ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: GypsieDeathBringer on July 17, 2019, 05:23:14 PM
-
I brought this up last year to bring us more in line with the way the NHL is giving out contracts, and maybe I should wait until the bulk of the NHL RFAs sign this year to make a conclusion, but I think our 70% is really undervaluing these players now. It was pretty spot on up until last year with Matthews, Eichel, McDavid, Nylander, Larkin, Draisaitl, etc. signing their deals. Those players are making half as much in our league as they are in the NHL, and it might make sense if after their DNHL deal was up their next contract paid them 250% to make up for it, but that isn't even possible with some of these guys. McDavid, Draisaitl, Eichel can't make 17m a year to make up for what they made in the prospect extension. Nylander, Larkin, Ehlers, and the other RFAs that took 5 year NHL deals are just straight up making half as much in our league.
I'm thinking like a 10-15% discount would work out if we are trying to keep a hometown feel to the teams.
-
I brought this up last year to bring us more in line with the way the NHL is giving out contracts, and maybe I should wait until the bulk of the NHL RFAs sign this year to make a conclusion, but I think our 70% is really undervaluing these players now. It was pretty spot on up until last year with Matthews, Eichel, McDavid, Nylander, Larkin, Draisaitl, etc. signing their deals. Those players are making half as much in our league as they are in the NHL, and it might make sense if after their DNHL deal was up their next contract paid them 250% to make up for it, but that isn't even possible with some of these guys. McDavid, Draisaitl, Eichel can't make 17m a year to make up for what they made in the prospect extension. Nylander, Larkin, Ehlers, and the other RFAs that took 5 year NHL deals are just straight up making half as much in our league.
I'm thinking like a 10-15% discount would work out if we are trying to keep a hometown feel to the teams.
That's pretty radical.
-
I brought this up last year to bring us more in line with the way the NHL is giving out contracts, and maybe I should wait until the bulk of the NHL RFAs sign this year to make a conclusion, but I think our 70% is really undervaluing these players now. It was pretty spot on up until last year with Matthews, Eichel, McDavid, Nylander, Larkin, Draisaitl, etc. signing their deals. Those players are making half as much in our league as they are in the NHL, and it might make sense if after their DNHL deal was up their next contract paid them 250% to make up for it, but that isn't even possible with some of these guys. McDavid, Draisaitl, Eichel can't make 17m a year to make up for what they made in the prospect extension. Nylander, Larkin, Ehlers, and the other RFAs that took 5 year NHL deals are just straight up making half as much in our league.
I'm thinking like a 10-15% discount would work out if we are trying to keep a hometown feel to the teams.
I'd support it, given the price of normal extensions is also so high
I mean as it stands, we get prospect players regardless of #1 overall or a 6th rounder at $0.5m per year, for what, 2-3 years? And then another 5 years on top of that at a significantly decreased price point? That is a lot of years at a cheap price.
Look at Marner coming off his ELC and will now get north of $10m per year, in his year-4 season.
I mean, hey, by all means I am all in to hold off on this thought for 2 years on this because next off-season I've got a bunch of guys expiring, haha, but I think overall it would be a good thing to do.
-
thats a valid point if DNHL is trying to mirror the NHL. My understanding is that we are not, but I am all for being closer to real life. To do that though there are a bunch of things that would need to change also.
-
thats a valid point if DNHL is trying to mirror the NHL. My understanding is that we are not, but I am all for being closer to real life. To do that though there are a bunch of things that would need to change also.
Agree, we're not trying to mirror. Prospect discount exists in part to give the bottom feeders a somewhat increased chance to become competitive quicker. It's a small advantage as the bottom teams can warehouse more prospects in bulk but the top tier teams get to use it too.
It comes up every year... I think there was a lengthy thread on this along with offer sheets and such.
-
I don't think you will ever get DNHL to match the exact realism of the NHL. The NHL has 31 teams with a salary cap of 81.5 million (2.5265 Billion Dollars in potential total salary). DNHL has 20 teams with an 87m salary cap (1.74 Billion Dollars in potential salary). That means that the NHL has 45% more salary to spend.
