Rule change vote #2 (Prospect extension discount reduction)

[GypsieDeathBringer]

I don't see an issue with the length of the prospect extension. Most good young players who are superstars stay with there original teams for the first 7-10 years of their contracts. Tavares left the Islanders after being there for 9 years. Sebastian Aho just signed a 5 year extension that locks him up for his first 8 years with the Canes. Matthews signed a 5 year extension. Draisaitl and McDavid signed 8 year extensions. If anything 5 years is on the shorter end of the recent extensions.

Attached is a spreadsheet of an analysis I did today. I assumed that each team had 17 starters on there team and 13 roster spots filled with league minimum contracts (500k). I took the total cap space in DNHL in 19/20 (1,740 Million) and subtracted the the minimum contracts off (130 Million) to get the total salary cap space for starters in our league (1,610 Million).

I split that 1,610 Million dollars across the top 60 Centers, Left wing, Right wings, Goalies and top 120 Defensemen in the league based on last years overall season fantasy points. The values in bold are a rough estimate of what a player truly is worth in DNHL. Even Kucherov doesn't come close to touching McDavid's NHL value of $12.5m. I think most of the prospect extensions in DNHL are pretty close to actual DNHL values for those players.

That is a solid workup of what DNHL contract extensions could be and if the league wants to move away from using NHL contract values I would be okay with that, but until we do we are attached to the NHL values and it doesn't make sense to have top tier players making so little for so long. 

At a minimum Seth Jones would not be on my team with either decreasing the extension value or reducing the term getting the player to full FA quicker.  Blues probably lose two of  Leon Draisaitl, $5.5m (2022-2023), C Aleksander Barkov, $4.2m (2020-2021), C Sean Monahan, $4.8m (2020-2021), or C Dylan Larkin, $3.5m (2022-2023).  Canucks are losing two between Kucherov, McAvoy, Scheifele, Kreider, etc.  Those players then probably go to rebuilding teams because they have the cap or picks stocked up to trade for/sign them.  In my mind it would balance the league out a bit more than it is currently. 

[SlackJack]

Obviously I started out against any kind of change to the prospect discounts because I am two years into an eight year experiment that is entirely predicated on it. But there's more to it than that.

When I joined the league my initial assessment was that the top tier teams have all the goalies. Period. I could see a way to trade towards a starting goalie or two, but (random example) in 2016 St. Louis's roster had Lundqvist, Allen, Hellebuyck, and Saros. That's not even the strongest collection of goalies but it is still very formidable. I was holding only Mike Smith at the time so wasn't even in the same league let alone being able to compete. For that to happen I had to look to the future.

Further DNHL "analysis"   points to another commonality among the top tier teams. They all have rosters constructed using every tool available including heavy use of the prospect discount. Gypsie and Cally both make strong cases to the fact that maybe the prospect discount helps the top teams as much as those at the bottom. If (not to pick on anyone) St. Louis can afford to trade for players like Leon Draisaitl at $5.5m through 2023 what is to stop him from perpetually retooling?

Happily, the answer here is "nothing" and that the name of the league is "Dynasty" NHL. If I am to compete with GM's that are smart enough to trade for a fully paid Patrick Berglund then I need to use every rule available to my best advantage. This includes tanking, hording, and exploiting new GM's by trade. That said even if I am a savvy GM, I am still at a disadvantage because I have to wait for my roster to mature. Established contenders can blow out prospects as currency knowing they have six picks a year to replenish their prospect pool.

Given that the our pools are so shallow compared to those in the NHL there is an astounding ability to reload. It doesn't matter how many prospects a Leon Draisaitl might cost if almost half of your prospect pool can be replaced in a single season. Whichever direction we go on the other argument I would like to see the prospect pool increase by another 5 and the number of annual picks decreased by one (to a total of 5).

I know it's sideways, but that my 13 cents.

[SlackJack]

That is a solid workup of what DNHL contract extensions could be and if the league wants to move away from using NHL contract values I would be okay with that, but until we do we are attached to the NHL values and it doesn't make sense to have top tier players making so little for so long. 

At a minimum Seth Jones would not be on my team with either decreasing the extension value or reducing the term getting the player to full FA quicker.  Blues probably lose two of  Leon Draisaitl, $5.5m (2022-2023), C Aleksander Barkov, $4.2m (2020-2021), C Sean Monahan, $4.8m (2020-2021), or C Dylan Larkin, $3.5m (2022-2023).  Canucks are losing two between Kucherov, McAvoy, Scheifele, Kreider, etc.  Those players then probably go to rebuilding teams because they have the cap or picks stocked up to trade for/sign them.  In my mind it would balance the league out a bit more than it is currently. 

More loose change... Gypsie is right but lowering the over-all cap would help do the same thing. My $50m in cap space isn't an advantage because nobody really wants the players available in free-agency anyway. At least not enough that the $10m-$20m that everyone else has isn't entirely enough to fill the two or three roster spots needed.

Start rewinding the cap relative to the NHL. As of today we are at NHL +$6m. Reel that in by $2m per year and see what the effect is. Couple that with a 1 player pick reduction and a 5 player increase to the minor leagues. With those changes I would support a tweak on prospect discounts to lower the term to 4 years instead of 3. All these small changes stacked together could have an out-sized impact somewhere closer to where we all want to be.

[jmtrops]

I dont think the discount % is the problem, its the # of years. here are 3 players I was able to do the 5 years at the minimum.
C Mika Zibanejad, $2m (2019-2020)
D Morgan Rielly, $2m (2020-2021)
G Joonas Korpisalo, 2m (2023-2024)
The first 2 have greatly exceeded their contract last year and Korpisalo has the chance to do the same. In his case his resign was only like 1.2M but for the minimum 2M for 5 years was the smart thing for me to do. If he becomes the starter it will be a great contract for me and even if he is a ok back up it is still ok.
 RW Mitchell Marner, 5.8m (2023-2024)
 I just signed him to this prospect contract and at 5.8M, I dont see the 5 years as a problem for the league at that #, but I think if you make the years a sliding scale based on the $$ as a potential solution.
$6m+ - 5 years
$4 to $5.9m - 4 years
$2 to $3.9m - 3 years
something like this might be better

[WestCoastExpress]

but I think if you make the years a sliding scale based on the $$ as a potential solution.
$6m+ - 5 years
$4 to $5.9m - 4 years
$2 to $3.9m - 3 years
something like this might be better

That's actually not that bad an idea. Can play around with the numbers a bit, but for the min. of $2m for 3 years, that makes perfect sense. It would be a "bridge deal" in DNHL, where the player isn't fully established as a star yet, but might be in 3 years in which case you'd have to pay him.

With the discount we have, not many players will get over that $5.9m mark. Which, maybe is a good thing. The only most recent one that comes to mind would be Connor McDavid. Not sure if anyone else off the top of their head can think of one. And also it would probably really only relate to centres, as you'd have to be one of the top wingers to get over $6m per year with the discount.

And Slack.... I did exactly what you did, except I only did it for a year and a half. Half the season when I took over mid season, and then the following year.
At that time luckily I did have prospects who were closer or in the NHL and ready to contribute, but so do you actually:
D Zach Werenski, $2.8m (2023-2024)
D Noah Hanifin, $2m (2022-2023)
D Darnell Nurse, $2.5m (2022-2023)
LW Matthew Tkachuk, $4.3m (2023-2024)
RW Jakub Vrana, $0.5m (P-19/20)
RW Timo Meier, $0.5m (P-19/20)
RW Travis Konecny, $3.9m (2023-2024)

Then I was able to trade those good young prospects and round out a roster, along with some decent FA's to sign due to having a ton of cap space.

Not sure you need to tank for 4 years in a row (isn't this coming up on the 3rd year?) to really do a re-tool. Will be interesting to see how long Rob lasts. It's been not even half a year into things so far. I feel like he might be like me and lost patience and start to build up a more competitive team starting next summer.

[janesvilleaces]

Nm

[Rob]

I get that it doesn't make sense logically that top tier players in our league make less than those in the NHL.  I knew this would be the case from day one.  In order to maintain an economy that was somewhat relative to the actual NHL economy - we needed an element that brought our overall cap equation down, relative to the NHL.  And this was it.  It wasn't logical at the time.  It's not logical now.  But - it works.  Shooter's analysis shows that the relative value here is lower than the NHL across the board.  Younger players are less expensive than average and veteran players are more expensive.  That's always been our recipe for general relativity. 

Point is - it's not like, after 8 season, a flaw has developed or become apparent.  It's certainly more obvious now since more of these contracts have come to fruition.  But, truth be told, the 3 year lag before ANY prospect cost ANY team a dime was the golden age for cap wastefulness here.  We all had more money to spend per capita - and now that the contracts are in force and the other cap measures have squeezed (I use that loosely, I still think this is an easy league to cap manage overall) teams more than they have in the past - issues like this become more evident.

Other than the actual price-tag of these players, we are actually mirroring the league quite well.  The point has been made that these players are signed too long in our league - but the counter point that they are actually signed just as long in the NHL, is a lot stronger, to me.  The point has been made that these players are virtually untradeable in our league.  Well - how tradeable are they in the NHL?  I don't believe the Blues would necessarily have to lose any of the group that Corey mentioned (Draisaitl, Barkov, Monahan, Larkin) - I believe they would hire less expensive depth - since there WOULD be more FA - it would just be more 30+ year olds and they will be LESS expensive.  So you wouldn't necessarily have to maneuver the top, you'll have to maneuver the bottom/middle/depth.  None of these players would "trickle down" to rebuilding teams.  Take your Reagonomics elsewhere! 

One issue that's been around a long time, has been highlighted by this discussion and made pretty obvious by shooter's analysis - is the disparity in C vs LW/RW values.  I would love to hear some constructive ideas on that front. 

[Rob]

Will be interesting to see how long Rob lasts. It's been not even half a year into things so far. I feel like he might be like me and lost patience and start to build up a more competitive team starting next summer.

I'm hoping for a fast turnaround similar to yours.  You hit gold on a few guys though.  I need to do the same.  Gusev needs to be a stud.  I need a goalie to turn into a legit #1.  My hope is to see what progress a few guys make this season and make some decisions next year.  I'll likely use the top 2020 picks but trade off the remaining picks for 2021 picks.  At around the time of the 2021 draft I hope to be wheeling and dealing to field a full competitive squad for the 21/22 season.  Probably not a title run, but at least a playoff run.

18/19 - Pulled the trigger on rebuild
19/20 - Tank for #1 pick
20/21 - Bottom 5 team still, but not full on tank
21/22 - Fighting for wildcard seed
22/23 - Lose in DNHL finals for 3rd time
23/24 - Boston Bruins - DNHL Champs!!

That's the plan - hoping for the best.  Save this so you can mock me later. 

[Rob]

Just a thought, and it might be bad cause I'm tired.

If you want to force more young players out into the market, maybe increasing the minimum prospect contract would help.  If it cost $1m instead of $500k to maintain them, for example - perhaps it would force more tough decisions, leaving more players to FA or the Supplemental.

Ok... Bedtime.

[WestCoastExpress]

Just a thought, and it might be bad cause I'm tired.

If you want to force more young players out into the market, maybe increasing the minimum prospect contract would help.  If it cost $1m instead of $500k to maintain them, for example - perhaps it would force more tough decisions, leaving more players to FA or the Supplemental.

Ok... Bedtime.

Just a thought.

Another way to force decisions would be to not let players sit in the minors with more than 40 games played. (If this were the case, the number could go up, maybe to 50 or 60 games played).

That way, if a good, contending team has a solid roster full of veterans, they couldn't also just keep young up and coming players sit in their minors with a season and a half worth of games played, waiting for them to earn a top role on their real NHL team and become fantasy relevant.

It would force decisions of whether to drop them or trade them, or if you think they'll really become something you'd have to bring them to your NHL roster and drop someone else.