ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: Rob on July 31, 2019, 05:28:22 PM
-
See the most recent thread by Gypsie for background.
-
Is this one just a feeler?
Tough to really lock in a vote if there's no set number
Both for % of normal re-sign value,
and more importantly years on the prospect contract. 3? Or stick with 5?
Or is this just to get a yes/no, and then figure out the % and number of years?
Either way I'm on board for a change.
-
Is this one just a feeler?
Tough to really lock in a vote if there's no set number
Both for % of normal re-sign value,
and more importantly years on the prospect contract. 3? Or stick with 5?
Or is this just to get a yes/no, and then figure out the % and number of years?
Either way I'm on board for a change.
There's more to flesh out on this one for sure. Not quite just a feeler, but, we've been spitting change ideas out there without anything really coming to fruition in a while - and there was a lot of good input on this subject, even though I disagree and voted NO WAY! heh.... I wanted to make sure these things get the proper viewage and consideration from the league. And if enough people are on board we'll start discussing the most effective way to do it.
-
Yeah, it's a discussion topic for sure. Maybe not changing the percentage, but lowering it from 5 years to say 3 would be a happy medium.
Because, we get our prospects for what, 3 seasons is it if they play a full year the first year? (ie. Nico Hichier is in his 3rd year in the league, and contract expires after this year).
That would come out to 3 years on the min., plus 3 years at a highly discounted rate before going onto a full-fledged re-sign.
Even if the player hits prime fantasy output in their 3rd year, that gives you 4 total years of solid production at a reduced cost. Plenty of time/big enough window to build a championship team.
-
Yeah, it's a discussion topic for sure. Maybe not changing the percentage, but lowering it from 5 years to say 3 would be a happy medium.
Because, we get our prospects for what, 3 seasons is it if they play a full year the first year? (ie. Nico Hichier is in his 3rd year in the league, and contract expires after this year).
That would come out to 3 years on the min., plus 3 years at a highly discounted rate before going onto a full-fledged re-sign.
Even if the player hits prime fantasy output in their 3rd year, that gives you 4 total years of solid production at a reduced cost. Plenty of time/big enough window to build a championship team.
I just don't see a problem with it overall. Our FA pool is fairly representative. I think it's pretty good. If the end goal is forcing more players into FA, at this point, I think our cap adjustments have helped that scene. The benefits to rebuilding teams are too great. No need to change this at all.
-
I just don't see a problem with it overall. Our FA pool is fairly representative. I think it's pretty good. If the end goal is forcing more players into FA, at this point, I think our cap adjustments have helped that scene. The benefits to rebuilding teams are too great. No need to change this at all.
Though it's not all about FA for some, to be fair. It's about realism, since some of these prospects are making half as much here as they are in the NHL.
-
Though it's not all about FA for some, to be fair. It's about realism, since some of these prospects are making half as much here as they are in the NHL.
I'm interested to see what the RFA's will sign for in the real NHL in the next couple of months.
Starting with Marner of course, but also Point, Boeser, Laine, Connor, etc.
All of those guys are up for extensions next season I believe and with the discount, would max out around what, $5m-$5.5m? That would be max level though, and I could see them maybe in the $4.5m range really.
Marner might be the only one at the high end as I see him being the top producer out of all those guys (that is, if he signs before the season starts and gets in a training camp).
That said, we do have 30 roster spots here versus 23 in the real NHL, so that factors in as well. As much as we all search for it, it's tough to find 7 guys making the min. contract value of $0.5m, or even the min. before cut-off at $0.9m. Even still, 7 guys at $0.9m is still $6.3m in cap space.
So I do see your point.
-
I'm interested to see what the RFA's will sign for in the real NHL in the next couple of months.
Starting with Marner of course, but also Point, Boeser, Laine, Connor, etc.
All of those guys are up for extensions next season I believe and with the discount, would max out around what, $5m-$5.5m? That would be max level though, and I could see them maybe in the $4.5m range really.
Marner might be the only one at the high end as I see him being the top producer out of all those guys (that is, if he signs before the season starts and gets in a training camp).
That said, we do have 30 roster spots here versus 23 in the real NHL, so that factors in as well. As much as we all search for it, it's tough to find 7 guys making the min. contract value of $0.5m, or even the min. before cut-off at $0.9m. Even still, 7 guys at $0.9m is still $6.3m in cap space.
So I do see your point.
Boeser was the 33rd ranked RW. The 33rd ranked RW in the NHL in 2019-2020 is going to be paid $4.6m. This means Boeser's floor for prospect extension next offseason is $3.2m. This could go up based on how he does this year.
