| Player | FPts | New Ext Cost | Current Ext Cost | Difference in Value | Percent Change in Value |
| Nikita Kucherov | 428.3 | $10.70 | $10.5 | 0.2075 | 2% |
| Alex Ovechkin | 423.25 | $10.60 | $9.5 | 1.08125 | 11% |
| Nathan MacKinnon | 401.35 | $10.00 | $12.5 | -2.46625 | -20% |
| Patrick Kane | 398.3 | $10.00 | $10.3 | -0.3425 | -3% |
| Connor McDavid | 384.75 | $9.60 | $11.0 | -1.38125 | -13% |
| Leon Draisaitl | 378.8 | $9.50 | $10.5 | -1.03 | -10% |
| John Tavares | 371.85 | $9.30 | $10.0 | -0.70375 | -7% |
| Steven Stamkos | 362.8 | $9.10 | $10.0 | -0.93 | -9% |
| Sidney Crosby | 360.65 | $9.00 | $9.5 | -0.48375 | -5% |
| Johnny Gaudreau | 349.85 | $8.70 | $9.9 | -1.15375 | -12% |
| Andrei Vasilevskiy | 348.25 | $8.70 | $10.5 | -1.79375 | -17% |
| Brad Marchand | 346.65 | $8.70 | $7.5 | 1.16625 | 16% |
| Brayden Point | 345.7 | $8.60 | $8.7 | -0.0575 | -1% |
| Frederik Andersen | 345 | $8.60 | $8.5 | 0.125 | 1% |
| Tyler Seguin | 343.2 | $8.60 | $8.5 | 0.08 | 1% |
| Carey Price | 340.75 | $8.50 | $7.4 | 1.11875 | 15% |
| Connor Hellebuyck | 338 | $8.50 | $7.0 | 1.45 | 21% |
| Jake Guentzel | 325.4 | $8.10 | $8.6 | -0.465 | -5% |
| Sebastian Aho | 325.4 | $8.10 | $8.3 | -0.165 | -2% |
| Mitchell Marner | 325.3 | $8.10 | $8.3 | -0.1675 | -2% |
| Gabriel Landeskog | 320.65 | $8.00 | $7.0 | 1.01625 | 15% |
| Aleksander Barkov | 316.7 | $7.90 | $8.0 | -0.0825 | -1% |
| Sergei Bobrovsky | 315.75 | $7.90 | $6.2 | 1.69375 | 27% |
| David Pastrnak | 313.8 | $7.80 | $8.3 | -0.455 | -5% |
| $212.60 | $216.5 | -3.73875 | -2% |
| Player | Position | Team | FPts | CURRENT CONTRACTS | NEW RULES | Conditions |
| Alex Ovechkin | LW | WAS | 423.25 | $ 9.5 | $ 10.6 | |
| Evgeny Kuznetsov | C | WAS | 247.75 | $ 5.8 | $ 5.2 | Discounted |
| Nicklas Backstrom | C | WAS | 246.75 | $ 6.0 | $ 6.2 | |
| Filip Forsberg | LW | WAS | 240.65 | $ 4.9 | $ 5.0 | Discounted |
| Semyon Varlamov | G | WAS | 229 | $ 5.7 | $ 5.7 | |
| David Rittich | G | WAS | 217.75 | $ 0.5 | $ 0.5 | P-20/21 |
| Tom Wilson | RW | WAS | 204.7 | $ 2.0 | $ 5.1 | |
| Yanni Gourde | LW,RW | WAS | 195.65 | $ 0.5 | $ 0.5 | P-n/a |
| J.T. Miller | LW,RW | WAS | 180.75 | $ 5.0 | $ 4.5 | |
| Jack Campbell | G | WAS | 145 | $ 0.5 | $ 0.5 | P-n/a |
| Michal Kempny | D | WAS | 128.75 | $ 0.9 | $ 0.9 | Acquired via FA |
| David Backes | C,RW | WAS | 118.15 | $ 5.0 | $ 5.0 | Acquired via FA |
| Antoine Roussel | LW | WAS | 115.95 | $ 0.9 | $ 2.9 | |
| Andre Burakovsky | LW,RW | WAS | 108.35 | $ 0.9 | $ 2.7 | |
| Cody Ceci | D | WAS | 105.2 | $ 2.0 | $ 2.2 | |
| Loui Eriksson | LW,RW | WAS | 94.3 | $ 5.0 | $ 5.0 | Acquired via FA |
| Jonas Brodin | D | WAS | 69 | $ 1.5 | $ 1.7 | |
| Ty Rattie | LW,RW | WAS | 62.85 | $ 0.5 | $ 0.5 | P-19/20 |
| Charles Hudon | LW,RW | WAS | 36.15 | $ 0.5 | $ 0.5 | P-19/20 |
| Chris Wideman | D | WAS | 19.7 | $ 2.6 | $ 0.8 | |
| $ 60.2 | $ 66.0 |
| Player | Position | Team | FPts | CURRENT CONTRACTS | NEW RULES | Conditions |
| Leon Draisaitl | C,LW | STL | 378.8 | $5.5 | $6.7 | Discounted |
| Connor Hellebuyck | G | STL | 338 | $5.9 | $6.0 | Discounted |
| Aleksander Barkov | C | STL | 316.7 | $4.2 | $5.5 | Discounted |
| Sean Monahan | C | STL | 299.55 | $4.8 | $5.3 | Discounted |
| Vladimir Tarasenko | RW | STL | 298.55 | $6.0 | $5.3 | Discounted |
| Jonathan Huberdeau | LW | STL | 296.75 | $6.0 | $7.4 | |
| Dylan Larkin | C | STL | 288.25 | $3.5 | $5.2 | Discounted |
| Kyle Connor | LW | STL | 250.2 | $0.5 | $0.5 | P-19/20 |
| Henrik Lundqvist | G | STL | 240.25 | $5.9 | $6.0 | |
| Roman Josi | D | STL | 228.55 | $5.0 | $5.7 | |
| Victor Hedman | D | STL | 211.85 | $5.3 | $5.3 | |
| Jakub Voracek | RW | STL | 210.25 | $5.3 | $5.3 | |
| Mathew Barzal | C | STL | 201.4 | $0.5 | $0.5 | P-19/20 |
| Jake Allen | G | STL | 195 | $3.3 | $4.9 | |
| Jason Zucker | LW,RW | STL | 189.45 | $5.8 | $4.7 | |
| Thomas Chabot | D | STL | 186.8 | $0.5 | $0.5 | P-19/20 |
| Jordan Binnington | G | STL | 181 | $0.5 | $0.5 | P-n/a |
| Shea Weber | D | STL | 179.95 | $5.0 | $4.5 | |
| Alex Pietrangelo | D | STL | 165.3 | $4.5 | $4.1 | |
| Juuse Saros | G | STL | 155 | $0.5 | $0.5 | P-n/a |
| Leo Komarov | LW,RW | STL | 148.05 | $0.9 | $0.9 | Acquired via FA |
| Jaden Schwartz | LW | STL | 147.4 | $3.5 | $2.6 | Discounted |
| Brandon Montour | D | STL | 130.4 | $0.5 | $0.5 | P-19/20 |
| Tyson Jost | C,LW | STL | 111.1 | $0.5 | $0.5 | P-19/20 |
| $69.8 | $74.8 |
