Looking back at our league's champs no team has won because of their hometown draft picks.  The Ducks teams won because of their own great drafting and smart signings.  The Blues/Shooter won because he is awesome at everything and caught on before everyone else that prospect extensions were the best value.  The Coyotes/Slack will continue to be great because they must have some kind of sports almanac from the future that told them who the next NHL superstars were going to be.

There has been no one way to win.  You just gotta be a good GM and put it all together.

Having said that I am actually in support of removing the 3 home team keepers and expanding our draft.  But, I have a bridge idea that maybe lets us keep the hometown feel while getting at my hatred towards the 5 year prospect extension.

What if we:
1. Remove the 3 keeper picks. 
2. Expand our normal draft (drafting is the funnest part). 
3. Then reduce prospect extensions to 3 years, but if the prospect is on your NHL team you can sign them to 5.  That way it gives an incentive to keep players from your NHL team while also not making you beholden to the terrible choices of NHL GMs.
4. Could also do what Snug mentioned and give a discount on signing players on your NHL team.

Yea, I'm not completely unconvinced that both Shooter and SlackJack aren't AI...

What about a compromise like this:

1) 1st round draftees are NOT eligible as Keepers
2) GM's may keep any number of players drafted by their actual team from rounds 2 and beyond (no reason to limit to 3 - it's not like we have space to keep that many anyway)
3) Increase Supp Draft to 4 rounds
4) Adopt Corey's idea of limiting prospect extensions to 3 years, but Keeper's may be extended to 4 or 5.

By taking the 1st rounders out of the Keeper pool, a lot of the disparity we're talking about would disappear.  That and we'll make the Supplemental a lot more interesting.

Coyotes trade
Matthew Tkachuk

Flyers trade
Cam York
Juraj Slafkovsky

a good gm has adapted to the rules we have. honestly I dont see any of these changes will make things better it will just make them different. If we are not actually solving a problem why make a change. if its not broke dont fix it

I tend to agree.  But I also would rather be pro-active and fix it before it breaks.  The problem we are identifying is that we are top heavy.  We have a few teams that are producing at a clip that far exceeds the rest of the league.  This has lead to stagnancy and apathy from other would-be competitive teams.  How do we balance things out?  How do we re-ignite our trade market that has gone very quiet over the last 5 or so seasons?  I'd rather not wait for a breaking point before we do something about it.

Having said that, I do believe the changes we made a few seasons ago with extension costs need a little more time to fully flesh out - as Snug has indicated. 

I like the idea of reducing the prospect extension term to introduce more roster turnover (force those top teams to make tougher decisions faster).

I like the idea of restricting cash trades in order to force rebuilding teams to spread their cash out to more teams instead of just to 1 or 2 cup contenders (redistribution of wealth? - lol). 

I'm also not 100% sure that we NEED to change - but it's certainly worth discussing.  And now is a great time to bring these things up.

Where do we find flex-waivers again? I can never find them. 

Flex waivers were a casualty of converting contracts to Fantrax.  They were too much of a pain in the rear to administer.

Referendum on "Dynasty" aside I think the changes we're talking about are minor but worth discussing.

1) Small static factor adjustment.

Would like to hear more opinions on this.  I kinda feel like $25k is the sweetspot when you comp real life contracts down to fantasy point production.  There's lots of cap space out there in this league right now.  I don't know that lowering this factor really helps the health and balance of the league.  Moreover, it seems like everyone so far supports the idea of adding elements that create more turnover, and this has the reverse effect.  Also, as Snug pointed out - there was actually a reduction in total FP from last year to this year - we're very close to the same total FP as when we created the $25k/point factor.  I think this is something to watch - if there's a significant increase or decrease in total FP in the league in the future, then we need to consider revising the factor.

2) Cash trading cap.

Would like to hear more justification for this.  How does it help?  Our broad rules on cash trades have always benefited rebuilding teams.  It's also a good trade tool - if we're trying to create more trade buzz and general activity across the league, how does reducing it help?

3) Shorter contract extensions.

I'm intrigued by this idea as a tool to generate more turnover.  Just know that we would not see much of an effect for 3-5 years. 

I think that $25k per point is high if the plan is for us to rebuild with our prospects. I'll have to let most of mine walk.

I think there should be a different multiplier for D than there is for LW/C/RW. Extending defensemen is really not affordable

Prospect extension cost is $17.5K per point with the discount.  I think that 30% discount has always made building from the ground up the ultimate strategy here. 

I'm not in support of a different multiplier for D-men.  We did that in the past before we had Blocked Shots as a stat category, but I don't see it as necessary now.  When you're paying a flat fee per fantasy point it washes out any need for position bias. 

I am good with discussing but none of these changes even if agreed upon should happen immediately.  Especially changes to extension rules.  They should always be delayed by a season.