ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: Rob on September 16, 2011, 11:35:05 AM
-
This might be a futile suggestion but please try to vote based on what's best for the league instead of what's best for your team. The results here are non-binding, I'm just trying to gauge opinion on this. Please post your reason for voting either way.
-
I think yes. Why, beacuse you will see less decent players get cut due to bad contracts, then them going for cheaper over waivers/fa.
-
I say yes, but based on if the NHL salary cap increases. That way the league can kind of stay in touch with the NHL. So, if the NHL raises their cap by 1m we would raise ours by the current ratio of 70m(our cap)/64.3m(nhl cap) or 1.088m. Already starting off with 70m has made it pretty easy to field a 30 man roster.
-
I would say yes and no.
No, because i think that the cap will take care of itself in the next 1 to 2 seasons. people will set players values themselves through the Free Agency and having a lower cap will create more churn on players and having a more exciting league because teams can drastically change from year to year.
On the other hand Yes, because honestly my strategy going into the next off season was to extend maybe 4 or 5 players. The rest I felt I could land cheaper alternatives through the free agency bidding process. Which i think says the renewals on players contracts are too high compared to the market value on FA.
I personally find FA the most fun of the year its where you make and break your team. You get a bargain, so for that reason i would lean towards no.
-
i dont know carolina, most teams i am looking at are pretty cap crunch and the only way they are staying under is by fielding half of their active roster with prospects. I will hand it to you, st. louis and a couple others that had the foresight to see a Free agency easy picking for those with money. You managed your 30 man roster easily because you got some ridiculous bargains in FA that would not have happened if most teams were not completely cap crunched.
However,
The more i think about it, i am a NO. Most of the "bad contracts" will have disappeared by 13/14 at the latest. If you still have a bad contract on the books by then it is probably your own fault. So by increasing the cap even more it will only lead to almost all players being extended and leaving a very weak FA each year.
I dont think it's a good idea to increase when the NHL increases either since our extensions have nothing to do with players actual nhl salaries.
-
I say yes, but based on if the NHL salary cap increases. That way the league can kind of stay in touch with the NHL. So, if the NHL raises their cap by 1m we would raise ours by the current ratio of 70m(our cap)/64.3m(nhl cap) or 1.088m. Already starting off with 70m has made it pretty easy to field a 30 man roster.
Not a bad idea keeping ourselves relatively in-line with the NHL, though if we do that we'll also want to update extension prices on a yearly basis to keep them consistent with the NHL as well. If we keep our extension prices constant then there's really no need to increase the cap; our market will differ from the NHL but it will be consistent with our cap. Though, like Jared mentioned the cap will take care of itself as our bidding will flesh out the market.
I know a lot of us are tight but our inherited rosters are a big part of this. The question going forward is does the cap make sense relative to our extension prices? FA bidding will take care of itself but if our extension prices are too high, forcing managers to release players they would otherwise extend in order to get them cheaper in FA, then we need to address it either on the cap side or the extension side.
-
I really think this a vote that would be better addressed after next years Free Agency. I dont think this years Free Agency was a good indicator since most of our players are still based on NHL contract and nothing to do with our extension guild lines.
Someone would have to sit down and run through every player on their team as if they needed to extend them this year and see where their cap works out. That would probably give you the best indicator.
I dont have time to do that right now but wouldnt mind sitting down some evening and hashing it out for a few of the teams.
-
Another variable regarding extension prices is, if we keep them constant, in time they'll start to make less sense. The extension prices right now are based on actual NHL salaries per position, loosely. If in 5 years there's less good defensemen, more good LW's, etc etc, our prices won't represent what's out there very accurately. We should aim to have salaries for players acquired through FA and extended players be relatively in-line. Right now it's hard to tell if things will shake out this way or not. It's unavoidably lopsided right now with inherited contracts. If we think things will even out over time, we shouldn't change the cap. If we think this won't even out, we should make a change.
-
I really think this a vote that would be better addressed after next years Free Agency. I dont think this years Free Agency was a good indicator since most of our players are still based on NHL contract and nothing to do with our extension guild lines.
Completely agree. I voted No on the poll for this reason exactly.
-
:toth: Yep, just like the real NHL. Some teams spend big on resigning players and get into a bad cap situation leaving teams that didn't sign those big money guys to duke it out in the FA. I could've resigned Cole, Pitkanen and Jokinen before the draft but that would've cost me almost 16m. The teams that got boned the most Penguins, Bruins, Blackhawks who had a bunch of people with inherited contracts still faired pretty well and have good teams now through trades and the draft. It is all in the strategy and we'll see whose pays off when the season starts.
I mainly just thought we should raise the cap, so that next years free agency you don't have such low ball contracts. Koivu for 3m a year, Weber got half of what he got in the real world, just thought it would help out there.
-
I mainly just thought we should raise the cap, so that next years free agency you don't have such low ball contracts. Koivu for 3m a year, Weber got half of what he got in the real world, just thought it would help out there.
Yea I agree with you there. Jared's idea about doing sample extensions to see where some teams would be is a good one. This way we can tell if it's going to be another year of lowball FA's or not, and base our decision on that. I wouldn't mind increasing the cap based on that, then in future years if FA bidding goes the other way and players are getting overpaid we could increase extension prices to balance things out.
-
I don't think our extension prices were far off I just think teams extended too many players in the beginning and that lead to many cap crunches before FA. We shouldn't make it affordable to extend all of the players on your team. It should be a big decision to let a guy go to FA because you can't sign him and most teams didn't let guys go to FA. Really I think the cap is fine, but this being the first year and so many good players available in FA with the 10 teams being contracted it sort of water downed the value of players that coupled with all the early extensions created low offers.
-
If I extended all my players today, not including the prospects on my active roster:
Peter Mueller 3.10
Daniel Winnik 2.30
T.J. Galiardi 2.40
Cody McLeod 0.80
Kyle Cumiskey 2.60
Ryan Wilson 3.00
Antoine Vermette 5.30
Dustin Brown 5.70
Scott Parse 1.10
Michael Cammalleri 3.90
David Legwand 3.90
Martin Brodeur 6.10
Ryan Callahan 3.60
Dan Girardi 4.80
Sergi Gonchar 5.40
Scottie Upshall, 2.10
Evgeni Malkin 6.70
Jay McClement 2.50
Erik Johnson 5.00
Jaroslav Halak 3.90
Thomas Fleischmann 3.20
James Wisniewski 5.40
Jamie McBain 3.20
Alexander Burmistrov 1.20
Ilya Kovalchuk 7.40
Brian Campbell 4.90
Total 99.50
-
Based on my numbers there is too large of a gap.
but maybe that is just my team being totally awesome. I would be interested to see some other teams extensions. i would think an acceptable gap would be 10 mill give or take.
Another poll who do you think would win in a fight between this :taco: and a grill cheese sandwich?
-
Your prospects won't need to be extended until the following year. The contract lasts for two years after the point they accumulate 40 NHL games played. So if you have a prospect hit 40GP this year you won't need to extend them until 13/14. Whether they're on your active roster or prospect roster makes no difference. They'll always be $200k until they hit the threshold + 2 years.
-
Another poll who do you think would win in a fight between this :taco: and a grill cheese sandwich?
Clearly :taco:...
That's like PB&J vs pulled pork... not even close.
-
I know on the prospects. I was just saying i didnt include them but that is what my roster cost would be if I had to extend all my players at the end of the year.
I did notice one thing going through the extensions. Our defense seems to cost a lot compared to their fantasy output. Again i would be interested to see what others find if they had to extend their entire team.
-
I know on the prospects. I was just saying i didnt include them but that is what my roster cost would be if I had to extend all my players at the end of the year.
I did notice one thing going through the extensions. Our defense seems to cost a lot compared to their fantasy output. Again i would be interested to see what others find if they had to extend their entire team.
