I dont think it would promote more trades because for most players they would not be worth resigning at the 25k per point. it would increase the number of players in FA but is this really our goal to have a lot of players to be signed cheap in FA?

Theoretically the teams like Arizona, Montreal, St Louis should be cash strapped and looking to trade these types of players to other teams with cap to spend. 

The conversation somehow turned from a few "turnover churning" ideas: to Keepers.  Like I said before - I like Keepers, despite the disparity.  I offered a compromise since it seemed there was a pile on of negative opinions on the Keeper setup. But I still wouldn't be a supporter of change.  I would vote against it. 

I enjoy and encourage a democratic process on all this.  But now I think we're getting away from the original point of all this.  We started out talking about the extension setup.  Then pivoted to the turnover element, then pivoted to Keepers.  And I get the sense that some here only support what's best for their team, not for the league as a whole.

I identify the issue at hand as:  We're a bit top heavy and there's apathy from the average to above average teams since they feel they can't compete, and therefore they are more conservative on the trade market than they might be if they felt they could compete for a title. 

But, then you look at Toronto winning a title in 21.  And look at what Snug has done in his 2 years back, mostly through Free Agency.  And you wonder if that apathy is unfounded?

I'm still thinking that the extension changes haven't fully fleshed out and that we need to see the full impact of this change over the next season or two. 

I vote to table all change motions for 1 year and revisit this next offseason.

Looking back at our league's champs no team has won because of their hometown draft picks.  The Ducks teams won because of their own great drafting and smart signings.  The Blues/Shooter won because he is awesome at everything and caught on before everyone else that prospect extensions were the best value.  The Coyotes/Slack will continue to be great because they must have some kind of sports almanac from the future that told them who the next NHL superstars were going to be.

There has been no one way to win.  You just gotta be a good GM and put it all together.

Having said that I am actually in support of removing the 3 home team keepers and expanding our draft.  But, I have a bridge idea that maybe lets us keep the hometown feel while getting at my hatred towards the 5 year prospect extension.

What if we:
1. Remove the 3 keeper picks. 
2. Expand our normal draft (drafting is the funnest part). 
3. Then reduce prospect extensions to 3 years, but if the prospect is on your NHL team you can sign them to 5.  That way it gives an incentive to keep players from your NHL team while also not making you beholden to the terrible choices of NHL GMs.
4. Could also do what Snug mentioned and give a discount on signing players on your NHL team.

Yea, I'm not completely unconvinced that both Shooter and SlackJack aren't AI...

What about a compromise like this:

1) 1st round draftees are NOT eligible as Keepers
2) GM's may keep any number of players drafted by their actual team from rounds 2 and beyond (no reason to limit to 3 - it's not like we have space to keep that many anyway)
3) Increase Supp Draft to 4 rounds
4) Adopt Corey's idea of limiting prospect extensions to 3 years, but Keeper's may be extended to 4 or 5.

By taking the 1st rounders out of the Keeper pool, a lot of the disparity we're talking about would disappear.  That and we'll make the Supplemental a lot more interesting.

Coyotes trade
Matthew Tkachuk

Flyers trade
Cam York
Juraj Slafkovsky

a good gm has adapted to the rules we have. honestly I dont see any of these changes will make things better it will just make them different. If we are not actually solving a problem why make a change. if its not broke dont fix it

I tend to agree.  But I also would rather be pro-active and fix it before it breaks.  The problem we are identifying is that we are top heavy.  We have a few teams that are producing at a clip that far exceeds the rest of the league.  This has lead to stagnancy and apathy from other would-be competitive teams.  How do we balance things out?  How do we re-ignite our trade market that has gone very quiet over the last 5 or so seasons?  I'd rather not wait for a breaking point before we do something about it.

Having said that, I do believe the changes we made a few seasons ago with extension costs need a little more time to fully flesh out - as Snug has indicated. 

I like the idea of reducing the prospect extension term to introduce more roster turnover (force those top teams to make tougher decisions faster).

I like the idea of restricting cash trades in order to force rebuilding teams to spread their cash out to more teams instead of just to 1 or 2 cup contenders (redistribution of wealth? - lol). 

I'm also not 100% sure that we NEED to change - but it's certainly worth discussing.  And now is a great time to bring these things up.

Where do we find flex-waivers again? I can never find them. 

Flex waivers were a casualty of converting contracts to Fantrax.  They were too much of a pain in the rear to administer.