a good gm has adapted to the rules we have. honestly I dont see any of these changes will make things better it will just make them different. If we are not actually solving a problem why make a change. if its not broke dont fix it

I tend to agree.  But I also would rather be pro-active and fix it before it breaks.  The problem we are identifying is that we are top heavy.  We have a few teams that are producing at a clip that far exceeds the rest of the league.  This has lead to stagnancy and apathy from other would-be competitive teams.  How do we balance things out?  How do we re-ignite our trade market that has gone very quiet over the last 5 or so seasons?  I'd rather not wait for a breaking point before we do something about it.

Having said that, I do believe the changes we made a few seasons ago with extension costs need a little more time to fully flesh out - as Snug has indicated. 

I like the idea of reducing the prospect extension term to introduce more roster turnover (force those top teams to make tougher decisions faster).

I like the idea of restricting cash trades in order to force rebuilding teams to spread their cash out to more teams instead of just to 1 or 2 cup contenders (redistribution of wealth? - lol). 

I'm also not 100% sure that we NEED to change - but it's certainly worth discussing.  And now is a great time to bring these things up.

Where do we find flex-waivers again? I can never find them. 

Flex waivers were a casualty of converting contracts to Fantrax.  They were too much of a pain in the rear to administer.

Referendum on "Dynasty" aside I think the changes we're talking about are minor but worth discussing.

1) Small static factor adjustment.

Would like to hear more opinions on this.  I kinda feel like $25k is the sweetspot when you comp real life contracts down to fantasy point production.  There's lots of cap space out there in this league right now.  I don't know that lowering this factor really helps the health and balance of the league.  Moreover, it seems like everyone so far supports the idea of adding elements that create more turnover, and this has the reverse effect.  Also, as Snug pointed out - there was actually a reduction in total FP from last year to this year - we're very close to the same total FP as when we created the $25k/point factor.  I think this is something to watch - if there's a significant increase or decrease in total FP in the league in the future, then we need to consider revising the factor.

2) Cash trading cap.

Would like to hear more justification for this.  How does it help?  Our broad rules on cash trades have always benefited rebuilding teams.  It's also a good trade tool - if we're trying to create more trade buzz and general activity across the league, how does reducing it help?

3) Shorter contract extensions.

I'm intrigued by this idea as a tool to generate more turnover.  Just know that we would not see much of an effect for 3-5 years. 

I think that $25k per point is high if the plan is for us to rebuild with our prospects. I'll have to let most of mine walk.

I think there should be a different multiplier for D than there is for LW/C/RW. Extending defensemen is really not affordable

Prospect extension cost is $17.5K per point with the discount.  I think that 30% discount has always made building from the ground up the ultimate strategy here. 

I'm not in support of a different multiplier for D-men.  We did that in the past before we had Blocked Shots as a stat category, but I don't see it as necessary now.  When you're paying a flat fee per fantasy point it washes out any need for position bias. 

I am good with discussing but none of these changes even if agreed upon should happen immediately.  Especially changes to extension rules.  They should always be delayed by a season.

 

Boston Bruins trade   
Jonathan Quick

Toronto Maple Leafs trade
2024 Draft Pick, Round 2 Pick 9   

I think in its totality the extension setup we have is plenty conducive to building a "Dynasty".  The top players in the league (top 50 or so) cost about the same as they would have cost before the change.  It's the next level of 'above average' to 'average' talent that are more pricey than they were in the old extension rules.  Teams have tough decisions in this bracket of talent.  And that's true of the NHL as well.  Most competitive teams will spend big on their top line, top D pairing and their Goalie, then add veterans and young guns to fill out their middle six and beyond.  A guy like Tyler Bertuzzi, who I'd consider 'above average', but not elite, will inevitably end up in Free Agency.  I think that's how it should be.

This setup certainly makes it harder to maintain a full, deep roster - even if you've built it from the bottom up with lots of Prospect Discounts.  But, Free Agency is the tool to make up for that. 

And, let's face it - Hockey is not a sport that's conducive to "Dynasties" in the traditional sense.  When was the last real NHL dynasty?  The Oilers in the 80's?  There's just too much parity in the modern NHL.  I'm fairly certain that our player turnover with these rules is still less than actual NHL teams player turnover.