Discussion: FNHL Extension Process

[SlackJack]

This means a 2yr extension is really a 1 year extension & 1 year restructure. This would give actual NHL GMs fits imo. If I am correct, Im curious to know why it was set up that way? Everything else about Franchise is set to real life standards (with the possible exception of inflated Goalie salaries). Maybe I am missing the boat here, it wouldn't be the first time.

That is in fact how it is. I can't answer why, but I suspect it is to allow GM's flexibility. Or maybe it's just an unintended quirk. There more than a few such quirks, most notably the buy-out loophole that allows GM's to buy-out and recapture a players contract over and over again. Obviously we're in a fantasy land here so I wouldn't exaggerate the similarities to the real NHL. It is what it is, and whatever it is, we all live by it.  :thumbsup:

[snugerud]

That is in fact how it is. I can't answer why, but I suspect it is to allow GM's flexibility. Or maybe it's just an unintended quirk. There more than a few such quirks, most notably the buy-out loophole that allows GM's to buy-out and recapture a players contract over and over again. Obviously we're in a fantasy land here so I wouldn't exaggerate the similarities to the real NHL. It is what it is, and whatever it is, we all live by it.  :thumbsup:

what do you ever mean slackjack.....

Alexander Semin, $0m (2014-2017)  3.5m disct'd '14-15 COL FA signing #1
Alexander Semin, $0m (2014-2017)  2.4m disct'd '14-15 COL FA signing #2
Alexander Semin, $0m (2014-2017)  2.1m disct'd '14-15 COL FA signing #3

[SlackJack]

what do you ever mean slackjack.....

Alexander Semin, $0m (2014-2017)  3.5m disct'd '14-15 COL FA signing #1
Alexander Semin, $0m (2014-2017)  2.4m disct'd '14-15 COL FA signing #2
Alexander Semin, $0m (2014-2017)  2.1m disct'd '14-15 COL FA signing #3

Rule's a rule. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[snugerud]

did you sign and drop him 3 consecutive times or did someone else own him in between?  I was under the impression you could only sign and buyout the player and get the discount once then after that you are SOL unless another team takes that player inbetween..

[SlackJack]

did you sign and drop him 3 consecutive times or did someone else own him in between?  I was under the impression you could only sign and buyout the player and get the discount once then after that you are SOL unless another team takes that player inbetween..

Nope, just me. This is what we voted for (or against depending). There's a sweet spot with 3 year contracts that you will find if you do the math. I haven't had the opportunity yet but you can basically take a contract to zero if you are persistent.....like me. :koolaid:

[snugerud]

Nope, just me. This is what we voted for (or against depending). There's a sweet spot with 3 year contracts that you will find if you do the math. I haven't had the opportunity yet but you can basically take a contract to zero if you are persistent.....like me. :koolaid:

Was I here for that vote because I definitely would have voted against that?  if its in the rules, fair game I guess.
I asked because last year I was trying to trade a guy off offering a 3rd round in compensation with the stipulation the other team buy him out and I rebid to get them back so that I would still have the buyout and re-sign option later.  I guess I didnt need to do that.

Edit: NVM, i went back through and remember the thread. I choose neutral because I see the advantages and disadvantages.  Although was still under the impression you could only claim a discount once until now.  gooood to know.. :agent:

[Burkes Boys]

Hmmmm that is a fine explanation. I will wait until years end to extend some of these players.

I am curious...in my other fantasy leagues, all of them, extensions are added to the back end of the current deal. The same is true in real life professional sports. What you & Jonathan have explained is I would actually be restructuring the current deals dropping the current year that they are already under contract for, and replacing it. (if looked at by real life standards).

This means a 2yr extension is really a 1 year extension & 1 year restructure. This would give actual NHL GMs fits imo. If I am correct, Im curious to know why it was set up that way? Everything else about Franchise is set to real life standards (with the possible exception of inflated Goalie salaries). Maybe I am missing the boat here, it wouldn't be the first time.

I was around the early yrs and understand that Pigs wanted FNHL extensions to be a small out clause to give new owners/GMs a chance to restructure team cap. It's also the reason there are no 1yr contracts (except for MiLR promotions) in FNHL because a 2yr deal can be restructured after 1yr.

Basically owners don't get buried by the mistakes of previous owners or their own bad cap decisions.

[LIVE DynastySports]

I was around the early yrs and understand that Pigs wanted FNHL extensions to be a small out clause to give new owners/GMs a chance to restructure team cap. It's also the reason there are no 1yr contracts (except for MiLR promotions) in FNHL because a 2yr deal can be restructured after 1yr.

Basically owners don't get buried by the mistakes of previous owners or their own bad cap decisions.

Which works against my operating principles. I cant speak for anyone else, but I like to lock my guys down long term. If a guy doesn't live up to the contract, well that happens in real life all the time. Jonathan characterized my extensions as a "loop hole" when in fact the loop hole is in the way the extension protocol is structured here imo.

I like to build teams for not just the current year, but 2, 3, 4 years in advance. New ownership isn't an issue if you have "true" ownership. People who don't quit, people who truly like to build a team. That's what "keeper leagues" are supposed to be about imo. Yeah your gonna have turnover in fantasy leagues because there are always gonna be quitters or flakey GM's, but I would have proposed that new GM's be offered free drops or the like.

New GM's should be allowed leeway to restructure or free drop players. The restructure/extension/buy out clauses in this set of rules do not help the "long term" GM to strategize a way to the title 3 years in advance for example. In a "winner takes all" type of format the guy who has the best team currently will have the best team, and when his or her run is over they can simply bail on the league. Its a super blow to some peoples ego's to lose.

I prefer an extension to be a true extension. A restructure to be a true restructure, & a buyout clause to not be a loop hole but a true buyout. Again I only speak for myself but I would like a chance to vote on the true loophole which is the buyout structure. If these are the rules, and this is what they will be going forward than so be it. I will not complain, I will simply adjust and adapt. I have said my peace. 

Please restructure extend the following players....


C Michael Latta, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking >177 = 0.2 league minimum
C Liam O'Brien, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking >177 = 0.2 league minimum
LW Lucas Lessio, $0.7m (2014-2016-EL) 14/15 Highest ranking >131 = 0.2 league minimum
extend all 3 players for 2 yrs @ $200k

LW Matt Calvert, $0.8m (2014-2016) 13/14 Highest ranking 94 = 2yrs @ $0.8m
RW J.T. Brown, $0.6m (2014-2016) 13/14 Highest ranking 104 = 2yrs @ $0.6m
RW Valeri Nichushkin, $2.0m (2013-2016-EL) 13/14 Highest ranking 57 = 3yrs @ $2m
D Mark Barberio, $0.2m (2013-2016-EL) 14/15 Highest ranking 199 = 2yrs @ $0.7
D Chris Butler, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking 181 = 2yrs @ $0.8

[Jonathan]

Which works against my operating principles. I cant speak for anyone else, but I like to lock my guys down long term. If a guy doesn't live up to the contract, well that happens in real life all the time. Jonathan characterized my extensions as a "loop hole" when in fact the loop hole is in the way the extension protocol is structured here imo.

I like to build teams for not just the current year, but 2, 3, 4 years in advance. New ownership isn't an issue if you have "true" ownership. People who don't quit, people who truly like to build a team. That's what "keeper leagues" are supposed to be about imo. Yeah your gonna have turnover in fantasy leagues because there are always gonna be quitters or flakey GM's, but I would have proposed that new GM's be offered free drops or the like.

New GM's should be allowed leeway to restructure or free drop players. The restructure/extension/buy out clauses in this set of rules do not help the "long term" GM to strategize a way to the title 3 years in advance for example. In a "winner takes all" type of format the guy who has the best team currently will have the best team, and when his or her run is over they can simply bail on the league. Its a super blow to some peoples ego's to lose.

I prefer an extension to be a true extension. A restructure to be a true restructure, & a buyout clause to not be a loop hole but a true buyout. Again I only speak for myself but I would like a chance to vote on the true loophole which is the buyout structure. If these are the rules, and this is what they will be going forward than so be it. I will not complain, I will simply adjust and adapt. I have said my peace. 

Please restructure extend the following players....


C Michael Latta, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking >177 = 0.2 league minimum
C Liam O'Brien, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking >177 = 0.2 league minimum
LW Lucas Lessio, $0.7m (2014-2016-EL) 14/15 Highest ranking >131 = 0.2 league minimum
extend all 3 players for 2 yrs @ $200k

LW Matt Calvert, $0.8m (2014-2016) 13/14 Highest ranking 94 = 2yrs @ $0.8m
RW J.T. Brown, $0.6m (2014-2016) 13/14 Highest ranking 104 = 2yrs @ $0.6m
RW Valeri Nichushkin, $2.0m (2013-2016-EL) 13/14 Highest ranking 57 = 3yrs @ $2m
D Mark Barberio, $0.2m (2013-2016-EL) 14/15 Highest ranking 199 = 2yrs @ $0.7
D Chris Butler, $0.2m (2014-2016) 14/15 Highest ranking 181 = 2yrs @ $0.8

It is a loophole to be able to use rankings for now to extend in the future. That doesn't even make any sense. You can reduce overpaid players though. You still pay them their current extension value, either way. I don't see the issue with paying players their actual worth.   

 :bla: :bla: :bla: :bla: about everything else said.

[SlackJack]

Well I'm just going to go ahead and quote myself.

It is what it is, and whatever it is, we all live by it.  :thumbsup: