ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Archive => Backyard NHL => Archive => Backyard NHL: Archives => Topic started by: Drew on May 21, 2013, 05:12:02 PM
-
Place any suggestions you have to make this league better.
- They can be additions such as new boards.
- New Rules
- Or really anything you want to see in the league
Clarifications on rules and general questions will still be used in the Questions thread.
-
I will start this off with 2 possible additions to the league.
1. RFAs - since this is an advanced league it would make sense to dabble in this. If done properly I think it could be a great addition to the league. I would be looking at this as a way to properly protect our drafted players. For example Landeskog and RNH are at the end of their prospect contracts this coming season as well as many others that could require an expensive upgrade especially Landeskog. If he plays the full season next year could come in at the top 5 at his position meaning he would be paid around $7.0m for an extension.
2. Backyard Hall of Fame - 1 GM maximum will be inducted at conclusion of each year. 80% of league approval would be required. If more than 1 GM is nominated then the GM with the highest approval rate would be inducted with over 80%. Must have 1 year time served to be nominated. Other stipulations could be discussed as well.
-
I will start this off with 2 possible additions to the league.
1. RFAs - since this is an advanced league it would make sense to dabble in this. If done properly I think it could be a great addition to the league. I would be looking at this as a way to properly protect our drafted players. For example Landeskog and RNH are at the end of their prospect contracts this coming season as well as many others that could require an expensive upgrade especially Landeskog. If he plays the full season next year could come in at the top 5 at his position meaning he would be paid around $7.0m for an extension.
2. Backyard Hall of Fame - 1 GM maximum will be inducted at conclusion of each year. 80% of league approval would be required. If more than 1 GM is nominated then the GM with the highest approval rate would be inducted with over 80%. Must have 1 year time served to be nominated. Other stipulations could be discussed as well.
So RFA would be signed to cheaper contracts?
-
if we go with RFA can other teams do offer sheet to those players ?
-
So RFA would be signed to cheaper contracts?
I was thinking of the opportunity to match in free agency which could be cheaper than the extension price. Teams bidding would also be required to compensate if the owning team doesn't match.
-
another suggestion is I get extra cap please, just cause im everyones special Gilly
-
I was thinking of the opportunity to match in free agency which could be cheaper than the extension price. Teams bidding would also be required to compensate if the owning team doesn't match.
Tracking proprietary rights could be an unnecessary complication if you are talking about releasing a player to free-agency then matching the winning bid. Far easier to allow contracts to be discounted or re-negotiated before the player is let go.
-
Tracking proprietary rights could be an unnecessary complication if you are talking about releasing a player to free-agency then matching the winning bid. Far easier to allow contracts to be discounted or re-negotiated before the player is let go.
I was thinking that it would only be players coming off 2 way contracts that GMs choose not to re-sign so there may only be 1-2 per team that are RFA each year. So by using my team for example I have the following 2 way expiring this year:
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, $3.0m (2013-14)
Brett Bulmer, $0.2m (2013-14)
Devante Smith-Pelly, $0.2m (2013-14)
Jerome Samson, $0.2m (2013-14)
Scott Glennie, $2.0m (2013-14)
Dustin Tokarski, $0.2m (2013-14)
- Out of those currently only RNH and DVP are the only ones that would come off a 2 way and I don't see either become RFAs as a re-sign is pretty obvious as long as they don't have unreal seasons.
Tracking would be easy enough as I would simply have a file in the transaction hub that says which team has which players as RFAs. Like the following:
:ANA:
Jamie Benn
Bob Probert
:EDM:
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
Once one of those players is won, the GM will have an allotted time to match or not match the winning bid. Matching would yield the player onto original team at the contract won at, not matching would yield the player to the winning team and the original team receives compensation via draft pick(s).
-
Sounds fun to me.....but I'm not the one who has to do all the work! What do you think about re-jinking how 2-way contracts are awarded in tandem with this?
If FA's could only be signed to 1-way deals it might help simplify. In fact, if draftees are the only ones eligible to be 2-way then it would really enhance the value of drafted players which blends seamlessly into your RFA model.