How this works is you take the players FP for both the current and prior season, multiply that by 0.025 (in millions) and the greater of those two values is your extension value.
Super supportive but if we do this let's get it right across the board.
The greater of the two years could be an outlier and makes no attempt to account for historical production. Use the greater of the two values for rookies that will be signed to prospect discounts, but the average for extension values.
We've always done the 2 year thing. I'm not exactly sure how average would work, but, wouldn't an average also include some outlier numbers? Like guys who drop off quickly like Corey Perry?Yes which is why an average of the last 3 years is best.
Yes which is why an average of the last 3 years is best.
I don't really like using averages. Say a player gets injured and misses and entire season 3 years ago. Then has two high seasons where he shows he's a top player again. You would get a 33% discount on his resign just because he missed a year 3 years ago?Real life NHL contracts get discounted based on a players injury history.
I don't really like using averages. Say a player gets injured and misses and entire season 3 years ago. Then has two high seasons where he shows he's a top player again. You would get a 33% discount on his resign just because he missed a year 3 years ago?But if you want something really solid take the average of the best two of the last three years. Seems like something Excel can handle.
ok so here is the down side. Im a team that wont make the playoffs this coming year and I will have 10 players to resign at the end of the year and assuming the prospect discount dont change I will be 3.6M over the cap. the biggest reason for this is I traded cap space this year and next year, 10M next year based on our current extension prices (which I would have 8.8M in cap space). this is the problem with these type of changes is 1 season is not enough time for me to adjust. Im not a top 3 team and struggle just to make the playoffs. Im still in favor of this change but if we had talked about this 1 month ago I would not have just traded 10M cap space for next year. and I might be the only one in this situation but everyone should apply this to there team and see what happens to there cap next year. if a lot of teams are going to be in the same cap problem as me then Im good with having to make what ever adjustments needed but if there are only 3 of us then maybe a compromise is needed for the transition.:iatp: I am in favour but let's not stampede into it for sure. Maybe push it a year.
But if you want something really solid take the average of the best two of the last three years. Seems like something Excel can handle.
Yes which is why an average of the last 3 years is best.
It doesn't make sense. If a young player gets to appear in 20 games in his first year and struggles to produce, but then pops in his second year and puts up good numbers - his renewal shouldn't be an average of those 2 seasons, it should be based on his 2nd season. The numbers would be just plain silly. Sure, there's outliers in the best of 2 year thing - but all in all it works out pretty well.Already addressed that Rob. I'm at yes on your changes....have an open mind.
Use the greater of the two values for rookies that will be signed to prospect discounts, but the average for extension values.
ok so here is the down side. Im a team that wont make the playoffs this coming year and I will have 10 players to resign at the end of the year and assuming the prospect discount dont change I will be 3.6M over the cap. the biggest reason for this is I traded cap space this year and next year, 10M next year based on our current extension prices (which I would have 8.8M in cap space). this is the problem with these type of changes is 1 season is not enough time for me to adjust. Im not a top 3 team and struggle just to make the playoffs. Im still in favor of this change but if we had talked about this 1 month ago I would not have just traded 10M cap space for next year. and I might be the only one in this situation but everyone should apply this to there team and see what happens to there cap next year. if a lot of teams are going to be in the same cap problem as me then Im good with having to make what ever adjustments needed but if there are only 3 of us then maybe a compromise is needed for the transition.
