Proposal to change extension method

[shooter47]

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.

[Rob]

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.

[shooter47]

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 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?

Right now my team has 68.1 million dollars in salary for next year for 16 players. I have 7 prospects up for extensions and 3 expiring players. Now I know that I won't be able to resign everyone but I'd be hard pressed to extend 3 of my players. Not counting the fact I'd have 10 more roster spots to fill.

Look at Colorado. They have 14 expiring players and 60.5 million already locked up for next year. You can look at Pittsburgh, Winnipeg, Philadelphi, vancouver and Toronto to see similar situations.

I just don't see a reason to make a change like that which will negatively impact 7-10 teams greatly for no real benefit. There is no problem to be solved with this type of a change.

[SlackJack]

I just saw the No Filter Tour in MA.  They were great!

Yeah, I didn't have really have any expectations and given their age thought it would just be kind of nice to see them but they were vital and the voice doesn't change. Amazing night!

From my discussion with Rob it sounds like we will set the value for the cap and not change it moving forward.

I'm not so sure of this. Any future changes to scoring (like removal of +/-) will have an impact that may need to be accounted for. The multiplier becomes your prime lever for any change or tweaks to come and will more than likely be adjusted over time.

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?

Good grief, I'm not here arguing for an advantage to my team. I have $50m in cap space yes. That's an advantage no matter what happens. Period.

I guess I'm looking for a reason or goal for scaling it back. What problem is he trying to solve with the proposal?

So there was an earlier argument about prospect contract discounts that said we we're too different with our contract values from the NHL. To a certain extent this is about that. I don't want to entirely de-couple from the NHL and lose all similarity to that league, and I don't think other people want that either if it can be helped.

So here's a question. Can the multiplier be indexed to the NHL's inflation? If it is periodically adjusted can we not stay more or less in lock-step with the NHL's cap numbers. If every year or couple of years the multiplier moved up or down we'd build in some interesting variability (strategy) to our scheme.

I'm painting with a broad brush here and just hoping to stay more NHLish.

[SlackJack]

Okay, funny thing. The salary cap at this point and for the foreseeable future is so irrelevant to my team that I haven't much taken it into account for others at all. So, yeah....I understand that lowering the cap from NHL+$6m is threatening. That isn't my intent.

But I also don't want a salary cap at $95m. That's just funny money to me with no resemblance to the NHL.

Ideally over a long period of time the two numbers (our cap and the NHL's) would converge without causing undue hardship.....and we have the tools to make that happen. Even if we freeze at NHL+$6m I'd be happier than just adding to our cap to make up the difference for Blocked Shots. Just adjust the multiplier instead.

[WestCoastExpress]

Wow, just back from the Stones in Seattle

Man that's sick Slacky. You're were in my neck of the woods.

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.

[SlackJack]

Man that's sick Slacky. You're were in my neck of the woods.

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.

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!

[Rob]

$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.

[Rob]

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.

[SlackJack]

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. Your son is a lucky boy!