ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Archive => Backyard NHL => Archive => Backyard NHL: Archives => Topic started by: Anthony on September 01, 2020, 12:20:07 PM
-
Wanted to open up a discussion about a contraction. We've struggled to keep a full 20 teams, and with very few new members coming to the site there's not a big pool to pull from. With that being said we're exploring contracting to 18 teams, removing the two vacent ones (Detroit and New York). We have the support from at least 4 of us.
There would need to be a plan in place if we went ahead, and to consider all the pros and cons. I'm opening up this thread for discussion on the general consensus on support/opposition of contraction, as well as thoughts on the best plan of action for it if we do proceed.
Things that need to be considered: how majors/minors players are made available, any free drops, change in salary cap, change in roster size, etc.
From here we'll take all the ideas presented and move ahead with what we best see fit for the league.
-
moving jlapo's idea to this thread :
I will support a contraction but if we go ahead I suggest that we hold a special draft lottery based on teams available ( separate lottery rounds) for their NHL roster so every team will have an equal chance to draft at least x players. Not sure however that some teams will have enough cap space to acquire top players so each team should have x free drops after the special draft. All minors should go back to minor draft or special separate draft as well
-
Even though we have a long way to go until next season I am not in favor of contraction this year.
Potentially open to the idea next off season but same time I don't think it is too difficult to find 2 GMs. Even with site losing traffic we are an established and competitive league so I'm sure between now and start of next year (whenver official opening day is) we can bring on 2 more solid GMs. The 18 teams with GMs have almost all been active since we allowed for offseason acitivyt and this alone should help attract a couple others to join and take on the challenge.
Plus, my main reason against contraction is that there has already been good activity and personally I made some moves to utilize my cap space already. If we contract I don't see a fair way to divide the players when teams have varying cap space to work with, even if we work in something like a free drop and other tweaks I am not a fan.
With that said, even though I vote no, if it turns out the majority of league really wants to contract I would be ok with it.
-
there are many options here. first I do have some interest in someone to take 1 of the teams but he has not committed to taking one yet.
if we do contract the 2 do we give teams the opportunity to switch team, those 2 are good teams and better than half of our teams. If we dont contract I do have a plan to keep those teams running until we find owners.
if we do I see us following the draft rules we already have in place. we already do a prospect draft so players with under 40 games played go into that draft. we have a 2 round contraction draft for the other players. in reverse order of last years finish. there contracts stay in place and extensions are done to our rules.
problems I see are cap for some teams and roster space for others. I really dont like any of the options here, increase cap, increase roster spots or free drops.
Im leaning towards keeping the teams but if the majority wants to contract I could do that with little problems for my team.
-
Okay Anthony, I'm chiming in. :rofl:
Setting issues of timing and mechanics aside, I believe that it is not at all easy to find two solid GM's. To be honest I don't consider half of the GM's that we have now to be solid. And by that I mean that time and again activity and participation are generated by the same half-dozen people. There used to be a convention in this league that stipulated GM's were required to answer all mail and trade offers. That has since fallen by the wayside, and as active GM's have become increasingly more rare the new de-facto standard is to tolerate the silence of those operating on cruise control. How do we enforce any code of conduct when we're just happy to have people here?
Sure there are flurries of activity around key dates but that's not the same as healthy, consistent, and growing engagement. Obviously the glory days of this site are well behind us so if we are to continue here it would be best to play to our strengths. For me that means building on the small core of our small community. Historically Backyard has been an 18 team league that always had great conversation and competition. I think we can get back to this but we first have to admit we've got a niche league on a niche site. Figuring out the when and the how matters, but is less important than embracing a model based on exclusivity. Who knows, maybe one day we'll have a waiting list and we'll once again be able to take GM's to task for not answering their mail!
-
for me im ok what the majority decides. but i will vote "no" on having a contraction. because for now the only affected players are the players of unmanaged teams that will be part of a contraction draft to be pick by remaining teams. but my issue there is when the Earth backs to normal and the fantasy world goes back to normal, and the league will decide to expand teams again, then we will have an expansion draft and that will not only involve 2 teams but all teams though we can protect some players but still not all players are protected in the expansion draft that we will have a tough time deciding who will be protected and not be protected. unlike the unmanaged teams its easy to release players because no one is managing them.
if the leagues decision is "no", then just let the unmanaged team as is just put players on active positions and bench empty it there are few players, just let the future GM fill it up.