The NHL has 31 teams that each can have a roster of 23 players (713 total roster spots). DNHL on the other hand has 20 teams with 30 roster spots. That means that the NHL has about 19% more players possible then DNHL.
2.5265 Billion divided by 713 roster spots means there is on average $3.45 million for every roster spot in the NHL. 1.740 Billion divided by 600 roster spots gets us an average of $2.9 million for every roster spot in DNHL.
With all the differences I don't think you will ever get it to match exactly. The NHL pays some defensive defensemen a lot of money because they have value to them while they don't have nearly the same value in our league (Vlasic, Seabrook, Johnson). This raises the price of defensemen extensions in the league (Although this was addressed with the 33% reduction in resign values compared to actual contracts).
Younger players having more bargaining power in the current NHL system and are getting better deals because of it. This is a change in the NHL that has only happened recently. Mackinnon, Barkov, Klingberg, Seth Jones, Ekholm, Schiefele are just a few of the players who are on great long term discount contracts in the real NHL. As younger players sign for higher values our re-sign values will also naturally increase.
-
We don't need to match the NHL to a T, but our salary cap and resign values are pulled from the NHL, so when star players are making half as much in our league it is irksome to me only because they contribute greatly to a teams production and thus have great value. The only contracts that are really different in our league than the NHL are defensive players and that is because defense has no value in our league, so we don't pay for it. Conor McDavid does have value as the best center in our league for 3 years. His value was set in the NHL to be 12.5m a year and we are paying him 7.4m. A huge difference for the huge level of production he brings to our league.
If the difference was paying Marc-Edward Vlasic .9m a year in DNHL vs 7m a year in the NHL that doesn't really matter because he doesn't produce in our league and has relatively little value. Nobody would be gaining vast amounts of high level cheap production with him.
-
We don't need to match the NHL to a T, but our salary cap and resign values are pulled from the NHL, so when star players are making half as much in our league it is irksome to me only because they contribute greatly to a teams production and thus have great value. The only contracts that are really different in our league than the NHL are defensive players and that is because defense has no value in our league, so we don't pay for it. Conor McDavid does have value as the best center in our league for 3 years. His value was set in the NHL to be 12.5m a year and we are paying him 7.4m. A huge difference for the huge level of production he brings to our league.
If the difference was paying Marc-Edward Vlasic .9m a year in DNHL vs 7m a year in the NHL that doesn't really matter because he doesn't produce in our league and has relatively little value. Nobody would be gaining vast amounts of high level cheap production with him.
:iatp:
Agreed with everything said. Top D are only what, just over $5m, and then downwards from there. So it would even put the high forward contracts. No $9mnfor PK or $10m for Karlsson or $8m for a Trouba in this league.
-
I would be ok with a 15%, 4 year prospect discount with a minimum value of $3m.
I would also be ok with bumping up the extension values of the top 10 D a little bit and leaving the rest similar to where they are.
I think it's important that we keep having these conversations about the health/improvement of the league, we monitor the general cap situation in the league, as well as general parity (keeping in mind there will also be rebuilders). Maybe if we lowered the minor league roster size back to 10, it'd create more tough decisions and some prospects would go to FA and get bigger contracts, or get redrafted and make GMs have to be even more strategic during the supplemental draft. I'll never forgot that I dropped Larkin to keep Haydn Fleury because I thought Detroit was years away from calling him up... :doh:
-
I would be ok with a 15%, 4 year prospect discount with a minimum value of $3m.
I would also be ok with bumping up the extension values of the top 10 D a little bit and leaving the rest similar to where they are.
I think it's important that we keep having these conversations about the health/improvement of the league, we monitor the general cap situation in the league, as well as general parity (keeping in mind there will also be rebuilders). Maybe if we lowered the minor league roster size back to 10, it'd create more tough decisions and some prospects would go to FA and get bigger contracts, or get redrafted and make GMs have to be even more strategic during the supplemental draft. I'll never forgot that I dropped Larkin to keep Haydn Fleury because I thought Detroit was years away from calling him up... :doh:
I also like the idea of bumping up the top 10 d-men or maybe even top 20 as the the league is getting higher scoring.