-
I have two suggestions for this.
A) We give a discount to all players with a 2 way contract... I do not have a number off the top of my head at the moment, but if we compare the numbers of say Taylor Hall in our league to Taylor Hall in real life, I am sure we can come to something.
B) We have two off season free agency periods. The first one would be dedicated to RFAs, and would start after the draft and it would be shorter than the second one. The second one would take place after the first one, and it will include everyone left in free agency. This will also let the original team get a chance to bid on their players and hopefully obtain a cheaper contract.
These are just rough ideas, but both of these ideas together will help increase the value of draft picks beyond what they are already worth.
I also do not think we should restrict a players RFA status to only belonging to the team that drafted them. In real life, the players RFA status moves with the contract. So why not move in this league?
Another thing we need to discuss with RFAs is compensation in regards to the amount of draft picks we have available to trade. At the moment, we can only trade picks in the next year's draft. Are we going to set a value of say $7 be worth 2 first? Then we should be free to trade future draft picks as well.
-
I like the whole idea of the rfas and I like the idea only draftes aloud 1 way contracts I also think we should include conditional picks as for trades
-
Everything would run as normal for extensions.
2 ways would be eligible as normal for players with under 40 games players.
I like the two period process but only thing is rfa would probably be after but at the same time would be more realistic.
But if league is down for it we would discuss details after.
-
2. Backyard Hall of Fame - 1 GM maximum will be inducted at conclusion of each year. 80% of league approval would be required. If more than 1 GM is nominated then the GM with the highest approval rate would be inducted with over 80%. Must have 1 year time served to be nominated. Other stipulations could be discussed as well.
This could be fun. Maybe it should be done every 2nd year or so? Not sure what others think about it. Would we do our first inductee this off-season?
LETS ALSO GET RID OF THE +/-. :rofl:
-
Everything would run as normal for extensions.
2 ways would be eligible as normal for players with under 40 games players.
I like the two period process but only thing is rfa would probably be after but at the same time would be more realistic.
But if league is down for it we would discuss details after.
At the same time would be more realistic, but having two separate free agency periods would make your job a lot easier.
-
Everything would run as normal for extensions.
2 ways would be eligible as normal for players with under 40 games players.
I like the two period process but only thing is rfa would probably be after but at the same time would be more realistic.
But if league is down for it we would discuss details after.
2 ways have to stay as it makes for a realistic environment with the 40 GP stipulation
-
I agree with Drew as the RFA thing wouldn't be that hard to track as we would do RFA's after FAs so if anyone was left to RFA then it would only be a handful of players.
So for example this past offseason it would have been done during the Amnesty Buyout Period after FAs were signed.
:thumbsup:
-
I think both are cool ideas and would add a lot to the league. I think RFA is a cool idea and can be simple yet fun to be able to match some 2 way guys or at least get a small compensation when losing then
-
I would prefer to have RFA and FA periods at the same time because I don't like the saving of cap for RFAs and I want it to be more realistic.
-
I would prefer to have RFA and FA periods at the same time because I don't like the saving of cap for RFAs and I want it to be more realistic.
Than a list would be the best thing to do. When a player opens a forum for an RFA, the player posting the forum needs to mention that the player is an RFA in the Subject so everyone else knows there will be a payment for said player. If a player does not know if the player is an RFA, all they have to do is simply consult the list.
Thoughts?
And how about we compensate owners in regards to the length the RFA has been signed. For example:
1 year contract - 4th round pick
2 year contract - 3rd round pick
3 year contract - 3rd and 4th round pick
4 year contract - 2nd and 4th round pick
I hate to see a team lose their first round pick to RFA, especially teams in the middle of rebuilding like New York, Dallas, and Minnesota. I think this compensation package will be good for everyone.
Thoughts?
-
You could also base RFA compensation based on how they rank pointa wise. On my phone right now so can't get example but like top 10% would be type and next 10% type b etc or something along those lines.
-
I agree with favo in teams losing 1st esp in thw bottom half of the league.
