Extension cost discussion

[SlackJack]

if anyone thinks that the calculating numbers need to be adjusted they can always start that discussion.

:iatp:

$25k is an arbitrary number designed to improve free-agency options and accelerate improvement of lower tier teams.

The trade-off is that teams are less able to retain talent. (No Dynasty for you!)

The second-order effect is a sluggish trade environment. Prospect contracts are more valuable than salaried point producers.

I support the intention of the change but have always argued against the the mechanics.

I see a time where others will join me in calling for tweaking the static multiplier slightly lower.

[Rob]

I pulled this out of the Q&A thread since it's as good a time as any to have this discussion.  It's been a couple years using this method - how does everyone feel about it?

I still like the simplicity of it and I like what it does to inject good talent into Free Agency.  Any numbers we use are going to be arbitrary in some sense.  Unless we match their real life contracts. 

I do agree on the sluggish trade environment.  Though I think the trade environment was sluggish before this change as well.  As we've settled in over the years we have fewer and fewer trades.  New GM's have been the only active trade partners.  So I think it's partly a condition of longtime GM's sticking with their youth and cost controlled contracts and playing for the long haul.  In early years we have a good number of teams playing it the way Cedric is now - going for the gold at all costs, future be damned.  As GM's gain tenure they seem to get more and more conservative.

That's my initial thoughts.  As always I'm open to change if the league is.  Let's hear what you all think.

[snugerud]

:iatp:

$25k is an arbitrary number designed to improve free-agency options and accelerate improvement of lower tier teams.

The trade-off is that teams are less able to retain talent. (No Dynasty for you!)

The second-order effect is a sluggish trade environment. Prospect contracts are more valuable than salaried point producers.

I support the intention of the change but have always argued against the the mechanics.

I see a time where others will join me in calling for tweaking the static multiplier slightly lower.

I dont think it has run long enough to really see the effect.  two seasons is barely enough time to start seeing the ripple.  I think the sluggish trade environment would only get worse lowering.  If anything we need a bit less dynasty and bit more more turnover of players year to year.  I pretty much support anything that pushes more players into free agency.   My vote is to leave it alone for another season or two.

I have my own ideas / preferences when it comes to extensions but my ideas would be seen as quite radical in the change section and far off the path that most leagues (all leagues) seem to use on profsl (I would love to divorce extensions from stats. Extensions should have their own mechanics).  Although I will say they setup does produce way more movement (in a 16 team league we had close to 120 trades last season)

[GypsieDeathBringer]

I think I brought this up last year, but players now score more than they have in the last 8 years, so extensions are going to take up a larger % of our static salary cap.  My view is that GMs still mostly resign their own players and then because they take up a larger % of the cap it has sharply reduced FA costs.  Sure, some players will make the odd $25m for one season, but most players are getting signed to peanuts compared to what their extension value would be. 

Sometimes you can cash in on FA with a rebuilding amount of cap space, but mostly there isn't much to sign.

I attribute the stagnant trade market the last two years with the top teams being just so dominant that there weren't 2-3 trades that would put a team into contention.  Maybe that will change this upcoming year. 

My opinion recently has been to reduce the number of years of prospect extensions down to 3 years.  This will allow for more players to be making full scale money faster which would push more players into FA and probably increase trading.  The extension multiplier probably doesn't matter too much.

[SlackJack]

I pulled this out of the Q&A thread since it's as good a time as any to have this discussion.  It's been a couple years using this method - how does everyone feel about it?

Appreciate the discussion. $20k would be the kind if tweak I'm talking about. May not seem like much but I feel the pendulum swung a bit hard with the initial change and that $20k would be slightly less punative to GM's that draft well.

If anything we need a bit less dynasty and bit more more turnover of players year to year.  I pretty much support anything that pushes more players into free agency.

Might need to change the league name then no?  Seriously I think there are other ways to encourage more turn-over. A cap on trading cash for example. Would like to hear more about your idea for extensions even if radical.

I attribute the stagnant trade market the last two years with the top teams being just so dominant that there weren't 2-3 trades that would put a team into contention. Maybe that will change this upcoming year.

I would agree in part, but trading to contend immediately isn't the only reason to trade. Rebuilding teams could and should be looking ahead at least a couple of years.

My opinion recently has been to reduce the number of years of prospect extensions down to 3 years.  This will allow for more players to be making full scale money faster which would push more players into FA and probably increase trading.

I think you're right about this but don't like moves to be too radical so I would lean towards 4 years if this gets any traction. In fact it might be worthwhile discussing the same at the top end. Getting saddled with a giant 5 year contract is quite an albatross. If more churn is the goal then a max term of 4 years is yet another way to generate it.

[snugerud]

Might need to change the league name then no?  Seriously I think there are other ways to encourage more turn-over. A cap on trading cash for example. Would like to hear more about your idea for extensions even if radical.

I would agree with you on the cap for trading cash.  There should be a max amount of additional cap a team can take on.  I would say we disagree on the definition of dynasty.  Dynasty for me is the ability to build and continue rebuilding my team to be competitive year in and year out while dealing with constant player movements/ changes.  The dynasty part is me as a GM , not the players being able to stay on my team from draft to retirement. 

