0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I was wrong. Slack's method decreases the market by 15%. Shooter ran the 3 year vs 2 year for the entire league and the numbers flesh this out pretty clearly.So - you can continue to argue 3 years vs 2 years on the merits of accuracy for production. It won't be the nuclear bomb that I expected to our economy.I still prefer 2 years, though
If we're considering average or whatever Slack's 3-year plan is, I still like 2 years. I think looking back over 3 years of production is going too far back. I get the reasoning in case of injury, but hey, it is what it is. For us in fantasy, it sucks when a good player is injured for 25 games of the season. Accordingly, if he's up for re-sign within a year or year and a half, we'd get a slight reduction on re-sign which I think would be fair to us as fantasy GM's due to lost production from that player.Of course the real-world wouldn't do the exact same thing in contract negotiations, but I think we've established that we're not the real-world.If we're not doing average of 2 years and just taking the best of the 2 years, then so be it. We've been doing that all along anyways.
Whether you average 2 years or 3, you still won't capture a player at their best. Since the best season will always get averaged down. That's one thing I don't like about it.Moreover - what does it really do? What do we really gain from this? It's like the extension min/max's. Increasing seems logical - but it's hard to say whether that change does any good or bad. If it ain't broke.... And I never felt like that part was broke.
I think we keep it the same and do the best of the last 2 years. I don't really think it's a broken system and definitely doesn't make it easier on us to figure out averages.
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.