-
I hate to see a team lose their first round pick to RFA, especially teams in the middle of rebuilding like New York, Dallas, and Minnesota. I think this compensation package will be good for everyone.
I think 1st round pick should be included depending on the rank of the player. If a team doesn't want to lose the pick then its pretty simple. DON'T BID ON THE RFA
-
I will disagree with Favo about losing a 1st. If we did it based off number of years they are signed for then a 4 year deal is only for players that make 6.5m or more so we are talking an all star player or a goalie and in both cases I think at minimum there has to be a 1st round pick. I am thinking about it like a trade would we allow Taylor Hall be traded for a 2nd and 4th from any team not just the rebuilding teams but a team like Chicago??
-
2 ways have to stay as it makes for a realistic environment with the 40 GP stipulation
Agree but for prospects only, not for veteran free agents.
-
Also, want to say be careful with change. It's fun, but too much....not so much.
-
Agree but for prospects only, not for veteran free agents.
Obviously if they are over 40 GP they can't sign 2-way
-
Obviously if they are over 40 GP they can't sign 2-way
Guess what I am trying to say is that I think draftees should be the only ones eligible for 2-way contracts.....not free agents, regardless of how few games they have played.
The new rule forcing FA's to sign a min 2 year deal for a 2-way helps but in context of the RFA conversation I view 2-way FA contracts as a loophole that will be systematically exploited to capitalize on the RFA bid matching clause.
Limiting 2-way contracts to draftees is elegant as it makes draft choices even more valued.
Other then that, I was trying to agree with you. :P
-
Guess what I am trying to say is that I think draftees should be the only ones eligible for 2-way contracts.....not free agents, regardless of how few games they have played.
The new rule forcing FA's to sign a min 2 year deal for a 2-way helps but in context of the RFA conversation I view 2-way FA contracts as a loophole that will be systematically exploited to capitalize on the RFA bid matching clause.
Limiting 2-way contracts to draftees is elegant as it makes draft choices even more valued.
Other then that, I was trying to agree with you. :P
I understand what you are saying but, if BY is trying to replicate the NHL then the system in place for 2-ways would need to stay.
-
I understand what you are saying but, if BY is trying to replicate the NHL then the system in place for 2-ways would need to stay.
Agree to a point, that being that this is fantasy hockey. Some simplification and streamlining will always be necessary. (For example, if we really wanted to replicate the NHL we'd be signing FA's to seven year contracts....obviously for our purposes we have to draw some arbitrary lines.)
There is a danger with adding layer upon layer of new ideas that basic transactions become over-complicated. I am all for innovation and have a ton of ideas but the idea I most want to voice (among all the other great thoughts and suggestions) is that there is power in simplicity and that sometimes the greatest addition is done by subtraction.
:toast:
-
I'll come up with an RFA base rule discussion in the next couple days.
+/- is something we were talking about before and we'll talk about it as well.
-
Did anybody see my idea? I think it is the best option to determine RFAs
-
I also get rid of +\-
-
+/- is something we were talking about before and we'll talk about it as well.
We already voted to keep +/- so why discuss it again??
-
We already voted to keep +/- so why discuss it again??
My thoughts exactly.
-
We already voted to keep +/- so why discuss it again??
:iatp: :iatp: :iatp: :iatp: :iatp: :iatp: :iatp:
-
We already voted to keep +/- so why discuss it again??
:iatp:
-
We already voted to keep +/- so why discuss it again??
Thanks for reminding me haha, no discussion.
-
Thanks for reminding me haha, no discussion.
No problem just thought it was a little weird
-
LETS ALSO GET RID OF THE +/-. :rofl:
It was meant to be a joke. :doh:
I think most people know I that I hate the +/-. :puke:
-
It was meant to be a joke. :doh:
I think most people know I that I hate the +/-. :puke:
Well, I'm all for any little thing that throws Tony off....just sayin. :taco:
-
Well, I'm all for any little thing that throws Tony off....just sayin. :taco:
If I don't win a 3rd straight Cup I will blame it on the +/-. :rofl:
-
I suggest Toronto does it's buy-out so we can open trades up! :rofl:
-
I suggest Toronto does it's buy-out so we can open trades up! :rofl:
:iatp:
-
I suggest Toronto does it's buy-out so we can open trades up! :rofl:
Just waiting on cho or winter to make it then we are good to go!
