ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: Rob on January 03, 2018, 03:06:44 PM
-
February 7, 2018 at 11:59PM EDT
Time to commit or sell out. What's it going to be??
-
That's it for this year. Good luck making your playoff runs!
-
Suggestion for future seasons. I would like to see a later trade deadline. I think you would see more activity, if 1 it was closer to our playoffs and 2 if it was closer to the NHL's trade deadline.
I find teams/GMs get more into that trading spirit when they see the actual NHL trades happening. I know I do. There is something to be said for moves in the NHL increasing/decreasing some players value.
-
Suggestion for future seasons. I would like to see a later trade deadline. I think you would see more activity, if 1 it was closer to our playoffs and 2 if it was closer to the NHL's trade deadline.
I find teams/GMs get more into that trading spirit when they see the actual NHL trades happening. I know I do. There is something to be said for moves in the NHL increasing/decreasing some players value.
I think we discussed this last year. Not sure if we decided to change things - I kinda forgot all about it. If we went with the NHL trade deadline it would fall about a week before our playoffs start. Does that make sense?
-
I think we discussed this last year. Not sure if we decided to change things - I kinda forgot all about it. If we went with the NHL trade deadline it would fall about a week before our playoffs start. Does that make sense?
I dont remember, but for me , I am ok with it being a week before our playoffs. contenders are more willing to throw their "ass"ets on the line when they have a more solidified playoff spot. NHL trade deadline has theirs pushed back from their playoffs because teams want a chance to gel etc. We dont need that for fantasy purposes. This isnt a yearly league either so there isnt really a concern with collusion or "buddy trades" which is another reason why the trade deadline is sometimes several weeks before playoffs start in a fantasy league.
others may have a different take on this. That is just my 2 cents.
-
I dont remember, but for me , I am ok with it being a week before our playoffs. contenders are more willing to throw their "ass"ets on the line when they have a more solidified playoff spot. NHL trade deadline has theirs pushed back from their playoffs because teams want a chance to gel etc. We dont need that for fantasy purposes. This isnt a yearly league either so there isnt really a concern with collusion or "buddy trades" which is another reason why the trade deadline is sometimes several weeks before playoffs start in a fantasy league.
others may have a different take on this. That is just my 2 cents.
I agree with Snug. Though it did seem like a lot more sellers than buyers last year. Maybe too many people are afraid of the Peg & Blues
-
Snug's reasoning is sound but I doubt that moving the deadline will have any appreciable effect. Unlike the NHL, there is no parity in Dynasty. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that there is clear separation. St. Louis scores roughly 30% more than the bottom half of play-off bound teams!
Almost from the outset there really isn't any uncertainty of who the top and the bottom teams are. Have a look at our pre-season rankings to confirm this. We might not get the order right, but we've got a solid idea of who will be at both top and bottom. By Christmas any illusions to the contrary have already been exposed, and by mid January the contenders have finished making improvements.
There may be a race or two for 9th and 10th place but that only involves a handful of teams, and it will not shake out until the very last day of the season.
-
Also, if your team consistently crushes the opposition (Winnipeg/St. Louis), why bother making roster changes or sacrificing future assets?
If your team is ranked anywhere from say 5th through 12th, a similar logic applies. If you make the play-offs that's great, anything can happen and maybe you'll get lucky. But really it's still pretty clear that no amount of deadline deals are going to close a 30% gap, so there is no point in burning picks and prospects.
Trust me I know the trade stance of GM's in this league all too well! :rofl: GM's of teams the mid-range are more likely to be interested in adding picks than dealing for an older impact player (let alone the plumbers that most sellers have on offer).
-
Good points. Although I will say that the top heavy teams are a more recent phenomena. In the past we've had 5-6 teams every year that were legit contenders. Having 2 teams that seem OP compared to everyone else isn't really consistent with what we've seen in the past.
The reality is that trade enthusiasm is directly tied to the fantasy enthusiasm of the league members. There's no other motivation (since we're not a money league). The more fun and engaging a league is, the more motivated people are to trade (wherever they are in the standings). If I stood to make some money out of this and thought I'd have a shot, you better believe I would be trading future assets away for a cup run.
-
Although I will say that the top heavy teams are a more recent phenomena. In the past we've had 5-6 teams every year that were legit contenders. Having 2 teams that seem OP compared to everyone else isn't really consistent with what we've seen in the past.