-
I just signed Marner with the discount for 5.8M
-
I just signed Marner with the discount for 5.8M
Noted. I removed him from the players I looked at above. I didn't check to see if any of these guys were on prospect contracts in DNHL. Just went with who WestCost listed. :doh:
-
Not sure where to post this, but aside from Prospect Discounts and Blocked Shots the other major idea for consideration was increasing the FA pool. On that topic I think it's fair to say that the most direct way to increasing the FA pool is by ratcheting down the salary cap. Perhaps tinkering with our cap formula could be discussed as well?
-
Though it's not all about FA for some, to be fair. It's about realism, since some of these prospects are making half as much here as they are in the NHL.
If folks want realism there is a laundry list of other changes that should be made. Like where are the sponsorship deals and when are we going to get paid to manage these teams!?! :rofl:
-
Yeah, it's a discussion topic for sure. Maybe not changing the percentage, but lowering it from 5 years to say 3 would be a happy medium.
Because, we get our prospects for what, 3 seasons is it if they play a full year the first year? (ie. Nico Hichier is in his 3rd year in the league, and contract expires after this year).
That would come out to 3 years on the min., plus 3 years at a highly discounted rate before going onto a full-fledged re-sign.
Even if the player hits prime fantasy output in their 3rd year, that gives you 4 total years of solid production at a reduced cost. Plenty of time/big enough window to build a championship team.
I am supporting this idea. Keep the actual prospect discount but lowering years to 3 years
-
I am supporting this idea. Keep the actual prospect discount but lowering years to 3 years
I agree. I am on board with this
-
if you lower it to 3 years isnt that going away from what the NHL is doing?
-
There are other ways to reduce the impact of the discount (if that is even what we want).
Limit them to 'own drafted' player for one....or a reduction to 4 years rather than 3. Tweaking the definition of prospects is another. Certainly we could lower the prospect contract threshold for goalies. Say 25 games for goalies to get a contract instead of 40. What if prospect discounts were only available for players drafted with supplemental picks?
Without more conversation it is probably premature to latch onto a reduction to 3 years.
-
It looks like we're pretty split on this. Although, it may have been premature to poll it. Or maybe I asked the wrong question.
Flesh this out more or put it to bed for now?
-
It looks like we're pretty split on this. Although, it may have been premature to poll it. Or maybe I asked the wrong question.
Flesh this out more or put it to bed for now?
Either way is fine with me but if we are going to 'flesh it out' I want a clear understanding of the 'why'. More realism, more FA, or less support for rebuilding teams??? What is the objective?
-
Either way is fine with me but if we are going to 'flesh it out' I want a clear understanding of the 'why'. More realism, more FA, or less support for rebuilding teams??? What is the objective?
I think those for it would argue both realism (since these players are making way less here than they are in the NHL) and more FA.
On the latter my argument is that FA looks pretty damn healthy to me - but I'll let those FOR the change hash out that argument.
-
I honestly don't really care either way.
I guess 51% for a change and 49% not for change if we're being technical.
I would have voted for say 3 or 4 years on the discount extension price instead of the 5. The value discount is what it is, I don't see how we'd all come up with a number that satisfies everyone if we were to change the discount %.
Generally speaking FA is also what it is. If a guy is 26-30 he's probably being re-signed either way, regardless of price. Guys like Giroux and Giordano will always be in FA due to age, sometimes coupled with re-sign values - more so for centers.
In the NHL it's not like 5+ all-star players hit UFA every single year, most are re-signed, or are RFA's like this summer, which we don't have and I think it'd be super difficult to introduce that aspect into an existing league like this.
Also, change in a league that's been around and been as good and healthy as this one is tough to do. People have planned their rosters for the rules in place (ie. Slack, and now Boston), so messing with those rules drastically wouldn't be totally fair to them.
-
I'd do it because we are aligned closely to the economics of the NHL, and in this instance we are drastically different. That result trickles down to unbalanced rosters. I'd be good with reducing the extension to 3 years as it resembles a more established NHL bridge deal. . Rebuilding teams would have more options to chose from as players can't be locked up for so long on top teams.
-
I'd do it because we are aligned closely to the economics of the NHL, and in this instance we are drastically different. That result trickles down to unbalanced rosters. I'd be good with reducing the extension to 3 years as it resembles a more established NHL bridge deal. Rebuilding teams would have more options to chose from as players can't be locked up for so long on top teams.
