Good job.

Anymore discussion on this.

Not from me.

I would not be opposed to a change slightly in extensions but we need to come to values that are closer to our concept and doesn't mean that every team keeps their players every year.

Completely agree.

I love the open market and higher extensions as it forces teams to change on a yearly basis. It opens the game to swing power quicker. Again, anaheim and chicago should look like completely different teams by the start of this season as opposed to the dominate powerhouse they were.

I also completely agree, and I don't think a 10% reduction for the upper ranks would change this at all.

Quoting myself here: "Giving a GM the ability to match an offer would create more downward pressure on FA contracts. (Why bid on a player if you know you can match?) Ultimately, if you want your player back you can bid on him like everyone else."

Two different ideas on the board here. I'm not lobbying for what I put forward but don't want it getting lost in the wrong debate. Namely Drew's chart for compensation, which I would agree is complex.

The idea that I was interested in was that the original team that owned the player has the right to match the contract that the player signs in free agency. Kind of echoing the right to match an offer sheet. The idea has some merit but it would skew the market. Giving a GM the ability to match an offer would create more downward pressure on FA contracts. (Why bid on a player if you know you can match?) Ultimately, if you want your player back you can bid on him like everyone else.

What is behind my thinking is the idea of bringing extension values and free market values a little closer together. At the mid to upper ranks (the top 20?) I think extension values are at least 10% high and could be reduced to reflect the idea of 'hometown discount'.

(Seriously, is anyone ever going to extend the number 1 ranked forward at 8.7m? If I had Crosby on my roster in the last year of his contract I would probably give more consideration to putting him on Waivers than I would to Extension.)

My disclaimer here is that I haven't seen a round of free-agency yet. I'm simply guessing based on the limited amount of cap space the majority of teams have and on the premium value placed on players with small contracts.

Is there any interest in discussing this idea (reducing extension values) in a new thread?