I dont think it would promote more trades because for most players they would not be worth resigning at the 25k per point. it would increase the number of players in FA but is this really our goal to have a lot of players to be signed cheap in FA?
Theoretically the teams like Arizona, Montreal, St Louis should be cash strapped and looking to trade these types of players to other teams with cap to spend.
The conversation somehow turned from a few "turnover churning" ideas: to Keepers. Like I said before - I like Keepers, despite the disparity. I offered a compromise since it seemed there was a pile on of negative opinions on the Keeper setup. But I still wouldn't be a supporter of change. I would vote against it.
I enjoy and encourage a democratic process on all this. But now I think we're getting away from the original point of all this. We started out talking about the extension setup. Then pivoted to the turnover element, then pivoted to Keepers. And I get the sense that some here only support what's best for their team, not for the league as a whole.
I identify the issue at hand as: We're a bit top heavy and there's apathy from the average to above average teams since they feel they can't compete, and therefore they are more conservative on the trade market than they might be if they felt they could compete for a title.
But, then you look at Toronto winning a title in 21. And look at what Snug has done in his 2 years back, mostly through Free Agency. And you wonder if that apathy is unfounded?
I'm still thinking that the extension changes haven't fully fleshed out and that we need to see the full impact of this change over the next season or two.
I vote to table all change motions for 1 year and revisit this next offseason.
::
::
Halloween