ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: Rob on February 14, 2018, 03:02:55 PM
-
This came up in the Trade Deadline! thread and it's something I've been thinking about for a while. Putting money on the line would change the dynamic of the league; encouraging activity, trades, effort, etc. It would certainly make our trade deadline a little more interesting.
This is not a change I would take lightly and I'd want to make sure we're all on the same page. Right now I'm just gauging opinions on it. What are your thoughts?
-
I'd like to caution against greed and remind people that if the league isn't fair, friendly, and fun, it will die. There is no reason to for a big pot, and it would be inherently unfair to crank the buy-in without resetting the entire league. We're pretty much guaranteed to be looking at the same contenders next year as this one, so buy-in from the lower ranked players almost amounts to charity.
With that said I'll reiterate that I am in favour of introducing a purse, and be clear that I do not want to re-set rosters. I am voting for a $10 buy-in with the express hope that it increases more active participation.
-
I'd like to caution against greed and remind people that if the league isn't fair, friendly, and fun, it will die. There is no reason to for a big pot, and it would be inherently unfair to crank the buy-in without resetting the entire league. We're pretty much guaranteed to be looking at the same contenders next year as this one, so buy-in from the lower ranked players almost amounts to charity.
With that said I'll reiterate that I am in favour of introducing a purse, and be clear that I do not want to re-set rosters. I am voting for a $10 buy-in with the express hope that it increases more active participation.
:iatp:
The reason I didn't propose this as a YES/NO question is because I figured the more votes for higher buy-ins tells me not only do those people agree, but they strongly agree. I completely agree with you and I'm not interested in resetting the league ever.
-
Though I suppose a selection of "Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Agree - Strongly Agree" might have sufficed.
-
I think this league is very competitive and doing just fine as a free league. What difference would $5 to $10 per team make? If you need money, get a job! :thumbsup: :bacon: :rofl:
-
I think this league is very competitive and doing just fine as a free league. What difference would $5 to $10 per team make? If you need money, get a job! :thumbsup: :bacon: :rofl:
:rofl: Well exactly! It's NOT about money, it 's about participation. I'd say that the knowledge level of the league is high and very competitive in that regard, but the participation level could and should be improved. Having a small purse adds a bit of spice and a Ken Holland award makes sure that all GM's are in a position to win. If you don't have a job Papps, I could stake you. :rofl:
-
I think this league is very competitive and doing just fine as a free league.
I agree and I'm proud of what we've done as a free league. Though, there's no denying we're not where we were at a couple years ago with overall activity and participation. Some of that is tied to the decline of ProFSL, for sure. But we're also seeing interest decline from some of our most historically active members (like Tyler and Martin). I do believe it would help. But moreover, it would help me recruit better replacement GM's. There's many good players out there that want to see money on the line to engage in such an in depth league. And it definitely helps impress upon new members that they better do their best or they're throwing their money in the trash.
I'll steer this ship until my fingers fall off. Really. I am excited to look back at our league history after 10 years, then 15, 20 years. It might seem kinda pathetic, but I really like doing this - whether for money or for free. But I have felt for a long time that money would help the overall health of the league.
-
I disagree that money leads to more activity. I've been in money leagues where there are a fair amount of owners that aren't that active. I just don't think $20 will make a difference. I think this is a very active league and chugging right along.
Slacky, if you want to pay my fee that would be cool! LOL :thumbsup: :toast:
-
i have never been a big trader. I trade with purpose only so money or no money , i dont foresee that changing too much for me. From a simplistic view , i think the lack of activity comes from lack of compulsion to make a change. I still think there is a lack of roster turnover year to year. Ideally i think most teams should see a 30% roster turn over. Higher roster turnover would drive more trade activity. especially at the top players.
i am out of time, but will see if I can elaborate on what i mean later.
-
I disagree that money leads to more activity. I've been in money leagues where there are a fair amount of owners that aren't that active. I just don't think $20 will make a difference. I think this is a very active league and chugging right along.
Slacky, if you want to pay my fee that would be cool! LOL :thumbsup: :toast:
Do not see increased activity, but will be staying either way.