Well, it is called Dynasty NHL after all. :thumbsup:
The reality is that trade enthusiasm is directly tied to the fantasy enthusiasm of the league members.
Brings to mind Martin and Tyler. Both important (though lately absent) GM's. They account for 10% of the league and are currently inactive in the forums.
There's no other motivation (since we're not a money league). The more fun and engaging a league is, the more motivated people are to trade (wherever they are in the standings). If I stood to make some money out of this and thought I'd have a shot, you better believe I would be trading future assets away for a cup run.
I don't expect to compete for a number of years but I would support a move towards being a friendly money league. I was thinking the other day that a modest buy-in might cover premium Fantrax features and leave a small pot for the winner/runner-up (and maybe the most improved player). Is this worth talking about?
-
I don't expect to compete for a number of years but I would support a move towards being a friendly money league. I was thinking the other day that a modest buy-in might cover premium Fantrax features and leave a small pot for the winner/runner-up (and maybe the most improved player). Is this worth talking about?
Love the idea. It's been in my head for a long time but I've been afraid to bring it up! We don't really need any of the Fantrax features - but to that end if we did, then I would pay for it myself. But as it stands there's no advanced features other than minor league eligibility (which is really only helpful in the offseason and it's enabled in the offseason anyway).
But yea... Even a $10 buy-in would go a long way. Something like:
Champ - $100
Runner up - $50
Ken Holland winner - $50
It would certainly help to encourage activity.
-
But yea... Even a $10 buy-in would go a long way. Something like:
Champ - $100
Runner up - $50
Ken Holland winner - $50
It would certainly help to encourage activity.
:iatp:
-
I'm not in any money leagues on here to say if that increases participation, but I can say for whatever reason interest was down at the trade deadline. Not even just GMs not wanting to trade, but GMs not responding to messages. If making DNHL a money league helps then I am for it.
There certainly looks like their is parity in the league to me. 5-12 is really bunched up. If you look the Blues have just hit on some kind of lucky rabbit's foot of few injuries and great schedule. They have about 70 more games played than every other team. That certainly isn't normal. You take that away and they are a really great team instead of a juggernaut.
-
Not bringing it up as a league issue, but my 2 cents of why there's a decline in trades is as follows...
The issue I think is that all of the rookie contracts are a measly $0.5m for 3 years. Super cheap, compared to even the mediocre guys in FA right now who are getting $0.9m per year deals. Who would you rather have, Patrick Laine for $0.5m or Riley Sheahan for $0.9m per year?
Not saying everyone is Laine caliber, but even if you can have a lot of $0.5m players on your roster, you're set. And why would you trade them away? Full disclosure, I'm a big Laine fan and have literally been bugging Eric for him for about a year and a half, no lie. But a guy like him, and several others, who produce over 2 fanpts a game, why would anyone trade them away?
On top of that you get them an extra 5 years at a discounted rate. I'm not complaining, as I have guys like Pastrnak and Kucherov who should be costing me a combined $15m+ per year but aren't. But that also makes me really not want to deal them, or a Sheifele or Drouin on the contracts they're on.
I think that's why there's not much trading going on. Good prospects who may make it to the NHL next year will be valuable commodities, a lot more so than even a good current NHL player making $4m per year. That's how the top teams stay on top. Get your studs, and then keep stocking the farm. It's the St.Louis blueprint.
As someone mentioned, the teams bunched in the middle... They're not shipping out young guys on those contracts to make it an extra round in the playoffs this year before WPG or STL take them out.
It's also why guys in FA go for crazy amounts. Jake Guenzel at over $10m ring a bell? (Kudos to PIT for getting the top FA and wanting to compete, but that contract will sting for its entire duration. Stamkos at that price is stomach-able...somewhat...but Jake, not so much).
Again, not lobbying for changes or anything like that, but I think it's really why teams aren't easily willing to trade good prospects for good NHL players. I know I'd love to add Stamkos or a Getzlaf, but their salaries are so high, and sacrificing a $0.5m player, or even a Sheifele at under $5m, it makes life really difficult to trade those pieces away.
Even still, the only thing I could think of is increasing rookie deals, and lowering the prospect extensions to 3 years. Getting lucky and just being gifted a Mathews or Laine or any other top NHL draft pick from the keeper draft picks of your own team at $0.5m per year for 3 years is quite nice.
Could make it more interesting and give each 1st round draftee a contract value. ie. 1st = $3m per, 2nd =$2.7m per, etc etc. But again, that gets messy. Not trying to bring up rule changes here. Just pointing out what I see.
-
Good stuff. Part of the original plan was to encourage building from within. Hence the cheap contacts. But you're right, even middle of the road prospects are tough to give up. And this ties into Snuggy's point about teams selling in.
In the aggregate I really think we have a healthy trading league. The extension period and draft are always littered with interesting deals. Look at the draft pick trackers! It's trading at the deadline specifically that's the issue. There hasn't been a ton of incentive to add pieces the last 2 years.
Timing, favorable prospect contacts, the Blues/Jets phenomena and a decline in overall energy are the issues. Not sure of the solution, lol.
-
Good stuff. Part of the original plan was to encourage building from within. Hence the cheap contacts. But you're right, even middle of the road prospects are tough to give up. And this ties into Snuggy's point about teams selling in.
In the aggregate I really think we have a healthy trading league. The extension period and draft are always littered with interesting deals. Look at the draft pick trackers! It's trading at the deadline specifically that's the issue. There hasn't been a ton of incentive to add pieces the last 2 years.
Timing, favorable prospect contacts, the Blues/Jets phenomena and a decline in overall energy are the issues. Not sure of the solution, lol.
I do think that pushing the deadline back a few weeks would help.
There are still a handful of teams that are on the bubble and neither buyers or sellers.
Maybe if you're solidified into a playoff spot a week from playoffs, you're more willing to give up prospects/picks to get another player or two. When you're unsure if you'll be 6th or 12th, then there is a lot less incentive to give up "future" for "now" if the "now" isn't going to help you when you don't make playoffs.
The point was also made that seeing NHL trades could help boost trades here.
In Canada anyways, the deadline is a day-long TV event, so there's a ton of hype surrounding even the minor trades. Doesn't help those TV guys when all the big deals are done days before the deadline, like the Gaborik/Phaneuf deal that went down yesterday. Gives them zero to talk about on TV deadline day haha.
I know it seems odd to have a trade deadline literally right before playoffs start, but I'm pretty sure we don't have collusion in this league, and if it boosts trades even a little bit, it may be worth exploring.
This year could also be an anomaly as there are clearly 2 teams above the 3rd-10th place teams so far in regular season. If there were say a top-5 bunched up who could all win the title, then maybe there would be more buying from those teams. I know I was trying to sell at the deadline and didn't get a sniff, other than longer-term assets on my team on good contracts.
I figured I could at least unload someone like Daniel Sedin fully paid for, for even a 3rd rounder. Nada.
-
Great conversation from all angles. My thinking is that the contract structure is very well balanced. By the time Laine comes off his entry contract his extension cost will be $6.7m. That's $4.7m after the discount which is much needed given that extending even mid-caliber players (non-discounted) is very pricey. My read is that the regular extension values are high so as to increase roster turn-over.
The work around as discussed, are the entry-level and discounted bridge-contracts. Of course these require savvy drafting and management on the part of the GM which is what we're all aiming for here anyway. Contracts and draft picks matter!
I think that rather than examining contract structure we should focus on how to motivate or provide incentive for greater forum activity. Not sure what that would look like and so we're kicking the can around on monetizing. Certainly both Martin and Tyler should have been available for the trade deadline. That's inactivity not just from 10% of the league, but from 20% of play-off eligible teams!
-
I can fix the activity :-)
-
Im looking at the board every night but Im a lurker not a poster. So there really isnt anything you can do to get me to post more often.
-
Im looking at the board every night but Im a lurker not a poster. So there really isnt anything you can do to get me to post more often.
:rofl: You answer your mail dude. That's the main thing!
-
:rofl: You answer your mail dude. That's the main thing!
yes I do and I do trades when I can. one problem with trading draft picks is we only have limited roster spots. I have 5 picks plus there the 3 keepers thats 8 spots I need. I would trade multiple picks to move up in the draft but I suspect most teams are going to be the same as mine.
-
yes I do and I do trades when I can. one problem with trading draft picks is we only have limited roster spots. I have 5 picks plus there the 3 keepers thats 8 spots I need. I would trade multiple picks to move up in the draft but I suspect most teams are going to be the same as mine.
I would be in favour of a deeper minor roster.
-
I would be in favour of a deeper minor roster.
Said everyone, always.
We just increased it to 15!
-
I would be in favour of a deeper minor roster.
Says the guy with pretty much his entire roster eligible for the minors, haha.
Slack, we had to hold Rob down and pluck a few of his teeth out in order to get him to change the minors rosters from 10 to 15.
Good luck convincing him to increase them further!
-
For what it's worth, there was 11 trades made in the month prior to the deadline. With 12 different teams involved in those deals. I think I clear out transactions so fast sometimes that it makes it look like nothing's going on.
-
For what it's worth, there was 11 trades made in the month prior to the deadline. With 12 different teams involved in those deals. I think I clear out transactions so fast sometimes that it makes it look like nothing's going on.
Hahaha that is really true. Your just a great commissioner and our transactions are processed so fast that its easy to forget about them! In Backyard and FNHL, I see transactions on the board for days and days. Here its Amazon Prime on steroids :rofl:
-
For what it's worth, there was 11 trades made in the month prior to the deadline. With 12 different teams involved in those deals. I think I clear out transactions so fast sometimes that it makes it look like nothing's going on.
Guessing my OCD accounted for half of them! :rofl:
-
Guessing my OCD accounted for half of them! :rofl:
Yup, you were involved in 6 of them... haha.
I knew after playing with you in BY that you would be great for our league. That's why I courted you! hahah.
-
Yup, you were involved in 6 of them... haha.
I knew after playing with you in BY that you would be great for our league. That's why I courted you! hahah.
:koolaid:
-
Whats the point in increasing trades at the deadline just to increase them? I feel like we are all competent GMs who can weigh the pros and cons of making a trade and make that decision. I do agree that some GMs could be more active and at least respond to messages but those owners may have already decided they intent to stand pat this year with what they have.
-
Whats the point in increasing trades at the deadline just to increase them? I feel like we are all competent GMs who can weigh the pros and cons of making a trade and make that decision. I do agree that some GMs could be more active and at least respond to messages but those owners may have already decided they intent to stand pat this year with what they have.
I guess my issue is that I see teams that wanted to deal "rental" type players and couldn't find buyers. And I see teams that should have dealt these types of players that didn't even try. I feel like their should be a market for that first group and I feel like many didn't even try to sell these types of players because the market for them isn't great (due to the other issues we were mentioning).
Also in general I'm always in favor of changes that inject energy and promote activity, so as to keep the league healthy and members engaged.
-
But the market for rental players is going to be what the other GMs are willing to trade for. In real like Colorado wanted to trade Matt Duchene for a long time but it took a while before they got a deal they liked.
I looked into a few upgrades for my team but eventually didn't make a deal because I couldn't take on that much in future salary, or I thought they wanted too much for that player and it wasn't a big enough upgrade for me. I agree that we should want owners to be active and engaged in the league. But making changes in the league to increase or decrease the value of rental players to create a market for them doesn't seem like a good solution. This sounds like the government subsidizing an industry just to make the product or service competitive. The price for something should always be what someone else is willing to pay.
-
But the market for rental players is going to be what the other GMs are willing to trade for. In real like Colorado wanted to trade Matt Duchene for a long time but it took a while before they got a deal they liked.
Yes and no on this. IF Colorado continued to hold Duchene his trade value was decreasing because the other GM's knew eventually Duchene is going to walk to FA
What being proposed if very similar. It doesn't affect the value of one of your assets on a reasonable contract that is locked in for the next 3 years. By all means sit on that player and wait for the deal you want.
In fantasy we aren't dealing with player personalities or being upset that they aren't getting enough playing time. This is simply a way of mimicking that.
I looked into a few upgrades for my team but eventually didn't make a deal because I couldn't take on that much in future salary, or I thought they wanted too much for that player and it wasn't a big enough upgrade for me.
This sums up the issue. You cant rent a player, because I would estimate about 95-98% of the players always get extended. So you are almost never renting a player you are purchasing the them. The team letting them go has to get purchase price not rental. If the extension rates came down to say 80%-85%
But making changes in the league to increase or decrease the value of rental players to create a market for them doesn't seem like a good solution. This sounds like the government subsidizing an industry just to make the product or service competitive. The price for something should always be what someone else is willing to pay.
I don't see this as devaluing a product but more like creating a competing product. Leagues have been doing similar on here forever FNHL increases costs to top 20 goalies several times , that to me is far more intrusive when it comes to devaluing a group of players. At the end of the day nobody is taking the choice to extend or not extend out of the GM's hands. It just making that choice to extend or not extend a little harder