Also the top 25 extension value example posted looks based on 2018-19 only and not the best of the two years. I've done an average of the same players for the last two years but can't get my chart to drop in nicely. Would love to see one of you excel wizards chart a weighted average for the last three years (avg of best two). My facility with excel is middling but I can manage it if I have to.
Already addressed that Rob. I'm at yes on your changes....have an open mind.
I didn't feel like pulling prior numbers :/Right?
Stamkos earned a $68m contract after busting his knee and playing 17 games. That's an annual value of $8.5m. If he renewed here under the average of 2 years at the same time he'd earn $4.8m. He makes $9.5m here under the current rules and if he was renewed under the new rules back in 2016 after the injury he'd make $7m.I've moved beyond the average of two years to the best two of the last three.
Using the best year of the 2 does present some outliers - but I believe using the average presents more.
Right?
I think it's important to get this part of it right. No way a players extension should be based on a single year, and I think you'd agree. But I understand if there's a problem with the amount of labour involved to get a weighted average. Would it be so hard to chart the best two of the last three years in Excel?
Jim - could you do the math to tell me what your total cap hit would be if you extended all of your players under the current rules vs the cap hit extending all your players under the new rules?
I'd then like to compare you with a few of the top teams. I have a feeling they will suffer more than you. And if that's the case, then I'm still OK putting you all through this right away. If we find there's a discrepancy and teams like yours suffer more than those at the top, then I might agree with your subsequent idea of allowing extensions now without the rule of matching the existing contract value - to let teams like yours get adjusted.
I'll run some numbers on a few other teams as well.
next year if I extend under our current rules I would have 8.8M in cap space. next year under the new rule I would be 3.6M over the cap. Its a 12.4M swing. I can sign some guys early transferring some of the cap to next year which is what Ill do. I still think we should do this but just want to see how many teams are going to be in the same cap problem.
Ill look at a few teams but it wont be until tonight
I've moved beyond the average of two years to the best two of the last three.
The biggest downside to going back three years to me is that extensions for older declining players are going to go up. Say you have a player who 3 years ago had his last great season. 2 years ago he had a so so season but was starting to decline. 1 year ago he had a season where he continued to decline. I would have to extend him based on the average player he was 3 and 2 years ago. Honestly I don't really care what a player did for me 3 years ago. I value what has he done for me recently and what I can expect moving forward.I hear you but when we're extending contracts for 5 years at a time I think the previous 3 are completely relevant. Certainly they would be relevant in an actual contract negotiation or arbitration (good, bad, and ugly). What if we're talking about a Joffery Lupul type player that is injured all the time? Base his contract off one high year or build in some accounting for lost games?
I hear you but when we're extending contracts for 5 years at a time I think the previous 3 are completely relevant. Certainly they would be relevant in an actual contract negotiation or arbitration (good, bad, and ugly). What if we're talking about a Joffery Lupul type player that is injured all the time? Base his contract off one high year or build in some accounting for lost games?
But maybe it will take some numbers to compare.
We'd need to do a whole lot more math.:iatp:
I hear you but when we're extending contracts for 5 years at a time I think the previous 3 are completely relevant. Certainly they would be relevant in an actual contract negotiation or arbitration (good, bad, and ugly). What if we're talking about a Joffery Lupul type player that is injured all the time? Base his contract off one high year or build in some accounting for lost games?
But maybe it will take some numbers to compare.
If Stamkos misses a season, then puts up 3.0PPG the next 2 seasons - no GM here or in the NHL is considering that injured year in the contract length.Exactly. Take the best two years of the three and average them. So 3.0PPG would stand.
Posting some numbers here for consideration. I've done this by hand but I think the over-all picture is clear: the changes are not huge. I haven't quite figured out how to nicely align tables in BBC but if you pick through you will see that average fantasy points for the best of the last 3 years are in bold along with the extension value at $25k per point.
Putting players like Aho and Marner in this list isn't quite right because their rookie production drags them down and they're not up for extension anyways. They are rightly covered by prospect extension contracts which is a different thing all-together.
Over-all there is a downward trend for these top 25 players which I think will be more than made up in the middle so I don't see a watering down effect. (Even if there was you can always bump the multiplier to $26-$27k per point.) Anyways, my argument is precisely that players should not be extended based solely on their single best year of production and as I said, the changes are not huge.