-
I think this is a great discussion. I'll be upfront and say that I think this should stay a free league. I've been in plenty of money leagues and just because there is a buy-in, it doesn't lead to increased participation.
This league has great owners, and Rob has always been great about having league discussions about the future and rule changes. We've seen teams rebuild on the fly and perennial contenders.
If we are looking for more activity or engagement, maybe making it is about setting GM expectations. I always vote for the Ken Holland award based on my gut, but is there criteria? We have amazing power ranking posts, but it's usually the same people commenting on them. How often are people even checking the Profsl page? Is it even twice a week? I try to check every day or two but I know I've had streaks of not checking.
I like snug initial comment about roster turnover, and I'd be interested to hear more. Should there be times during the year where we ask people to confirm their commitment to the league?
End of the day, I've been here since we started and I'm staying until it ends or I die. Money league or not.
-
Either way I don't really care.
However I don't think $5 or $10 is going to be a huge incentive for increased activity. Sure, maybe whenever the deadline for payment is there will be an unusual uptick, say in August or September or whenever it ends up being - with payment fresh on people's minds and a league that they've "invested in" so they want to make some roster moves.
Come November, December, January, that $10 is long gone and if they're out of it, I don't see too much increased interest versus what it is now with a non-paying league.
The only thing that may happen is the top-5 or 6 teams headed into playoffs actually do sacrifice a good prospect or two, to land an extra decent player or two.
On the flip side, it may make it slightly more difficult to attract new members, as a "pay league" can sound intimidating to some. Especially for this site which seems to be on the decline, having a league where you have to pay might turn off some new blood. Even if it's just $5. The whole process of having to PayPal money to someone you don't know online might just have people looking for other leagues.
-
Good stuff, guys. I do agree that it's not a huge incentive overall. I think it's a small change either way.
I don't know how long these "dynasty" styles leagues have existed, but I caught on around 2010 and I get the sense that most of you all started around the same time. I fell in love right away and there was a lot of excitement in this community. Over 7 years I've seen a lot of members lose interest, get bored and/or burnt out. There's been no effort to offset this attrition with site wide recruiting (though i know a few guys are trying to step this up now). I think we've been mostly insulated from the broader site issues, but there's no doubt in my mind that the energy here would improve if ProFSL was active, growing and engaged.
-
Good stuff, guys. I do agree that it's not a huge incentive overall. I think it's a small change either way.
I don't know how long these "dynasty" styles leagues have existed, but I caught on around 2010 and I get the sense that most of you all started around the same time. I fell in love right away and there was a lot of excitement in this community. Over 7 years I've seen a lot of members lose interest, get bored and/or burnt out. There's been no effort to offset this attrition with site wide recruiting (though i know a few guys are trying to step this up now). I think we've been mostly insulated from the broader site issues, but there's no doubt in my mind that the energy here would improve if ProFSL was active, growing and engaged.
I think it's tough... First off, you have to be somewhat smart to manage your cap in leagues like this. I know a few guys that can barely manage drafting the right amount of depth for our yearly re-draft $ leagues. They'd be lost here keeping track of everything.
I also think it's more based for people that are older. When I say older, I mean older than a high schooler. There's plenty of them scattered in Yahoo and ESPN free leagues I imagine.
Also, I'm sure there are several other dynasty leagues with salary cap out there. I haven't bothered to look because ProFSL is all I need for the few leagues I'm in. But there must be a ton more out there for people to choose from. People also don't like change, so even recruiting people from those other sites may be difficult. If they don't like the layout we have here, or something doesn't please them, they may just default back to what they know.
Personally I'm not really in other leagues where I can recruit other people. I used to be in a keeper league on Yahoo with some randoms, but that league became a trading joke so I had to leave unfortunately. It was also free and no salary cap which made things easier.
We've got a solid core, that's for sure. Love this league, and the GM's in it.
It looks like Rebel may be on the down turn, just checked it out and lots of inactivity there. Maybe some of those GM's come over here (if they're not already).
I know there was wind of Anthony perhaps wanting to start a new league, and I was thinking of doing it. Different scoring type rather than just points that all of the NHL ones have here. H2H with 1-win per week on the line only.
But if there isn't really the group of GM's to house existing leagues, I don't really see a need to add another league.
