0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re-read all of the input here and want to continue to make a case for Blocked Shots. A number of GM's have pointed out the low extension costs of Defence so maybe there is opportunity to re-jig on this front. If Blocked Shots were introduced we could at once raise the extension costs for D while increasing the asset pool that teams have to draw upon. This would be helpful to re-building teams in particular simply because more contributing players exist.
eeeeeewwwwwww, its the ghost of fantasy past. Slack is right on the blocked shots , count them similar to hits. It will have a slight effect on the top tier dmen but it really helps your mid to low tier dmen that arent PP specialists gain value. I still think your focus should be on getting more players into FA. More players in your FA will accomplish your goals 1) helps bottom teams rebuild quicker and 2) levels out the cap , free agency is where the great equilization happens. If teams have money they will spend it to compete. What corey says is on the right track, reduce the extension discount teams will always extend their young players , its the old guys that get the boot. Other option would be get rid of the free buyout in the event of retirement. It would send more older players into FA. Rebuilding teams would have the cap to bid them on 1 to 2 year contracts and flip for picks at Trade deadline . But i am just a ghost......so I wouldnt take me to seriously eeeeewwwwwwwwww (i dont know how to type a ghost sound)
A bunch of interesting stuff, when are you coming back? Totally agree with increasing the number FA's (and also that you don't know how to make ghost sounds). More grist for the mill: The extension tiers are out of date as a 5 year contract at $6.5m is starting to look like a bargain. Please consider:Current LimitsSalary - Min & Max Years$6.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)$5 to $6.4m - 4 or 5 years$3.5 to $4.9m - 3 or 4 years$2 to $3.4m - 2 or 3 years$0 to $1.9m - 1 or 2 yearsPropose something like this:Salary - Min & Max Years$8.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)$6.5 to $8.4m - 4 or 5 years$4.5 to $6.4m - 3 or 4 years$3 to $4.4m - 2 or 3 years$0 to $2.9m - 1 or 2 yearsOr even something like this (which collapses a couple tiers in the middle adding more flexibility). Salary - Min & Max Years$8.5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)$6.5 to $8.4m - 4 or 5 years3 to $6.4m - 2 to 4 years$0 to $2.9m - 1 or 2 yearsI think the combined changes would have the effect of reducing term on some contracts and pushing decent guys to free agency before they normally would. There's still good structure that supports the original intent, but it is refreshed and encourages more contract turn-over. A correspond bump for FA signings would do the same. Shorter contracts mean more turn-over. Also GM's should need to think twice before committing to full-term. Raising the 5 year bar to $8.5m makes a difference.
I think this might have the opposite effect then you intended at the high end. Bergeron was not resigned this year because his $7.8m extension value required a 5 year commitment. If your proposed $8.5m limit was in effect Bergeron would have only been required to sign for 4 years. Not sure if he would have been resigned for 4 years @ $7.8m but it definitely makes it more likely that he would. I think you would see more older players being resigned because the GM wouldn't have to commit to so many years. The young players are already going to get resigned so I think this would reduce the FA pool and not increase it.
Totally possible I have it backward but there's two different elements here so not sure holding up Bergeron alone is enough to say so. With regards to the salary limit, I get the argument that if GM's have to commit to term they are less likely to sign a certain age of player, but you can also see where it would be a bargain to lock a younger star up for 5 years at only $6.5m. It all depends on which end you are looking from. As far as collapsing a couple tiers in the middle, to be honest I don't know what that would do. In Backyard players of any salary can re-sign for a year at a time. I'm not in favour of that but it does puts upward pressure on contracts for younger players. Though I'll admit for players like Bergeron they just get signed forever to a string of one year contracts as their production declines.
Posted by: WestCoastExpressI'd also hate the 1-year at a time extension, as in that sense you can just extend a player 1 year at a time in case he gets injured, which would lower his re-sign value.
Posted by: WestCoastExpressCould also just do away with in-season extensions too...
To be clear I'm not suggesting that. But refresh on the extension limits set a decade ago? Yes please.
Posted by: RobTo be clear, I haven't fully wrapped my head around how this helps/hurts us.
Same here. Cally and Shooter are probably right with their examples but I think there would be others that balance it out?? Regardless you can see that at some point we'll be forced to account for inflation. Apparently $6.5 million ain't what it used to be! If we're serious but not certain (about any changes really), we can aim to adopt in 2020-2021. Monitor this years free-agency and extension periods and keep the commentary going throughout the year? Would love to do the same for blocked shots and/or other suggestions.