ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues

Fantasy Leagues => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL => Topic started by: SlackJack on April 24, 2024, 06:56:10 AM

Title: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on April 24, 2024, 06:56:10 AM
if anyone thinks that the calculating numbers need to be adjusted they can always start that discussion.
:iatp:

$25k is an arbitrary number designed to improve free-agency options and accelerate improvement of lower tier teams.

The trade-off is that teams are less able to retain talent. (No Dynasty for you!)

The second-order effect is a sluggish trade environment. Prospect contracts are more valuable than salaried point producers.

I support the intention of the change but have always argued against the the mechanics.

I see a time where others will join me in calling for tweaking the static multiplier slightly lower.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on April 24, 2024, 10:05:07 AM
I pulled this out of the Q&A thread since it's as good a time as any to have this discussion.  It's been a couple years using this method - how does everyone feel about it?

I still like the simplicity of it and I like what it does to inject good talent into Free Agency.  Any numbers we use are going to be arbitrary in some sense.  Unless we match their real life contracts. 

I do agree on the sluggish trade environment.  Though I think the trade environment was sluggish before this change as well.  As we've settled in over the years we have fewer and fewer trades.  New GM's have been the only active trade partners.  So I think it's partly a condition of longtime GM's sticking with their youth and cost controlled contracts and playing for the long haul.  In early years we have a good number of teams playing it the way Cedric is now - going for the gold at all costs, future be damned.  As GM's gain tenure they seem to get more and more conservative.

That's my initial thoughts.  As always I'm open to change if the league is.  Let's hear what you all think.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: snugerud on April 24, 2024, 05:03:58 PM
:iatp:

$25k is an arbitrary number designed to improve free-agency options and accelerate improvement of lower tier teams.

The trade-off is that teams are less able to retain talent. (No Dynasty for you!)

The second-order effect is a sluggish trade environment. Prospect contracts are more valuable than salaried point producers.

I support the intention of the change but have always argued against the the mechanics.

I see a time where others will join me in calling for tweaking the static multiplier slightly lower.

I dont think it has run long enough to really see the effect.  two seasons is barely enough time to start seeing the ripple.  I think the sluggish trade environment would only get worse lowering.  If anything we need a bit less dynasty and bit more more turnover of players year to year.  I pretty much support anything that pushes more players into free agency.   My vote is to leave it alone for another season or two.

I have my own ideas / preferences when it comes to extensions but my ideas would be seen as quite radical in the change section and far off the path that most leagues (all leagues) seem to use on profsl (I would love to divorce extensions from stats. Extensions should have their own mechanics).  Although I will say they setup does produce way more movement (in a 16 team league we had close to 120 trades last season)
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: GypsieDeathBringer on April 24, 2024, 06:02:37 PM
I think I brought this up last year, but players now score more than they have in the last 8 years, so extensions are going to take up a larger % of our static salary cap.  My view is that GMs still mostly resign their own players and then because they take up a larger % of the cap it has sharply reduced FA costs.  Sure, some players will make the odd $25m for one season, but most players are getting signed to peanuts compared to what their extension value would be. 

Sometimes you can cash in on FA with a rebuilding amount of cap space, but mostly there isn't much to sign.

I attribute the stagnant trade market the last two years with the top teams being just so dominant that there weren't 2-3 trades that would put a team into contention.  Maybe that will change this upcoming year. 

My opinion recently has been to reduce the number of years of prospect extensions down to 3 years.  This will allow for more players to be making full scale money faster which would push more players into FA and probably increase trading.  The extension multiplier probably doesn't matter too much.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on April 24, 2024, 06:54:32 PM
I pulled this out of the Q&A thread since it's as good a time as any to have this discussion.  It's been a couple years using this method - how does everyone feel about it?
Appreciate the discussion. $20k would be the kind if tweak I'm talking about. May not seem like much but I feel the pendulum swung a bit hard with the initial change and that $20k would be slightly less punative to GM's that draft well.

If anything we need a bit less dynasty and bit more more turnover of players year to year.  I pretty much support anything that pushes more players into free agency.

Might need to change the league name then no?  Seriously I think there are other ways to encourage more turn-over. A cap on trading cash for example. Would like to hear more about your idea for extensions even if radical.

I attribute the stagnant trade market the last two years with the top teams being just so dominant that there weren't 2-3 trades that would put a team into contention. Maybe that will change this upcoming year.

I would agree in part, but trading to contend immediately isn't the only reason to trade. Rebuilding teams could and should be looking ahead at least a couple of years.

My opinion recently has been to reduce the number of years of prospect extensions down to 3 years.  This will allow for more players to be making full scale money faster which would push more players into FA and probably increase trading.

I think you're right about this but don't like moves to be too radical so I would lean towards 4 years if this gets any traction. In fact it might be worthwhile discussing the same at the top end. Getting saddled with a giant 5 year contract is quite an albatross. If more churn is the goal then a max term of 4 years is yet another way to generate it.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: snugerud on April 25, 2024, 10:02:12 AM
Might need to change the league name then no?  Seriously I think there are other ways to encourage more turn-over. A cap on trading cash for example. Would like to hear more about your idea for extensions even if radical.