:toth:
-
Okay Anthony, I'm chiming in. :rofl:
Setting issues of timing and mechanics aside, I believe that it is not at all easy to find two solid GM's. To be honest I don't consider half of the GM's that we have now to be solid. And by that I mean that time and again activity and participation are generated by the same half-dozen people. There used to be a convention in this league that stipulated GM's were required to answer all mail and trade offers. That has since fallen by the wayside, and as active GM's have become increasingly more rare the new de-facto standard is to tolerate the silence of those operating on cruise control. How do we enforce any code of conduct when we're just happy to have people here?
Sure there are flurries of activity around key dates but that's not the same as healthy, consistent, and growing engagement. Obviously the glory days of this site are well behind us so if we are to continue here it would be best to play to our strengths. For me that means building on the small core of our small community. Historically Backyard has been an 18 team league that always had great conversation and competition. I think we can get back to this but we first have to admit we've got a niche league on a niche site. Figuring out the when and the how matters, but is less important than embracing a model based on exclusivity. Who knows, maybe one day we'll have a waiting list and we'll once again be able to take GM's to task for not answering their mail!
one of the problems I have with pm's is I dont know I have one unless I come to the site. it would be nice if I get an email telling me I have one also on some post, an email telling us a new post was made. maybe it can do it and I just couldnt find where to set it.
for me its not a problem because Im on here 6-8 times a day but others cant always be on every day because of life so they may only set there lineups 1 a week sometimes. if we limited the teams to only those really active ones we would be lucky to have 10 teams. now with the 2 missing we have isaman no one knows what happened to him but it must have been bad so he is not your usual MIA and I dont know anything about the other one but he seems more of the typical MIA. overall I think we are typical of the leagues on here
-
if the leagues decision is "no", then just let the unmanaged team as is just put players on active positions and bench empty it there are few players, just let the future GM fill it up.
:toth:
If we dont contract I would set the lineups for the teams until we find someone for them. for the draft I would ask the teams that have no draft picks sellect for them since there will be no conflict of interest there. we would open them up for trades but I would only do trades that strengthen those teams and also consult with a few others to make sure there is no conflict of interest but I dont anticipate that there would be much trading approved with them. same with extentions and roster decisions.
-
so looking at all our teams it looks like the cap would be a problem for only 2 teams so I dont see a cap change or free drops needed. same for roster size, there are only 3 teams at the max roster size.
-
I’m ok with going back to 18 teams. I think all players should go to free agency so I can see how much someone will pay for Draisaitl. :rofl: :rofl:
-
I'm in for a contraction this year. If it looks like 2-3 teams are running out of salary cap or roster space, allow 2-3 freedrops for all teams. All players go to free agency. And let's go :bump: ready for the fight! :koolaid:
-
I’m ok with going back to 18 teams. I think all players should go to free agency so I can see how much someone will pay for Draisaitl. :rofl: :rofl:
:iatp:
This would be the fairest and easiest way to do it. Disband the teams and release all players to free agency. No draft and no hassle. Give all teams a couple amnesty buy-outs so they can make cap space and away we go.
-
Addressing some comments I'm seeing:
1. I think at least 1 free drop is needed, give every team a fair share at free agency.
2. No rosters should be switched, you're stuck with what you've built and the Detroit/New York rosters get moved into FA.
3. Contraction would be permanent. Probably could have happened in years past, but I don't see us going back to 20 teams unless there was a sudden boom to the site and we had a waiting list.
-
:iatp:
This would be the fairest and easiest way to do it. Disband the teams and release all players to free agency. No draft and no hassle. Give all teams a couple amnesty buy-outs so they can make cap space and away we go.
Sounds like a plan. I vote for contraction. My other 2 concerns were games played for minors, which has been addressed, Thank you Anthony, Jmtrops. Two, enforcement of setting rosters, i'm not talking about once every 2 weeks, but the same gm's who consistently throughout the year could care less and barley set roster week after week. There has to be a penalty enforced.
-
:iatp: I'm with Winter here. LAW AND ORDER! (Sorry don't mean to trigger anyone!!) :rofl: :rofl:
-
since some teams have done all there resigns and others have not then I think we should be able to undo any of our resigns that were for this year as free drops.
-
since some teams have done all there resigns and others have not then I think we should be able to undo any of our resigns that were for this year as free drops.
In addition to any free drops maybe open up the free-waiver period now so people can do a proper re-set before free agency. It'll generate good energy here for sure if everyone has some chips to play with.
-
Dropping everyone into Free Agency scares me because of the max contract rule we have. Someone like MacKinnon is easily going to get a max contract right away from whoever is on when free agency opens which in turn makes it unfair for people who are not on at the time.
-
Dropping everyone into Free Agency scares me because of the max contract rule we have. Someone like MacKinnon is easily going to get a max contract right away from whoever is on when free agency opens which in turn makes it unfair for people who are not on at the time.
Or did we fix that rule??
-
Dropping everyone into Free Agency scares me because of the max contract rule we have. Someone like MacKinnon is easily going to get a max contract right away from whoever is on when free agency opens which in turn makes it unfair for people who are not on at the time.
So let GMs match max contracts and settle ties by snaking draft order.
-
So let GMs match max contracts and settle ties by snaking draft order.
Or we could do away with the max contract rule? :disco:
-
1. I think at least 1 free drop is needed, give every team a fair share at free agency.
the couple of teams that have low cap space will never have a fair chance if we do this in FA. Even with free drops most of the teams will have 20M to 30M in cap space so if the few with limited cap space can add 5 to 10M all the other teams will add the same and always be able to out bid them for the good players. for me with some free drops I will have over 30M so and with 24 good players the teams with the least amount of cap space dont get any of them unless we do it in a draft.
-
the couple of teams that have low cap space will never have a fair chance if we do this in FA. Even with free drops most of the teams will have 20M to 30M in cap space so if the few with limited cap space can add 5 to 10M all the other teams will add the same and always be able to out bid them for the good players. for me with some free drops I will have over 30M so and with 24 good players the teams with the least amount of cap space dont get any of them unless we do it in a draft.
This is why I am still suggesting a draft lottery (lottery for individual rounds) to pick from these two teams (main and minor roster) where there is also a lot of good players. Every team will have the chance to pick one or two good players with a resonable contract not the one created by the FA process for the main stars (for those who have enough money to pay) which could jeopardize the team's future. This will also allow the teams to have enough money to continue to bid on regular FA.
There are so many big names in these two teams that starting a bid war to acquire them might create a lot of problems with cap space for many years to come and teams will never be able to have a full roster
:thumbsup:
-
right now there are these cap #'s
1-41.5
5-between 22.2-28.4
8-between 9.8-19.8
2-between 5.1-7.6
2-between 1.6-2.6
with a little maneuvering I will be able to create another 22M in cap for a total of 37M and Im sure many of the teams can do that too so it will be very hard for those bottom 4 teams to get any of the 24 good players. Doing this in fa is good for me but the fairest way for the league is to do it in a draft. another way to look at it is the top 14 teams have 285M to buy 24 FA, thats an ave of 12M per player and thats before we create additional cap space.
-
I would do a draft based on reverse order of last years standings. I feel that is the fairest way To keep the league competitive or you will create even more league parity if the top teams get to add the best players on those teams for no cost besides cap space which we are going to give them for free with drops
-
I would do a draft based on reverse order of last years standings. I feel that is the fairest way To keep the league competitive or you will create even more league parity if the top teams get to add the best players on those teams for no cost besides cap space which we are going to give them for free with drops
:iatp:
-
A draft order involving the 18 teams generated by the system will give equal chance for every team and could still be good for teams with numerous picks (more chance to acquire the best players) and will not cost a fortune with their current contract in oppposition to a bidding war
-
A draft order involving the 18 teams generated by the system will give equal chance for every team and could still be good for teams with numerous picks (more chance to acquire the best players) and will not cost a fortune with their current contract in oppposition to a bidding war
I dont think every team should be given a chance at the higher picks. the fair way is to do a reverse order of finish no lottery
-
I dont think every team should be given a chance at the higher picks. the fair way is to do a reverse order of finish no lottery
:iatp:
I would be scared if the top teams won the lottery and got Draisaitl for absolutely nothing. Just pushes them so much further ahead then the rest of the pack.
-
I dont think every team should be given a chance at the higher picks. the fair way is to do a reverse order of finish no lottery
:iatp:
My previous comment was not making sense since I was making it based on the current draft order (with all traded picks) not the final standings.
I support the reverse order
-
Several good points made above and I appreciate the discussion. I am torn, as I see value in both positions. I probably lean toward keeping the teams with the goal of finding managers, but it does present problems with respect to trades and daily management of the club. I don't mean to waffle, so if I have to vote - leave the teams we have. If the majority feels different, I am good with that as well.
