Proposal to change extension method

[Rob]

The attached sheet shows the comparison between 25k/point without BS and 23k/point with BS.  The top players in the league aren't big BS players, so you see a depreciation in their prices, but it's very close after to the previous scale after the 50th rank or so. 

[Rob]

Though, 25 is a much nicer number than 23... Dman it.

Hurts my OCD!   

[WestCoastExpress]

Ran some numbers - in order to scale the plan to the economy with the addition of BS, we need to adjust the base figure from $25k to $23k.  This puts us almost perfectly on the money scale from before. 

Adding BS increases the economy from $2.4B to $2.6B.  Reducing to $23k per point brings us right back to $2.4B.

I'm not a numbers guy so thanks for this Rob. But I hear you on the 25 vs. 23, haha.

Also...
Every time you write BS my first thought isn't Blocked Shots...

[Rob]

Although....

Going from 25k to 23k is a 8% drop.  Instead of that we could bump the cap up to accomodate the Blocks increase.  An equivalent 8% cap increase would take us to around $95 million.  In this way we can use the nice, easy to remember, $25k number.

How do you all feel about that?

[Rob]

I'm not a numbers guy so thanks for this Rob. But I hear you on the 25 vs. 23, haha.

Also...
Every time you write BS my first thought isn't Blocked Shots...

Haha yea I feel the same typing it.  I typed out Blocks in my last post! 

[Anthony]

I ran some more numbers from your sheet: The average player adds 12.35fp so average player salary would increase by $0.3m if you kept the multiplier at 0.025, and if you multiply .3m x 30 players on a roster it's about a $9m cap increase needed to account for the salary bump. Not a perfect model but gives some insight.

[Rob]

I ran some more numbers from your sheet: The average player adds 12.35fp so average player salary would increase by $0.3m if you kept the multiplier at 0.025, and if you multiply .3m x 30 players on a roster it's about a $9m cap increase needed to account for the salary bump. Not a perfect model but gives some insight.

So it's somewhat relative.  And 30 x .3 doesn't account for P contracts, so I think the $8m increase to $95m on the cap end works?

[SlackJack]

So it's somewhat relative.  And 30 x .3 doesn't account for P contracts, so I think the $8m increase to $95m on the cap end works?

Or use average instead of best as it drives prices down by about 10%. Don't get the resistance to this as it's all going to be done for us on spreadsheet anyway. Not like we have to do actual math ourselves. 

[norrya66]

Although....

Going from 25k to 23k is a 8% drop.  Instead of that we could bump the cap up to accomodate the Blocks increase.  An equivalent 8% cap increase would take us to around $95 million.  In this way we can use the nice, easy to remember, $25k number.

How do you all feel about that?

 

I think $95m cap with 25k/point works out nicely!

[Rob]

Or use average instead of best as it drives prices down by about 10%. Don't get the resistance to this as it's all going to be done for us on spreadsheet anyway. Not like we have to do actual math ourselves. 

That model would increase prices.  It's what I was trying to explain:

• It would tighten the contract range from $1m-$10m to $3m-$9m
• You would insert new players who had previously been priced our of the model (Andrej Sekera types) back into the range.  This means, perhaps something like 800 players getting contract values in the scale instead of 675
• I created a range between 2 and 9 with 800 data points that scale linearly.  This isn't totally accurate.  You would have to get the extension costs of hundreds of players with the 3 year average to make this perfect, but it should be somewhat close.  I then removed the bottom 125 to compare apples to apples.  The total of this range is $4.1B....!!! Our previous total for this range was $2.0B with the new plan increasing it to $2.4B.
• All the arguments about which method (3 years or 2 years) is more accurate are irrelevant when it does THIS to the economy.