Proposal to change extension method

[Rob]

Already addressed that Rob. I'm at yes on your changes....have an open mind.

Stamkos earned a $68m contract after busting his knee and playing 17 games.  That's an annual value of $8.5m.  If he renewed here under the average of 2 years at the same time he'd earn $4.8m.  He makes $9.5m here under the current rules and if he was renewed under the new rules back in 2016 after the injury he'd make $7m.

Using the best year of the 2 does present some outliers - but I believe using the average presents more. 

[SlackJack]

I didn't feel like pulling prior numbers :/

Right? 

I think it's important to get this part of it right. No way a players extension should be based on a single year, and I think you'd agree. But I understand if there's a problem with the amount of labour involved to get a weighted average. Would it be so hard to chart the best two of the last three years in Excel?

[SlackJack]

Stamkos earned a $68m contract after busting his knee and playing 17 games.  That's an annual value of $8.5m.  If he renewed here under the average of 2 years at the same time he'd earn $4.8m.  He makes $9.5m here under the current rules and if he was renewed under the new rules back in 2016 after the injury he'd make $7m.

Using the best year of the 2 does present some outliers - but I believe using the average presents more.

I've moved beyond the average of two years to the best two of the last three.

[Rob]

Right? 

I think it's important to get this part of it right. No way a players extension should be based on a single year, and I think you'd agree. But I understand if there's a problem with the amount of labour involved to get a weighted average. Would it be so hard to chart the best two of the last three years in Excel?

It makes no difference in my comparisons though.  In my list of top 25 - there will always be a top 25 with different values, so any sample works for that comparison.  And on the 2 rosters I picked it's a non-factor.

It's important to get that right when you're reviewing your roster to see the changes.  But my comparisons hold fine. 

[jmtrops]

Jim - could you do the math to tell me what your total cap hit would be if you extended all of your players under the current rules vs the cap hit extending all your players under the new rules?

I'd then like to compare you with a few of the top teams.  I have a feeling they will suffer more than you.  And if that's the case, then I'm still OK putting you all through this right away.  If we find there's a discrepancy and teams like yours suffer more than those at the top, then I might agree with your subsequent idea of allowing extensions now without the rule of matching the existing contract value - to let teams like yours get adjusted.

I'll run some numbers on a few other teams as well.

next year if I extend under our current rules I would have 8.8M in cap space. next year under the new rule I would be 3.6M over the cap. Its a 12.4M swing. I can sign some guys early transferring some of the cap to next year which is what Ill do. I still think we should do this but just want to see how many teams are going to be in the same cap problem.

Ill look at a few teams but it wont be until tonight

[Rob]

next year if I extend under our current rules I would have 8.8M in cap space. next year under the new rule I would be 3.6M over the cap. Its a 12.4M swing. I can sign some guys early transferring some of the cap to next year which is what Ill do. I still think we should do this but just want to see how many teams are going to be in the same cap problem.

Ill look at a few teams but it wont be until tonight

Gotcha - I will do the same.

[shooter47]

I've moved beyond the average of two years to the best two of the last three.

The biggest downside to going back three years to me is that extensions for older declining players are going to go up. Say you have a player who 3 years ago had his last great season. 2 years ago he had a so so season but was starting to decline. 1 year ago he had a season where he continued to decline. I would have to extend him based on the average player he was 3 and 2 years ago. Honestly I don't really care what a player did for me 3 years ago. I value what has he done for me recently and what I can expect moving forward.

[SlackJack]

The biggest downside to going back three years to me is that extensions for older declining players are going to go up. Say you have a player who 3 years ago had his last great season. 2 years ago he had a so so season but was starting to decline. 1 year ago he had a season where he continued to decline. I would have to extend him based on the average player he was 3 and 2 years ago. Honestly I don't really care what a player did for me 3 years ago. I value what has he done for me recently and what I can expect moving forward.

I hear you but when we're extending contracts for 5 years at a time I think the previous 3 are completely relevant. Certainly they would be relevant in an actual contract negotiation or arbitration (good, bad, and ugly). What if we're talking about a Joffery Lupul type player that is injured all the time? Base his contract off one high year or build in some accounting for lost games?

But maybe it will take some numbers to compare.

[Rob]

I hear you but when we're extending contracts for 5 years at a time I think the previous 3 are completely relevant. Certainly they would be relevant in an actual contract negotiation or arbitration (good, bad, and ugly). What if we're talking about a Joffery Lupul type player that is injured all the time? Base his contract off one high year or build in some accounting for lost games?

But maybe it will take some numbers to compare.

It just occurred to me that this will water down the economy as a whole.  Slack, it actually is mutually exclusive with the larger change due to what it would do to the whole value scheme.  All players would come down a notch since they would never get paid for their best seasons.

This change would put a dent in the entire scheme, I think.  We'd need to do a whole lot more math.

[SlackJack]

We'd need to do a whole lot more math.