade him. It was either sign him for 5 years, or not sign him and lose him for nothing to FA. Of course you sign him, but that contract sucks down the road.


It's somewhat similar to the NHL's 35-and-over rule:

I've had a lot of older players on my teams over the years and have thought about this for a while. I think I like the way it is because players that retire have their DNHL contracts voided. It think it makes a GM consider whether a player's age, playing style, and potential decline before re-signing.

[Rob]

Right, we get free retirement drops. So I think the setup is ok. Though yea, a guy like Getz is tough, but, though decisions have to be made!