-
I like the idea of transitioning DNHL to a money league.
-
I like the idea of transitioning DNHL to a money league.
:rofl: Nahhh
-
I like the idea of transitioning DNHL to a money league.
Nope
-
Nope
Of course not. Clearly that's a direction most people don't want to go in. My point is that rather than suddenly cranking the steering wheel from left to right we would be better served having a clear sense of where exactly we are trying to go.
Instead of big adjustments, any changes we make should be incremental over time. If we are aiming to more closely match the NHL and have more realistic contracts then we can aim for that. If we want more Free Agency action, that too is something we can achieve. But let's first understand why things are as they are now.
Prospect contracts aren't intended to provide realistic NHL values so much as they provide a mechanism for teams to retain good young talent that they have developed. I see no reason presented here to change that other than the argument that the dollar amounts don't more closely resemble those in the NHL.
As mentioned earlier there are a LOT of different approaches we can take as long as we have a clear a direction. Is NHL realism the objective? Is it the only one?
-
Of course not. Clearly that's a direction most people don't want to go in. My point is that rather than suddenly cranking the steering wheel from left to right we would be better served having a clear sense of where exactly we are trying to go.
Instead of big adjustments, any changes we make should be incremental over time. If we are aiming to more closely match the NHL and have more realistic contracts then we can aim for that. If we want more Free Agency action, that too is something we can achieve. But let's first understand why things are as they are now.
Prospect contracts aren't intended to provide realistic NHL values so much as they provide a mechanism for teams to retain good young talent that they have developed. I see no reason presented here to change that other than the argument that the dollar amounts don't more closely resemble those in the NHL.
As mentioned earlier there are a LOT of different approaches we can take as long as we have a clear a direction. Is NHL realism the objective? Is it the only one?
I don't think DNHL has been about NHL realism, but our contract values have always been directly tied to the NHL. The league started with the exact contracts of the NHL. We use the exact resign values from the NHL. Our salary cap is modified from the exact NHL salary cap. The structure and mechanics of our league are our own, but the contract values are very closely aligned with the NHL.
The biggest departure is we adapted the d-man contract reduction to suit our league because at the time d-men contract values were pushing down the FA values of more productive forwards.
But, yeah. Maybe this is just an issue I have and doesn't need to be changed. I see the prospect extensions as they are today with the current NHL balance relying more on younger players as being too big a competitive advantage. Too easy to stock up on a fleet of low cost high production.
-
I don't think DNHL has been about NHL realism, but our contract values have always been directly tied to the NHL. The league started with the exact contracts of the NHL. We use the exact resign values from the NHL. Our salary cap is modified from the exact NHL salary cap. The structure and mechanics of our league are our own, but the contract values are very closely aligned with the NHL.
The biggest departure is we adapted the d-man contract reduction to suit our league because at the time d-men contract values were pushing down the FA values of more productive forwards.
But, yeah. Maybe this is just an issue I have and doesn't need to be changed. I see the prospect extensions as they are today with the current NHL balance relying more on younger players as being too big a competitive advantage. Too easy to stock up on a fleet of low cost high production.
I'm with you right to your last statement. As a bottom feeder I have no choice but to load up on prospects and, discount notwithstanding, there is nothing easy about it. Even if I wasn't tanking (super valid strategy) I'd still be less than competitive because the top rosters are loaded and look nothing like an actual NHL roster. For every area that we copy the NHL we stray far from it in others. Take roster construction for example. How do I get my hands on one of the few NHL starting goalies nevermind the 3-4 that it actually takes to win the cup!
This isn't a criticism mind you, just pointing out that we have to be careful with what it is we are actually trying to do. That's why I'd support a move to reduce the prospect discount marginally (say to 25% rather than the current 30%), though I would also like to see this done in conjunction wit a number of other "tweaks".
-
How do I get my hands on one of the few NHL starting goalies nevermind the 3-4 that it actually takes to win the cup!
