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.

Tristan Jarry

 

Brent Burns all this year at $10m

$1.8m