-
I'm fine with it either way -- free league or a money league.
Personally I'm skeptical that becoming a money league would itself increase participation and I suspect it'd be a net impediment to filling openings that come up (given that it's more likely the weaker teams that will need filling).
One thing that I think could help engagement is to make scouting and speculating on prospects something you can do throughout the year, along the lines of what you can do in many baseball dynasty leagues -- that's actually my favorite part of the baseball dynasty leagues I've been in. Players picked in the most recent NHL draft would still first be reserved for selection in our league draft, but after that any prospect would be fair game for FA bids (prospect contract, then subject to increasing the bids with signing bonuses). Some accompanying changes would probably be needed to make that viable ... some combination of more cap room to create more budget for signing bonuses, contraction to 18 teams (which has the side benefit of making easier to maintain a league full of active owners ... dump the least active ones), increasing the size of minor roster slots, reducing the number of draft keepers from the NHL counterpart team, etc.
The increased amount of FA bidding means an increased amount of transaction processing, though -- Rob, if your blood pressure is rising at the thought then forget I even mentioned it.
-
I'm fine with it either way -- free league or a money league.
Personally I'm skeptical that becoming a money league would itself increase participation and I suspect it'd be a net impediment to filling openings that come up (given that it's more likely the weaker teams that will need filling).
One thing that I think could help engagement is to make scouting and speculating on prospects something you can do throughout the year, along the lines of what you can do in many baseball dynasty leagues -- that's actually my favorite part of the baseball dynasty leagues I've been in. Players picked in the most recent NHL draft would still first be reserved for selection in our league draft, but after that any prospect would be fair game for FA bids (prospect contract, then subject to increasing the bids with signing bonuses). Some accompanying changes would probably be needed to make that viable ... some combination of more cap room to create more budget for signing bonuses, contraction to 18 teams (which has the side benefit of making easier to maintain a league full of active owners ... dump the least active ones), increasing the size of minor roster slots, reducing the number of draft keepers from the NHL counterpart team, etc.
The increased amount of FA bidding means an increased amount of transaction processing, though -- Rob, if your blood pressure is rising at the thought then forget I even mentioned it.
If I follow correctly this is basically just removing (or reducing) the 40 game threshold before undrafted prospects are eligible for Free Agency?
-
If I follow correctly this is basically just removing (or reducing) the 40 game threshold before undrafted prospects are eligible for Free Agency?
That's part of it. The other part is that you can offer a prospect contract (plus a signing bonus that counts only against your current-year cap; that signing bonus component is what would be bid up if there's competition for the player). Currently, after 40 games the undrafted prospects can be bid on but only to "normal" contracts, not prospect contracts.
For those of us that are or have been in dynasty baseball leagues on this site, this will be a familiar concept.
-
Haha. This is exactly how we used to do it. We changed the rule 3 years ago in order to keep players in the draft. I do miss pc bidding with signing bonuses, no doubt. But this rule has kept our supplemental draft healthy.
-
Haha. This is exactly how we used to do it. We changed the rule 3 years ago in order to keep players in the draft. I do miss pc bidding with signing bonuses, no doubt. But this rule has kept our supplemental draft healthy.
I agree with this. While I would like it where we could bid on specs, this would greatly reduce the Supp draft player pool. If you get rid of the keeping of your drafted players (which I'm not supporting) then the PC bidding would work out better.
As for the the $ aspect, like it was said before I dont see $5-10 being a activity jump. There are 2 big reasons why I am still in this league. 1) Rob, he is a damn good commish and keeps everything flowing at a great pace. 2) The keeping of draft picks, this was a big seller cause it is different than any other hockey league on here. I do think we have a good group of guys ranging from great hockey knowledge to decent hockey knowledge and we make this league work and one of the best ones I have ever been in.
-
Ok, to expand on my thought. Why are GM's unwilling to pay assets for prime players (full price)? For me simply its the asking prices. There are several reasons why the asking prices are high and I dont blame them for being high, but that doesnt make me want to throw away my assets. I think the biggest reason is there are no such thing as a rental player in DNHL. Who was our biggest FA in the last 3 seasons? Guentzel and only because he didnt hit his 40 games quick enough other than that, I think Daniel may have been our big name this year. No one in DNHL ever lets a top guy walk to FA and they shouldnt because they are an asset and you cant go sign another similar caliber guy.