Other than the fact that our resign values are taken from actual NHL contract values I don't see how the economics in our league are aligned that closely with the NHL. Our salary cap is roughly based off the increases and decreases of the real life NHL salary cap but the NHL has alot more teams then we do. The 19/20 real life NHL salary cap is 81.5m. This means that the NHL can spend up to 2.5265 Billion Dollars on player salaries. DNHL has a salary cap of 87m this year which means we only have 1.74 Billion to spend on player salaries. This means that in DNHL we have 68.9% of the money that the actual NHL has to spend on salary. The other thing that DNHL has is rebuilding teams that aren't forced to spend all there salary cap space on players. Not to pick on anyone but lets look at Arizona's roster in DNHL. They have 5 players on there team that are signed to contracts above the minimum. They hoard prospects on their roster because they find more value in future players then they do the Nick Bonino's and Lars Ellers who are available as free agents. In the real life NHL this would never happen. NHL teams are forced to spend up to a minimum amount of the cap. Arizona, due to his roster construction, has effectively removed $50m of money from our league that won't go to player salaries. He will use that money to pay huge one year deals on older players to try and extract prospects and picks for more future value. These are things you would never see in the real life NHL and impact the economics in our league.
Beyond that there is a big difference between NHL value and DNHL fantasy value. We value players by how many fantasy points they produce per game. NHL values other things that we don't like defense and position scarcity. NHL teams value centers more then wingers. They also highly value defensemen, seems teams can never find enough of them in the real world. Those biases can be found in real life NHL contracts and are evident in our resign values. Lets look at the 60th ranked center, left wing and right wing in DNHL last year (I'm not going to take into account that some players have multiple position eligibility).
60th ranked Center = Casey Cizikas - 184.4 pts
60th Ranked Left Wing = Josh Bailey - 186.15 pts
60th Ranked Right Wing = Andrei Svechnikov - 185.8 pts
Now all of these players scored pretty similarly last year. You would expect that the resign values of these players in DNHL would be pretty similar. The 60th ranked center has a resign value of $4.8m, the 60th Left wing has a resign value of $2.0m and the 60th ranked Right wing has a resign value of $1.9m. We pay more money for centers in this league simply because the NHL values them more then wingers in the real life NHL. Centers don't provide more value in DNHL then wingers do though so why do we pay them more? This is why I don't really think it makes alot of sense to look at what a player is making in the NHL and comparing it to there DNHL salary. Its not going to make sense and it never will. Players have different values in DNHL then the NHL. Your argument against the prospect extension seems to be that players like Sebastian Aho are making $8.5m in the NHL but only $6.0m in DNHL. Is $6m dollars close to his actual value in DNHL? Do you know what his actual value is when comparing fantasy points across all the players in our league? Because his $6m salary is about 70% of what his NHL salary is and thats pretty close to the 68.9% of the money we have to spend in DNHL compared to NHL salaries. His contract is also 5 years long which is exactly the same length as our prospect extensions.
You're trying to take actual NHL contracts and compare them to salaries for players in our league. I don't think NHL contract values really align with the actual fantasy values of players in our league. Therefore I don't see the prospect contract as an issue in DNHL. Its may not exactly match the real life NHL but I think it adds a nice wrinkle and helps rebuilding teams lock up talent at a decent rate for a while. It results in salaries that don't match the NHL amounts but those NHL contracts don't match the value of a player in DNHL anyways.
-
Once again this is all just my personal view on the issue with my personal model being trying to stay relative to the NHL. Obviously half of the votes say it doesn't matter to them. But, the reason we have a salary formula was to stay more in line with the NHL while taking into account a virtual cap floor for DNHL. We use NHL extension values. Those are foundational pieces to our DNHL economy and to me it is impossible to say we aren't directly tied to the NHL economically.
A player's fantasy production is linked to how much the players are paid in the NHL. Non-prospect DNHLer's extension contracts don't make 68% or 70% of what the NHL player makes. They make 100% no matter how much total salaries are available between the leagues. And my problem isn't what the 60th best anyone makes. It is the top 10-20 players at a position shouldn't be able to make 40% of what their corresponding NHL contract would be over a disproportionate amount of time. The prospect extensions when put into place approximated an NHL bridge deal. That is no longer the case.
It also makes it harder for rebuilding teams to rebuild. A good team in this league is going to have a bunch of these low cost prospect extension contracts. This allows them to stay good longer while rebuilding teams stay crap longer. Obviously some GMs are just good and will keep finding prospects that produce, but in our current system there is less opportunity of turnover of players.
If staying relative to the NHL isn't important to the majority of owners then that is cool and that is the direction we should move in, but it is to me based on all previous decisions made in DNHL.