-
I suggest Toronto does it's buy-out so we can open trades up! :rofl:
tryinhg to make a decision :P
-
Question regarding the new contract extensions.
If I look at the entry draft regulations for signing it says the following.
The Entry Draft Contracts should emulate the current draft market. Figures may vary. Draft positions will be taken from their real life draft positions.
Draft Position - Salary
1 and 2 - 3.0M
3 thru 5 - 2.5M
6 thru 10 - 2.0M
11 thru 17 - 1.5M
18 thru 25 - 1.0M
26 thru 30 - 500k
30 thru 60 and over - 200k
Draftees will be placed onto the MiLR. All drafted players will start in the minors with no contract (N/C) and only have to be signed when the GM feels the need. If they remain in the minors without a contract and exceed 40 games played they have to be signed to their respective draft value or extension (whichever may be higher) or released to free agency.
My question is regarding the part at the bottom in regards to the value of the contract. Now that the minimum contract extensions have gone up to 0.7m for forwards, 0.8m for defensemen and 1.0m for goalies I think that any drafted player should be able to be signed for the value of their draft position regardless of their extension value.
The reason I say this is once a forward say taken in the 3rd round in real life hits 1 GP in the NHL he automatically goes from $200k a year to $700k a year. Now a goalie becomes an even worse case scenario as he goes from say $200k a year to $1m a year.
Just throwing it out there as the minor league rosters became larger, but now have less cap. Plus with the restriction here you could easily max out your cap in no time at all.
Just food for thought as the extension values are fine with me, I just think that if a player is drafted we as GMs should have the rights to sign him for cheap and wait out in signing him until we see fit instead of signing him right away so that he doesn't become more expensive than need be.
-
Not sure I follow 100% but pretty sure I approve.
I'd like to see the minimum draft contract and the lowest extension value be at par and more in keeping with the NHL's base rate (currently $525k and escalating).
I think there's a solid case for both minimum values to be set at $0.5m.
-
Totally different thing. I see our mighty Commish is mucking around with the banner again. That's cool, but what would be really great is that if every time we opened a new window the team icons were still at the top of the page. I use them for soooo much.
Not sure how to explain this best but in Vintage if I click on a team, all the teams are still shown at the top heading. In BY if you go to a team, you have to back out to the main page to get to the header.
This would be HUGE!
-
:iatp:
-
Question regarding the new contract extensions.
If I look at the entry draft regulations for signing it says the following.
My question is regarding the part at the bottom in regards to the value of the contract. Now that the minimum contract extensions have gone up to 0.7m for forwards, 0.8m for defensemen and 1.0m for goalies I think that any drafted player should be able to be signed for the value of their draft position regardless of their extension value.
The reason I say this is once a forward say taken in the 3rd round in real life hits 1 GP in the NHL he automatically goes from $200k a year to $700k a year. Now a goalie becomes an even worse case scenario as he goes from say $200k a year to $1m a year.
Just throwing it out there as the minor league rosters became larger, but now have less cap. Plus with the restriction here you could easily max out your cap in no time at all.
Just food for thought as the extension values are fine with me, I just think that if a player is drafted we as GMs should have the rights to sign him for cheap and wait out in signing him until we see fit instead of signing him right away so that he doesn't become more expensive than need be.
Thanks for putting this up, just needs a simple re-wording now that those extension minimums changed. I will put this stipulation below each extension section:
Any prospect that is ranked over (blank number) will be signed to their draft position value.
Totally different thing. I see our mighty Commish is mucking around with the banner again. That's cool, but what would be really great is that if every time we opened a new window the team icons were still at the top of the page. I use them for soooo much.
Not sure how to explain this best but in Vintage if I click on a team, all the teams are still shown at the top heading. In BY if you go to a team, you have to back out to the main page to get to the header.
This would be HUGE!
I put a request into the helpdesk for that exact reason. I believe that is why the header is down right now.