- Nikita Kucherov
328.2 366.3 428.3 397.3 $9.90 $10.70- Alex Ovechkin
337.25 395.3 423.25 409.27 $10.20 $10.60- Nathan MacKinnon
199.15 358 401.35 379.67 $9.50 $10.00- Patrick Kane
333.8 258.55 398.3 366.05 $9.20 $10.00- Connor McDavid
355.65 390.9 384.75 387.82 $9.70 $9.80- Leon Draisaitl
270.25 238.5 378.8 324.5 $8.10 $9.50- John Tavares
263.7 299.15 371.85 335.5 $8.40 $9.30- Steven Stamkos
79.35 305.05 362.8 333.92 $8.30 $9.10- Sidney Crosby
364.35 311.9 360.65 362.5 $9.10 $9.00- Johnny Gaudreau
198.35 276.15 349.85 313 $7.80 $8.70- Andrei Vasilevskiy
249.25 397 348.25 372.62 $9.30 $9.90- Brad Marchand
327.15 311.45 346.65 336.9 $8.20 $8.70- Brayden Point
158.85 272.35 345.7 309.02 $7.70 $8.60- Frederik Andersen
359.75 390.25 345 375 $9.40 $9.80- Tyler Seguin
269.05 345.95 343.2 344.58 $8.60 $8.60- Carey Price
336 194.75 340.75 338.37 $8.50 $8.50- Connor Hellebuyck
251.5 406 338 372 $9.30 $10.20- Jake Guentzel
139.5 205.05 325.4 265.22 $6.60 $8.10- Sebastian Aho
208.65 255.85 325.4 290.6 $7.20 $8.10- Mitchell Marner
210.45 234.65 325.3 279.97 $7.00 $8.10- Gabriel Landeskog
148.8 269.3 320.65 295.2 $7.40 $8.00- Aleksander Barkov
203.25 289.1 316.7 302.9 $7.60 $7.90- Sergei Bobrovsky
383.75 362.75 315.75 373.25 $9.30 $9.10- David Pastrnak
299.1 311.55 313.8 312.65 $7.80 $7.80
Cherry picking some cases now to really show where an average helps account for injury or different on-ice usage:
- Andrej Sekera
143.95 16.15 21.65 82.8 $2.10 $0.50- Jason Zucker
230.25 273.1 189.45 251.65 $6.30 $6.80- Kevin Shattenkirk
188.55 72.10 98.25 143.4 $3.60 $2.5- Kris Letang
124.8 188.15 232.7 210.42 $5.30 $5.80- Oscar Klefbom
167.4 101.2 106.15 136.78 $3.40 $2.70- Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
170.85 200.75 247.65 224.2 $5.60 $6.20- Sven Baertschi
105.1 140.7 51.6 122.9 $3.10 $3.50- Tomas Hertl
98.6 194.65 278.45 236.55 $5.90 $7.00- Zach Parise
176 112.85 242.1 209.05 $5.2 $6.1
You can always bump the multiplier up to $26k (or whatever) if you need to shift up or down but I can look at the numbers at the bottom. Sekera at $2.1m or $500k is cheap either way.
If the theoretical range goes from $10m-$1m in the "best of 2 year" method and the ranges goes from, let's say, $9m-$2m in the "average of 3" method you'd have to add a 2nd tier where the multiplier is different. Otherwise the range just shifts downwards and the top gets less expensive. So a tier 1 player (however we define that) could be $26k while a tier 2 player could be $24k. We could tinker to find the right combination to keep the price range relative to the current settings.More complicated than I was aiming for but you obviously have lots of tools to work with. I think over-all the scheme is brilliant in how it corrects or homogenizes the current quirks or imbalances. Mind you I like the current flavour of DNHL. It's a bit weird and I love it that way.
Getting the right figure is the tough part - cause sampling some low ranking players isn't enough. We'd need to rank them all to see how fat the range would be and how to adjust it correctly.
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 23 | 259.75 | 50 | 201.4 | $4.4 | $4.5 | C Mathew Barzal, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 132 | 91.9 | 118 | 111.1 | $1.6 | $2.0 | C Tyson Jost, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 35 | 157.8 | 58 | 130.4 | $2.5 | $2.8 | D Brandon Montour, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 111 | 89.1 | 15 | 186.8 | $3.1 | $3.3 | D Thomas Chabot, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 40 | 149.25 | 41 | 155 | $2.0 | $2.7 | G Juuse Saros, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 28 | 230.65 | 86 | 147.4 | $5.0 | $5.8 | LW Jaden Schwartz, $3.5m (2019-2020) |
| 26 | 234.9 | 23 | 250.2 | $3.9 | $4.4 | LW Kyle Connor, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 109 | 132.15 | 85 | 148.05 | $0.9 | $3.7 | LW/RW Leo Komarov, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 11 | 277.75 | 36 | 210.25 | $6.3 | $6.9 | RW Jakub Voracek, $5.3m (2019-2020) |
| $29.7 | $36.1 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 76 | 164.25 | 129 | 116.85 | $0.9 | $4.1 | RW Alex Steen, FLEXED, $4.7m (2019-2020), $2.4m this year |
| 113 | 110.3 | 54 | 195.4 | $5.0 | $4.9 | C Cody Eakin, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 117 | 104.3 | 95 | 140.7 | $3.1 | $3.5 | C Scott Laughton, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 96 | 133.8 | 70 | 162.7 | $4.1 | $4.1 | C Colton Sissons, $1.4m (2019-2020) |
| 82 | 149.2 | 106 | 125.9 | $3.8 | $3.7 | C Chris Tierney, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 114 | 124.35 | 118 | 123.7 | $0.8 | $3.1 | RW Sam Bennett, $1m (2019-2020) |
| 156 | 64.75 | 94 | 104.8 | $2.5 | $2.6 | D Troy Stecher, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 151 | 68.45 | 125 | 81.55 | $1.7 | $2.0 | D Jordan Oesterle, $0.5m (2019-2020) |
