Proposal to change extension method

[Rob]

Updated my math a bit.  The comparison of the existing range and the one created by this would actually create a range of $3m-$9m instead of $2m-$9m.  And the overall effect on the 675 contracts we're comparing is nearly double.  Updated my last post with the new figures. 

[Rob]

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

[Rob]

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

And the options to scale either plan would be:

• 3 years - due to the 15% drop we don't need to adjust for Blocks.  Technically we should decrease the cap by a few million, but we could leave it there as a buffer for teams going into the change.
• 2 years - increase cap to $95m to accommodate Blocks

I still don't think 3 years does enough to make it worth the extra work.  Slack you keep mentioning an automated spreadsheet but that's not my expertise.  Shooter is an ace with that stuff - if he's willing and able to put something together so that I just copy and paste the players in year to year, then I agree it's the same amount of work.  But I kinda feel like that's a hard automation with some players having 3 years to account for, some 2, some 1.  I dunno.   If that spreadsheet is available to me, then I'll agree that it's not extra work.  Otherwise, it's extra work and not worth changing.  The 2 year other method is copy/paste and one simple equation down the whole sheet and it's done. 

[WestCoastExpress]

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.

[Rob]

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.

[WestCoastExpress]

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.

Best of 2 seasons is always how it's always been in here. Just throwing it out for discussion for the whole average thing.

The best of 2 plays a bit into some strategy - If you re-sign a guy early then you're banking on him doing better the current/next season that he did the past season. You'd have to use the past season as the "min" re-sign value anyways, so if you think he's going to out-perform that, then you can re-sign him early (like I did with Tyson Barrie). Even if he gets injured this season, the re-sign would be what it was for last year's production anyways.

With the average, say he gets injured on game 1 of this year and misses the whole season. His re-sign this year would probably be the min. re-sign value. Do I get "rewarded" with a discount on his re-sign because of this with the average of 2 years format? For the averaging it out route...would that make sense?
Or for the best of 2 - I miss 1 year of Barrie, but still have to pay him based on 2 years ago's production, pre-injury. Also I flat out miss 1 year of Barrie producing for me team but then still re-sign for full value.

All this though.. Comes into play because he was up for a re-sign year. If he was in the early stages of a 3-5 year contract in here, it wouldn't apply for injury nor would it matter at all.

There's arguments to both sides here. I just used one of my guys as an example. Not sure if any others would be in the same boat or not.
Personally I feel like Barrie will have a better season due to being on the Leafs, but who knows, I could be wrong.

[Anthony]

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.

[norrya66]

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.

 

[SlackJack]

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.

[Rob]

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.

I just saw the No Filter Tour in MA.  They were great!

Interesting thought about scaling to the NHL cap.  Although, since this isolates us from the NHL, we're going to find ourselves out of whack with the NHL either way. So if we adjust to the NHL now it will look really nice for a couple years, then as NHL inflation takes its course we'll be left with our model which will never change.