-
Other than the fact that our resign values are taken from actual NHL contract values I don't see how the economics in our league are aligned that closely with the NHL. Our salary cap is roughly based off the increases and decreases of the real life NHL salary cap but the NHL has alot more teams then we do. The 19/20 real life NHL salary cap is 81.5m. This means that the NHL can spend up to 2.5265 Billion Dollars on player salaries. DNHL has a salary cap of 87m this year which means we only have 1.74 Billion to spend on player salaries. This means that in DNHL we have 68.9% of the money that the actual NHL has to spend on salary. The other thing that DNHL has is rebuilding teams that aren't forced to spend all there salary cap space on players. Not to pick on anyone but lets look at Arizona's roster in DNHL. They have 5 players on there team that are signed to contracts above the minimum. They hoard prospects on their roster because they find more value in future players then they do the Nick Bonino's and Lars Ellers who are available as free agents. In the real life NHL this would never happen. NHL teams are forced to spend up to a minimum amount of the cap. Arizona, due to his roster construction, has effectively removed $50m of money from our league that won't go to player salaries. He will use that money to pay huge one year deals on older players to try and extract prospects and picks for more future value. These are things you would never see in the real life NHL and impact the economics in our league.
Beyond that there is a big difference between NHL value and DNHL fantasy value. We value players by how many fantasy points they produce per game. NHL values other things that we don't like defense and position scarcity. NHL teams value centers more then wingers. They also highly value defensemen, seems teams can never find enough of them in the real world. Those biases can be found in real life NHL contracts and are evident in our resign values. Lets look at the 60th ranked center, left wing and right wing in DNHL last year (I'm not going to take into account that some players have multiple position eligibility).
60th ranked Center = Casey Cizikas - 184.4 pts
60th Ranked Left Wing = Josh Bailey - 186.15 pts
60th Ranked Right Wing = Andrei Svechnikov - 185.8 pts
Now all of these players scored pretty similarly last year. You would expect that the resign values of these players in DNHL would be pretty similar. The 60th ranked center has a resign value of $4.8m, the 60th Left wing has a resign value of $2.0m and the 60th ranked Right wing has a resign value of $1.9m. We pay more money for centers in this league simply because the NHL values them more then wingers in the real life NHL. Centers don't provide more value in DNHL then wingers do though so why do we pay them more? This is why I don't really think it makes alot of sense to look at what a player is making in the NHL and comparing it to there DNHL salary. Its not going to make sense and it never will. Players have different values in DNHL then the NHL. Your argument against the prospect extension seems to be that players like Sebastian Aho are making $8.5m in the NHL but only $6.0m in DNHL. Is $6m dollars close to his actual value in DNHL? Do you know what his actual value is when comparing fantasy points across all the players in our league? Because his $6m salary is about 70% of what his NHL salary is and thats pretty close to the 68.9% of the money we have to spend in DNHL compared to NHL salaries. His contract is also 5 years long which is exactly the same length as our prospect extensions.
You're trying to take actual NHL contracts and compare them to salaries for players in our league. I don't think NHL contract values really align with the actual fantasy values of players in our league. Therefore I don't see the prospect contract as an issue in DNHL. Its may not exactly match the real life NHL but I think it adds a nice wrinkle and helps rebuilding teams lock up talent at a decent rate for a while. It results in salaries that don't match the NHL amounts but those NHL contracts don't match the value of a player in DNHL anyways.
:iatp:
I do want to emulate the NHL when and where it makes sense. But we're forced to depart in many ways, as shooter points out. And even if it's semi-unrealistic compared to the NHL - I still think it enhances our game.
And I do want to stress that these "rebuild friendly" functions like the discount and the ability to stash in the minors are also there as a utility to keep the league alive and balanced longterm. If we don't have tools in place for teams to rebuild it is really hard to attract competent GM's to take on a rebuild on a franchise torn apart by the trade antics of a player like Gilly. This, to me, is the most important part of this argument.
-
It also makes it harder for rebuilding teams to rebuild. A good team in this league is going to have a bunch of these low cost prospect extension contracts. This allows them to stay good longer while rebuilding teams stay crap longer. Obviously some GMs are just good and will keep finding prospects that produce, but in our current system there is less opportunity of turnover of players.
That's an interesting take. Not sure I agree, but definitely worth considering.
-
I just still think those guys would get signed anyway - if it leaves anything to FA, it's still going to be guys on the back 9 in their 30's - there will just be more of them.. Good for fishing for depth FA - not for rebuilding teams.
-
That's an interesting take. Not sure I agree, but definitely worth considering.
I would agree on GDB's point.
