21
Dynasty NHL / Re: Extension cost discussion
« on: April 25, 2024, 02:06:13 PM »
I think in its totality the extension setup we have is plenty conducive to building a "Dynasty". The top players in the league (top 50 or so) cost about the same as they would have cost before the change. It's the next level of 'above average' to 'average' talent that are more pricey than they were in the old extension rules. Teams have tough decisions in this bracket of talent. And that's true of the NHL as well. Most competitive teams will spend big on their top line, top D pairing and their Goalie, then add veterans and young guns to fill out their middle six and beyond. A guy like Tyler Bertuzzi, who I'd consider 'above average', but not elite, will inevitably end up in Free Agency. I think that's how it should be.
This setup certainly makes it harder to maintain a full, deep roster - even if you've built it from the bottom up with lots of Prospect Discounts. But, Free Agency is the tool to make up for that.
And, let's face it - Hockey is not a sport that's conducive to "Dynasties" in the traditional sense. When was the last real NHL dynasty? The Oilers in the 80's? There's just too much parity in the modern NHL. I'm fairly certain that our player turnover with these rules is still less than actual NHL teams player turnover.
This setup certainly makes it harder to maintain a full, deep roster - even if you've built it from the bottom up with lots of Prospect Discounts. But, Free Agency is the tool to make up for that.
And, let's face it - Hockey is not a sport that's conducive to "Dynasties" in the traditional sense. When was the last real NHL dynasty? The Oilers in the 80's? There's just too much parity in the modern NHL. I'm fairly certain that our player turnover with these rules is still less than actual NHL teams player turnover.