Should we change DNHL to a money league?

[Rob]

Great idea.  It would address both FA and trade enthusiasm.

[snugerud]

I think we could do this with one simple rule change.  When extending a player the new contract must be equal to or greater than the expiring contract. 

I am actually backing off my initial thought which was to say , any new contract should be at least 1mill or more (based on extension guidelines) whichever is greater.
I am more for this but I have a feeling most guys would fight that.

[snugerud]

Great idea.  It would address both FA and trade enthusiasm.

it shouldn't effect the off season activity either since that activity is usually driven by the guys that have made their runs and now trying to sell off assets before losing them to FA.

[dedreger]

I also like snug's idea.

[izaman3]

I like Snug's idea too. I don't want to make the league overly complex, you make things harder on Rob, but I have some other thoughts.

I have greatly benefited from our generous retirement rules, my team is always full of crusty old-timers. Maybe it's worth considering a 35+ year old contract rule where the retirement buyout isn't 100%. I almost didn't resign Craig Anderson because of his age, but did because of our retirement rules. He would have a been a huge addition to FA.

Another thought is maybe lowering the discount prospect contracts to 4 years.

I love the hometown keepers and the supp draft. So I think we should stay put on 40 games and the current structure. But if we were to change it somehow, maybe we have a minimum contract value that prospect bidding can start at. If you really want a prospect and are willing to spend something like $3 x 3 years, then maybe you should be able to bid on him.

[Rob]

We don't have enough of a consensus to make this change now.  But the discussion has been constructive and super helpful.  I'm not done with the idea - I still think that the change would benefit us and I'd like to kick it around again later on - maybe this offseason or next.

I do want to explore Snug's idea in more depth.  I'm going to start a new thread to dig in on it. 

But before I do - Ian just posted as I was typing and gave me another thought:

What if prospects were forced onto your NHL rosters once they have 1 GP in the NHL?  This would be a way to address the issue from the opposite end.  As a contender you wouldn't want your roster crowded with young guys who are just getting their skates under them in the NHL and there would be a huge incentive for contending teams to deal those guys. 

I think I like Snug's idea better - but this might be worth digesting a bit. 

[GypsieDeathBringer]

Snugs rule sounds like a winner.  Guys like Malkin shouldn't be making 5.8m a year.

I'm still not sure how many more guys will be pushed into FA.  Our league really does mirror the NHL.  How many big names make it to the NHL FA.  Very very few.  There might be 2 or 3 top 6 players, which is essentially what we have every year.  The way we are able to resign a player if we want essentially mimics a sign and trade situation. 

If you want roster turnover we'd really have to hammer down a rule on offer sheets.

[Rob]

If you want roster turnover we'd really have to hammer down a rule on offer sheets.

I brought that up last year and if I recall, it wasn't a popular idea.

[snugerud]

Snugs rule sounds like a winner.  Guys like Malkin shouldn't be making 5.8m a year.

I'm still not sure how many more guys will be pushed into FA.  Our league really does mirror the NHL.  How many big names make it to the NHL FA.  Very very few.  There might be 2 or 3 top 6 players, which is essentially what we have every year.  The way we are able to resign a player if we want essentially mimics a sign and trade situation. 

If you want roster turnover we'd really have to hammer down a rule on offer sheets.

I agree , that it might not put as many into FA as I would actually like to see. Mirroring the NHL in fantasy is not always a good thing and I think FA is one of those areas.  Fantasy is way more fun when you see a lot of big names change teams.  I really thinking stipulating 1 million more Per year or the extension value as per chart whichever is greater would definitely put a crunch on it and would be more effective ( i said equal to for buy in of the greater majority). Ideally I would like to see 10 minimum to 20 or so big names every FA.  Having more go to FA also helps manage the amount of open cap as the free market will always help dictate prices and my experience people will open the wallets. 

by making sure the contract always goes up for each extension , almost guarantees everyone at some point becomes too expensive to keep.  compelling them into FA. 

 
 

[GypsieDeathBringer]

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.