For the extension thing, i am not suggesting it for this league as it just wouldnt work. I will give you the real short of how its setup though.  As a base line everything is managed by fantrax for contracts except for each team has 3 franchise tags to use per season.
Contracts initial length is 3 years.
Extension option year is after their 2nd year.  You have the option to extend for 0, 1 or 2 years.  Each year extended adds 1 million to the players salary contract.
After the option year players are not eligible to be extended unless the GM uses 1 of their franchise tags.  Franchise tags can be used to extend players for 1 or 2 more years.  (each year extended would add 1 million to their contract).  You can use a Franchise tag on a player more than once. So say you have connor mcdavid,  starts as a rookie at 700k ,   you choose to extend him on your option year. for 2 years. His contract would move to 2.7mill.  At year 5 his contract is expiring , you can tag him for another 2 years bringing him to 4.7,  at year 7 you can tag him again bringing him to 6.7 and so on. 

What this does is each season teams end up with a mix of players that are on expiring contracts that they have to decide if they are getting too expensive or teams that have made moves to win that season end up with too many expiring contracts to extend all of them. (They always have to options to trade them after playoffs and before roster rollover.) Teams that are out of playoffs tend to look for trade partners for their expiring contracts.  Teams in playoffs tend to take on expiring contracts as rentals knowing that those players will end up back in FA. 

This would not be possible to implement here since it would take way too many changes in all areas. 

Some aspects that maybe we could consider implementing -
shorter term contracts. 
Extensions that dont go down in value. (if player A is at 5 mill per year, has a couple of injury years before extension they would need to be extended at the 5 mill at minimum even though they would extend at 3 mill on chart). 
Contracts that are considered final contracts (non extendable after they been extended once) Would need a Ftag option here as teams should always have some options at their disposal. 
Maybe a max amount of extensions per team. 


All this said, I am fine with the current setup.  I like that players are getting too expensive to make the extend decision easily.  What we may want to look into is there a way to tie our extension factor to total league production.  For example this season there has been some crazy offense compared to others.  Having the same multiple of 25000 with higher league production and static cap is making many players extension costs more than what is reasonable given our cap has not changed.  Or alternatively maybe our cap number is based on total league production but we keep the extension factor of 25k the same.

[jimw]

I think that $25k per point is high if the plan is for us to rebuild with our prospects. I'll have to let most of mine walk.

I think there should be a different multiplier for D than there is for LW/C/RW. Extending defensemen is really not affordable

[snugerud]

All this said, I am fine with the current setup.  I like that players are getting too expensive to make the extend decision easily.  What we may want to look into is there a way to tie our extension factor to total league production.  For example this season there has been some crazy offense compared to others.  Having the same multiple of 25000 with higher league production and static cap is making many players extension costs more than what is reasonable given our cap has not changed.  Or alternatively maybe our cap number is based on total league production but we keep the extension factor of 25k the same.

Just for curiosity I totaled the Fantasy points for all players in the 23/24 season and then did the same for 22/23 and 21/22. 
23/24 season total was - 113912.95  x 25000 = 2,847,823,750

22/23 season total was - 114471.40 x 25000 = 2,861,785,000  (13,961,250 difference between 23/24) / 20 teams = 698,062.50

21/22 season total was - 113264.3 x 25000 = 2,831,607,500 


This surprised me as i would have thought 23/24 would have been higher and the difference between the two is negligible. 
 
23/24 season total was - 113912.95  x 20000  = 2,278,259,000  (569,564,750 difference when comparing multiples) / 20 teams = 28,478,237.50

22/23 season total was - 114471.40 x 20000  = 2,289,428,000





 

[Rob]

I think in its totality the extension setup we have is plenty conducive to building a "Dynasty".  The top players in the league (top 50 or so) cost about the same as they would have cost before the change.  It's the next level of 'above average' to 'average' talent that are more pricey than they were in the old extension rules.  Teams have tough decisions in this bracket of talent.  And that's true of the NHL as well.  Most competitive teams will spend big on their top line, top D pairing and their Goalie, then add veterans and young guns to fill out their middle six and beyond.  A guy like Tyler Bertuzzi, who I'd consider 'above average', but not elite, will inevitably end up in Free Agency.  I think that's how it should be.

This setup certainly makes it harder to maintain a full, deep roster - even if you've built it from the bottom up with lots of Prospect Discounts.  But, Free Agency is the tool to make up for that. 

And, let's face it - Hockey is not a sport that's conducive to "Dynasties" in the traditional sense.  When was the last real NHL dynasty?  The Oilers in the 80's?  There's just too much parity in the modern NHL.  I'm fairly certain that our player turnover with these rules is still less than actual NHL teams player turnover. 

[SlackJack]

Referendum on "Dynasty" aside I think the changes we're talking about are minor but worth discussing.

1) Small static factor adjustment.

2) Cash trading cap.

3) Shorter contract extensions.

Points 2 & 3 would more than offset a $20k static factor.