Extension cost discussion

[SlackJack]

Seems a bit radical to me.

[jmtrops]

Yea, I'm not completely unconvinced that both Shooter and SlackJack aren't AI...

What about a compromise like this:

1) 1st round draftees are NOT eligible as Keepers
2) GM's may keep any number of players drafted by their actual team from rounds 2 and beyond (no reason to limit to 3 - it's not like we have space to keep that many anyway)
3) Increase Supp Draft to 4 rounds
4) Adopt Corey's idea of limiting prospect extensions to 3 years, but Keeper's may be extended to 4 or 5.

By taking the 1st rounders out of the Keeper pool, a lot of the disparity we're talking about would disappear.  That and we'll make the Supplemental a lot more interesting.

I like this idea too. this would mostly eliminate the need for us to switch our home team to get better keepers and would help even out this disparity. it would definitely increase the value of draft picks in trades. if we did this we should consider add a couple of minor spots

[SlackJack]

Honestly I don't even understand the proposal. It's clunky.

[jimw]

Why would prospect contracts be limited? I missed that part

[Rob]

Why would prospect contracts be limited? I missed that part

To force more player turnover.  Teams will have to re-sign at normal extension values sooner than they would with the 5 year discounted term.  In theory this would force more players into Free Agency and promote more trade action. 

[jmtrops]

To force more player turnover.  Teams will have to re-sign at normal extension values sooner than they would with the 5 year discounted term.  In theory this would force more players into Free Agency and promote more trade action.

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?

[Rob]

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.

[SlackJack]

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.