ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: SlackJack on January 10, 2020, 11:47:53 AM
-
Is the playing field level enough and/or is there enough incentive to win? Would love to hear what others have to say. Think this could be a fairly wide ranging convo. Why I ask is that it generally seems that there are only a couple of real contenders each year and even those teams tend to prioritize the future over the present.
For me this is highlighted by John Carlson being made available for picks and prospects by a team ranked 3rd over-all in the standings. Not being critical of the GM and I get that Carlson is on an expiring contract, but really?
I also understand that there is a trend in the real NHL towards youth. Real GM's are increasingly reluctant to part with picks etc. Eliot Friedman's latest 31 thoughts comes to mind. But still.
I'd rather see a powerhouse like Winnipeg go for all the marbles and keep Carlson as an own-rental. The same with Pittsburgh. Sure losing Guentzal is tough but is there not enough parity in the league to still try and compete? Is there not enough incentive or are the two front-runners so clearly ahead that it isn't realistic to try?
The issue runs deep in keeper leagues. GM's love the potential of youth and I am no exception, but that can't be the greater motivation in building a team. There should be more desire to win.
-
I don't see any issues with Winnipeg putting Carlson on the block. If Carlson keeps up his current pace and plays in 82 games he is going to have an $8.6m resign next year (could be higher when blocked shots are factored in). Winnipeg put Eric Staal on the block last year (when he was going to have a high resign) but didn't end up trading him even though he was his 5th best center on his team. If he can get more long term value for Carlson by trading him I think its the prudent thing for him to do knowing there is a chance he will lose him this next offseason for nothing. This is how teams get to the top and stay there. They think ahead and see these issues before they happen and maximize long term value.
I do the same thing myself. Its why I traded Nino Niederreiter when I did. His future resign value didn't fit in to my teams plans and instead of losing him for nothing or trading him when I had less leverage I moved him before the season started.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=332967.msg1343183#msg1343183
-
I don't see any issues with Winnipeg putting Carlson on the block. If Carlson keeps up his current pace and plays in 82 games he is going to have an $8.6m resign next year (could be higher when blocked shots are factored in). Winnipeg put Eric Staal on the block last year (when he was going to have a high resign) but didn't end up trading him even though he was his 5th best center on his team. If he can get more long term value for Carlson by trading him I think its the prudent thing for him to do knowing there is a chance he will lose him this next offseason for nothing. This is how teams get to the top and stay there. They think ahead and see these issues before they happen and maximize long term value.
I do the same thing myself. Its why I traded Nino Niederreiter when I did. His future resign value didn't fit in to my teams plans and instead of losing him for nothing or trading him when I had less leverage I moved him before the season started.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=332967.msg1343183#msg1343183
Sidestepping my point here Shooter. I already conceded that Carlson was on an expiring contract and all that comes with that. My question to you is do you honestly feel you have enough competition at the top? Is the playing field level enough from your lofty perspective?
-
I'm 100% guilty of this. I'm more content to be a good team and "have a chance" each year rather than throw all the marbles on the table for 1-year but lose my good prospects.
I started changing that thinking this year a bit, but nothing has come up so far trade-wise that makes sense.
I'd rather be trading a Turcotte, Kupari or Boqvist for a player who has at least 2 years left, not expiring this year and due for a huge pay-day.
The one team that I do think is all-in all the time is Philly. Hats off to Pappy for just going for it year after year.
But the problem comes up like his team is that keeping all of those star players he traded for, their re-signs are super high.
Philly's got what, 5 C's (some have W elig. though) taking up literally half of his cap space (Crsoby, Malkin, Stamkos, Kopitar, Pavelski = $44.7m).
Part of the reason I parted with Ryan Johansen with a couple years left on his rookie contract - didn't want to pay money on him.
I also though John Carlson was just an average D-man even with top PP minutes with OV following 2 years of under 40-points, and sold him off for pennies on the dollar to get rid of that $4.3m cap hit. Oops....
To Slack's point a bit... I think it's tough for there to be a lot of competitiveness when there are always 2-5 teams in total tank mode and don't care about anything other than prospects and picks, and will win FA's and pay their contracts to the highest bidders. Top teams are usually good because they draft well (and also get lucky their parent club either sucks and gets high picks or drafts well in real life).
I also think that this is a more laid back, free salary fantasy league so we aren't all hardo's for fantasy hockey. Even for me, I've taken a step back the past year and a half and mostly just show up in the off-season for things, and then set my lines during the season. So there's that. Seems a lot of guys are like that even more so. Off-season to set up their roster and then just let things play out.
