0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The root of this problem will always be how cheap prospect extensions are. No way Matthews should be only making 4.4m until 2024, Pastrnak 5.3m until 2022, Mackinnon 3.5m until 2021, Panarin 5.8m until 2023. As long as I can have elite talent under control for 8? years at a fraction of their actual value, I'd trade a Carlson type for that every time. Good on Winnipeg for trying to do just that.
That's why AZ is going to be a powerhouse for the next 5+ years come next season, haha. And Boston right after that.I mean to be fair though that's why my team is good now, because I got Pasta, Kuch, etc. on those deals a few years back and can now build around them.There was a discussion about those P-contracts previously but it's tough to change things up at this point with teams building for the current rules, among other things.
The new point structure will have an effect too. Not sure how it will play out but it could make it cheaper to do some re-signs.
The new point structure is only going to make the majority of players more expensive. Some high scoring centers will come down slightly but Wingers and Defenseman are definitely going to be going up.
Yep, pretty much the first thing I noticed about the league was the prospect discount. My whole team is being built around it but I assume I'll end up trading trade for older established point producers eventually. I'm open to adjusting P-contracts over time. As long as changes are phased in gradually people will have time to adjust. The new point structure will have an effect too. Not sure how it will play out but it could make it cheaper to do some re-signs.
If it's seen as a problem, my only suggestion would be to cut down the prospect extension length from 5 years to 3 and have that take effect 2-3 years in the future. Again maybe it's not a problem and is just a part of the fabric of our league.To the point of the original purpose of this discussion, I don't think good teams trying to trade good players is an issue, but if you do see it as an issue, prospect extensions are the problem.
I opened it up more for the sake of conversation than anything so I won't call it a problem if nobody else does. But if we were to make a tweak to the prospect extensions (to make them get to free-agency sooner) I'd want to relax the term requirements on extensions (to make it easier to keep our vets). With salaries rising to $10m+ for superstars the table we use for extensions is outdated and could stand to be re-worked. For example a salary of $6.5m-$8m with a min/max of 3-4 years. If this was paired with a reduction to prospect extensions to say 4 years I think we'd have a net benefit all around.