I would agree with you on the cap for trading cash.  There should be a max amount of additional cap a team can take on.  I would say we disagree on the definition of dynasty.  Dynasty for me is the ability to build and continue rebuilding my team to be competitive year in and year out while dealing with constant player movements/ changes.  The dynasty part is me as a GM , not the players being able to stay on my team from draft to retirement. 

For the extension thing, i am not suggesting it for this league as it just wouldnt work. I will give you the real short of how its setup though.  As a base line everything is managed by fantrax for contracts except for each team has 3 franchise tags to use per season.
Contracts initial length is 3 years.
Extension option year is after their 2nd year.  You have the option to extend for 0, 1 or 2 years.  Each year extended adds 1 million to the players salary contract.
After the option year players are not eligible to be extended unless the GM uses 1 of their franchise tags.  Franchise tags can be used to extend players for 1 or 2 more years.  (each year extended would add 1 million to their contract).  You can use a Franchise tag on a player more than once. So say you have connor mcdavid,  starts as a rookie at 700k ,   you choose to extend him on your option year. for 2 years. His contract would move to 2.7mill.  At year 5 his contract is expiring , you can tag him for another 2 years bringing him to 4.7,  at year 7 you can tag him again bringing him to 6.7 and so on. 

What this does is each season teams end up with a mix of players that are on expiring contracts that they have to decide if they are getting too expensive or teams that have made moves to win that season end up with too many expiring contracts to extend all of them. (They always have to options to trade them after playoffs and before roster rollover.) Teams that are out of playoffs tend to look for trade partners for their expiring contracts.  Teams in playoffs tend to take on expiring contracts as rentals knowing that those players will end up back in FA. 

This would not be possible to implement here since it would take way too many changes in all areas. 

Some aspects that maybe we could consider implementing -
shorter term contracts. 
Extensions that dont go down in value. (if player A is at 5 mill per year, has a couple of injury years before extension they would need to be extended at the 5 mill at minimum even though they would extend at 3 mill on chart). 
Contracts that are considered final contracts (non extendable after they been extended once) Would need a Ftag option here as teams should always have some options at their disposal. 
Maybe a max amount of extensions per team. 


All this said, I am fine with the current setup.  I like that players are getting too expensive to make the extend decision easily.  What we may want to look into is there a way to tie our extension factor to total league production.  For example this season there has been some crazy offense compared to others.  Having the same multiple of 25000 with higher league production and static cap is making many players extension costs more than what is reasonable given our cap has not changed.  Or alternatively maybe our cap number is based on total league production but we keep the extension factor of 25k the same.


Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: jimw on April 25, 2024, 10:12:56 AM
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
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: snugerud on April 25, 2024, 11:57:09 AM
All this said, I am fine with the current setup.  I like that players are getting too expensive to make the extend decision easily.  What we may want to look into is there a way to tie our extension factor to total league production.  For example this season there has been some crazy offense compared to others.  Having the same multiple of 25000 with higher league production and static cap is making many players extension costs more than what is reasonable given our cap has not changed.  Or alternatively maybe our cap number is based on total league production but we keep the extension factor of 25k the same.

Just for curiosity I totaled the Fantasy points for all players in the 23/24 season and then did the same for 22/23 and 21/22. 
23/24 season total was - 113912.95  x 25000 = 2,847,823,750

22/23 season total was - 114471.40 x 25000 = 2,861,785,000  (13,961,250 difference between 23/24) / 20 teams = 698,062.50

21/22 season total was - 113264.3 x 25000 = 2,831,607,500 


This surprised me as i would have thought 23/24 would have been higher and the difference between the two is negligible. 
 
23/24 season total was - 113912.95  x 20000  = 2,278,259,000  (569,564,750 difference when comparing multiples) / 20 teams = 28,478,237.50

22/23 season total was - 114471.40 x 20000  = 2,289,428,000





 
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on April 25, 2024, 02:06:13 PM
I think in its totality the extension setup we have is plenty conducive to building a "Dynasty".  The top players in the league (top 50 or so) cost about the same as they would have cost before the change.  It's the next level of 'above average' to 'average' talent that are more pricey than they were in the old extension rules.  Teams have tough decisions in this bracket of talent.  And that's true of the NHL as well.  Most competitive teams will spend big on their top line, top D pairing and their Goalie, then add veterans and young guns to fill out their middle six and beyond.  A guy like Tyler Bertuzzi, who I'd consider 'above average', but not elite, will inevitably end up in Free Agency.  I think that's how it should be.

This setup certainly makes it harder to maintain a full, deep roster - even if you've built it from the bottom up with lots of Prospect Discounts.  But, Free Agency is the tool to make up for that. 

