DNHL Prospect Extensions

[snugerud]

Re-read all of the input here and want to continue to make a case for Blocked Shots. A number of GM's have pointed out the low extension costs of Defence so maybe there is opportunity to re-jig on this front. If Blocked Shots were introduced we could at once raise the extension costs for D while increasing the asset pool that teams have to draw upon. This would be helpful to re-building teams in particular simply because more contributing players exist.

eeeeeewwwwwww, its the ghost of fantasy past.  Slack is right on the blocked shots ,  count them similar to hits. It will have a slight effect on the top tier dmen but it really helps your mid to low tier dmen that arent PP specialists gain value.  I still think your focus should be on getting more players into FA.  More players in your FA will accomplish your goals 1) helps bottom teams rebuild quicker and 2) levels out the cap , free agency is where the great equilization happens. If teams have money they will spend it to compete.   What corey says is on the right track, reduce the extension discount teams will always extend their young players , its the old guys that get the boot.  Other option would be get rid of the free buyout in the event of retirement. It would send more older players into FA. Rebuilding teams would have the cap to bid them on 1 to 2 year contracts and flip for picks at Trade deadline .   But i am just a ghost......so I wouldnt take me to seriously eeeeewwwwwwwwww (i dont know how to type a ghost sound)

[SlackJack]

eeeeeewwwwwww, its the ghost of fantasy past.  Slack is right on the blocked shots ,  count them similar to hits. It will have a slight effect on the top tier dmen but it really helps your mid to low tier dmen that arent PP specialists gain value.  I still think your focus should be on getting more players into FA.  More players in your FA will accomplish your goals 1) helps bottom teams rebuild quicker and 2) levels out the cap , free agency is where the great equilization happens. If teams have money they will spend it to compete.   What corey says is on the right track, reduce the extension discount teams will always extend their young players , its the old guys that get the boot.  Other option would be get rid of the free buyout in the event of retirement. It would send more older players into FA. Rebuilding teams would have the cap to bid them on 1 to 2 year contracts and flip for picks at Trade deadline .   But i am just a ghost......so I wouldnt take me to seriously eeeeewwwwwwwwww (i dont know how to type a ghost sound)

A bunch of interesting stuff, when are you coming back? Totally agree with increasing the number FA's (and also that you don't know how to make ghost sounds). More grist for the mill: The extension tiers are out of date as a 5 year contract at $6.5m is starting to look like a bargain. Please consider:

Current Limits

Salary - Min & Max Years
$6.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$5 to $6.4m - 4 or 5 years
$3.5 to $4.9m - 3 or 4 years
$2 to $3.4m - 2 or 3 years
$0 to $1.9m - 1 or 2 years

Propose something like this:

Salary - Min & Max Years
$8.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$6.5 to $8.4m - 4 or 5 years
$4.5 to $6.4m - 3 or 4 years
$3 to $4.4m - 2 or 3 years
$0 to $2.9m - 1 or 2 years

Or even something like this (which collapses a couple tiers in the middle adding more flexibility).

Salary - Min & Max Years
$8.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$6.5 to $8.4m - 4 or 5 years
3 to $6.4m - 2 to 4 years
$0 to $2.9m - 1 or 2 years

I think the combined changes would have the effect of reducing term on some contracts and pushing decent guys to free agency before they normally would. There's still good structure that supports the original intent, but it is refreshed and encourages more contract turn-over.

A correspond bump for FA signings would do the same. Shorter contracts mean more turn-over. Also GM's should need to think twice before committing to full-term. Raising the 5 year bar to $8.5m makes a difference.

[shooter47]

A bunch of interesting stuff, when are you coming back? Totally agree with increasing the number FA's (and also that you don't know how to make ghost sounds). More grist for the mill: The extension tiers are out of date as a 5 year contract at $6.5m is starting to look like a bargain. Please consider:

Current Limits

Salary - Min & Max Years
$6.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$5 to $6.4m - 4 or 5 years
$3.5 to $4.9m - 3 or 4 years
$2 to $3.4m - 2 or 3 years
$0 to $1.9m - 1 or 2 years

Propose something like this:

Salary - Min & Max Years
$8.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$6.5 to $8.4m - 4 or 5 years
$4.5 to $6.4m - 3 or 4 years
$3 to $4.4m - 2 or 3 years
$0 to $2.9m - 1 or 2 years

Or even something like this (which collapses a couple tiers in the middle adding more flexibility).

Salary - Min & Max Years
$8.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$6.5 to $8.4m - 4 or 5 years
3 to $6.4m - 2 to 4 years
$0 to $2.9m - 1 or 2 years

I think the combined changes would have the effect of reducing term on some contracts and pushing decent guys to free agency before they normally would. There's still good structure that supports the original intent, but it is refreshed and encourages more contract turn-over.

A correspond bump for FA signings would do the same. Shorter contracts mean more turn-over. Also GM's should need to think twice before committing to full-term. Raising the 5 year bar to $8.5m makes a difference.

I think this might have the opposite effect then you intended at the high end. Bergeron was not resigned this year because his $7.8m extension value required a 5 year commitment. If your proposed $8.5m limit was in effect Bergeron would have only been required to sign for 4 years. Not sure if he would have been resigned for 4 years @ $7.8m but it definitely makes it more likely that he would. I think you would see more older players being resigned because the GM wouldn't have to commit to so many years. The young players are already going to get resigned so I think this would reduce the FA pool and not increase it.

[SlackJack]

I think this might have the opposite effect then you intended at the high end. Bergeron was not resigned this year because his $7.8m extension value required a 5 year commitment. If your proposed $8.5m limit was in effect Bergeron would have only been required to sign for 4 years. Not sure if he would have been resigned for 4 years @ $7.8m but it definitely makes it more likely that he would. I think you would see more older players being resigned because the GM wouldn't have to commit to so many years. The young players are already going to get resigned so I think this would reduce the FA pool and not increase it.

Totally possible I have it backward but there's two different elements here so not sure holding up Bergeron alone is enough to say so. With regards to the salary limit, I get the argument that if GM's have to commit to term they are less likely to sign a certain age of player, but you can also see where it would be a bargain to lock a younger star up for 5 years at only $6.5m. It all depends on which end you are looking from.

As far as collapsing a couple tiers in the middle, to be honest I don't know what that would do. In Backyard players of any salary can re-sign for a year at a time. I'm not in favour of that but it does puts upward pressure on contracts for younger players. Though I'll admit for players like Bergeron they just get signed forever to a string of one year contracts as their production declines.

[WestCoastExpress]

I think this might have the opposite effect then you intended at the high end. Bergeron was not resigned this year because his $7.8m extension value required a 5 year commitment. If your proposed $8.5m limit was in effect Bergeron would have only been required to sign for 4 years. Not sure if he would have been resigned for 4 years @ $7.8m but it definitely makes it more likely that he would. I think you would see more older players being resigned because the GM wouldn't have to commit to so many years. The young players are already going to get resigned so I think this would reduce the FA pool and not increase it.

Do agree with Shooter here. Reason even a guy like Malkin was considered to not be re-signed was the length of deal. But it was somewhat got around as he was signed during the season, so it came into effect immediately and really it ended up being a 4-year extension. But it may be the reason that Giroux wasn't re-signed as well (and Bergeron for that matter).
In the case of Malkin, he could have been re-signed during the season and then it would be a 3-year extensions at the end of the day, which isn't bad at all.

Could also just do away with in-season extensions too, as it is a way to get around 5-year deals (if you have the cap in the current year). It also can take into effect injuries and teams get a discounted price on extensions, given that our rankings are total fantasy points. If a guy was injured for 10-15 games the previous season, and then is either injured early in the current season or just has a slow slow start based on his "usual" production, a GM could re-sign him in November at a discounted price than what he would most likely be ranked at the end of the season (due to using total fantasy points for ranks).

Of course it doesn't happen often, but it does still give an advantage in some cases to get players signed at a lower cap hit. I believe that's how I got Evander Kane on a decent contract.

I mean I don't see this being as big an issue overall though. Players will generally get re-signed if the team has the cap space, and if they're worth it value-wise, no matter young or old. The only ones I can see that won't will be centers (as happened this year) as it's the deepest position coupled with the highest extension values.

Totally possible I have it backward but there's two different elements here so not sure holding up Bergeron alone is enough to say so. With regards to the salary limit, I get the argument that if GM's have to commit to term they are less likely to sign a certain age of player, but you can also see where it would be a bargain to lock a younger star up for 5 years at only $6.5m. It all depends on which end you are looking from.

As far as collapsing a couple tiers in the middle, to be honest I don't know what that would do. In Backyard players of any salary can re-sign for a year at a time. I'm not in favour of that but it does puts upward pressure on contracts for younger players. Though I'll admit for players like Bergeron they just get signed forever to a string of one year contracts as their production declines.

I'd also hate the 1-year at a time extension, as in that sense you can just extend a player 1 year at a time in case he gets injured, which would lower his re-sign value.

[jmtrops]

for prospects what if we did a 85% and have the years varible. upto 5M for 5 years, 5M-6M for 6 years, 6M-7M for 7 years and over 7M for 8 years. also maybe the 2M min should be higher. like 3m?

[SlackJack]

Posted by: WestCoastExpress
I'd also hate the 1-year at a time extension, as in that sense you can just extend a player 1 year at a time in case he gets injured, which would lower his re-sign value.

To be clear I'm not suggesting that. But refresh on the extension limits set a decade ago? Yes please.

Posted by: WestCoastExpress
Could also just do away with in-season extensions too...

Makes sense to me, it's infrequently used anyways.

[Rob]

To be clear I'm not suggesting that. But refresh on the extension limits set a decade ago? Yes please.

I am glad you're not suggesting that since it was one of the only things I didn't like about BY.  But you do have a point.  Our salary cap has increased by 25% since inception in 2011.  Should our contract limits be updated to match that increase?  Here's what a 25% bump in the figures looks like - not too different from Slack's suggestion.  To be clear, I haven't fully wrapped my head around how this helps/hurts us. 

Contract Limits
Except for any contract inherited in 2011, all contracts must be no longer than five years. Also, for a given salary, all contracts have term limits (max years contract can be per the yearly salary) as provided below.

Salary - Max Years
$6.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$4.5 to $6.4m - 4 years
$2.5 to $4.4m - 3 years
$0 to $2.4m - 2 years

Contract Limits for Extensions
Contract extensions follow the contract maximum lengths as shown above as well as their own minimum standards.

Salary - Min & Max Years
$8.0m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$6.5 to $7.9m - 4 or 5 years
$4.5 to $6.4m - 3 or 4 years
$2.5 to $4.4m - 2 or 3 years
$0 to $2.4m - 1 or 2 years

[SlackJack]

Posted by: Rob
To be clear, I haven't fully wrapped my head around how this helps/hurts us. 

Same here. Cally and Shooter are probably right with their examples but I think there would be others that balance it out?? Regardless you can see that at some point we'll be forced to account for inflation. Apparently $6.5 million ain't what it used to be! 

If we're serious but not certain (about any changes really), we can aim to adopt in 2020-2021. Monitor this years free-agency and extension periods and keep the commentary going throughout the year? Would love to do the same for blocked shots and/or other suggestions.

[Rob]

Same here. Cally and Shooter are probably right with their examples but I think there would be others that balance it out?? Regardless you can see that at some point we'll be forced to account for inflation. Apparently $6.5 million ain't what it used to be! 

If we're serious but not certain (about any changes really), we can aim to adopt in 2020-2021. Monitor this years free-agency and extension periods and keep the commentary going throughout the year? Would love to do the same for blocked shots and/or other suggestions.

Blocked Shots should probably happen.  I've stood against it due to how it would change existing values.  Also I hate the stat... But I think I agree that it would help out D players value compared to forwards and goalies.