Finally, I strongly echo the point made by someone regarding getting notified about posts and emails. I used to get emails, but for some reason I don't anymore. I am always on email so receiving such a prompt would be highly preferred to having to login everytime. If anyone knows how to set this setting, please let me know.
Cheers,
Rob
-
I am not in favor of contraction, I feel that top managers will come out of the process with a stronger Team because of their abilities to find ways to acquire the best players. Keeping 2 openings will bring in new blood that could be an asset for our league.
If the majority wants to contract, like Vik said I would be ok with it.
-
I would do a draft based on reverse order of last years standings. I feel that is the fairest way To keep the league competitive or you will create even more league parity if the top teams get to add the best players on those teams for no cost besides cap space which we are going to give them for free with drops
I would say the same thing if I was getting the first pick. Haha
-
I am for the contraction because the pandemic that has warped the world of sports will continue for the future having people not apply themselves to the serious belief to CODIV-19.
-
Do not forget to vote. There is a poll underway for the contraction
-
Hey guys,
I am currently this season not in favour of contraction but maybe we need to get some stipulations around activity. I know I am not as activity as I once was but I try to answer any PMs and respond on the board but some don't but are still active.
I have some issues with contraction at the current time:
- I don't believe FA or reverse draft order are either a fair way of distributing players. I would say if we were able to prepare and knew the players were coming in advance of other transaction then maybe would be fairer. I would also say that the max contracts would need to be reevaluated as 10m is not a ridiculous amount now in comparison to when the max contract was put in. Reverse draft order wouldn't necessarily be fair as well because having the 1st overall pick in both the entry and a distribution draft seems like way more of a benefit then any other year.
- Contraction means that divisions will need to change or there will no longer be balance between divisions, unless we contracted by 4 teams. This would also change the playoff format, among other things I haven't thought about yet. We could go back to 3 divisions and a 8 team playoff again but I feel our current set up seems "more right".
I'm sure there are other things which we will come across by contracting such as salary inflation for players which will make currently contracted players way more valuable in trades and such.
-
I also didn't see the teams that are being talked about contraction prior to my previous post. Before possible contract would anyone like to move open to these 2 teams. They were both playoff teams and both teams have a good core and good goaltenders for use. The reverse draft order would then cause some possible issues with our 3 goalie max rule.
For example if I was able to land:
Andrei Vasilevskiy, $3.8m (2019-20), I would want him over say Joonas Korpisalo, $3.2m (2022-23) but if there was no free drop or I had to make my free drop prior to the draft, I wouldn't know if I could even select him or not or possibly risk dropping Korpisalo to maybe land another tender in the draft.
Just lots to think about.
-
I also didn't see the teams that are being talked about contraction prior to my previous post. Before possible contract would anyone like to move open to these 2 teams. They were both playoff teams and both teams have a good core and good goaltenders for use. The reverse draft order would then cause some possible issues with our 3 goalie max rule.
For example if I was able to land:
Andrei Vasilevskiy, $3.8m (2019-20), I would want him over say Joonas Korpisalo, $3.2m (2022-23) but if there was no free drop or I had to make my free drop prior to the draft, I wouldn't know if I could even select him or not or possibly risk dropping Korpisalo to maybe land another tender in the draft.
Just lots to think about.
:iatp: I hope we don’t rush this decision as well. We have time.
As for the goalie max issue. You should be able to take a goalie and be over your maximum as long as you drop, buyout Or trade one before the new season starts.
-
I keep going back and forth on this. In any situation we would have to rethink our max contract rule, as well as the minimum contract length rule. With the level of talent, I could see a non contenting team throwing 20m for 1 year to Draisaitl and then extending at a regular rate next year. On the other hand, if we kept the 10m max contract, it's just first come first serve which also isn't fair.
I'm against a draft. It gives way too much value into being bad and tanking. To the argument that the rich would only get richer: free agency always benenfits teams with more cap space and theres a strong corelation with bad teams and having a lot of cap space.
-
I love the nitty gritty details and fully agree we don't have to rush anything. But my focus with contraction remains big picture. Do we have a full slate of active participating GM's and /or is it likely that we will moving forward. It's hard not to make the case that we have had empty seats and MIA GM's for the last couple of years now. Over that time we have lost core members, some of which that were foundational to the league. So in a nutshell I'd say contraction let's us consolidate and build from strength. Last, I'm coming at this from a good place and with renewed energy. If I can help by moving to either DET or NYR just PM me.
