sends
LW James van Riemsdyk, $4.8m (2013-2016)
Justin Faulk, $3.9m (2013-2016)


sends
RW - Brendan Gallagher, $3.5m (2014-2017)
D - Nick Schultz, $0.2m (2014-2016)
G - Anthony Stolarz (2012: 2/45 - 0 Games)
D - Scott Mayfield (2011: 2/34 - 5 Games) 


This deal is part of a larger picture for us. We love JVR, & Faulk had a breakout campaign last year. Looking at our team we felt Gallagher/Schultz was more controllable while Stolarz/Mayfield gave us a future Goalie prospect & a young D to replace Schultz when he moves on. We save TONS of $$$ and overall I like the trade for our current team structure as we are still LW loaded and deep at the blue line imo.

Thanks for the deal Papps & GL 

 

I was around the early yrs and understand that Pigs wanted FNHL extensions to be a small out clause to give new owners/GMs a chance to restructure team cap. It's also the reason there are no 1yr contracts (except for MiLR promotions) in FNHL because a 2yr deal can be restructured after 1yr.

Basically owners don't get buried by the mistakes of previous owners or their own bad cap decisions.

Which works against my operating principles. I cant speak for anyone else, but I like to lock my guys down long term. If a guy doesn't live up to the contract, well that happens in real life all the time. Jonathan characterized my extensions as a "loop hole" when in fact the loop hole is in the way the extension protocol is structured here imo.

I like to build teams for not just the current year, but 2, 3, 4 years in advance. New ownership isn't an issue if you have "true" ownership. People who don't quit, people who truly like to build a team. That's what "keeper leagues" are supposed to be about imo. Yeah your gonna have turnover in fantasy leagues because there are always gonna be quitters or flakey GM's, but I would have proposed that new GM's be offered free drops or the like.

New GM's should be allowed leeway to restructure or free drop players. The restructure/extension/buy out clauses in this set of rules do not help the "long term" GM to strategize a way to the title 3 years in advance for example. In a "winner takes all" type of format the guy who has the best team currently will have the best team, and when his or her run is over they can simply bail on the league. Its a super blow to some peoples ego's to lose.

I prefer an extension to be a true extension. A restructure to be a true restructure, & a buyout clause to not be a loop hole but a true buyout. Again I only speak for myself but I would like a chance to vote on the true loophole which is the buyout structure. If these are the rules, and this is what they will be going forward than so be it. I will not complain, I will simply adjust and adapt. I have said my peace. 

Please restructure extend the following players....


C Michael Latta, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking >177 = 0.2 league minimum
C Liam O'Brien, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking >177 = 0.2 league minimum
LW Lucas Lessio, $0.7m (2014-2016-EL) 14/15 Highest ranking >131 = 0.2 league minimum
extend all 3 players for 2 yrs @ $200k

LW Matt Calvert, $0.8m (2014-2016) 13/14 Highest ranking 94 = 2yrs @ $0.8m
RW J.T. Brown, $0.6m (2014-2016) 13/14 Highest ranking 104 = 2yrs @ $0.6m
RW Valeri Nichushkin, $2.0m (2013-2016-EL) 13/14 Highest ranking 57 = 3yrs @ $2m
D Mark Barberio, $0.2m (2013-2016-EL) 14/15 Highest ranking 199 = 2yrs @ $0.7
D Chris Butler, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking 181 = 2yrs @ $0.8

It appears these moves put TB over the 10% overage. Not sure that was the intention.

Next years cap isn't posted. These moves have no bearing on this year. Is this a problem? If the extensions violate a league rule then I will adjust & reconsider.

If there is no rule violation then Im gonna do my thing while respectively everyone else can do their own. I don't comment on how others run their teams because its none of my business. I think that's fair.