-
Sidestepping my point here Shooter. I already conceded that Carlson was on an expiring contract and all that comes with that. My question to you is do you honestly feel you have enough competition at the top? Is the playing field level enough from your lofty perspective?
Lets look back at the 2017-2018 season. I finished the regular season in 2nd and faced Anaheim in the 2nd round (top 8) of the playoffs as the 2 seed vs. 7 seed. Looking back at the regular season I had outscored Anaheim by 1000+ points (4326.75 to 3308.05). I had outscored the 2nd highest scoring team that year (Winnipeg) by 500 points that season. And when I talk points here I'm talking the season stats and not the standings page which would show these as twice as big since we play two matchups each week.
If you do the math I had been outscoring Anaheim by 45 points a week for the entire year and they still pulled the upset. Its the playoffs and anything can happen in a one week matchup. So yes I think any of the teams that make the playoffs can win the whole league on any year. That year Colorado made a run from the 5 spot and won the whole thing. So when Detroit and Pittsburgh say they don't think they can compete this year I don't really agree. All it takes is your team to get hot at the right time and you can win the league.
-
Interesting points guys. Basically make the playoffs and anything can happen but no point going for broke.
I wonder if there were greater incentive to win how much that would change. Obviously good GM's will always manage their assets but we'd see more deals for rental players if there was a prize or purse. Not really wanting to open the money-league debate but yeah if there's a way to stimulate competition I'd be in favour.
Prize idea's that don't give undue advantage to the winner?
-
Interesting points guys. Basically make the playoffs and anything can happen
Its the playoffs and anything can happen in a one week matchup... All it takes is your team to get hot at the right time and you can win the league.
This has really always been the case for me.
More than ones I've finished 1st by a landslide in leagues only to lose in the 1st round of playoffs (2nd round since 1st week is generally a bye for top-2 teams in leagues I'm in).
It's weeks like those when guys come out of the wood-work and put up an 8-point week and you're like "where in the hell did this guy come from?" Some 3rd liner puts up 8 points this week to bring his season total to 25, in 69 games... or something along those lines. (Look a N.Accari on real life FLA ... Anyone thing he keeps that pace up the rest of the season on 45% shooting %? Unlinkely...)
Other times I've finished on the playoff bubble and won the darn thing, with no expectations to even win a round. When all the "middle-of-the-pack" players end up putting up a point per game all at once when they've been going at like 0.6 ppg all season.
In a league like this all it takes is a few good weeks for your goal-scorers to put up big stats and goalies not to get totally shelled, and you can beat any team. Take a week such as this one. Pastrnak is out there doing his thing like he has all season, but had a hat-trick last night and Kucherov finally woke up and is scoring goals now too. On the flip side all it takes is an injury or two to guys such as those and my playoff-week would be ruined. Never know what can happen in a 1-week match-up!
As for prizes, not sure on that. I don't really like the "win and you get a % off a re-sign" or something like that. Just helps the "good" teams that much more.
-
I think there is more competition this year than in many years. Especially when the Ducks had a monster 3 season run and were basically unbeatable.
I mainly put players on the trading block just to drum up some hockey talk not really because I don't think my team has a chance to win. Any team that makes the playoffs has a chance.
When Colorado won I think their highest scoring player those 2 finals weeks was Kevin Connauton. You never know what will happen.
All in all I think this past offseason, with the incredible number of trades has shown this league has a great number of active GMs doing what they think can produce a winner. Some push the chips all in and some are playing the percentages.
I had a fancy champagne ice bucket that with a base would look like a righteous trophy. Trophy's are always the best prize for lording over people.
-
I think there is more competition this year than in many years. Especially when the Ducks had a monster 3 season run and were basically unbeatable.
I mainly put players on the trading block just to drum up some hockey talk not really because I don't think my team has a chance to win. Any team that makes the playoffs has a chance.
When Colorado won I think their highest scoring player those 2 finals weeks was Kevin Connauton. You never know what will happen.
All in all I think this past offseason, with the incredible number of trades has shown this league has a great number of active GMs doing what they think can produce a winner. Some push the chips all in and some are playing the percentages.
I had a fancy champagne ice bucket that with a base would look like a righteous trophy. Trophy's are always the best prize for lording over people.
I like the idea of a desktop sized trophy. Something small and easy to ship with an engraving that says something like "Reigning Dynasty NHL Champion". Previous champ responsible to ship top the new.
-
I like the idea of a desktop sized trophy. Something small and easy to ship with an engraving that says something like "Reigning Dynasty NHL Champion". Previous champ responsible to ship top the new.
I had thought about getting a beer mug and having all the past winners engraved on it and then you could ship that to the next champion. A trophy would work as well.
-
My team isn’t in the upper echelon of teams in this league but I feel if I make the playoffs you have a chance. I learned in this league and others that you can have a far superior team but you can also have an off week or two. It happened to me in FGM. You never know once you make the playoffs.
-
The root of this problem will always be how cheap prospect extensions are. No way Matthews should be only making 4.4m until 2024, Pastrnak 5.3m until 2022, Mackinnon 3.5m until 2021, Panarin 5.8m until 2023. As long as I can have elite talent under control for 8? years at a fraction of their actual value, I'd trade a Carlson type for that every time. Good on Winnipeg for trying to do just that.
-
The root of this problem will always be how cheap prospect extensions are. No way Matthews should be only making 4.4m until 2024, Pastrnak 5.3m until 2022, Mackinnon 3.5m until 2021, Panarin 5.8m until 2023. As long as I can have elite talent under control for 8? years at a fraction of their actual value, I'd trade a Carlson type for that every time. Good on Winnipeg for trying to do just that.
That's why AZ is going to be a powerhouse for the next 5+ years come next season, haha. And Boston right after that.
I mean to be fair though that's why my team is good now, because I got Pasta, Kuch, etc. on those deals a few years back and can now build around them.
There was a discussion about those P-contracts previously but it's tough to change things up at this point with teams building for the current rules, among other things.
-
That's why AZ is going to be a powerhouse for the next 5+ years come next season, haha. And Boston right after that.
I mean to be fair though that's why my team is good now, because I got Pasta, Kuch, etc. on those deals a few years back and can now build around them.
There was a discussion about those P-contracts previously but it's tough to change things up at this point with teams building for the current rules, among other things.
Yep, pretty much the first thing I noticed about the league was the prospect discount. My whole team is being built around it but I assume I'll end up trading trade for older established point producers eventually. I'm open to adjusting P-contracts over time. As long as changes are phased in gradually people will have time to adjust.
The new point structure will have an effect too. Not sure how it will play out but it could make it cheaper to do some re-signs.
-
The new point structure will have an effect too. Not sure how it will play out but it could make it cheaper to do some re-signs.
The new point structure is only going to make the majority of players more expensive. Some high scoring centers will come down slightly but Wingers and Defenseman are definitely going to be going up.
-
The new point structure is only going to make the majority of players more expensive. Some high scoring centers will come down slightly but Wingers and Defenseman are definitely going to be going up.
Agree with Shooter - The only thing for certain is D are going up, due to blocked shots being added (more fantasy points in general), and I believe there is no more D-discount.
Some C's might come down, but not by much. Most top end guys I've hashed out real quick with the new re-sign rules are right around where they are currently salary-wise, and most of the "middle" guys (especially wingers) are quite a bit more than they currently are on the cap.
I think it might make more guys go to FA within 2 years - especially with quite a few top talent prospect deals expiring this season and a lot next season.
-
Yep, pretty much the first thing I noticed about the league was the prospect discount. My whole team is being built around it but I assume I'll end up trading trade for older established point producers eventually. I'm open to adjusting P-contracts over time. As long as changes are phased in gradually people will have time to adjust.
The new point structure will have an effect too. Not sure how it will play out but it could make it cheaper to do some re-signs.
If it's seen as a problem, my only suggestion would be to cut down the prospect extension length from 5 years to 3 and have that take effect 2-3 years in the future. Again maybe it's not a problem and is just a part of the fabric of our league.
To the point of the original purpose of this discussion, I don't think good teams trying to trade good players is an issue, but if you do see it as an issue, prospect extensions are the problem.
-
If it's seen as a problem, my only suggestion would be to cut down the prospect extension length from 5 years to 3 and have that take effect 2-3 years in the future. Again maybe it's not a problem and is just a part of the fabric of our league.
To the point of the original purpose of this discussion, I don't think good teams trying to trade good players is an issue, but if you do see it as an issue, prospect extensions are the problem.
I opened it up more for the sake of conversation than anything so I won't call it a problem if nobody else does. But if we were to make a tweak to the prospect extensions (to make them get to free-agency sooner) I'd want to relax the term requirements on extensions (to make it easier to keep our vets).
With salaries rising to $10m+ for superstars the table we use for extensions is outdated and could stand to be re-worked. For example a salary of $6.5m-$8m with a min/max of 3-4 years. If this was paired with a reduction to prospect extensions to say 4 years I think we'd have a net benefit all around.
-
I opened it up more for the sake of conversation than anything so I won't call it a problem if nobody else does. But if we were to make a tweak to the prospect extensions (to make them get to free-agency sooner) I'd want to relax the term requirements on extensions (to make it easier to keep our vets).
With salaries rising to $10m+ for superstars the table we use for extensions is outdated and could stand to be re-worked. For example a salary of $6.5m-$8m with a min/max of 3-4 years. If this was paired with a reduction to prospect extensions to say 4 years I think we'd have a net benefit all around.
And I used "you" as a general term, not you specifically, but I'm in agreement here. I think the extension should be 3, but I'd support 4 years as well, including a reworked yearly requirement table.
-
Do you want my opinion? oh ok I will give my opinion.
1) Prospect contracts are way too long. Should be capped to 3 years at most. Young players are usually trending up until age 27/28 is when they peak. So essentially you are already signing a discounted contract, but then you are getting it at 70% on top of it. there is the odd super bust but in most cases that extension works out to average to outstanding savings.
2) Still too easy to keep a team together year after year. Teams can make no significant changes for 5 seasons quite easily. For the NHL thats great, for fantasy that sucks. If teams know their team will have to break up the next season or in one or two seasons they will be more ready to part with assets to win now. This ties back to point 1, but additionally extensions on the back end were still too easy of a choice from what I remember. - Maybe look at either updating extension costs or limit extension the number of extensions a team can make. for example if the league averages 6 extensions at season end. Limit to 4. Pushes 2 players into FA per team on average.
Or another idea - Cap player extensions to 2 times. For example player A - plays their prospect contract, you extended them on the prospect extension when that comes up, they can be extended one time. After that they must hit free agency at the end of that contract. Creates some rental players.
3) One other reason you dont see people "going for it" is there are few to no rental players. Every player is a possible lifetime player so the assets you need to give up for 1 player will not make a dent in your playoff chances of success. This ties back to the points 1 and 2 (mostly 2).
-
the new contract system is going to make it harder for the good teams to stay together but we need to see what it will do in a couple of years. If I had to resign all my guys with the new system at the start of this year I would have been about 20M over the cap. at the end of this year if I had to resign all my guys to the new system based on their current scoring pace my total number would be 119M + 19M in dead money. And Im not a good team so in a couple of years the money is going to catch up with most teams and make them make some tough decisions.
-
Personally I like the setup for this league. I joined this league because I wanted to be able to build a dynasty and not lose most of my roster every year. If I wanted that I would go play in one year leagues. I like that you can build a team and hold on to players you draft and watch them develop. Hellebuyck and Saros are players I drafted way back in 2013. I like holding on to those guys and knowing that my investment 6 years ago has turned out to be a good player.
There is a tendency for all teams in this league to chase younger players that we view as having great potential. I think this is partly due to "Shiny New Toy" syndrome. We always want the new shiny toy over the player that has been around and we have noticed the perceived warts those players have or they haven't turned into what we thought they could be quick enough. Players take time to develop though and those shiny new players draft as 18 year old will show their own warts a year or two after the draft. I think we also chase younger players because you can hit a homerun and get a great player that will be very valuable for a long time on your roster.
One of the reasons I think the league is so focused on younger players is due to the roster size of the league. We have 20 teams and 30 roster spots. That is 600 players total. The NHL has 31 teams with a max roster size of 23. That is 713 players. But how many of those players play every game. An NHL team typically plays 12 forwards, 6 defensemen and two goalies. That is 20 players per team that play regularly. So that ends up being 620 players. But some of these players are grinders that don't score many if any points and will never have huge values in this league. So teams like Arizona and Boston are going to find more value holding a prospect in a main roster slot that may have some future value then to roster a 3rd line or 4th line player or a teams 6th defender.
I just don't think you will ever see tons of rental players being moved in this league. When half the teams in the league make the playoffs (10/20) and a few of teams don't have rental players to trade (Boston, Arizona, etc.). The only deals I think you will ever see is if a playoff team is trying to fill in a position they are short on or had injuries at. Roster balance definitely matters in this league because your trying to maximize value and games played across 5 different positions. Does having a 7th center you never start really help your team? No. Having an 8th defensemen who doesn't score as well but will get you a couple games a week is probably a better player to own.
