Dear Dynasty

[papps]

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.

[Anthony]

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.

[WestCoastExpress]

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.

[SlackJack]

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.

[shooter47]

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.

[WestCoastExpress]

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.

[Anthony]

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.

[SlackJack]

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. 

[Anthony]

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.

[snugerud]

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).