You give up some combination of about 8-10 TOP prospects/young players/1st Round Picks. Hurts, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do to land a top-tier netminder.
That said, it didn't translate into "winning the Cup" for my lousy franchise. Again. :puke:
-
You give up some combination of about 8-10 TOP prospects/young players/1st Round Picks. Hurts, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do to land a top-tier netminder.
That said, it didn't translate into "winning the Cup" for my lousy franchise. Again. :puke:
I was thinking of your Vasilevski trade as I wrote that line Cally, and I will pay that price when the time is right but obviously very different arc's in our roster development. :toth:
-
As usual we need to strike a balance between NHL realism and what works and makes for good Fantasy fun. The two components that need to be addressed in discussing this are:
- The discounts are there to encourage building from within (a 'Fantasy fun' component) and increased value of said prospects is purposeful. We are 9 years in now. The original inherited contracts are gone. The most valuable players in the league are those in their 5 year discounted contracts given their production vs cost. If you want a shot at the most valuable players, you have to groom them yourself or pay out the nose. I like that.
- Everything Slack said... From my point of view, keeping the bottom 5 or so teams from falling apart completely has been my most onerous task. We always have someone that stops paying attention, or someone who is too trade happy and ruins a franchise. I can't go and court someone to take over a derelict franchise without giving them some tools to rebuild with. The discount is crucial for these franchises...
-
As usual we need to strike a balance between NHL realism and what works and makes for good Fantasy fun. The two components that need to be addressed in discussing this are:
- The discounts are there to encourage building from within (a 'Fantasy fun' component) and increased value of said prospects is purposeful. We are 9 years in now. The original inherited contracts are gone. The most valuable players in the league are those in their 5 year discounted contracts given their production vs cost. If you want a shot at the most valuable players, you have to groom them yourself or pay out the nose. I like that.
- Everything Slack said... From my point of view, keeping the bottom 5 or so teams from falling apart completely has been my most onerous task. We always have someone that stops paying attention, or someone who is too trade happy and ruins a franchise. I can't go and court someone to take over a derelict franchise without giving them some tools to rebuild with. The discount is crucial for these franchises...
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
Posted by: Rob
To be clear, I haven't fully wrapped my head around how this helps/hurts us.
:rofl: 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! :rofl:
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.
-
:rofl: 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! :rofl:
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.
-
If you want a shot at the most valuable players, you have to groom them yourself or pay out the nose. I like that.
Random related ideas. Consider the over-all effect when a few are stacked together.
1) Reduce the number of prospect discount contracts rather than reducing the discount (or term) itself. By limiting discount eligibility to players that have been drafted through the keeper (or supplemental) draft you would cut the number of discount contracts in half. It would also greatly increase the value of picks through the 3rd round.
2) Make discounted contracts non-movable. If discounts include a NTC how would that affect their value? Do GM's really want to commit to term on an unproven prospect if it is now not trade-able? If supplemental picks are made the only ones eligible for discount, and those same prospects are given a NTC, their value would skyrocket.
3) Drop the 3rd round supplemental (or keeper) pick. As it is the league is awash in picks and prospects. The leading teams all have assets to burn so it is really quite easy to 'pay out the nose'. Sharp GM's know that prospects are plentiful as we can quickly re-load with at least six new picks every year. When re-stocking the cupboard is so easy it makes sense to move out assets in bulk.
4) Let GM's relocate their franchise. Opening a window that gives us the option to move once every 5 years would let GM's move on from franchises with poor drafting and development (especially if keeper picks we're the only ones to be discount eligible). It will also refresh and inject life into franchises (GM's) that are feeling stagnant. If a GM decides to stay put they would not be able to re-locate until the next 5 year window opens.
Probably this is all too much but I wanted to put it up against the chatter about reducing discount term to 3 years. There are a lot of other approaches to look at.
-
here is another Idea as far as keepers go. This would make it easier for the last place teams to get competitive while maintaining a tie to your keeper team. select keepers after our supplemental draft. you would be able to select any player on your keepers team that meets the minimum requirements no matter what year they were drafted. also if you have 4 spots available you should be able to select 4 keepers.