-
I love the nitty gritty details and fully agree we don't have to rush anything. But my focus with contraction remains big picture. Do we have a full slate of active participating GM's and /or is it likely that we will moving forward. It's hard not to make the case that we have had empty seats and MIA GM's for the last couple of years now. Over that time we have lost core members, some of which that were foundational to the league. So in a nutshell I'd say contraction let's us consolidate and build from strength. Last, I'm coming at this from a good place and with renewed energy. If I can help by moving to either DET or NYR just PM me.
With you being the best team I don't think switching to those teams helps anything haha, but we do appreciate it. I'm thinking more of the bottom teams (Ducks, Avs, Hurricanes, Wild) so that we don't have as much top tier talent in FA. However I'm not a fan of switching rosters, but if that'll help some of the problems with FA I'm ok with it.
If we do contract, I'd like to open up to a one time mass logo switch for anyone that would want to, give owners a chance to take the logo of their favorite team if it's available.
-
one thing I see here is we are spending a lot of time talking about how to do it but we have not decided to do it or not so I think we should limit the discussion to "is the league better off contracting 2 teams or keeping the 20 teams". once we decide that then we can figure out how to do it if need be.
-
so with to contract or not the one thing I would not want to see is us going through this every couple of years, we contract then expand over and over. do we think after covid that there will be more players wanting in or do we think this is a long term problem?
-
so with to contract or not the one thing I would not want to see is us going through this every couple of years, we contract then expand over and over. do we think after covid that there will be more players wanting in or do we think this is a long term problem?
We were having the problem of finding and keeping good members for years before Covid. This will be a permanent change unless theres an overwhelming waitlist.
-
Do not forget to vote. There is a poll underway for the contraction
only vote if you know we can still discuss if your undecided (@Anthony trying out a new feature let us know if it worked)
-
only vote if you know we can still discuss if your undecided (@Anthony trying out a new feature let us know if it worked)
It worked!
-
We were having the problem of finding and keeping good members for years before Covid. This will be a permanent change unless theres an overwhelming waitlist.
:iatp:
That's the problem, activity. I would rather have a solid core of active, dedicated gm's than just filling a quota. Nobody can predict the future as to what will change, regarding teams and activity. If expansion needs to be addressed in the future, so be it, as with anything else in life.
-
:iatp:
That's the problem, activity. I would rather have a solid core of active, dedicated gm's than just filling a quota. Nobody can predict the future as to what will change, regarding teams and activity. If expansion needs to be addressed in the future, so be it, as with anything else in life.
:iatp:
-
With you being the best team I don't think switching to those teams helps anything haha, but we do appreciate it. I'm thinking more of the bottom teams (Ducks, Avs, Hurricanes, Wild) so that we don't have as much top tier talent in FA. However I'm not a fan of switching rosters, but if that'll help some of the problems with FA I'm ok with it.
If we do contract, I'd like to open up to a one time mass logo switch for anyone that would want to, give owners a chance to take the logo of their favorite team if it's available.
If we are talking possible teams for contraction, I would be against it if the teams were NYR and DET.
I am not meaning to single anyone out but I feel (looking at current rosters) that Carolina and Anaheim would be the 2 most logical teams due to contract. 2 of the bottom 3 teams, some solid players on these rosters but no one that I believe will completely explode the free agent market if we went that route and no game breakers like Draistal or MacKinnon that would be team changing if they were in a reverse draft.
I know this is suppose to be only about whether we would want to do contraction or not but in regards to the max contract in free agency, you could not offer someone a current max contract of $10m for 1 year unless you won it with a bid of $10m. The max cut off contract current is $10m for 5 years or a bid of $50m, its still tough to dish out that amount but some will do that as well.
-
If we are talking possible teams for contraction, I would be against it if the teams were NYR and DET.
I am not meaning to single anyone out but I feel (looking at current rosters) that Carolina and Anaheim would be the 2 most logical teams due to contract. 2 of the bottom 3 teams, some solid players on these rosters but no one that I believe will completely explode the free agent market if we went that route and no game breakers like Draistal or MacKinnon that would be team changing if they were in a reverse draft.
I too thought it best to allow the worst teams to switch but because of trading that has happened especialy with draft picks it gives us a whole new set of problems.