0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But what about: "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."
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.
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 think this is a very minor revision using Forward Rankings as the example.1 8.7 7.92 8.5 7.63 8.3 7.34 8.1 7.05 7.9 6.86 7.7 6.67 7.3 6.48 6.9 6.2 9 6.5 6.010 6.1 5.611 5.9 5.412 5.8 5.313 5.7 5.214 5.6 5.115 5.5 5.016 5.4 4.917 5.3 4.818 5.2 4.719 5.1 4.620 5.0 4.521-25 4.5 4.226-30 4.0 3.831-35 3.5 3.436-40 3.0 3.041-50 2.5 2.551-60 2.0 2.061-70 1.5 1.571-80 1.3 1.3etc...I think this speaks to the idea of proprietary interest and hometown discount without adding clauses for matching or compensation. It will also give slightly greater pause to some GM's considering releasing players to free agency but nothing radical.Consider that the extension value for James Neal would be $7.6m instead of $8.5m.
Any discussion on these adjustments? I would not be opposed to this.