| 23 | 242 | 22 | 226.25 | $4.3 | $6.0 | G Craig Anderson, $6.1m (2019-2020) |
| 8 | 325 | 8 | 303.5 | $6.0 | $8.1 | G Devan Dubnyk, $5.9m (2019-2020) |
| 15 | 272.75 | 11 | 299.75 | $5.8 | $7.5 | G Braden Holtby, $4.9m (2019-2020) |
| 46 | 120 | 60 | 69 | $1.5 | $3.0 | G Alex Stalock, $4m (2019-2020) |
| 49 | 111.5 | 39 | 161.25 | $2.5 | $4.0 | G Anders Nilsson, $1.9m (2019-2020) |
| 21 | 250 | 58 | 188.45 | $5.5 | $6.3 | LW James van Riemsdyk, $5.3m (2019-2020) |
| 8 | 305.95 | 38 | 209.1 | $7.3 | $7.6 | RW Dustin Brown, $2m (2019-2020) |
| $54.8 | $70.5 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 14 | 204.85 | 7 | 213.35 | $5.0 | $5.3 | D Dougie Hamilton, $2.5m (2019-2020) |
| 39 | 152.85 | 13 | 191.55 | $4.5 | $3.5 | D Ryan Pulock, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 5 | 312.15 | 22 | 252.95 | $8.0 | $7.8 | RW Phil Kessel, $5.6m (2019-2020) |
| 31 | 223.35 | 9 | 301.5 | $6.7 | $7.5 | RW Cam Atkinson, $2m (2019-2020) |
| 124 | 112.35 | 221 | 35.15 | $0.8 | $2.0 | RW Jesse Puljujarvi, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| $25.0 | $26.9 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 103 | 127.75 | 107 | 124.05 | $2.0 | $2.2 | C Nolan Patrick, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 231 | 22.9 | 84 | 111.4 | $2.7 | $2.8 | D Marcus Pettersson, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 86 | 107.55 | 66 | 126.7 | $2.1 | $2.2 | D Robert Hagg, $0.2m (P-19/20) |
| 197 | 40.75 | 69 | 123.3 | $2.0 | $2.2 | D Travis Sanheim, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 133 | 102.15 | 68 | 168.65 | $1.1 | $4.2 | RW Michael Frolik, $2.5m (2019-2020) |
| 14 | 268.3 | 14 | 285.85 | $6.0 | $7.1 | RW Alexander Radulov, $3.5m (2019-2020) |
| 98 | 138.65 | 83 | 148.75 | $0.9 | $3.7 | RW Joonas Donskoi, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| $16.8 | $24.4 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 51 | 199.05 | 17 | 299.25 | $6.9 | $7.5 | C Jonathan Toews, $7m (2019-2020) |
| 46 | 210 | 71 | 162.6 | $5.3 | $5.3 | C Adam Henrique, $1.3m (2019-2020) |
| 126 | 100.55 | 93 | 141.5 | $3.1 | $3.5 | C Luke Glendening, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 44 | 142.7 | 41 | 147.95 | $3.5 | $3.7 | D Tyler Myers, $2.9m (2019-2020) |
| 4 | 239.3 | 56 | 135 | $5.2 | $6.0 | D PK Subban, $5.2m (2019-2020) |
| 174 | 56.2 | 201 | 35.75 | $0.8 | $1.4 | D Gustav Forsling, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 47 | 141.65 | 26 | 170 | $3.7 | $4.3 | D Ryan Ellis, $2m (2019-2020) |
| 30 | 192.75 | 42 | 154.5 | $3.3 | $4.8 | G Cam Ward, $1m (2019-2020) |
| 34 | 165.5 | 25 | 218.75 | $3.8 | $5.5 | G Carter Hutton, $2.8m (2019-2020) |
| 181 | 73.25 | 113 | 123.95 | $0.9 | $3.1 | LW Matt Martin, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 118 | 126.45 | 153 | 96.35 | $0.9 | $3.2 | LW Austin Watson, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 129 | 96 | 73 | 159.85 | $4.0 | $4.0 | C Vinnie Hinostroza, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 120 | 115.9 | 85 | 148.6 | $0.9 | $3.7 | RW Jake Virtanen, $0.8m (2019-2020) |
| 36 | 220.65 | 11 | 296.25 | $4.4 | $5.2 | RW Alexander Debrincat, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| $46.7 | $61.2 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| n/a | 0 | 231 | 29.65 | $0.8 | $0.8 | RW Robby Fabbri, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 34 | 228.15 | 78 | 153.3 | $5.9 | $5.7 | C/RW Jordan Eberle, $4.3m (2019-2020) |
| 144 | 70.45 | 122 | 82.6 | $1.7 | $2.1 | D Danny Dekeyser, $2m (2019-2020) |
| 57 | 73.25 | 44 | 146.25 | $1.9 | $3.7 | G Louis Domingue, $3.3m (2019-2020) |
| 130 | 109.75 | 51 | 194.6 | $2.6 | $4.9 | RW/LW Brett Connolly, $1m (2019-2020) |
| 118 | 118.8 | 76 | 155.4 | $0.9 | $3.9 | RW Chris Wagner, $0.5m (2019-2020) |
| $13.8 | $21.1 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 153 | 67.05 | 100 | 99.65 | $2.2 | $2.5 | D Jack Johnson, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 51 | 137.45 | 38 | 149.35 | $3.6 | $3.7 | D Alexander Edler, $2.4m (2019-2020) |
| 76 | 161 | 128 | 116.3 | $1.0 | $4.0 | LW Blake Comeau, $1m (2019-2020) |
| 68 | 171.75 | 60 | 190.6 | $4.8 | $4.8 | C Nick Foligno, $7m (2019-2020) |
| 137 | 85 | 108 | 122.65 | $2.0 | $2.1 | C JT Compher, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 72 | 167.05 | 18 | 278 | $5.8 | $7.0 | RW Josh Anderson, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| $19.4 | $24.1 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 19 | 255.25 | 45 | 195.65 | $3.9 | $4.5 | LW Yanni Gourde, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 201 | 36.65 | 235 | 19.7 | $0.8 | $0.9 | D Chris Wideman, $2.6m (2019-2020) |
| 93 | 101.75 | 146 | 69 | $2.6 | $2.5 | D Jonas Brodin, $1.5m (2019-2020) |
| 138 | 72.15 | 60 | 128.75 | $3.1 | $3.2 | D Michal Kempny, $0.9m (2019-2020) |
| 96 | 140.45 | 230 | 36.15 | $0.9 | $2.5 | LW Charles Hudon, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| 210 | 39.55 | 186 | 62.85 | $0.8 | $1.6 | RW Ty Rattie, $0.5m (P-19/20) |
| $12.1 | $15.2 |
| 17/18 Rank | 17/18 FP | 18/19 Rank | 18/19 FP | Old Ext Value | New Ext Value | Player |
| 133 | 90.2 | 48 | 207.65 | $5.3 | $5.2 | C Andrew Shaw, $3.1m (2019-2020) |
| 123 | 101.8 | 102 | 131.3 | $2.8 | $3.3 | C Jeff Carter, $1.1m (2019-2020) |
| 60 | 185.1 | 59 | 191.8 | $4.8 | $4.8 | C Boone Jenner, $6m (2019-2020) |
| n/a | 132 | 93.15 | $0.9 | $2.3 | LW Zachary Sanford, $0.5m (2019-2020) | |
| 162 | 81.4 | 69 | 167.8 | $1.1 | $4.2 | RW Alex Chiasson, $0.5m (2019-2020) |
| $14.9 | $19.8 |
is this going to happen or are we voting or something else?This is going to happen.
I love the original idea from Rob. 1pt. = $25k (or whatever exact amount we come up with)
I do however have MAJOR concerns about Slacks suggestions. I hate the idea of doing an average or 2 of the best three. I love our system of best of the last two years.
The only concern I have with the system is the timeline. As someone stated before, implementing this next year may be too early. May need to extend it to two years.
Jared played for the title every year and was one of the best around at finding value out of nowhere. But you're seeing a bit of the fallout over there with all those extensions and none of them discountable. Even without the rule change, your Avs have $26.5m in cap space next season with $54.8m in extensions. lol...
But this is kinda how Jared did it - he re-formed his roster 2 or 3 times in his tenure here. And always came back in championship form, so, mucho kudos there.
Despite that - I don't think delaying this a year is really necessary or helpful. There's just as many contracts that expire in 20/21 - so if we shift a year, the teams that are getting hit hardest now would see some relief, but another group of teams with more 20/21 expiration's would end up on the sh!t end of the stick. Tear the band-aid off quick, I say. I am sorry for what that means for you. A tough situation becomes tougher.
The main issue I see with doing it this year is the money sent from team to team. I know I have a ton of money sent to me. I'm on board with it either way.
I realized I needed to make a run this year and maybe next, and then will have to tear this team down a bit and start over a little. I knew that coming in.
I realized I needed to make a run this year and maybe next, and then will have to tear this team down a bit and start over a little. I knew that coming in.
Solid convo happening here, I like it.
I already told Slack via PM that the only big problem with 3 years (I think someone else pointed out as well), as that is quite a long period of time for a player.
Especially if say a player is 31 going on 32, and needs an extension.
He's still a productive player, but very much expected to start to see a decline in the coming years. And, you'd have to extend the player based on his 29, 30, and 31 year old seasons. Assuming for the most part that the 29 and 30 seasons would be his best, that kind of sucks that you're paying a guy for what he did 3 and 2 years ago.
That said, there are always going to be loopholes and deals to be found, no matter what structure is used.
I mean, for us in here in fantasy, if a player is injured 2 years in a row (ie. Evander Kane), you know his re-sign will be cheaper and that plays a factor in trade value if he's being traded. It certainly did when I traded for him, as his re-sign was probably $1.5m less than it would have been had he been healthy for 1 of the re-sign years.
Generally speaking, if a player is injured 2 years in a row, it might affect his re-sign value in the real NHL too though, short of it being a Steven Stamkos type freak back to back year thing. A team wouldn't fork out a large chunk of money/cap to a guy that's shown to be injury prone, probably giving him a lesser money and shorter term deal to see if he stays healthy and produces like he did before injury. Again, Stamkos is kind of an outlier there I would say as he was a 50-goal guy before injury.
One other suggestion to toss out there for re-signing players... Is not looking at Total FanPts, but looking at FanPts per game.
In the Evander Kane scenario, when healthy, he was still putting up pretty good numbers (3 fanpts/game lets say), but since he was injured and other players who maybe scored 1.8 fanpts/game played 80 games, instead of Kane's 45 games, they would have finished ahead of him in the rankings due to it going on total points. (Don't quote me on those numbers, I'm not a math guy, they're just random estimates).
It would negate the injury factor 2 years in a row for us... Not sure if that's what we're going for or not though.
All in all, there's a lot of different ways to look at it though.
As for timeline... The only thing that is interesting to add on top of higher re-sign values for the most part, is we're adding blocked shots. So come next off-season, we're adding 2 elements that will drastically affect re-sign values, where a guy like Johnny Boychuck goes from irrelevant, to fairly relevant due to his hits and blocks. That's just a random name I threw out there, but there are a few guys like that on D that get you nice hits and blocks (Roman Polak another that comes to mind from previous years).
Might be a good idea to stagger those 2 (fairly large I'd say) changes, if enough people have an issue on it.
There are going to be a bunch of good guys in FA and you will be able to get them cheaper than what it would cost you with the current rules I think.
A few of you keep saying this, but I don't know about that. We all know that FA gets crazy and hectic and some people get emotional and overpay, especially if they've got cap space.
ie. Jake Guentzel
I'll be interested to see what Giroux goes for in a month, obviously being the biggest fish in the FA pool based on production and age.
It'll also be interesting to see who pays up for Giordano and Bergeron given their age.
That said, I fully expect Arizona, Ottawa and Boston to get into a bidding war for those players plus any other top FA, so they can trade them fully paid for, for future assets.
That said, AZ has the most cap space so he'll get Giroux in all likelihood, haha. Boston and Ottawa can at least make him pay out the yin yang so they can at least settle on one of the other guys.
A few of you keep saying this, but I don't know about that. We all know that FA gets crazy and hectic and some people get emotional and overpay, especially if they've got cap space.
ie. Jake Guentzel
I'll be interested to see what Giroux goes for in a month, obviously being the biggest fish in the FA pool based on production and age.
It'll also be interesting to see who pays up for Giordano and Bergeron given their age.
That said, I fully expect Arizona, Ottawa and Boston to get into a bidding war for those players plus any other top FA, so they can trade them fully paid for, for future assets.
That said, AZ has the most cap space so he'll get Giroux in all likelihood, haha. Boston and Ottawa can at least make him pay out the yin yang so they can at least settle on one of the other guys.
Sorry if I missed it but has anyone run the numbers on how the new system affects blocked shots and does that push contracts too high for our salary cap? I also think we can't delay adding blocked shots or the players who will benefit from it the most will get scooped up in this FA for cheaper than their projected value in preparation for next year when their value gets bumped up.
No, I didn't do that. I'll run them tonight to make sure the pricing doesn't go wonky. If anything we can adjust the base figure down from 25k to accommodate that. And if we adjust for that in advance, we won't have to worry about delaying the BS stat from hitting next years extensions. Unless we still want to do that anyway to help lighten the blow in year one?
Ran some numbers - in order to scale the plan to the economy with the addition of BS, we need to adjust the base figure from $25k to $23k. This puts us almost perfectly on the money scale from before.
Adding BS increases the economy from $2.4B to $2.6B. Reducing to $23k per point brings us right back to $2.4B.
I'm not a numbers guy so thanks for this Rob. But I hear you on the 25 vs. 23, haha.
Also...
Every time you write BS my first thought isn't Blocked Shots... :rool: :disco:
I ran some more numbers from your sheet: The average player adds 12.35fp so average player salary would increase by $0.3m if you kept the multiplier at 0.025, and if you multiply .3m x 30 players on a roster it's about a $9m cap increase needed to account for the salary bump. Not a perfect model but gives some insight.
So it's somewhat relative. And 30 x .3 doesn't account for P contracts, so I think the $8m increase to $95m on the cap end works?Or use average instead of best as it drives prices down by about 10%. Don't get the resistance to this as it's all going to be done for us on spreadsheet anyway. Not like we have to do actual math ourselves. :rofl:
Although....
Going from 25k to 23k is a 8% drop. Instead of that we could bump the cap up to accomodate the Blocks increase. An equivalent 8% cap increase would take us to around $95 million. In this way we can use the nice, easy to remember, $25k number.
How do you all feel about that?
Or use average instead of best as it drives prices down by about 10%. Don't get the resistance to this as it's all going to be done for us on spreadsheet anyway. Not like we have to do actual math ourselves. :rofl:
I was wrong. Slack's method decreases the market by 15%. Shooter ran the 3 year vs 2 year for the entire league and the numbers flesh this out pretty clearly.
So - you can continue to argue 3 years vs 2 years on the merits of accuracy for production. It won't be the nuclear bomb that I expected to our economy.
I still prefer 2 years, though :P
If we're considering average or whatever Slack's 3-year plan is, I still like 2 years.
I think looking back over 3 years of production is going too far back. I get the reasoning in case of injury, but hey, it is what it is.
For us in fantasy, it sucks when a good player is injured for 25 games of the season. Accordingly, if he's up for re-sign within a year or year and a half, we'd get a slight reduction on re-sign which I think would be fair to us as fantasy GM's due to lost production from that player.
Of course the real-world wouldn't do the exact same thing in contract negotiations, but I think we've established that we're not the real-world.
If we're not doing average of 2 years and just taking the best of the 2 years, then so be it. We've been doing that all along anyways.
Whether you average 2 years or 3, you still won't capture a player at their best. Since the best season will always get averaged down. That's one thing I don't like about it.
Moreover - what does it really do? What do we really gain from this? It's like the extension min/max's. Increasing seems logical - but it's hard to say whether that change does any good or bad.
If it ain't broke.... And I never felt like that part was broke.
I think we keep it the same and do the best of the last 2 years. I don't really think it's a broken system and definitely doesn't make it easier on us to figure out averages.
Wow, just back from the Stones in Seattle and see I left a bit of a bomb. I'm all in favour of simplicity so best of 2 is fine guys. Just didn't really understand why it was such a tough sell. Glad Rob gave it a fair shake....seemed reasonable to me as a way of keeping the numbers right rather than bumping the salary cap all out of proportion. But there are other ways to do that, like lowering the multiplier (OCD aside).
That's something I'd like to ask about actually. I know we're not super aligned to actual NHL numbers but I don't want to totally decouple either. So what would it look like to try and fit into actual NHL salary cap numbers? If $25k per point is 8% high after blocked shots are added (based on a salary cap of NHL +$6m), what would the multiplier have to be to reduce our salary cap to the actual NHL number? Could we do that instead of padding our cap room?
Like I think somewhere around $21k per point might work with blocked shots and a true NHL cap.
Wow, just back from the Stones in Seattle and see I left a bit of a bomb. I'm all in favour of simplicity so best of 2 is fine guys. Just didn't really understand why it was such a tough sell. Glad Rob gave it a fair shake....seemed reasonable to me as a way of keeping the numbers right rather than bumping the salary cap all out of proportion. But there are other ways to do that, like lowering the multiplier (OCD aside).
That's something I'd like to ask about actually. I know we're not super aligned to actual NHL numbers but I don't want to totally decouple either. So what would it look like to try and fit into actual NHL salary cap numbers? If $25k per point is 8% high after blocked shots are added (based on a salary cap of NHL +$6m), what would the multiplier have to be to reduce our salary cap to the actual NHL number? Could we do that instead of padding our cap room?
Like I think somewhere around $21k per point might work with blocked shots and a true NHL cap.
From my discussion with Rob it sounds like we will set the value for the cap and not change it moving forward. Do you have a reason why you think the salary cap should go down? As a team that is close to the salary cap I see this as a double whammy to the teams that are currently spending close to the cap. We are raising extension values across the board and now you want to lower the cap as well? I think with the extension values increasing in a year or two you are going to see alot of the excess salary cap space used up and Free agency will see more players.
I would be very opposed to lowering the salary cap. With extension values going up we have a chance to look at our roster and make the decision not to resign certain players as we can't afford them anymore. If you lower the cap value then teams like myself will have to trade away players because we can't fit them in under the new cap value. So players we signed/resigned under the current rules will now be impacted by a change that I don't really see a reason for. This would result in a handful of teams in the league (Yours included) who would benefit while a majority of the teams would be in cap hell.
I think what he's getting at is taking the $25k per point // $95m Cap and scaling the $/pt to whatever gets you to the same number as the NHL's cap. So effectively it's not a real change to the cap since it's all relative. The problem is that current contracts are not scaled to that, so it would cause some issues. And, like I said, there's no sense scaling ourselves to look like the league when the league will change and leave us behind anyway.
I just saw the No Filter Tour in MA. They were great!
From my discussion with Rob it sounds like we will set the value for the cap and not change it moving forward.
I understand what he proposed. In my eyes he is proposing something that would benefit his team greatly due to his cap space that is available. I guess I'm looking for a reason or goal for scaling it back. What problem is he trying to solve with the proposal?
I guess I'm looking for a reason or goal for scaling it back. What problem is he trying to solve with the proposal?
Wow, just back from the Stones in Seattle
Man that's sick Slacky. You're were in my neck of the woods.Yeah, the tickets were pricey but worth it for us. Got to see my wife lose her mind over the whole living history of it all....and they really know how to put on a show. Century Link is huge so was very impressed that the sound was so good. Happy to high-tail it back to my Island though. The I-5 in and out of Seattle is nuts!
How was it / were they?
Thought about it... But the ticket price coupled with not being a huge huge huge fan was the deal breaker.
I took my 9 year old for his first concert. I figure how many of his peers will be able to say they've seen the Stones?! It was my first time seeing them too and I've been a lifelong fan. We kinda had nosebleeds, but the sound was amazing and they were on their games. Great night.We danced and sang all night. :bacon::taco: Your son is a lucky boy! :win:
$95m is only going to seem like a lot of money for a very short time. Once extensions take hold teams will feel the pinch. Reducing the cap at this point just to look more like the NHL is kinda silly, and too harmful on some teams. If we wanted we could keep the cap where it is and decrease the extension factor to $23K. But it's all relative and doesn't matter. I'd rather have a nice round $25K. The NHL will catch up to us in time on the cap end. I don't think anyone here cares about being untied from the NHL financials when doing it makes our game more balanced, fair and fun - FA starting next year is going to be great.
So if our cap isn't indexed to a floating multiplier that is tied to the NHL how will we calculate it in the future? If we are entirely decoupled then there is no reason to keep the current cap formula as NHL inflation has no further bearing on our fantasy point based system. Right?
The fantasy production of the top 675 contracts or so probably does not inflate. Sure there are changes in goal scoring and whatnot but I think we're going to find that if we lock in at $25k per point we'll be more or less static. So one day our stars contracts in DNHL will be half of those in the NHL.
We can talk about aesthetic updates to the cap periodically if members want the numbers to look more realistic.:iatp: Glad you are not married to $25k forever.