This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Rob
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1352
11
« on: April 29, 2024, 04:16:33 PM »
I'd like to hear from others on a cash trading cap. My idea would not be to restrict out-going cash as it is indeed a good trade chip for rebuilding teams.
My specific idea would be to limit cash received by any one team to a total of no more than 10% of over-all cap ($9.5m) for any given year, to a maximum of $38m in any one trade. ($9.5m for 4 years).
My reasoning is to keep the field competitive at the top which in turn hopefully incentivises more trades. Bottom teams will also have to drum up more trades with more partners to move their cash instead of just shunting $50m in one go.
I do see the merit in restricting the amount of cap 1 team can take on. We would eliminate the Cedric/Habs strategy of going for it all. I don't love this strategy since if the GM doesn't stick around after they shoot their wad, then we have a rebuild franchise to find a new GM for which is never easy. This also adds an administrative layer - Fantrax can't handle this type of rule, that I know of. Sorta hinders rebuild flexibiity but I like the idea of forcing these rebuild trades around the league instead of just one or two front runners hosing down the entire roster. Just noting positives/negatives. Haven't fully fleshed this out in my head yet... I would pair this proposal with an initiative that all teams field an active roster of 90% regular NHL players. I'm all for active tanking but loading up with 45 non-playing prospects is an insult that we can and should avoid.
Tough one to administer. I don't want to take too much rebuild flexibility out of the equation. Especially when I have to attract new GM's to rebuild teams and, as I mentioned, that's not easy. I like to say something to the effect of "hey, this squad isn't in good shape, but here's some tools to get you going". Reducing max contract duration is pretty obvious. 4 years is still a long time if the contract holds value but knocking a year off will make buying out a bad contract much easier.
I think we're ready to put this to a vote.
12
« on: April 29, 2024, 09:21:42 AM »
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.
13
« on: April 26, 2024, 03:18:16 PM »
I think there should be a different multiplier for D than there is for LW/C/RW. Extending defensemen is really not affordable
And, I actually think if they were going to be adjusted, they should be adjusted up, not down. Based on 2023/24 stats, the top scoring Defenseman is 20th in total scoring. That means there's 19 forwards with larger contracts than the top Defenseman. In the NHL, there's D and G in the top 10 highest paid contracts. So, if anything, D and G contracts should have a higher adjusted factor. I'm not arguing for that by any means...
14
« on: April 26, 2024, 03:11:47 PM »
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.
15
« on: April 25, 2024, 03:27:19 PM »
Detroit Red Wings trade
2024 Draft Pick, Round 2 Pick 2
Toronto Maple Leafs trade
Barrett Hayton
16
« on: April 25, 2024, 03:25:03 PM »
Boston Bruins trade
Jonathan Quick
Toronto Maple Leafs trade
2024 Draft Pick, Round 2 Pick 9
17
« on: April 25, 2024, 02:56:58 PM »
Coyotes trades
Josh Morrissey
Boston trades
Dakota Joshua
Trevor Moore
18
« on: April 25, 2024, 02:06:13 PM »
I think in its totality the extension setup we have is plenty conducive to building a "Dynasty". The top players in the league (top 50 or so) cost about the same as they would have cost before the change. It's the next level of 'above average' to 'average' talent that are more pricey than they were in the old extension rules. Teams have tough decisions in this bracket of talent. And that's true of the NHL as well. Most competitive teams will spend big on their top line, top D pairing and their Goalie, then add veterans and young guns to fill out their middle six and beyond. A guy like Tyler Bertuzzi, who I'd consider 'above average', but not elite, will inevitably end up in Free Agency. I think that's how it should be.
This setup certainly makes it harder to maintain a full, deep roster - even if you've built it from the bottom up with lots of Prospect Discounts. But, Free Agency is the tool to make up for that.
And, let's face it - Hockey is not a sport that's conducive to "Dynasties" in the traditional sense. When was the last real NHL dynasty? The Oilers in the 80's? There's just too much parity in the modern NHL. I'm fairly certain that our player turnover with these rules is still less than actual NHL teams player turnover.
19
« on: April 25, 2024, 01:25:45 PM »
If any contending teams are seeking a productive backup, short term goalie option, I'd be happy to trade the extension rights to Jonathan Quick. He renews at $3.5M. Contract is voidable if he retires. Would do this for a draft pick.
OR, I'll extend him and pay 100% for the 24/25 season in exchange for a better return.
20
« on: April 25, 2024, 01:22:50 PM »
Quinton Byfield
$3,972,500 for 5 years with Prospect Extension Discount
Jonas Brodin
$3,950,000 for 3 years
Anthony Stolarz
$2,380,000 for 5 years with Prospect Extension Discount
Josh Morrissey
$7,125,000 for 5 years
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1352
|
Chat Room
|
Show Posts