Looking at my roster, in 2021 I will have both Scheifele and Kucherov expiring. It will probably be over $25m to re-sign both of them at that time, 2 years from now, with the increasing NHL contracts. I'll also have to start paying Kane and Kreider market value (Kane was injured in consecutive years which is why his contract is low compared to what he "should" be)
And then Pastrnak the year after that.
Kane aside, if our prospect contracts were 3 years then it would be this year that I'd be in cap hell and probably would have had to trade one of those players to a team that could afford them.
To GDB's point, 5 years for players of that calibre is an eternity, and it virtually makes their contracts un-trade-able due to production vs. cap hit. Who in their right mind would trade Kucherov at a $4.1m cap hit in our league. Even if I wanted the next best skater, Ovechkin, it would be double the salary. I'd even say a guy like Nathan Mackinnon is even more un-trade-able with his $3.5m cap hit, playing the C position where re-sign values are through the roof.
In terms of FA, I think realistically the only noteable players we'll be seeing hit FA are Centres, which is the easiest position to fill anyways. Yes, Giroux is out there as a LW/RW right now, but he wasn't kept because he had C eligibility at the time of our re-signs. Look at the top FA's, they're mostly C's and some D like Giordano who wasn't worth a 4-5 year extension at the cap hit and his age.
I'm fine with the FA side of things, as in the real NHL it's not that often a young stud will hit UFA (mostly due to RFA).
For this league it's probably more about having "good" teams have to make tougher decisions earlier on their young up and coming or young stud players. Who to keep and re-sign and who to trade and get value back for. 8 years is quite a long time to be able to hold a player like Elias Pettersson or Jack Hughes at a very low cap hit. I mean even 6 years is a long time too, but better than 8.
I know it's tougher on some teams like AZ and BOS because they're now loaded with 40-45 very good young assets that they'll be able to keep on a reduced cap hit for the next 7-10 years depending on when they make the NHL, etc.
Slack has done an exceptional job and he'll be a top-3 team for a decade once those young guys start to make noise in the NHL.
-
I don't see an issue with the length of the prospect extension. Most good young players who are superstars stay with there original teams for the first 7-10 years of their contracts. Tavares left the Islanders after being there for 9 years. Sebastian Aho just signed a 5 year extension that locks him up for his first 8 years with the Canes. Matthews signed a 5 year extension. Draisaitl and McDavid signed 8 year extensions. If anything 5 years is on the shorter end of the recent extensions.
Attached is a spreadsheet of an analysis I did today. I assumed that each team had 17 starters on there team and 13 roster spots filled with league minimum contracts (500k). I took the total cap space in DNHL in 19/20 (1,740 Million) and subtracted the the minimum contracts off (130 Million) to get the total salary cap space for starters in our league (1,610 Million).
I split that 1,610 Million dollars across the top 60 Centers, Left wing, Right wings, Goalies and top 120 Defensemen in the league based on last years overall season fantasy points. The values in bold are a rough estimate of what a player truly is worth in DNHL. Even Kucherov doesn't come close to touching McDavid's NHL value of $12.5m. I think most of the prospect extensions in DNHL are pretty close to actual DNHL values for those players.
-
The strength of all sides of this conversation is why I love this league and why I have embarked on my long-term roster build in the first place.
-
The strength of all sides of this conversation is why I love this league and why I have embarked on my long-term roster build in the first place.
:iatp:
Quite literally the best league on here and best group of minds
-
I don't see an issue with the length of the prospect extension. Most good young players who are superstars stay with there original teams for the first 7-10 years of their contracts. Tavares left the Islanders after being there for 9 years. Sebastian Aho just signed a 5 year extension that locks him up for his first 8 years with the Canes. Matthews signed a 5 year extension. Draisaitl and McDavid signed 8 year extensions. If anything 5 years is on the shorter end of the recent extensions.
Attached is a spreadsheet of an analysis I did today. I assumed that each team had 17 starters on there team and 13 roster spots filled with league minimum contracts (500k). I took the total cap space in DNHL in 19/20 (1,740 Million) and subtracted the the minimum contracts off (130 Million) to get the total salary cap space for starters in our league (1,610 Million).
I split that 1,610 Million dollars across the top 60 Centers, Left wing, Right wings, Goalies and top 120 Defensemen in the league based on last years overall season fantasy points. The values in bold are a rough estimate of what a player truly is worth in DNHL. Even Kucherov doesn't come close to touching McDavid's NHL value of $12.5m. I think most of the prospect extensions in DNHL are pretty close to actual DNHL values for those players.
