ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise NHL: Transactions => Franchise NHL => NHL Leagues => Franchise NHL: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: PigsRule on August 21, 2012, 02:30:04 PM
-
i'm proposing that Franchise NHL incorporate a new rule to give this league a little identity, unique to this league & related to the name "Franchise". This is the discussion thread to generate awareness, discussion + to vet the rule.
PROPOSED NEW RULE:
to provide an new cap management tool for GMs in a deep 30-team dynasty league, i proposed the introduction of a "Franchise Player" (FP) discount.
HOW IT WORKS:
* each team is allowed to designate 2 Franchise Players (to be denoted as "FP" on team pgs)
* each FP is entitled to a contract discount of 15%
* FP discount is requested on the Transaction pg (processed as other transactions are)
* FP's pre-discounted contracts cannot be one of the Top 3 highest contracts on the team's payroll
* FP players must be 27 years old or older (a franchise player be younger in real life but 27yo is the age of UFA group 3 free agent eligibility so it can be natural cut off point for age)
* FP discount is valid 1 season
* designated FP's receive "No-Movement-Clause" status denoted by "NMC" (limits discount administration, especially in cases where a receiving team suddenly owns more than 2 FP's)
* FP buy outs are on the original contract value, not discount value
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE:
* introduce mid-season
* suggest December 1, 2012 (as long as the season starts on Oct.11'12)
REQUIRED:
(1) league discussion for 1-month / 30-days
(2) no urgent implementation set for mid-season 2012-13 (given Oct.11'12 start date)
(3) majority "yes" vote to proceed (each team to post reply in a dedicated New Rule Voting thread to be created after the 30-day discussion period.
post your thoughts!
-
:iatp:
I like this idea
-
:veto:
I don't like it, people have enough cap already. I would be more in favour of something like if you sign a player in free agency that plays on your team in real life then you get a discount of say 10%. Makes teams stick to their own players and keeps the feel of real life teams still in it.
-
:veto:
I don't like it, people have enough cap already. I would be more in favour of something like if you sign a player in free agency that plays on your team in real life then you get a discount of say 10%. Makes teams stick to their own players and keeps the feel of real life teams still in it.
Won't that penalize a team like Columbus? Probably even Toronto.
I like the Franchise player idea. Players like Lidstrom and Brodeur always gave their teams a hometown discount.
-
:veto:
I don't like it, people have enough cap already. ...
... can you expand on that?
if your concern is free spending teams going bonkers on FA's... well there are other factors that limit that type of spending:
* roster space avail.
* deep 30-team league with limited # of players to go around
* it's only a discount on 2 players with this Franchise Player designation (6.67% of a team's roster, hardly an impactful %)
it's just a "twist", a small tool for a league called Franchise to have a Franchise Player designation. :toast:
-
How is the discount only valid for 1 season....?
Do you tag new FP's each season then...?
And why over 27 years old? Seems a little off.... That means the likes of Crosby & Stamkos couldn't be FP's ... And I'm pretty sure both more than qualify for the tag of a team's "Franchise Player"
Heck, I don't even know who my Franchise Player would be... All my players are too young! And same would go for any team going thru a re-build that wants to sell off their proven players for some younger prospects and players.
Let's see... Maybe I'll choose my Franchise Player as either:
Mark Streit, Pascal Dupuis, Kyle Quincy, or Vernon Fiddler.
Wow, that's a stunning crop of "Franchise" players to choose from! :puke:
And as Drew said, you could sign some 28 year old player, and assign the FP tag to get a discount on him. Seems odd.
I like the concept, kind of, but it seems like this might also limit major trades involving top end talent moving teams. Not suggesting GM's trade Stamkos' and Crosby's every month, but it would certainly put a damper on some trades if there were 2 good players on every team that could not be traded.
Maybe a "Franchise" tag on a younger player or even prospect, would make more sense, and give him a greatly reduced contract.
So if you had a 1st-10th overall draft pick as an up and comer, you wouldn't have to pay 2.5-3m in salary to him if you assigned the FP tag. Maybe just 1m or something like that.
But he wouldn't be able to be traded for his entire 3 year ELC (or longer).
-
How is the discount only valid for 1 season....?
this is in the concept stages ... the thinking was 1yr to allow for new FP's as needed when a player turns 27, maybe your top 3 highest paid players have changed since last season, etc.
Do you tag new FP's each season then...?
yes, that is the think at this concept stage of vetting the rule.
And why over 27 years old? Seems a little off.... That means the likes of Crosby & Stamkos couldn't be FP's ... And I'm pretty sure both more than qualify for the tag of a team's "Franchise Player"
i understand your point, but that's reality where there's almost always a player agent telling you to take your stinkin' qualifying offer and stick it... :o :P
figured a starting point of 27yo woiuld force teams to manage young stud contracts carefully before getting a break with this FP discount... but not wait so long (like age 35yo) to enjoy the discount.
...
Let's see... Maybe I'll choose my Franchise Player as either:
Mark Streit, Pascal Dupuis, Kyle Quincy, or Vernon Fiddler.
Wow, that's a stunning crop of "Franchise" players to choose from! :puke:
that's why i created the team management section on team pgs to let you know who was running the show on your team before you/everyone else for that matter took over their team. :thumbsup:
And as Drew said, you could sign some 28 year old player, and assign the FP tag to get a discount on him. Seems odd.
isn't it as odd as grown men sitting around playing fantasy GM and some are actually mods, some are mgrs of said fantasy site? it's fantasy hockey, anything can be possible or everything can be odd. it's all POV.
...this might also limit major trades involving top end talent moving teams. Not suggesting GM's trade Stamkos' and Crosby's every month, but it would certainly put a damper on some trades if there were 2 good players on every team that could not be traded.
you ans your Q there at the end ... it's only 2 of 30 players that cannot be moved over 1 season. really not going to handcuff GMs.
one of the benefits is to protect a transient GM, the ones that get bored easily with a free league and bail, throw a tantrum and sell-off their roster assets before exiting, etc.
again, it's re-newable each 1 season and gets GMs to plan a little with their contracts, core players, etc.
Maybe a "Franchise" tag on a younger player or even prospect, would make more sense, and give him a greatly reduced contract.
the highest contract for EL player is 3yrs @ 3m... it's pretty decent and doesn't allow teams to hold a young stud forever at a bargain price, otherwise things would get boring if ppl held their best players forever with cheap contracts abound.
So if you had a 1st-10th overall draft pick as an up and comer, you wouldn't have to pay 2.5-3m in salary to him if you assigned the FP tag. Maybe just 1m or something like that.
But he wouldn't be able to be traded for his entire 3 year ELC (or longer).
it could be an option. let's see what others think. :toast:
-
I like the Franchise tag idea. :thumbsup: Also, in the 3 years this league has been running, I have managed to diversify my roster by trading Maple Leaf players. The less the better for me.
-
I like the Franchise tag idea. :thumbsup: Also, in the 3 years this league has been running, I have managed to diversify my roster by trading Maple Leaf players. The less the better for me.
I have also but does put a little more meaning into your franchise when you have hometown players.
-
i'm proposing that Franchise NHL incorporate a new rule to give this league a little identity, unique to this league & related to the name "Franchise". This is the discussion thread to generate awareness, discussion + to vet the rule.
:iatp:
I like the idea of tagging Franchise Players.
However I'm not loving the idea of restricting it to players who are 27 and older. It's not about the age, but why even impose an age limit. As for the idea of restricting it only to players that play for the same NHL team I'm not for that either. Both restrictions are unnecessary and only confuse an otherwise good idea. As for the 1 year term it seems to make sense and allows us to rotate franchise players annually.
-
Is it realistic? Is it done in the NHL?
-
Is it realistic? Is it done in the NHL?
No more realistic would be home-town players getting discounts. Examples being Ryan Smyth in Edmonton, Nicklas Lidstrom in Detroit, Crosby in Pittsburgh, etc.
-
This is cute but I don't think it's needed. I've looked over the rules on contracts and there's plenty of rules to reduce cap if needed.
But if you do go ahead do it for next season when I'm not around. :rofl:
-
How about we get the discount for players we've drafted and promoted? That would be the true sense of hometown discount.
They usually apply to homegrown talent!
Drew's idea of a discount of real-life NHL players that play for your FNHL getting a discount would be nice too. So for my Sharks I would get a FNHL discount for owning Martin Havlat and Dan Boyle.
-
How about we get the discount for players we've drafted and promoted? That would be the true sense of hometown discount.
They usually apply to homegrown talent!
Drew's idea of a discount of real-life NHL players that play for your FNHL getting a discount would be nice too. So for my Sharks I would get a FNHL discount for owning Martin Havlat and Dan Boyle.
gotta say i like these 2 ideas.
let's see if we can get a vote on this so if it's approved we can implement for 2013-14.
-
Let's not and say we did. lol
I'm against having this. Let's not muddy the waters with too many cap tools. I think things are great as is. Keep it up! :thumbsup:
-
i've read that this was also pitched by a member back in 2010-11... the feedback was also not overwhelmingly positive enough to move forward with at that time.
so let's shelve this idea for down the road.
thread closed.