Should we change DNHL to a money league?

[Rob]

Offer sheets would add another element from the NHL.  Wouldn't change the importance of our supplemental draft.  Would allow rebuilding teams to rebuild faster, thus adding more parity, and increase the contracts for prospects who are performing.  It would also force a bit more participation.  I think it addresses many of the issues folks are bringing up.

Agreed.  It's a tough one to implement, though. 

[dedreger]

Re: offer sheets, I'd be worried that they'd be taken personally and cause bad feelings.  That's basically why you almost never see them in the NHL ... GM's don't want to get on each other's sh#t lists.

[SlackJack]

I'm contemplating the differences between Backyard and DNHL which are both generally structured in a very similar way. For some reason however, Backyard has  a much greater amount of turn-over/rental players. Players on expiring contracts are worth a premium and it is commonplace to trade good picks for older rentals.

DNHL has a higher salary cap but also higher extension values. This is especially noticeable at the upper end, but really it's across the full range. At first I thought that freezing the salary cap might help push some players onto the market, and it would, but intuition is telling me that's not the whole answer. Like Snug, I think some part of the solution lies somewhere in the extension values, though I am not certain I agree with the idea that new contracts should exceed the old.

Also, and maybe more importantly, the amount of roster space we have in the minors directly impacts the value of picks. With 6 picks per season and only 15 minor roster slots, there is a lot of pressure on everyone to deal or discard their lower valued picks. Everyone wants to bundle multiple assets together in return for a single higher value piece. Lowering the number of picks we get and/or increasing the space we have to warehouse our assets would have the effect of raising the value of lower ranked picks.

My specific recommendations:

1) Continue Snug's conversation re: the structure of extensions, and consider a cap freeze.

2) Drop the 3rd Keeper pick as it is not trade-able.

3) Consider another increase to the minor league count.

 

[Rob]

I'm contemplating the differences between Backyard and DNHL which are both generally structured in a very similar way. For some reason however, Backyard has  a much greater amount of turn-over/rental players. Players on expiring contracts are worth a premium and it is commonplace to trade good picks for older rentals.

DNHL has a higher salary cap but also higher extension values. This is especially noticeable at the upper end, but really it's across the full range. At first I thought that freezing the salary cap might help push some players onto the market, and it would, but intuition is telling me that's not the whole answer. Like Snug, I think some part of the solution lies somewhere in the extension values, though I am not certain I agree with the idea that new contracts should exceed the old.

Also, and maybe more importantly, the amount of roster space we have in the minors directly impacts the value of picks. With 6 picks per season and only 15 minor roster slots, there is a lot of pressure on everyone to deal or discard their lower valued picks. Everyone wants to bundle multiple assets together in return for a single higher value piece. Lowering the number of picks we get and/or increasing the space we have to warehouse our assets would have the effect of raising the value of lower ranked picks.

My specific recommendations:

1) Continue Snug's conversation re: the structure of extensions, and consider a cap freeze.

2) Drop the 3rd Keeper pick as it is not trade-able.

3) Consider another increase to the minor league count.

The think the reason that rentals are more commonly traded in BY is the extension rules.  There's nothing in the rules that forces or incentivises teams to sign longterm deals.  You can sign even the best players to 1 year deals every year.  There's really not much incentive to sign more than a 2 year deal on most players, unless they had a couple down years, then you can extend long term at a discount.  So you can trade for that 35 year old and not have to worry about being stuck with him longterm.  While this does help with moving players around, I'm not a fan of it.  The top players should have longterm deals.  Such players would never accept 1 or 2 year deals in real life. 

[SlackJack]

4) A version of Dedreger's idea (being able to bid up a bonus on free-agent prospect contracts) is interesting too. Not sure that the supplemental draft needs to be protected as we're already drowning in prospects. Opening up bidding on players with under 40 games could be interesting. 

[Rob]

4) A version of Dedreger's idea (being able to bid up a bonus on free-agent prospect contracts) is interesting too. Not sure that the supplemental draft needs to be protected as we're already drowning in prospects. Opening up bidding on players with under 40 games could be interesting.

While we're throwing ideas at the wall.  I don't like the idea of nixing the under 40 GP FA rule because I fear it will water down the Supplemental (same reason I don't support larger prospect rosters).  But what if we allowed it with the stipulation that the player can be bid on if the opening bid meets a minimum standard - let's say $5m for examples sake.  If you're willing to start off with a $5m signing bonus, then the bid is allowed.  Something like that. 

[SlackJack]

While we're throwing ideas at the wall.  I don't like the idea of nixing the under 40 GP FA rule because I fear it will water down the Supplemental (same reason I don't support larger prospect rosters).  But what if we allowed it with the stipulation that the player can be bid on if the opening bid meets a minimum standard - let's say $5m for examples sake.  If you're willing to start off with a $5m signing bonus, then the bid is allowed.  Something like that.

It's a tangent for me. Bidding on prospects under 40 games might help increase activity or make the league more interesting but it doesn't address the main issue we were talking about here, which was the lack of trading at the deadline.

I think it's more important to consider dropping the 3rd keeper pick as a way of increasing the value of trade-able picks.

[Rob]

It's a tangent for me. Bidding on prospects under 40 games might help increase activity or make the league more interesting but it doesn't address the main issue we were talking about here, which was the lack of trading at the deadline.

I think it's more important to consider dropping the 3rd keeper pick as a way of increasing the value of trade-able picks.

I think in general that 3rd keeper has been somewhat useless.  I know I've only picked 2 instead of 3 in several seasons.  I may have only picked 1 keeper last season or the one before, due to the lack of roster space and there being better players in the Supplemental than the Bruins drafted.

[snugerud]

I think in general that 3rd keeper has been somewhat useless.  I know I've only picked 2 instead of 3 in several seasons.  I may have only picked 1 keeper last season or the one before, due to the lack of roster space and there being better players in the Supplemental than the Bruins drafted.

The 3rd pick is only useful when your nhl team sucks and has 2 or more 1st round picks.... or you want a goalie...

[Anthony]

I think gidding rid of that 3rd keeper pick would be a good move. It won't do anything to change the deadline activity, but in terms of having more prospects in the pool it helps.

I also agree with others that snugs idea is worth a separate conversation, and maybe if owners are against that rule being that the contract has to be greater, at the very least there could be a 75% rule where the contract has to be at least 75% of the previous contract. Just pulling from things used in other leagues I'm in.

I really don't like being able to bid on prospects. It's been a big cause of drama in Bush league for those here who are in it, and having that available in the supplemental draft is a perfect solution that's been working well and we shouldn't change it back.

I don't have too much to add, other than echoing others ideas.