That is a solid workup of what DNHL contract extensions could be and if the league wants to move away from using NHL contract values I would be okay with that, but until we do we are attached to the NHL values and it doesn't make sense to have top tier players making so little for so long.
At a minimum Seth Jones would not be on my team with either decreasing the extension value or reducing the term getting the player to full FA quicker. Blues probably lose two of Leon Draisaitl, $5.5m (2022-2023), C Aleksander Barkov, $4.2m (2020-2021), C Sean Monahan, $4.8m (2020-2021), or C Dylan Larkin, $3.5m (2022-2023). Canucks are losing two between Kucherov, McAvoy, Scheifele, Kreider, etc. Those players then probably go to rebuilding teams because they have the cap or picks stocked up to trade for/sign them. In my mind it would balance the league out a bit more than it is currently.
-
Obviously I started out against any kind of change to the prospect discounts because I am two years into an eight year experiment that is entirely predicated on it. But there's more to it than that.
When I joined the league my initial assessment was that the top tier teams have all the goalies. Period. I could see a way to trade towards a starting goalie or two, but (random example) in 2016 St. Louis's roster had Lundqvist, Allen, Hellebuyck, and Saros. That's not even the strongest collection of goalies but it is still very formidable. I was holding only Mike Smith at the time so wasn't even in the same league let alone being able to compete. For that to happen I had to look to the future.
Further DNHL "analysis" :rofl: points to another commonality among the top tier teams. They all have rosters constructed using every tool available including heavy use of the prospect discount. Gypsie and Cally both make strong cases to the fact that maybe the prospect discount helps the top teams as much as those at the bottom. If (not to pick on anyone) St. Louis can afford to trade for players like Leon Draisaitl at $5.5m through 2023 what is to stop him from perpetually retooling?
Happily, the answer here is "nothing" and that the name of the league is "Dynasty" NHL. If I am to compete with GM's that are smart enough to trade for a fully paid Patrick Berglund then I need to use every rule available to my best advantage. This includes tanking, hording, and exploiting new GM's by trade. That said even if I am a savvy GM, I am still at a disadvantage because I have to wait for my roster to mature. Established contenders can blow out prospects as currency knowing they have six picks a year to replenish their prospect pool.
Given that the our pools are so shallow compared to those in the NHL there is an astounding ability to reload. It doesn't matter how many prospects a Leon Draisaitl might cost if almost half of your prospect pool can be replaced in a single season. Whichever direction we go on the other argument I would like to see the prospect pool increase by another 5 and the number of annual picks decreased by one (to a total of 5).
I know it's sideways, but that my 13 cents.
-
That is a solid workup of what DNHL contract extensions could be and if the league wants to move away from using NHL contract values I would be okay with that, but until we do we are attached to the NHL values and it doesn't make sense to have top tier players making so little for so long.
At a minimum Seth Jones would not be on my team with either decreasing the extension value or reducing the term getting the player to full FA quicker. Blues probably lose two of Leon Draisaitl, $5.5m (2022-2023), C Aleksander Barkov, $4.2m (2020-2021), C Sean Monahan, $4.8m (2020-2021), or C Dylan Larkin, $3.5m (2022-2023). Canucks are losing two between Kucherov, McAvoy, Scheifele, Kreider, etc. Those players then probably go to rebuilding teams because they have the cap or picks stocked up to trade for/sign them. In my mind it would balance the league out a bit more than it is currently.
More loose change... Gypsie is right but lowering the over-all cap would help do the same thing. My $50m in cap space isn't an advantage because nobody really wants the players available in free-agency anyway. At least not enough that the $10m-$20m that everyone else has isn't entirely enough to fill the two or three roster spots needed.
Start rewinding the cap relative to the NHL. As of today we are at NHL +$6m. Reel that in by $2m per year and see what the effect is. Couple that with a 1 player pick reduction and a 5 player increase to the minor leagues. With those changes I would support a tweak on prospect discounts to lower the term to 4 years instead of 3. All these small changes stacked together could have an out-sized impact somewhere closer to where we all want to be.
-
I dont think the discount % is the problem, its the # of years. here are 3 players I was able to do the 5 years at the minimum.
C Mika Zibanejad, $2m (2019-2020)
D Morgan Rielly, $2m (2020-2021)
G Joonas Korpisalo, 2m (2023-2024)
The first 2 have greatly exceeded their contract last year and Korpisalo has the chance to do the same. In his case his resign was only like 1.2M but for the minimum 2M for 5 years was the smart thing for me to do. If he becomes the starter it will be a great contract for me and even if he is a ok back up it is still ok.