And, let's face it - Hockey is not a sport that's conducive to "Dynasties" in the traditional sense.  When was the last real NHL dynasty?  The Oilers in the 80's?  There's just too much parity in the modern NHL.  I'm fairly certain that our player turnover with these rules is still less than actual NHL teams player turnover. 
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on April 25, 2024, 10:10:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: snugerud on April 26, 2024, 10:00:20 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on April 26, 2024, 03:11:47 PM
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.

 :iatp:
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on April 26, 2024, 03:18:16 PM
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...
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on April 28, 2024, 09:41:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: snugerud on April 29, 2024, 10:16:15 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on April 29, 2024, 04:16:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: jmtrops on April 30, 2024, 01:34:42 PM
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
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on April 30, 2024, 02:02:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: jmtrops on April 30, 2024, 03:01:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on April 30, 2024, 03:38:46 PM
rob how much does the home team draft hurt you?


LOL - don't get me started!
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on April 30, 2024, 10:10:08 PM
Quote
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?

Dude has a point.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: ldsjayhawk on May 01, 2024, 12:17:11 PM
Wow! This discussion has really morphed.  It's always good to have a lively discussion.  I'll add my $.02 in to the discussion:

$25K per point extension: 
Personally, I like the ease of this calculation and I believe that it is pretty close to an accurate calculation.  I support keeping this.

Reduced contract length:
I have no objection to this.  I always like to see a healthy FA market.

Cash trading cap
I support a limit that prevents this too:
Quote
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.

Disparity
I don't like tanking.  I support requiring teams field an active roster. 
Quote
I would pair this proposal with an initiative that all teams field an active roster of 90% regular NHL players.

Trading
I do have to say that increasing the options in FA, does decrease the amount of trading, however, that could be offset by having more NHL players on rosters.  I believe more parity would increase the trade market as more teams would be competitive and in the running.

If you ever wanted to reduce the dependence on the NHL draft and increase the dependence upon our own draft, I believe that would also benefit trading.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: jimw on May 01, 2024, 02:41:04 PM
Someone mentioned home team draft. As the Ottawa Senators I think that has hurt my team in past seasons. They stink at drafting and now they will have to forfeit a future 1st because they failed to notify Vegas of Dadonov's no trade list.

I'm hoping the keep the first this year and then will consider finally changing franchises.

I get the principle of having a tie to the franchise, but it does create at least some minor disparity
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: snugerud on May 01, 2024, 03:15:36 PM
Someone mentioned home team draft. As the Ottawa Senators I think that has hurt my team in past seasons. They stink at drafting and now they will have to forfeit a future 1st because they failed to notify Vegas of Dadonov's no trade list.

I'm hoping the keep the first this year and then will consider finally changing franchises.

I get the principle of having a tie to the franchise, but it does create at least some minor disparity

I would be in favor of scrapping the team picks as well in favor of 1 or 2 additional picks in a rookie draft. 
If you want to keep a home town feel maybe look at a hometown discount on fielding roster players that play on the real life nhl team (10-15%) discount??
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on May 01, 2024, 03:20:12 PM
Call me a masochist, but, I still like the Keepers and wouldn't support changing the rules on that. 
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on May 01, 2024, 10:54:48 PM
Call me a masochist, but, I still like the Keepers and wouldn't support changing the rules on that.
As Arizona it hasn't been super fun with their picks and forfiture either but I like that we are invested in our franchises for better or worse. That said would you be open to 2 Keepers instead of 3?
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on May 01, 2024, 11:19:24 PM
One way to mitigate GM's unhappy with their keepers is to allow more franchise switching.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: GypsieDeathBringer on May 02, 2024, 07:47:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on May 02, 2024, 09:59:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: snugerud on May 02, 2024, 11:05:02 AM
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.

I like it. 
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on May 02, 2024, 09:38:04 PM
Seems a bit radical to me.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: jmtrops on May 02, 2024, 10:36:48 PM
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.
I like this idea too. this would mostly eliminate the need for us to switch our home team to get better keepers and would help even out this disparity. it would definitely increase the value of draft picks in trades. if we did this we should consider add a couple of minor spots
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on May 03, 2024, 07:34:52 AM
Honestly I don't even understand the proposal. It's clunky.
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: jimw on May 03, 2024, 11:57:04 AM
Why would prospect contracts be limited? I missed that part
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on May 03, 2024, 12:00:56 PM
Why would prospect contracts be limited? I missed that part

To force more player turnover.  Teams will have to re-sign at normal extension values sooner than they would with the 5 year discounted term.  In theory this would force more players into Free Agency and promote more trade action. 
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: jmtrops on May 03, 2024, 03:32:21 PM
To force more player turnover.  Teams will have to re-sign at normal extension values sooner than they would with the 5 year discounted term.  In theory this would force more players into Free Agency and promote more trade action.
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?
Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: Rob on May 03, 2024, 03:47:19 PM
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.

Title: Re: Extension cost discussion
Post by: SlackJack on May 03, 2024, 05:55:13 PM
Quote
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.
:iatp: