Proposal to change extension method

[Rob]

Solid convo happening here, I like it.

I already told Slack via PM that the only big problem with 3 years (I think someone else pointed out as well), as that is quite a long period of time for a player.

Especially if say a player is 31 going on 32, and needs an extension.
He's still a productive player, but very much expected to start to see a decline in the coming years. And, you'd have to extend the player based on his 29, 30, and 31 year old seasons. Assuming for the most part that the 29 and 30 seasons would be his best, that kind of sucks that you're paying a guy for what he did 3 and 2 years ago.

That said, there are always going to be loopholes and deals to be found, no matter what structure is used.

I mean, for us in here in fantasy, if a player is injured 2 years in a row (ie. Evander Kane), you know his re-sign will be cheaper and that plays a factor in trade value if he's being traded. It certainly did when I traded for him, as his re-sign was probably $1.5m less than it would have been had he been healthy for 1 of the re-sign years.
Generally speaking, if a player is injured 2 years in a row, it might affect his re-sign value in the real NHL too though, short of it being a Steven Stamkos type freak back to back year thing. A team wouldn't fork out a large chunk of money/cap to a guy that's shown to be injury prone, probably giving him a lesser money and shorter term deal to see if he stays healthy and produces like he did before injury. Again, Stamkos is kind of an outlier there I would say as he was a 50-goal guy before injury.

One other suggestion to toss out there for re-signing players... Is not looking at Total FanPts, but looking at FanPts per game.
In the Evander Kane scenario, when healthy, he was still putting up pretty good numbers (3 fanpts/game lets say), but since he was injured and other players who maybe scored 1.8 fanpts/game played 80 games, instead of Kane's 45 games, they would have finished ahead of him in the rankings due to it going on total points. (Don't quote me on those numbers, I'm not a math guy, they're just random estimates).

It would negate the injury factor 2 years in a row for us... Not sure if that's what we're going for or not though.

All in all, there's a lot of different ways to look at it though.

As for timeline... The only thing that is interesting to add on top of higher re-sign values for the most part, is we're adding blocked shots. So come next off-season, we're adding 2 elements that will drastically affect re-sign values, where a guy like Johnny Boychuck goes from irrelevant, to fairly relevant due to his hits and blocks. That's just a random name I threw out there, but there are a few guys like that on D that get you nice hits and blocks (Roman Polak another that comes to mind from previous years).
Might be a good idea to stagger those 2 (fairly large I'd say) changes, if enough people have an issue on it.

The extension change happens over time, as players are extended.  So like I was saying before - it's generally going to take adjusting from everyone, but if we do it immediately, it's going to especially hard on like, 5 teams.  And if wait a year it's just another 5 teams that take the initial brunt of it.  It'll take a good 3-5 years before everyone is paying the new prices. 

I certainly don't want to delay Blocked Shots.  It's unanimous and I've grown excited about it (says the guy that fought against it all these years... )

[Rob]

I think maybe I'll poll it as a Yes or No for the change and then poll the timeline separately?

[jmtrops]

I agree with rob if we are going to do it let just do it. there are several things we can do to over come it. we can sign some guys earlier and save 1M-2M on them. and dont discount releasing them to FA. There are going to be a bunch of good guys in FA and you will be able to get them cheaper than what it would cost you with the current rules I think.

[Rob]

What if we wait to add Blocked Shots until after the extension period? This would give one final year of extensions based on the old stats. Then once extensions are done, we add it in for the 20/21 season. This would help mitigate the cost shocks from both changes at once.

[WestCoastExpress]

There are going to be a bunch of good guys in FA and you will be able to get them cheaper than what it would cost you with the current rules I think.

A few of you keep saying this, but I don't know about that. We all know that FA gets crazy and hectic and some people get emotional and overpay, especially if they've got cap space.

ie. Jake Guentzel

I'll be interested to see what Giroux goes for in a month, obviously being the biggest fish in the FA pool based on production and age.

It'll also be interesting to see who pays up for Giordano and Bergeron given their age.

That said, I fully expect Arizona, Ottawa and Boston to get into a bidding war for those players plus any other top FA, so they can trade them fully paid for, for future assets.

That said, AZ has the most cap space so he'll get Giroux in all likelihood, haha. Boston and Ottawa can at least make him pay out the yin yang so they can at least settle on one of the other guys.

[Rob]

A few of you keep saying this, but I don't know about that. We all know that FA gets crazy and hectic and some people get emotional and overpay, especially if they've got cap space.

ie. Jake Guentzel

I'll be interested to see what Giroux goes for in a month, obviously being the biggest fish in the FA pool based on production and age.

It'll also be interesting to see who pays up for Giordano and Bergeron given their age.

That said, I fully expect Arizona, Ottawa and Boston to get into a bidding war for those players plus any other top FA, so they can trade them fully paid for, for future assets.

That said, AZ has the most cap space so he'll get Giroux in all likelihood, haha. Boston and Ottawa can at least make him pay out the yin yang so they can at least settle on one of the other guys.

It's simple math -> more players in the pool/supply and demand.  That means the Giroux/Bergeron's should go for less (not that they'll specifically be in the FA pool next year).  The rules don't change the situation for teams with cap to spend - they'd do the same thing under the current rules.

[jmtrops]

A few of you keep saying this, but I don't know about that. We all know that FA gets crazy and hectic and some people get emotional and overpay, especially if they've got cap space.

ie. Jake Guentzel

I'll be interested to see what Giroux goes for in a month, obviously being the biggest fish in the FA pool based on production and age.

It'll also be interesting to see who pays up for Giordano and Bergeron given their age.

That said, I fully expect Arizona, Ottawa and Boston to get into a bidding war for those players plus any other top FA, so they can trade them fully paid for, for future assets.

That said, AZ has the most cap space so he'll get Giroux in all likelihood, haha. Boston and Ottawa can at least make him pay out the yin yang so they can at least settle on one of the other guys.

also they have to have the open roster spots to be able to sign a bunch of those guys even if they plan on trading them and those rebuilding teams will be full of drafted players so they may only be able to do that for 1 or 2 guys. WAS looks like they are in the best position with only 21 guys on there roster, only 3 draft pix next year and a lot of cap space, to take advantage of that.

[Anthony]

I'm all for the original proposal. I think it's much simpler and in a free league like this, that's for the best. There's been a lot to take in on this discussion, but I generally think that the easiest idea is the best idea.

Sorry if I missed it but has anyone run the numbers on how the new system affects blocked shots and does that push contracts too high for our salary cap? I also think we can't delay adding blocked shots or the players who will benefit from it the most will get scooped up in this FA for cheaper than their projected value in preparation for next year when their value gets bumped up.

[Rob]

Sorry if I missed it but has anyone run the numbers on how the new system affects blocked shots and does that push contracts too high for our salary cap? I also think we can't delay adding blocked shots or the players who will benefit from it the most will get scooped up in this FA for cheaper than their projected value in preparation for next year when their value gets bumped up.

No, I didn't do that.  I'll run them tonight to make sure the pricing doesn't go wonky.  If anything we can adjust the base figure down from 25k to accommodate that.  And if we adjust for that in advance, we won't have to worry about delaying the BS stat from hitting next years extensions.  Unless we still want to do that anyway to help lighten the blow in year one?

[Rob]

No, I didn't do that.  I'll run them tonight to make sure the pricing doesn't go wonky.  If anything we can adjust the base figure down from 25k to accommodate that.  And if we adjust for that in advance, we won't have to worry about delaying the BS stat from hitting next years extensions.  Unless we still want to do that anyway to help lighten the blow in year one?

Ran some numbers - in order to scale the plan to the economy with the addition of BS, we need to adjust the base figure from $25k to $23k.  This puts us almost perfectly on the money scale from before. 

Adding BS increases the economy from $2.4B to $2.6B.  Reducing to $23k per point brings us right back to $2.4B.