RW Mitchell Marner, 5.8m (2023-2024)
I just signed him to this prospect contract and at 5.8M, I dont see the 5 years as a problem for the league at that #, but I think if you make the years a sliding scale based on the $$ as a potential solution.
$6m+ - 5 years
$4 to $5.9m - 4 years
$2 to $3.9m - 3 years
something like this might be better
-
but I think if you make the years a sliding scale based on the $$ as a potential solution.
$6m+ - 5 years
$4 to $5.9m - 4 years
$2 to $3.9m - 3 years
something like this might be better
That's actually not that bad an idea. Can play around with the numbers a bit, but for the min. of $2m for 3 years, that makes perfect sense. It would be a "bridge deal" in DNHL, where the player isn't fully established as a star yet, but might be in 3 years in which case you'd have to pay him.
With the discount we have, not many players will get over that $5.9m mark. Which, maybe is a good thing. The only most recent one that comes to mind would be Connor McDavid. Not sure if anyone else off the top of their head can think of one. And also it would probably really only relate to centres, as you'd have to be one of the top wingers to get over $6m per year with the discount.
And Slack.... I did exactly what you did, except I only did it for a year and a half. Half the season when I took over mid season, and then the following year.
At that time luckily I did have prospects who were closer or in the NHL and ready to contribute, but so do you actually:
D Zach Werenski, $2.8m (2023-2024)
D Noah Hanifin, $2m (2022-2023)
D Darnell Nurse, $2.5m (2022-2023)
LW Matthew Tkachuk, $4.3m (2023-2024)
RW Jakub Vrana, $0.5m (P-19/20)
RW Timo Meier, $0.5m (P-19/20)
RW Travis Konecny, $3.9m (2023-2024)
Then I was able to trade those good young prospects and round out a roster, along with some decent FA's to sign due to having a ton of cap space.
Not sure you need to tank for 4 years in a row (isn't this coming up on the 3rd year?) to really do a re-tool. Will be interesting to see how long Rob lasts. It's been not even half a year into things so far. I feel like he might be like me and lost patience and start to build up a more competitive team starting next summer.
-
Nm
-
I get that it doesn't make sense logically that top tier players in our league make less than those in the NHL. I knew this would be the case from day one. In order to maintain an economy that was somewhat relative to the actual NHL economy - we needed an element that brought our overall cap equation down, relative to the NHL. And this was it. It wasn't logical at the time. It's not logical now. But - it works. Shooter's analysis shows that the relative value here is lower than the NHL across the board. Younger players are less expensive than average and veteran players are more expensive. That's always been our recipe for general relativity.
Point is - it's not like, after 8 season, a flaw has developed or become apparent. It's certainly more obvious now since more of these contracts have come to fruition. But, truth be told, the 3 year lag before ANY prospect cost ANY team a dime was the golden age for cap wastefulness here. We all had more money to spend per capita - and now that the contracts are in force and the other cap measures have squeezed (I use that loosely, I still think this is an easy league to cap manage overall) teams more than they have in the past - issues like this become more evident.
Other than the actual price-tag of these players, we are actually mirroring the league quite well. The point has been made that these players are signed too long in our league - but the counter point that they are actually signed just as long in the NHL, is a lot stronger, to me. The point has been made that these players are virtually untradeable in our league. Well - how tradeable are they in the NHL? I don't believe the Blues would necessarily have to lose any of the group that Corey mentioned (Draisaitl, Barkov, Monahan, Larkin) - I believe they would hire less expensive depth - since there WOULD be more FA - it would just be more 30+ year olds and they will be LESS expensive. So you wouldn't necessarily have to maneuver the top, you'll have to maneuver the bottom/middle/depth. None of these players would "trickle down" to rebuilding teams. Take your Reagonomics elsewhere! :P
One issue that's been around a long time, has been highlighted by this discussion and made pretty obvious by shooter's analysis - is the disparity in C vs LW/RW values. I would love to hear some constructive ideas on that front.
-
Will be interesting to see how long Rob lasts. It's been not even half a year into things so far. I feel like he might be like me and lost patience and start to build up a more competitive team starting next summer.
I'm hoping for a fast turnaround similar to yours. You hit gold on a few guys though. I need to do the same. Gusev needs to be a stud. I need a goalie to turn into a legit #1. My hope is to see what progress a few guys make this season and make some decisions next year. I'll likely use the top 2020 picks but trade off the remaining picks for 2021 picks. At around the time of the 2021 draft I hope to be wheeling and dealing to field a full competitive squad for the 21/22 season. Probably not a title run, but at least a playoff run.