That's if you would extend them all. I know I wouldn't extend half the guys on my roster that are eligible for extensions. The defenseman prices represent what they make in the NHL. They're not going to give you forward or goalie points but that's what they make in real life, so that's what I used.
-
Oh and just FYI, there's going to be a good chunk of time after the season, about a month or so, to make extension decisions and whatnot. Like we did when we started out if you can't afford to extend a player you can trade his negotiating rights in that period. So you can still get something for players you're not extending.
-
still 30 mill is a hell of a gap, especially considering that is almost half of our entire cap. . That is 1 million per player on my roster.
-
But you picked up a lot of bargain bench players that are going to extend for more than they're costing you now. I'd like to see how some other teams shape up before we jump to conclusions on this. We're using 30 man rosters which is more than the NHL but we're not starting any more players than they are in the real game on any given night. Some of us are using the extra spots for prospects others are stocking up on extra players to change in and out. A good question is what are you going to be paying for your primary starters? If that number is significantly lower then I'm not sure we should make drastic cap accommodations for our bench players.
-
i would agree with that, and there are a lot of players on that list I would not be extending.
I am of course just playing devil's advocate and trying to look at this from the different angles. I still stand by my original opinion of not changing the cap. Since i love the free agent frenzy.
-
That is kind of fun to extend your whole team to see what they would be worth using just our extension values. It shows you how much of a bargain or not your team really is.
I am sitting at 102.1m, but yeah I wouldn't extend all those folks. If I had to extend all my starters I would be up Crap creek for sure, but that is fine because I got good deals and didn't expect to hold onto these players at those amounts.
-
I say yes, but based on if the NHL salary cap increases. That way the league can kind of stay in touch with the NHL. So, if the NHL raises their cap by 1m we would raise ours by the current ratio of 70m(our cap)/64.3m(nhl cap) or 1.088m. Already starting off with 70m has made it pretty easy to field a 30 man roster.
Ditto - let's follow the NHL per some formula that relates the real cap per player.
-
you have to look at what the problem is. 1st is we have 30% more players on our roster and 2nd is we have 30% less teams so there are more talented (higher paid players) available to us. I am at the cap limit now and next year when I extend the players whos contracts expiers i will still be at the cap limit and same for the next year. after that Im not sure I will be able to extend my players but I will allways be at the cap limit. I think most teams will be the same so fa will allways be a bargin because no one will have any cap space to spend on them. To compensate for this the cap should be 30% higher than the real NHL cap, then we would have closer to real fa. Like some of you have done is finding out how much your salaries would be if you extended everyone and it gives a true look at the problem. If we made our cap about 80M to 85M about 30% above the real cap we would still have to make some choices on fa but would also give us a more realalistic fa bidding.
-
you have to look at what the problem is. 1st is we have 30% more players on our roster and 2nd is we have 30% less teams so there are more talented (higher paid players) available to us. I am at the cap limit now and next year when I extend the players whos contracts expiers i will still be at the cap limit and same for the next year. after that Im not sure I will be able to extend my players but I will allways be at the cap limit. I think most teams will be the same so fa will allways be a bargin because no one will have any cap space to spend on them. To compensate for this the cap should be 30% higher than the real NHL cap, then we would have closer to real fa. Like some of you have done is finding out how much your salaries would be if you extended everyone and it gives a true look at the problem. If we made our cap about 80M to 85M about 30% above the real cap we would still have to make some choices on fa but would also give us a more realalistic fa bidding.
I think 30% is excessive. Like I said before on any given night we don't start 30 players, we start about as many players as a normal NHL team starts. The extra bench slots are really there for flexibility. I think we should be looking at it primarily based on what we're paying for our starting players. There's also a huge savings from the prospect contracts which needs to be considered.
-
Actually, if you shave that down to 25% to account for cheaper prospects and base it off last years cap, since all our numbers are based on last year, it would put us right around $75m.
-
If we were able to have that one time free drop of bad contracts then the 75M would be perfect but I think in 2 years most teams will not be able to resign a lot of there players.