-
Thanks for putting this up, just needs a simple re-wording now that those extension minimums changed. I will put this stipulation below each extension section:
Any prospect that is ranked over (blank number) will be signed to their draft position value.
I put a request into the helpdesk for that exact reason. I believe that is why the header is down right now.
Cool. Thanks Drew!
-
I'd like to see IR open from opening day next season. This would be more in line with NHL reality and would help GM's remain competitive when dealt an unlucky hand.
-
Something I have noticed is when a team places a player on ir, some teams do not move their player to the ir slot of their roster. I have even seen some cases where the player will be in an active slot of the teams roster. I know the solution will create more work for Drew and tony, but can we create another team just like we have for the minors but for players on ir?
-
Something I have noticed is when a team places a player on ir, some teams do not move their player to the ir slot of their roster. I have even seen some cases where the player will be in an active slot of the teams roster. I know the solution will create more work for Drew and tony, but can we create another team just like we have for the minors but for players on ir?
Why not just bring it to the attention of a Mod at the time we see it?
-
Why not just bring it to the attention of a Mod at the time we see it?
Personally, I feel it is not my responsibility to police the league. It is Drew and Tonys job. And second, it does happen enough where I feel a move like this is warranted.
-
but can we create another team just like we have for the minors but for players on ir?
I am pretty sure that creating another team will :soapbox: all the matchups ... but they can just put the IR players in the minors on fantrax and the problem will be solve :thumbsup:
-
I do think this is a great league but do not necessarily like the way IR is done. I would prefer that all IR players are removed from Fantrax rosters. Maybe we can convince Drew to try it? It works great in my other leagues. :thumbsup:
It really tough for me to keep track of all the rosters right now. I'm pretty sure there are a few teams over the cap as well.
-
I do think this is a great league but do not necessarily like the way IR is done. I would prefer that all IR players are removed from Fantrax rosters. Maybe we can convince Drew to try it? It works great in my other leagues. :thumbsup:
It really tough for me to keep track of all the rosters right now. I'm pretty sure there are a few teams over the cap as well.
That is why I suggested putting all the IR players on their own roster, just like what we do for the minors. And just like the minor roster page, it can be set up to not affect the match-ups. On top of that, it will be easier to keep track of who is getting off of IR; just check the IR Roster page. At most, the roster will have 54 players (3 IR spots per team) as opposed to the minor roster pages, which could have up to 180 players (30 minors per team in the division) each.
-
That is why I suggested putting all the IR players on their own roster, just like what we do for the minors. And just like the minor roster page, it can be set up to not affect the match-ups. On top of that, it will be easier to keep track of who is getting off of IR; just check the IR Roster page. At most, the roster will have 54 players (3 IR spots per team) as opposed to the minor roster pages, which could have up to 180 players (30 minors per team in the division) each.
I totally agree with you ... i was only referring for this year :thumbsup:
-
I totally agree with you ... i was only referring for this year :thumbsup:
Got cha :thumbsup:
-
That is why I suggested putting all the IR players on their own roster, just like what we do for the minors. And just like the minor roster page, it can be set up to not affect the match-ups. On top of that, it will be easier to keep track of who is getting off of IR; just check the IR Roster page. At most, the roster will have 54 players (3 IR spots per team) as opposed to the minor roster pages, which could have up to 180 players (30 minors per team in the division) each.
I think the IR roster would work the best. Only thing is that players that are injured if they are on your roster aren't accumulating you points if they are on your roster. And they are suppose to be removed with 48 hours (I believe) or else they receive penalties. But if the league wishes to do this, it is a simple add and will only put us at the 24 teams on fantrax so it won't push us to be paid. Let me know what you like.
I will also be back to business this week getting everything here at ProFSL up to date!
-
I think the IR roster would work the best. Only thing is that players that are injured if they are on your roster aren't accumulating you points if they are on your roster. And they are suppose to be removed with 48 hours (I believe) or else they receive penalties. But if the league wishes to do this, it is a simple add and will only put us at the 24 teams on fantrax so it won't push us to be paid. Let me know what you like.
I will also be back to business this week getting everything here at ProFSL up to date!
The thing that bothers me is the fact that a team can start the player on ir while they have another player filling in for them. What happens if the player unexpectly returns and you have both him and the ir replacement active and a game has been played for the day? Now you are receiving points for a player that you should not have access to.
-
The thing that bothers me is the fact that a team can start the player on ir while they have another player filling in for them. What happens if the player unexpectly returns and you have both him and the ir replacement active and a game has been played for the day? Now you are receiving points for a player that you should not have access to.
:iatp: I don't like it either.
-
Should we have another conversation on goalies?
After looking through all the rosters, you can definitely see a huge difference between the top of the league and the bottom of the league in regards to goalie ownership. I know I was a huge advocate in not going below 4 goalies, but maybe I was wrong. What if we went to 3 goalies per team next season? With a total of 60 goalie jobs in the NHL available per season, I think it is preposterous for our league to have more slots available then there are actual goalies in the NHL.
With our current set up, we have a total of 72 goalie slots available. That is 12 more slots then actual NHL jobs. If we cut it to 3 goalies per team, we would have a total of 54 goalie slots. That is 6 less slots then actual NHL jobs. We might even have more FA goalies available when a goalie gets injured!
I feel a move like this is needed in order to help create parity in the league. A move like this will not punish a team that has traded or drafted well, because that team can move one of their excess goalies for a pretty solid bounty. When a young goalie on your team has finally earned the starter position or has proven to be a solid back up, you can always move one of your other goalies to make room for him.
I really enjoy the competitive atmosphere in the league, but I find it can be a little disheartening when teams are saying right now "I don't see me winning this year, so I am going to start selling" and the trade deadline is more then a month away. And I feel that lowering the goalie limit to 3 will help with this.
-
Should we have another conversation on goalies?
After looking through all the rosters, you can definitely see a huge difference between the top of the league and the bottom of the league in regards to goalie ownership. I know I was a huge advocate in not going below 4 goalies, but maybe I was wrong. What if we went to 3 goalies per team next season? With a total of 60 goalie jobs in the NHL available per season, I think it is preposterous for our league to have more slots available then there are actual goalies in the NHL.
With our current set up, we have a total of 72 goalie slots available. That is 12 more slots then actual NHL jobs. If we cut it to 3 goalies per team, we would have a total of 54 goalie slots. That is 6 less slots then actual NHL jobs. We might even have more FA goalies available when a goalie gets injured!
I feel a move like this is needed in order to help create parity in the league. A move like this will not punish a team that has traded or drafted well, because that team can move one of their excess goalies for a pretty solid bounty. When a young goalie on your team has finally earned the starter position or has proven to be a solid back up, you can always move one of your other goalies to make room for him.
I really enjoy the competitive atmosphere in the league, but I find it can be a little disheartening when teams are saying right now "I don't see me winning this year, so I am going to start selling" and the trade deadline is more then a month away. And I feel that lowering the goalie limit to 3 will help with this.
Going to put this up as it's own discussion!
-
This may just be me, but has it ever been considered to putting our actual names on our rosters? I hate calling people iza, Slack or Mariner. It may be nice to know people's actual names. Again, if it's just me, then please ignore this!
-
I like it Norrya66 :) lol
-
I don't like having to much info on the web so everyone can see it
-
I don't like having to much info on the web so everyone can see it
Nobody will ever know your name. :rofl:
-
Nobody will ever know your name. :rofl:
I didn't think anyone would catch that lol :rofl:
-
This may just be me, but has it ever been considered to putting our actual names on our rosters? I hate calling people iza, Slack or Mariner. It may be nice to know people's actual names. Again, if it's just me, then please ignore this!
First names are all right here: http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=33529.0
Or would you prefer they are on the main rosters?
-
Umm no that's fine. I didn't know they were there...I'll try to go there to look them up when I need them. Thanks
-
So any thoughts on increasing the goalie extensions since there way out of wack?
-
After watching all the deadline deals I'm of a mind to ask that we add a second year worth of draft picks to our trade-able assets. Sure would be nice to trade picks from the current season as well as the following.
-
After watching all the deadline deals I'm of a mind to ask that we add a second year worth of draft picks to our trade-able assets. Sure would be nice to trade picks from the current season as well as the following.
Would be cool but not a great idea. It would suck for new GMs taking over a team and a possibly of not having picks for 2 years.
-
Would be cool but not a great idea. It would suck for new GMs taking over a team and a possibly of not having picks for 2 years.
Mmmm....yes I suppose there is a risk with new GM's but I think it's on the TC to help mitigate and ensure they are not exploited. Not that any of our GM's would ever do that (#Letang). :rofl:
-
I think that we should move the trade deadline to after the NHL trade deadline.
-
I think that we should move the trade deadline to after the NHL trade deadline.
Only problem with that is that our regular season is then basically over by the time the real deadline passes.
Mmmm....yes I suppose there is a risk with new GM's but I think it's on the TC to help mitigate and ensure they are not exploited. Not that any of our GM's would ever do that (#Letang). :rofl:
This is why I would be opposed as a GM could say hey I am going for it this year and make a good move with some future picks but then bail out and a new GM doesn't want the team because of the lack of ability to build.
-
Then again, look at what hockeyfreak47 has done with Dallas in a year. It took him some time, but I definitely feel that he set that franchise up for the long haul.
-
Only problem with that is that our regular season is then basically over by the time the real deadline passes.
This is why I would be opposed as a GM could say hey I am going for it this year and make a good move with some future picks but then bail out and a new GM doesn't want the team because of the lack of ability to build.
Upon further reflection. :iatp:
-
What about changing the times for setting up lineups on Fantrax? Currently all roster are locked after the first game. We could change it to each players first game of the day.
This league is getting very competitive now and it would be a good idea.
Thoughts?
-
What about changing the times for setting up lineups on Fantrax? Currently all roster are locked after the first game. We could change it to each players first game of the day.
This league is getting very competitive now and it would be a good idea.
Thoughts?
I still believe it gives an unfair advantage to those that can get on all the time. Keeping it the way it is now evens the playing field.
-
I got an idea on how we can make trading rights work in our league - we just the same system we have set up for extensions and contract lengths and apply a value to the player. For example, let's say a player that is eligible for a 4 year contract worth 7.7m per season is potentially on his way out. If we assign a value of a your own 2nd round pick to this player, then any team can request a trade for said players rights for the 2nd round pick.
Now, this does not mean you have to sign the player for the full 4 year 7.7m. But the return for his rights will always be worth a 2nd round pick. I'm thinking values could go like this:
Eligible for a 4 year contract: 2nd round pick
Eligible for a 3 year contract: 3rd round pick
Eligible for a 2 year contract worth more then 1m per season: 4th round pick
Eligible for a 2 year contract worth equal or less then 1m per season: 5th round pick
Thoughts?
-
I got an idea on how we can make trading rights work in our league - we just the same system we have set up for extensions and contract lengths and apply a value to the player. For example, let's say a player that is eligible for a 4 year contract worth 7.7m per season is potentially on his way out. If we assign a value of a your own 2nd round pick to this player, then any team can request a trade for said players rights for the 2nd round pick.
Now, this does not mean you have to sign the player for the full 4 year 7.7m. But the return for his rights will always be worth a 2nd round pick. I'm thinking values could go like this:
Eligible for a 4 year contract: 2nd round pick
Eligible for a 3 year contract: 3rd round pick
Eligible for a 2 year contract worth more then 1m per season: 4th round pick
Eligible for a 2 year contract worth equal or less then 1m per season: 5th round pick
Thoughts?
Sorry I read this while on the road so forgot to take a look back and respond to it. This would be say for the last extension period?
I don't mind it but if we just opened trading during the extension period, the market would set their own values?
-
Just a reminder boys that even if you don't like the trade offers being sent to at least answer them, I try my best to answer all I get and would like the same courtesy back
-
Just a reminder boys that even if you don't like the trade offers being sent to at least answer them, I try my best to answer all I get and would like the same courtesy back
:iatp: