ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: SlackJack on July 02, 2018, 02:45:24 PM
-
Want to float the idea of cutting back on the number of draft picks we get. As it is, with six picks per year the value of picks and prospects is low. GM's can reload their entire minor league roster basically in two seasons. It makes later round picks disposable and doesn't encourage long-term holding. (Why develop players when you can fire off 2-3 prospects in return for a major-league roster player.) Obviously my argument doesn't stand for blue-chip prospects, but the league is awash with lesser assets.
I'm thinking that a tweak down to 4 picks per year (1 keeper and 3 supplemental) would increase the value of both prospects and picks while encouraging GM's to better maintain their prospect pipelines. Basically, if you empty your cupboards, it should take longer to restock!
-
Want to float the idea of cutting back on the number of draft picks we get. As it is, with six picks per year the value of picks and prospects is low. GM's can reload their entire minor league roster basically in two seasons. It makes later round picks disposable and doesn't encourage long-term holding. (Why develop players when you can fire off 2-3 prospects in return for a major-league roster player.) Obviously my argument doesn't stand for blue-chip prospects, but the league is awash with lesser assets.
I'm thinking that a tweak down to 4 picks per year (1 keeper and 3 supplemental) would increase the value of both prospects and picks while encouraging GM's to better maintain their prospect pipelines. Basically, if you empty your cupboards, it should take longer to restock!
Well, keepers beyond round 1 are kinda hit or miss most of the time anyway. There's been years when I only kept 1 player. There's also been years where I really didn't want any Bruins prospects (danm you Peter Cherelli).
I think, once you've been through a draft, you might see this differently. Even late round picks get a lot of trade attention when we're in the midst of the draft. And I haven't seen much in the way of a drop in quality picks between round 2 and 3 of the supplemental (since <40gp players are off limits in FA).
-
Well, keepers beyond round 1 are kinda hit or miss most of the time anyway. There's been years when I only kept 1 player. There's also been years where I really didn't want any Bruins prospects (danm you Peter Cherelli).
I think, once you've been through a draft, you might see this differently. Even late round picks get a lot of trade attention when we're in the midst of the draft. And I haven't seen much in the way of a drop in quality picks between round 2 and 3 of the supplemental (since <40gp players are off limits in FA).
I've been through a draft already Rob. Totally stand behind what I wrote. The league is full of guys wanting to make quantity for quality trades. Anyway, what I'm proposing isn't radical....it's just a tweak.
-
I've been through a draft already Rob. Totally stand behind what I wrote. The league is full of guys wanting to make quantity for quality trades. Anyway, what I'm proposing isn't radical....it's just a tweak.
My bad, I thought you came in the Fall for some reason.
-
I guess I don't see those picks as disposable when other GM's are willing to pay assets for them. I'm not vehemently against this tweak by any means, but I don't see it changing much. Reducing to 1 keeper doesn't change much, to me. If there's a higher than normal % of mid-grade prospects in the mix I don't see how that makes any difference. Now, if we didn't have a keeper rule at all and just had a 6 round draft, I think you'd be 100% right. But that would mean there'd be less quality players in the pool, which is a problem. The fringy keepers aren't an issue for me.
-
This is part of the reason I've always pushed to keep the Minor league rosters small. With larger rosters, what you're pointing out would be more of an issue.
-
We have a few other proposals to discuss too! I gotta go back and parse through our discussions.
-
Not sure it’s a big deal, or worth changing.
Don’t see any problem with the current system.
-
Not sure it’s a big deal, or worth changing.
Don’t see any problem with the current system.
Just adding it to the discussion, so maybe circle round back to this next year. Anyhoo there are other things to talk about. It's why the thread is named in plural.
-
Just adding it to the discussion, so maybe circle round back to this next year. Anyhoo there are other things to talk about. It's why the thread is named in plural.
I still want to circle back to the money league idea :)
-
I still want to circle back to the money league idea :)
:iatp:
-
I still want to circle back to the money league idea :)
And I'd like to replace +/- with Blocked Shots.
-
I would only join a money league if it was just starting with a total draft and no attachment to real teams like we have. If you were going to convert this league to a money league I would have to leave
-
I would only join a money league if it was just starting with a total draft and no attachment to real teams like we have. If you were going to convert this league to a money league I would have to leave
We wouldn't want to lose you. There would have to be different buy-in values. It would have to be fair.
-
I’m not really interested in a money league.
-
I just think the only fair way is to start a new league and draft from scratch.
-
And I'd like to replace +/- with Blocked Shots.
It's come up about a lot since we started. But I think the FP effect has scared us from changing it.
-
The one proposal that I would throw out there would be in accordance with contract extensions...
Values are fine, but the "minimum number of years" players need to be signed to could be softened perhaps.
I only say this looking at some of the older, but good players that have been re-signed this off-season to 5 year contracts. Sure, no one wants to let a Ryan Getzlaf walk to FA for nothing, but signing him at 33 years of age for 5 years also sucks as he'll be 38 when that contract expires.