On a busy night in the league where most teams are playing we start 17 players total (3C, 3LW, 3RW, 6D & 2G). So as a playoff team if I'm not upgrading on one of these "typical starters" for my team I'm probably not going to be super interested. If I can upgrade my 5th Center its not as big of an upgrade on my team as if I can upgrade my 3rd Center. If that guy only gets a game maybe two a week that 0.5 pt or 1 pt/game upgrade doesn't make that big of an impact. If I only have 3 centers though I might be willing to trade something to get a reliable 4th center who will play 2 or 3 games a week for me.
Not to pick on anyone but Colorado is a playoff team that could make some deals to help there team this year. They have 8 goalies on their NHL roster and one more in the minors that is getting good playing time. But they can only start 2 goalies a day. That 971.5 points their goalies have scored this year have only translated into 437 points in the standings because they miss so many starts. If they dealt a couple for skaters who get them a few more games during the week they would probably score alot better in the playoffs.
As far as prospect contracts are concerned I don't have a problem with the 5 year deals. Players in the NHL sign deals of similar lengths and I like being able to have a player I invested on for a while. I also think the resign value changes are going to eliminate some of the position issues the old system had and you will pay for the performance of the player regardless of position. In the old system defensemen and wingers were greatly undervalued and I built my team around them for a long time. Komarov is a winger that I was able to extend last offseason for 0.9m a year. Starting this offseason he would cost me almost $4m a year to extend. Alot more of these type of players will end up on FA then in previous years. But it might take a year or two to happen due to existing contracts not expiring right away.
-
Nice analysis Shooter.
You lost me a bit once I read "Colorado has 8 goalies plus one" hahaha.
Sheesh, why does COL have so many tenders?!
-
Doesn't look like COL lineups are getting set. I'm hoping we haven't lost Ryan. I sent an email.
Great thread, guys. I think the answer to the first question: is the playing field level, is yes. I believe that a competent GM can build a team here (even from a broken franchise) into a contender. Is the level playing field question more directed to the top tier? Where 2 teams sit above the rest? Even so, I believe the answer is yes. Vancouver was built from scratch from the wreckage of a badly managed franchise. St Louis wasn't always as indomitable. And at one point it looked like Anaheim would never lose. I believe both of the two front-runners will come back down to earth once certain contracts start expiring, and we'll have other teams taking up the mantle up top. Maybe the same names will float around up there, but some of that's just skill. With 10 playoff seeds, opportunity for anyone to get hot and take out one of the top guns is always there.
Is there enough incentive to win? That one I'm not as sure about. I know I've sold off hot young assets at trade deadline time several times to compete for a title here. But I know many have not, choosing to take a long-view. And I think that mentality is the majority - especially in the last 5 years. We've all been more conservative. Myself included.
Simple solution on that one. A few of us have mentioned it in the past...... Money!
That's really the solution if we deem incentive is a problem enough that we choose to solve it.
Regarding prospect contract length - I'd really like to see how the new extension rules play out over the next couple seasons before making more economic changes.
-
Ryan responded - he's had sick kids the last few weeks. He'll get back on track here soon.
-
Great stuff all around. Love the passion Shooter defends 5 year contracts with and have to admit I'm in it to watch my picks develop over the long haul. Also agree with Rob that it'll take a bit for the new extension rules to play out and that a $$$ incentive could really do great things for the league. I know it doesn't appeal to everyone but I imagine the upside would be considerable in terms of interest and activity. That said I think we're doing fine as is. :thumbsup:
-
I agree with everything but the money. making money as a prize for winning will only cause problems. every one here wants to win so add a little money is not really going to change that and the money is not going to be big enough to make people sacrifice the future to have a shot at winning for a year or two. now the thing that makes this league unique is our tie to the real teams and thats also what will make it unfair if we were to add money, since some team would have a big advantage based on where and how well their real team drafts. also there is the problem that if we all of a sudden added money then the good teams start out with a much higher chance of winning that money. now I have seen leagues with money that how much everyone pays in is based on how they finished the previous year. something like the 1st place pays $19 and last place pays $1, 2nd pays $18 19th pays $2. this would make a total of $200 payout. maybe $125 for 1st and $75 for 2nd. if we were to consider the money it would have to be something like this with some other rule changes to increase fairness. one we should do is all team changes should be claimed like waivers. a period in the off season if someone wants to switch to one of the unclaimed teams you put a claim in and teams that finished with worst record can claim that team over them. not that this would happen but a good team could switch teams to get improved draft picks. maybe you can only switch teams 1 in 10 years or something or we just say teams cant switch at all the team you have your stuck with.
-
Franchise NHL is a money league if you want to join that one.
-
Franchise NHL is a money league if you want to join that one.
:puke:
-
Franchise NHL is a money league if you want to join that one.
no I dont want a money league