-
If we all could extend all our players every year there wouldn't be much point to a cap anyway. Look at what CHI and PHI have had to do with their rosters the last couple years to stay within the cap. There's going to be some tough decisions for teams to make over the years but I think it adds strategy.
I'm leaning towards an increase to $75m. After all this discussion I think it makes the most sense.
-
If we all could extend all our players every year there wouldn't be much point to a cap anyway. Look at what CHI and PHI have had to do with their rosters the last couple years to stay within the cap. There's going to be some tough decisions for teams to make over the years but I think it adds strategy.
I'm leaning towards an increase to $75m. After all this discussion I think it makes the most sense.
I think the $75m is a good number.
-
:iatp:
-
I liked the point about our league having less teams, but more players and more quality players per team than most nhl teams. So I threw some math at it.
30 NHL teams with 23 men on their roster = 690 active players
20 fantasy teams with 30 men on their roster = 600 active players
30 nhl teams with max cap of $64.3m = $1,929,000,000 max total
not all teams spend to the cap limit because they cannot afford to so the current total is $1,658,619,385
price per player based on current total salaries = $2,403,796
20 fantasy teams with max cap of $70m = $1,400,000,000 max total
we can spend to the limit, but some choose not to and the current total is $1,365,000,000
price per player based on current total salaries = $2,275,000
So based on all of that we could play by the same ratio of how much a player costs in the NHL and our cap would be 72.1m or we could use the same amount for total salaries in the NHL as our max total, the 1.6 billion, our cap would be 82.9m. Or we could do something completely different. I was bored at work.....
-
hahaha well thought out sir.... had to read it 3 times lol
-
Nice work Gypsie, thats some good math there.
-
I liked the point about our league having less teams, but more players and more quality players per team than most nhl teams. So I threw some math at it.
30 NHL teams with 23 men on their roster = 690 active players
20 fantasy teams with 30 men on their roster = 600 active players
30 nhl teams with max cap of $64.3m = $1,929,000,000 max total
not all teams spend to the cap limit because they cannot afford to so the current total is $1,658,619,385
price per player based on current total salaries = $2,403,796
20 fantasy teams with max cap of $70m = $1,400,000,000 max total
we can spend to the limit, but some choose not to and the current total is $1,365,000,000
price per player based on current total salaries = $2,275,000
So based on all of that we could play by the same ratio of how much a player costs in the NHL and our cap would be 72.1m or we could use the same amount for total salaries in the NHL as our max total, the 1.6 billion, our cap would be 82.9m. Or we could do something completely different. I was bored at work.....
Hahaha, awesome.
Well if we split the difference and shave off a little for our cheap prospects, $75m pretty much makes sense.
-
:iatp:
-
I say yes, but based on if the NHL salary cap increases. That way the league can kind of stay in touch with the NHL. So, if the NHL raises their cap by 1m we would raise ours by the current ratio of 70m(our cap)/64.3m(nhl cap) or 1.088m. Already starting off with 70m has made it pretty easy to field a 30 man roster.
I like this idea going forward. I want to update the extensions every year to coincide with actual NHL contracts and raise the cap by the % the NHL raises their cap. The NHL went from $59.4m in 10/11 to $64.3 in 11/12 which is an increase of 8.25%. If we used the same increase it would bring us to $75.8m which is pretty close to what we were thinking for next season. I'd like to do this every year to keep player costs as close to the NHL as possible.
And, if for some reason the NHL decreases their cap in the future we should follow suit.
-
sounds good to me
-
I like this idea going forward. I want to update the extensions every year to coincide with actual NHL contracts and raise the cap by the % the NHL raises their cap. The NHL went from $59.4m in 10/11 to $64.3 in 11/12 which is an increase of 8.25%. If we used the same increase it would bring us to $75.8m which is pretty close to what we were thinking for next season. I'd like to do this every year to keep player costs as close to the NHL as possible.
And, if for some reason the NHL decreases their cap in the future we should follow suit.
:iatp: