Extension cost discussion

[snugerud]

Referendum on "Dynasty" aside I think the changes we're talking about are minor but worth discussing.

1) Small static factor adjustment.

2) Cash trading cap.

3) Shorter contract extensions.

Points 2 & 3 would more than offset a $20k static factor.

I am good with discussing but none of these changes even if agreed upon should happen immediately.  Especially changes to extension rules.  They should always be delayed by a season. 

[Rob]

Referendum on "Dynasty" aside I think the changes we're talking about are minor but worth discussing.

1) Small static factor adjustment.

Would like to hear more opinions on this.  I kinda feel like $25k is the sweetspot when you comp real life contracts down to fantasy point production.  There's lots of cap space out there in this league right now.  I don't know that lowering this factor really helps the health and balance of the league.  Moreover, it seems like everyone so far supports the idea of adding elements that create more turnover, and this has the reverse effect.  Also, as Snug pointed out - there was actually a reduction in total FP from last year to this year - we're very close to the same total FP as when we created the $25k/point factor.  I think this is something to watch - if there's a significant increase or decrease in total FP in the league in the future, then we need to consider revising the factor.

2) Cash trading cap.

Would like to hear more justification for this.  How does it help?  Our broad rules on cash trades have always benefited rebuilding teams.  It's also a good trade tool - if we're trying to create more trade buzz and general activity across the league, how does reducing it help?

3) Shorter contract extensions.

I'm intrigued by this idea as a tool to generate more turnover.  Just know that we would not see much of an effect for 3-5 years. 

I think that $25k per point is high if the plan is for us to rebuild with our prospects. I'll have to let most of mine walk.

I think there should be a different multiplier for D than there is for LW/C/RW. Extending defensemen is really not affordable

Prospect extension cost is $17.5K per point with the discount.  I think that 30% discount has always made building from the ground up the ultimate strategy here. 

I'm not in support of a different multiplier for D-men.  We did that in the past before we had Blocked Shots as a stat category, but I don't see it as necessary now.  When you're paying a flat fee per fantasy point it washes out any need for position bias. 

I am good with discussing but none of these changes even if agreed upon should happen immediately.  Especially changes to extension rules.  They should always be delayed by a season.

 

[Rob]

I think there should be a different multiplier for D than there is for LW/C/RW. Extending defensemen is really not affordable

And, I actually think if they were going to be adjusted, they should be adjusted up, not down.  Based on 2023/24 stats, the top scoring Defenseman is 20th in total scoring.  That means there's 19 forwards with larger contracts than the top Defenseman.  In the NHL, there's D and G in the top 10 highest paid contracts.  So, if anything, D and G contracts should have a higher adjusted factor.

I'm not arguing for that by any means...

[SlackJack]

Great discussion and healthy for the league.

I agree with almost everything here. I like the simple mechanics of the static factor. I imagine it's rare for a tenured legue to move towards being less complex.

I'm also coming around on $25k, at least at the margins. I do miss value-hunting during extentions but a healthy free-agency should make for a more vibrant league.

(Obviously we move slow and with caution. We hardly ever introduce change and when we do it's not immediate.)

I'd like to hear from others on a cash trading cap. My idea would not be to restrict out-going cash as it is indeed a good trade chip for rebuilding teams.

My specific idea would be to limit cash received by any one team to a total of no more than 10% of over-all cap ($9.5m) for any given year, to a maximum of $38m in any one trade. ($9.5m for 4 years).

My reasoning is to keep the field competitive at the top which in turn hopefully incentivises more trades. Bottom teams will also have to drum up more trades with more partners to move their cash instead of just shunting $50m in one go.

I would pair this proposal with an initiative that all teams field an active roster of 90% regular NHL players. I'm all for active tanking but loading up with 45 non-playing prospects is an insult that we can and should avoid.

The intent of the league minimum salary is being circumvented by over-paying for a single contract. ($20m Gabriel Landeskog for example).

Reducing max contract duration is pretty obvious. 4 years is still a long time if the contract holds value but knocking a year off will make buying out a bad contract much easier.

Last note for me is about trading. I don't know why GM's would rather hold out for a high ask versus pulling the trigger but it seems to me we have a market of unrealistic expectations. I think it may be because we are all waiting for our precious prospects to develop. I was originally in favour of expanding from 10 but perhaps having 15 of them is too many.

We're a bunch of hens waiting for our eggs to hatch!

Love this league ya'all.

[snugerud]

Teams hold onto their picks now because they were really the one and only way to keep your team in competition as you were never going to be able to do it via FA.  I think as teams re-adjust their strategies and FA becomes a bigger factor you will see guys more open to moving picks around and generating more trades.  Especially if it gets harder to hold together your dynasty for longer term.   GM's will have to "go for it" while their team is still in the hunt. 

[Rob]

I'd like to hear from others on a cash trading cap. My idea would not be to restrict out-going cash as it is indeed a good trade chip for rebuilding teams.

My specific idea would be to limit cash received by any one team to a total of no more than 10% of over-all cap ($9.5m) for any given year, to a maximum of $38m in any one trade. ($9.5m for 4 years).

My reasoning is to keep the field competitive at the top which in turn hopefully incentivises more trades. Bottom teams will also have to drum up more trades with more partners to move their cash instead of just shunting $50m in one go.

I do see the merit in restricting the amount of cap 1 team can take on.  We would eliminate the Cedric/Habs strategy of going for it all.  I don't love this strategy since if the GM doesn't stick around after they shoot their wad, then we have a rebuild franchise to find a new GM for which is never easy.  This also adds an administrative layer - Fantrax can't handle this type of rule, that I know of.  Sorta hinders rebuild flexibiity but I like the idea of forcing these rebuild trades around the league instead of just one or two front runners hosing  down the entire roster.  Just noting positives/negatives.  Haven't fully fleshed this out in my head yet...

I would pair this proposal with an initiative that all teams field an active roster of 90% regular NHL players. I'm all for active tanking but loading up with 45 non-playing prospects is an insult that we can and should avoid.

Tough one to administer.  I don't want to take too much rebuild flexibility out of the equation.  Especially when I have to attract new GM's to rebuild teams and, as I mentioned, that's not easy.  I like to say something to the effect of "hey, this squad isn't in good shape, but here's some tools to get you going". 

Reducing max contract duration is pretty obvious. 4 years is still a long time if the contract holds value but knocking a year off will make buying out a bad contract much easier.

I think we're ready to put this to a vote.

[jmtrops]

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

[Rob]

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.

[jmtrops]

my point being be clear as to what are the problems we want to improve or fix for the benefit for the league or we just want to make changes to improve what is a problem for a few managers. for me we should look at what is the biggest thing happening in the league that is not good for the league and see what can be done about that.

some of the things that makes the disparity in the league is allowing teams to sell everything and not being able to field a team for a few years and the fact that some teams are getting top prospects from their home team drafts while others home teams are trading there picks. rob how much does the home team draft hurt you?

I was in a baseball league before that the rule was you could only have 6 guys on your roster at any given time that you resigned. once you had 6 guys you have resigned you could not resign anymore unless you dropped or traded 1 of those six. it looks like we are kind of heading in that dirrection where we only resign our top producers and the rest we get cheaper in FA. that will also help kill trade values for those guys because they are not worth extending. right now I can get half of my d men for 1m a year being around 2ppg but a dman around 2.5-3ppg is going to cost 6m + to resign. same for the 2-3 ppg forwards.

[Rob]

rob how much does the home team draft hurt you?

LOL - don't get me started!