18/19 - Pulled the trigger on rebuild
19/20 - Tank for #1 pick
20/21 - Bottom 5 team still, but not full on tank
21/22 - Fighting for wildcard seed
22/23 - Lose in DNHL finals for 3rd time
23/24 - Boston Bruins - DNHL Champs!!
That's the plan - hoping for the best. Save this so you can mock me later. :P
-
Just a thought, and it might be bad cause I'm tired.
If you want to force more young players out into the market, maybe increasing the minimum prospect contract would help. If it cost $1m instead of $500k to maintain them, for example - perhaps it would force more tough decisions, leaving more players to FA or the Supplemental.
Ok... Bedtime.
-
Just a thought, and it might be bad cause I'm tired.
If you want to force more young players out into the market, maybe increasing the minimum prospect contract would help. If it cost $1m instead of $500k to maintain them, for example - perhaps it would force more tough decisions, leaving more players to FA or the Supplemental.
Ok... Bedtime.
Just a thought.
Another way to force decisions would be to not let players sit in the minors with more than 40 games played. (If this were the case, the number could go up, maybe to 50 or 60 games played).
That way, if a good, contending team has a solid roster full of veterans, they couldn't also just keep young up and coming players sit in their minors with a season and a half worth of games played, waiting for them to earn a top role on their real NHL team and become fantasy relevant.
It would force decisions of whether to drop them or trade them, or if you think they'll really become something you'd have to bring them to your NHL roster and drop someone else.
-
Just a thought.
Another way to force decisions would be to not let players sit in the minors with more than 40 games played. (If this were the case, the number could go up, maybe to 50 or 60 games played).
That way, if a good, contending team has a solid roster full of veterans, they couldn't also just keep young up and coming players sit in their minors with a season and a half worth of games played, waiting for them to earn a top role on their real NHL team and become fantasy relevant.
It would force decisions of whether to drop them or trade them, or if you think they'll really become something you'd have to bring them to your NHL roster and drop someone else.
That would hurt the rebuilding teams quite a bit.
-
The best way to increase the number and quality of free agents is to reduce the salary cap. At the same time this helps re-building teams who generally have more cap to spend.
-
One option to increase the number of FA could be to reduce our roster to 27. We don't really need 30 players I think
-
One option to increase the number of FA could be to reduce our roster to 27. We don't really need 30 players I think
Hey I had a hard enough time in playoffs with a 30-man roster with like 6 injuries, haha.
-
at this point it seems the majority are not in-favor of changing the prospect discount. It seems like although there are some rules each of us think can be improved it does not seem like anyone thinks they are dragging the league down. I plan my team years in advance and make adjustments based on the current rules and the problems they cause me in improving my team. When I joined this league I had little experience with this type of league and it takes a while to see all the nuances of this league. I guess my point is sometimes small changes in the rules can have a negative effect on the teams in the middle of the pack that its not intending to have that impact on even if we have a 1 year grace period. So if there is not a big problem then maybe there is nothing to fix. we are all used to the rules as they are and can make the needed changes in our strategy to build a winner.
It would be nice to be in a league that tries to duplicate real life NHL as close as it can but it does not exist nor would there be enough people to fill such a league with all the other leagues having trouble but DNHL is not that league and I dont think we should try to make it that way
-
at this point it seems the majority are not in-favor of changing the prospect discount. It seems like although there are some rules each of us think can be improved it does not seem like anyone thinks they are dragging the league down. I plan my team years in advance and make adjustments based on the current rules and the problems they cause me in improving my team. When I joined this league I had little experience with this type of league and it takes a while to see all the nuances of this league. I guess my point is sometimes small changes in the rules can have a negative effect on the teams in the middle of the pack that its not intending to have that impact on even if we have a 1 year grace period. So if there is not a big problem then maybe there is nothing to fix. we are all used to the rules as they are and can make the needed changes in our strategy to build a winner.
It would be nice to be in a league that tries to duplicate real life NHL as close as it can but it does not exist nor would there be enough people to fill such a league with all the other leagues having trouble but DNHL is not that league and I dont think we should try to make it that way
Sure we can put a pin in it for now but there's always room for improvement. Agree that changes should be small and incremental as rosters are built over years based on the rules of the day.
-
Got a whopper of an idea coming for you all to chew on. Hopefully will get it all fleshed out by tonight.
-
Got a whopper of an idea coming for you all to chew on. Hopefully will get it all fleshed out by tonight.
Peg contract extensions to real-world contract values? :rofl:
-
Peg contract extensions to real-world contract values? :rofl:
:iatp:
Sure, why not