Maybe some kind of stipulation that if the player is 31/32/33 years or older (age number negotiable), that they are eligible to be signed to 3-5 year contracts ... But if a team wants to buy-out that player, they would have to pay more than the current amount, say something even as high as 80% of the remaining contract.
You could just put some sort of symbol by that player's contract to indicate he's one of the 31+ contracts which indicates the higher buy-out amount:
C Ryan Getzlaf, $6.7m (2020-2021)^
Because, even if Getzlaf hits FA, he's going to be signed for 5 years... And don't get me wrong, if he hits FA and someone gives him the money for a 5-year deal, that's different. They're stuck with him.
But just to retain your players but not totally screw a franchise long-term is what I'm getting at - especially in Getzlaf's case where the owner is totally new to that team, and had zero chance to trade him. It was either sign him for 5 years, or not sign him and lose him for nothing to FA. Of course you sign him, but that contract sucks down the road.
It's somewhat similar to the NHL's 35-and-over rule:
The collective bargaining agreement also contains a 35-and-over rule. This rule states that if a player signs a multi-year deal when the player is 35 or older, starting in the second year of the contract, that amount will count towards the team's salary cap regardless of whether the player is on the active roster or not (unless the player is on long-term injured reserve).
A player who signs a contract aged 35 or older can be bought out as a compliance buyout, or, as a regular buyout. As a regular buyout, the team does not receive cap relief, but instead they free a roster position.
-
The one proposal that I would throw out there would be in accordance with contract extensions...
Values are fine, but the "minimum number of years" players need to be signed to could be softened perhaps.
I only say this looking at some of the older, but good players that have been re-signed this off-season to 5 year contracts. Sure, no one wants to let a Ryan Getzlaf walk to FA for nothing, but signing him at 33 years of age for 5 years also sucks as he'll be 38 when that contract expires.
Maybe some kind of stipulation that if the player is 31/32/33 years or older (age number negotiable), that they are eligible to be signed to 3-5 year contracts ... But if a team wants to buy-out that player, they would have to pay more than the current amount, say something even as high as 80% of the remaining contract.
You could just put some sort of symbol by that player's contract to indicate he's one of the 31+ contracts which indicates the higher buy-out amount:
C Ryan Getzlaf, $6.7m (2020-2021)^
Because, even if Getzlaf hits FA, he's going to be signed for 5 years... And don't get me wrong, if he hits FA and someone gives him the money for a 5-year deal, that's different. They're stuck with him.
But just to retain your players but not totally screw a franchise long-term is what I'm getting at - especially in Getzlaf's case where the owner is totally new to that team, and had zero chance to trade him. It was either sign him for 5 years, or not sign him and lose him for nothing to FA. Of course you sign him, but that contract sucks down the road.
It's somewhat similar to the NHL's 35-and-over rule:
I've had a lot of older players on my teams over the years and have thought about this for a while. I think I like the way it is because players that retire have their DNHL contracts voided. It think it makes a GM consider whether a player's age, playing style, and potential decline before re-signing.
-
Right, we get free retirement drops. So I think the setup is ok. Though yea, a guy like Getz is tough, but, though decisions have to be made!
-
Also we've discussed the strength of the fa pool. This kind of change would definitely weaken the pool.
-
Right, we get free retirement drops. So I think the setup is ok. Though yea, a guy like Getz is tough, but, though decisions have to be made!
Ah okay, forgot about that tid-bit.
Although I was more so getting at the fact that a 36-year-old Getzlaf won't be as productive as a 32-year-old Getzlaf. Same boat for Jeff Carter and part of the reason why I was okay to trade him away - I wouldn't re-sign him for 5 more years as he'll be 34 years old next summer.
But you're right, tough decisions to be had. It's a young kid's game both in the real NHL and in fantasy it seems, haha. Making me feel old talking about 34 being "old" ... yikes.
-
I’m not really interested in a money league.
I'm not really interested in the +/- stat. :rofl:
-
I am against anything that further diminishes the free agent pool.
-
I'm okay with the FA pool as it reflects very closely to the NHL. Young guys get signed to long term deals and old guys get overpaid in FA. We at least have a wrinkle where breakout young players who hit 40+ NHL games while not being drafted make mega bucks. Our FA pool is also shallow because we make so many trades. A team that knows they won't be able to afford a guy can trade him to a team that knows they can sign the player.
I'm thrilled with the amount of league activity this off season and we havn't even gotten into our draft yet. It more than makes up for a weak FA pool.
-
I'm okay with the FA pool as it reflects very closely to the NHL. Young guys get signed to long term deals and old guys get overpaid in FA. We at least have a wrinkle where breakout young players who hit 40+ NHL games while not being drafted make mega bucks. Our FA pool is also shallow because we make so many trades. A team that knows they won't be able to afford a guy can trade him to a team that knows they can sign the player.
I'm thrilled with the amount of league activity this off season and we havn't even gotten into our draft yet. It more than makes up for a weak FA pool.
:iatp:
-
I am against anything that further diminishes the free agent pool.
I would be for a creative suggestion that deepened the free agent pool. Rolling back the salary cap by 10% for example. Sure to not be popular, but also not wildly disruptive.