Bottom line is guys are not renting players because rental costs them too much in the long run. ( My first few seasons I gave away assets trying to make pushes and frankly said I wouldnt do it again because what i gave up was way too much only to lose those players)
But, what if you could....
I am thinking we need some kind of mechanism in place that pushes (not by force but compels due to market) about 10-20 top 100/150 guys into the FA market each season.
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.
This would have a very light to non factor on players 18 - 28. I mainly see this affecting players that have had injury filled seasons and players that had a decline in production, but i see that as a good thing since I dont believe you should be able to sign crosby at low cost for the next 5 years because he had 2 seasons where he missed 20 games. We all knew he was still going to be great and if you dont want to sign him at the extension cost, you take your chances in the open waters of FA.
I know some of you are going to think , I dont want to lose a crosby for nothing. Thats when they become great rental pieces. You get picks or whatever you can and then you still get your chance at him again in FA. People really wont mind losing top players if they have 10-20 other equivalent options to sign. Knowing that he is a rental player I wouldnt have to give up my next 5 years of 1st round picks but I wouldnt mind giving up a 2nd/3rd or even a 1st rounder , also knowing I could have a chance to reclaim but still happy to have the extra production for a playoff run even if i dont.
I think this would be a great thing for the league. More players in FA, creates rentals that guys wont mind losing because they didnt have to give up their first born, It actually more closely mimics NHL , most NHL players in their prime even with a couple seasons of injuries do not take less money.
-
Great idea. It would address both FA and trade enthusiasm.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I also like snug's idea.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Agreed. It's a tough one to implement, though.
-
Re: offer sheets, I'd be worried that they'd be taken personally and cause bad feelings. That's basically why you almost never see them in the NHL ... GM's don't want to get on each other's sh#t lists.
-
I'm contemplating the differences between Backyard and DNHL which are both generally structured in a very similar way. For some reason however, Backyard has a much greater amount of turn-over/rental players. Players on expiring contracts are worth a premium and it is commonplace to trade good picks for older rentals.
DNHL has a higher salary cap but also higher extension values. This is especially noticeable at the upper end, but really it's across the full range. At first I thought that freezing the salary cap might help push some players onto the market, and it would, but intuition is telling me that's not the whole answer. Like Snug, I think some part of the solution lies somewhere in the extension values, though I am not certain I agree with the idea that new contracts should exceed the old.
Also, and maybe more importantly, the amount of roster space we have in the minors directly impacts the value of picks. With 6 picks per season and only 15 minor roster slots, there is a lot of pressure on everyone to deal or discard their lower valued picks. Everyone wants to bundle multiple assets together in return for a single higher value piece. Lowering the number of picks we get and/or increasing the space we have to warehouse our assets would have the effect of raising the value of lower ranked picks.
My specific recommendations:
1) Continue Snug's conversation re: the structure of extensions, and consider a cap freeze.
2) Drop the 3rd Keeper pick as it is not trade-able.
3) Consider another increase to the minor league count.
-
I'm contemplating the differences between Backyard and DNHL which are both generally structured in a very similar way. For some reason however, Backyard has a much greater amount of turn-over/rental players. Players on expiring contracts are worth a premium and it is commonplace to trade good picks for older rentals.
DNHL has a higher salary cap but also higher extension values. This is especially noticeable at the upper end, but really it's across the full range. At first I thought that freezing the salary cap might help push some players onto the market, and it would, but intuition is telling me that's not the whole answer. Like Snug, I think some part of the solution lies somewhere in the extension values, though I am not certain I agree with the idea that new contracts should exceed the old.
Also, and maybe more importantly, the amount of roster space we have in the minors directly impacts the value of picks. With 6 picks per season and only 15 minor roster slots, there is a lot of pressure on everyone to deal or discard their lower valued picks. Everyone wants to bundle multiple assets together in return for a single higher value piece. Lowering the number of picks we get and/or increasing the space we have to warehouse our assets would have the effect of raising the value of lower ranked picks.
My specific recommendations:
1) Continue Snug's conversation re: the structure of extensions, and consider a cap freeze.
2) Drop the 3rd Keeper pick as it is not trade-able.
3) Consider another increase to the minor league count.
The think the reason that rentals are more commonly traded in BY is the extension rules. There's nothing in the rules that forces or incentivises teams to sign longterm deals. You can sign even the best players to 1 year deals every year. There's really not much incentive to sign more than a 2 year deal on most players, unless they had a couple down years, then you can extend long term at a discount. So you can trade for that 35 year old and not have to worry about being stuck with him longterm. While this does help with moving players around, I'm not a fan of it. The top players should have longterm deals. Such players would never accept 1 or 2 year deals in real life.
-
4) A version of Dedreger's idea (being able to bid up a bonus on free-agent prospect contracts) is interesting too. Not sure that the supplemental draft needs to be protected as we're already drowning in prospects. Opening up bidding on players with under 40 games could be interesting.
-
4) A version of Dedreger's idea (being able to bid up a bonus on free-agent prospect contracts) is interesting too. Not sure that the supplemental draft needs to be protected as we're already drowning in prospects. Opening up bidding on players with under 40 games could be interesting.
While we're throwing ideas at the wall. I don't like the idea of nixing the under 40 GP FA rule because I fear it will water down the Supplemental (same reason I don't support larger prospect rosters). But what if we allowed it with the stipulation that the player can be bid on if the opening bid meets a minimum standard - let's say $5m for examples sake. If you're willing to start off with a $5m signing bonus, then the bid is allowed. Something like that.
-
While we're throwing ideas at the wall. I don't like the idea of nixing the under 40 GP FA rule because I fear it will water down the Supplemental (same reason I don't support larger prospect rosters). But what if we allowed it with the stipulation that the player can be bid on if the opening bid meets a minimum standard - let's say $5m for examples sake. If you're willing to start off with a $5m signing bonus, then the bid is allowed. Something like that.
It's a tangent for me. Bidding on prospects under 40 games might help increase activity or make the league more interesting but it doesn't address the main issue we were talking about here, which was the lack of trading at the deadline.
I think it's more important to consider dropping the 3rd keeper pick as a way of increasing the value of trade-able picks.
-
It's a tangent for me. Bidding on prospects under 40 games might help increase activity or make the league more interesting but it doesn't address the main issue we were talking about here, which was the lack of trading at the deadline.
I think it's more important to consider dropping the 3rd keeper pick as a way of increasing the value of trade-able picks.
I think in general that 3rd keeper has been somewhat useless. I know I've only picked 2 instead of 3 in several seasons. I may have only picked 1 keeper last season or the one before, due to the lack of roster space and there being better players in the Supplemental than the Bruins drafted.
-
I think in general that 3rd keeper has been somewhat useless. I know I've only picked 2 instead of 3 in several seasons. I may have only picked 1 keeper last season or the one before, due to the lack of roster space and there being better players in the Supplemental than the Bruins drafted.
The 3rd pick is only useful when your nhl team sucks and has 2 or more 1st round picks.... or you want a goalie...
-
I think gidding rid of that 3rd keeper pick would be a good move. It won't do anything to change the deadline activity, but in terms of having more prospects in the pool it helps.
I also agree with others that snugs idea is worth a separate conversation, and maybe if owners are against that rule being that the contract has to be greater, at the very least there could be a 75% rule where the contract has to be at least 75% of the previous contract. Just pulling from things used in other leagues I'm in.
I really don't like being able to bid on prospects. It's been a big cause of drama in Bush league for those here who are in it, and having that available in the supplemental draft is a perfect solution that's been working well and we shouldn't change it back.
I don't have too much to add, other than echoing others ideas.
-
I think one thing that hasn't been discussed yet is that we haven't really gotten thru the first prospect extensions in the league. The top prospects that were available when the league started (Huberdeau, Landeskog, Tyler Seguin, Taylor Hall, Sean Couturier, Ryan Johansen) are finally going to be hitting the end of their prospect contracts starting this year. I think in the next couple years you will see more teams having to give these types of players higher extensions which will make them run into more cap issues. This should naturally lead to more interesting players being unsigned and entering FA as teams will need to prioritize the players they do resign.
-
Outside of the country. Internet ver slow. Will read everything upon my return next week
-
I think one thing that hasn't been discussed yet is that we haven't really gotten thru the first prospect extensions in the league. The top prospects that were available when the league started (Huberdeau, Landeskog, Tyler Seguin, Taylor Hall, Sean Couturier, Ryan Johansen) are finally going to be hitting the end of their prospect contracts starting this year. I think in the next couple years you will see more teams having to give these types of players higher extensions which will make them run into more cap issues. This should naturally lead to more interesting players being unsigned and entering FA as teams will need to prioritize the players they do resign.
:iatp:
Really good point!
-
next year I will have about 11M in cap space but in 19/20 I have a bunch of players coming off of prospect contracts and if everything stays the same I will be over the cap. so next year I will have to trade or buyout a couple of players. Because of this I really cant be active in FA next year without getting rid of the same amount of salary.
-
im in a dynasty BB league on another site. they have a franchise tag and 2 RFA tags. with this you can only sign 3 extentions a year. The franchise tag you have to have his real life yearly average salary to extend. with the RFA tag all the other teams can put in a blind bid and the team with the highest yearly average wins the bid. the original team that tagged him can match it or let him go to the winning team and they would get compensation draft picks. something like this would be interesting
-
The top prospects that were available when the league started (Huberdeau, Landeskog, Tyler Seguin, Taylor Hall, Sean Couturier, Ryan Johansen) are finally going to be hitting the end of their prospect contracts starting this year.
Not sure that is an accurate statement. Discounted prospect contract is a relatively new rule(came into effect, 2 maybe 3 seasons ago), so pretty sure most of those guys are on full , non discounted contracts. Couturier is low because up until this year he was a 30-40pts guy. Seguin and Hall are both around 7 mill which sounds like its full contract. Landeskog is 5 mill which sounds like a full contract as well when you consider the extensions at LW are lower than centers. I didnt look up Huberdeau or Johansen.
If anything, I would say we havent seen the full effect of the discounted prospect contracts.
-
Great point by Shooter. Just did a decently thorough check. Seguin and Hall were full contracts
Landeskog, Couturier, Johansen, Justin Faulk, Orlov, Henrique, TJ Brodie, Nick Leddy, have prospect contracts due up at the end of next year
Guys like Jaden Schwartz, Huberdeau, Bishop, Reilly Smith, Atkinson, Barrie, are prospect contracts done at the end of 19-20
Toffoli, Mackinnon, Trouba, Tatar, Tarasenko, H. Lindholm, Seth Jones, Maroon, E. Lindholm, Rakell, Ristolainen, Talbot, are up at the end of 20-21
Looks like the first big batch will be ending at the end of next year. With that out there maybe it is best to wait.
It does seem we are wandering away from the idea of increased participation into just tinkering though. But, I'm all for a good tinker.
-
Sequin and Hall never had prospect contracts because they hit 40 GP in 2010/2011 - the year prior to when we started. Therefore they were already NHL players at inception, not prospects.
But Shooter's general point is accurate - and we have had prospect discounts since day one.
But I just see it as relative. You have older guys that previously had very high contracts phasing out (Chara, for instance). Then you have the group you're discussing, coming off prospect contracts and getting more expensive. Then you have new prospects carving out FP on budget contracts. Moreover, we spent at least 1 or 2 extension periods without reducing the extension value of Defensive players. This means that all the original D contracts plus all of the originally extended D players are getting reductions. Which on its own might offset the increase from the end of the original prospect contracts.
I don't see it having a huge effect.
-
Great energy and wealth of ideas that have been shared the last couple of days, it feels like a virtual GM's meeting!
-
If it is not broken no need too change it.Just a thought from the new guy.Does not matter too me either way.Just a thought i had.What if we gave out trophies too the winners in place of a money league just for fun.Were we put in money for trophies in its place?
-
If it is not broken no need too change it.Just a thought from the new guy.Does not matter too me either way.Just a thought i had.What if we gave out trophies too the winners in place of a money league just for fun.Were we put in money for trophies in its place?
I've been talking about doing a trophy for years... Should probably act on that at some point!