Rule Discussion: Extension Values

[Drew]

I left this open for discussion on all extension values. The mid level forward values could be raised as well. Discussion is based around whether there needs to be a further increase for goalie extension values.

One question I have is that should these be changed year to year once we find out what cap will be the next year. And/Or should the values be changed to represent the top dollars in respect to each position. So Ovechkin is tops at $9.5m, Weber tops at $7.9m and Tuuka is tops at $7.0m.
Or what could the values start at for each position.

I like the over a certain number strategy that there isn't any $0.2m contracts coming from extensions. You have to have some value in the player to keep them around on your team.

[nelly85]

think for the players extentions are fine the way they are but goalies need to come way up 1. it limits teams stocking 3 starters if they all cost 9 m a piece if there top 5 goalies, think it should be something llike 1st goalie 9m, 2nd 8.5m, 3-8m, 4-7.5m, 5-7m, 6-10- 6m 11-15- 5 mill. this thinking bc what would they be worth if they were in fa right now oviously ppl would pay top $ and bid 50m for 5 years 10m a year riemier was a good example. this would spread the goalies out and make more realistic values on the goalies since theres so few goalies compared to skaters this is just my opion

[favo_zomg]

think for the players extentions are fine the way they are but goalies need to come way up 1. it limits teams stocking 3 starters if they all cost 9 m a piece if there top 5 goalies, think it should be something llike 1st goalie 9m, 2nd 8.5m, 3-8m, 4-7.5m, 5-7m, 6-10- 6m 11-15- 5 mill. this thinking bc what would they be worth if they were in fa right now oviously ppl would pay top $ and bid 50m for 5 years 10m a year riemier was a good example. this would spread the goalies out and make more realistic values on the goalies since theres so few goalies compared to skaters this is just my opion

 

Because of how valuable and game breaking goalies are, they should be paid game breaker money. I feel settling on raising the extension values of goalies will make keeping the roster limit of 4 goalies per team more bearable. I wish we thought of this sooner, but better late then never, right?

[Jwalk100]

Imo after the cap is calculated each year,  the extension values should then be raised.

[norrya66]

Because of how valuable and game breaking goalies are, they should be paid game breaker money. I feel settling on raising the extension values of goalies will make keeping the roster limit of 4 goalies per team more bearable. I wish we thought of this sooner, but better late then never, right?

   This is why I said that we should consider something else before just dropping the limit to 3.  This makes complete sense what nelly said. 

[SlackJack]

I’m no statistician but I wanted to throw a few numbers into the conversation.

FORWARDS

Ovechkin, 174.35 (174)
Getzlaf, 159.35 (159)
Crosby, 154.64 (155)
Perry, 143.85 (145)   
Kessel, 143.4 (144)
Kunitz, 139.75 (140)
Sharp, 139.55 (140)       
Kane, 133.4 (133)
Pavelski, 132.65    (133)   
Benn, 130.6 (131)

Total Top 10 Forward = 1454
Rounded Average = 145.4 (145)

DEFENCE

Karlsson, 130.05 (130)
Byfuglien, 125.5   2 (126)
Weber, 124 (124)
Subban, 109.8 (110)
Seabrook, 107.5 (108)
Keith, 103.35 (103)   
Pietrangelo, 101.85 (102)
Shattenkirk, 98.25 (98)
Chara, 97.4 (97)
Doughty, 97 (97)

Total Top 10 Defence = 1095
Rounded Average = 109.5 (110)   

GOALIES

Price, 273.1 (273)
Varlamov, 271.55 (272)
Bishop, 262.35 (262)
Bernier, 260.55 (261)
Smith, 248.85 (249)
Fleury, 246.1 (246)
Lehtonen, 242.6 (243)
Rask, 241.55 (242)
Niemi, 231 (231)
Mason, 224.15 (224)   

Total Top 10 Goalie = 2503
Rounded Average = 250.3 (250)   

It’s obvious that at even a casual glance there is a solid argument for goalies to be paid more than forwards. In fact, that’s almost the whole argument for me. Any further comparison leads to conversation about specific valuation (or re-evaluation) and for that I don’t think a direct correlation is what we want.

For example: Steve Mason (the much maligned and newly recycled starter for the Flyers), is currently ranked 10th over-all in goalie points. His value based on production is nearly one third greater than (superstar) Alexander Ovechkin’s. (Whose value is in turn about ten percent better than the next nearest forward.)

If we reduce this statement to a directly correlated fiscal claim we could say that since Ovechkin (top ranked forward) is worth $7.9m per season then Steve Mason should be paid in the neighbourhood of $10.3m. Comparing goalies to forwards generally we could say that since (on average) goalies produce 72.4% more points than forwards their contracts should be that much greater.

This is not an argument I would make. There are brighter minds that can better extrapolate, manipulate and crunch statistics. But I will advocate for a more emotional score. While Steve Mason is obviously not worth $10.3m, he is undoubtedly worth more than his current resign of $4.4m.

But how much more should he be paid? Keep in mind that the more we tinker with rules the less that Backyard will resemble itself.  Also consider that the effect of reducing the active number of goalies will put strong downward pressure on goalie contracts negotiated through free-agency. To be honest, I think it will take a season or two before the full implications of that rule change are realized.

Last, I would like to point out that Steve Mason’s real-life NHL contract extension comes in at a cap hit of $4.1m over the next 3 years.

In summary, this is a very interesting conversation to me. In fact, in my first season I lead a move to lower extension values by 10% across the board. The difference between the relative values of goalies to other positions along with their contracts is a good discussion, but there are other issues within the extension tables that merit equal consideration and debate.

For example: Why should Steve Mason (at $4.4m) be extended at almost half the value of Carrey Price (at $8m)? Trust me, I could go on.

Here’s my proposal for new goalie extension values

1   8.0    8.8
2   7.5   8.5
3   7.0   8.2
4   6.5   7.9
5   6.0   7.6
6   5.5   7.4
7   5.0   7.2
8   4.8   6.8
9   4.6   6.4
10   4.4   6.0
11   4.2   5.8
12   4.0   5.6
13   3.9   5.4
14   3.8   5.2
15   3.7   5.0
16   3.6   4.8
17   3.5   4.6
18   3.4   4.4
19   3.3   4.2
20   3.2   4.0
21   3.0   3.9
22   2.9   3.8
23   2.8   3.7
24   2.7   3.6
25   2.6   3.5
26   2.5   3.4
27   2.4   3.3
28   2.3   3.2
29   2.2   3.1
30   2.1   3.0
31-35   2.0   2.8
36-40   1.6   2.4
41-45   1.2   2.0
46-50   1.1   1.6
50-60 1.0    1.2
Over 60 $0.8m

[SlackJack]

One question I have is that should these be changed year to year once we find out what cap will be the next year.

If we are going to index extension values to the rise and fall of the salary cap we might want a one year lag. In other words if the cap is going from $64.3m this year to $71.1m next then the extension values for the start of the 2015-16 season could potentially be raised across the board by 10% (rounded down). I'd like to leave this to the Commissioner's discretion to be decided year after year and only changed in increments of 10% in either direction. (In other words if the cap is raised or lowered by say 6% then the Commish has discretion to leave it as is.)

A log could be kept so that if the cap increases by say 3% one year and 5% the next, then the Commish could choose to bump values 10% the following year based on the cumulative 8% rise in the proceeding two.

[SlackJack]

And/Or should the values be changed to represent the top dollars in respect to each position. So Ovechkin is tops at $9.5m, Weber tops at $7.9m and Tuuka is tops at $7.0m.

No. These figures will always be changing from one superstar to the next and would put pressure on us to continually re-write extension tables almost from scratch. If anything the max contract should be based on a maximum percentage of a teams over-all cap (I think it's 20% now in the new CBA?). Regardless, I think the maximums are good where they are at with the exception of current goalie values.

Note: "Ovechkin is tops at $9.5m, Weber tops at $7.9m and Tuuka is tops at $7.0m" These values are skewed to reflect what is of value in the NHL rather than Backyard. If anything Rask should be worth $9.5m, Ovechkin $7.9m, and Weber $7m.

[SlackJack]

I like the over a certain number strategy that there isn't any $0.2m contracts coming from extensions. You have to have some value in the player to keep them around on your team.

I couldn't agree more. While I'm thinking about it we could take a look at contracts by draft position. I'd like to see something more like this:

Draft Position - Salary
1 and 2 - 3.0M 2.5m
3 thru 5 - 2.5M 2.0m
6 thru 10 - 2.0M 1.6m   
11 thru 17 - 1.5M 1.4m
18 thru 25 - 1.0M 1.2m
26 thru 30 - 500k 700k
30 thru 60 and over - 200k 500k

I think the actual minimum wage in the NHL is around $525k

[norrya66]

I couldn't agree more. While I'm thinking about it we could take a look at contracts by draft position. I'd like to see something more like this:

Draft Position - Salary
1 and 2 - 3.0M 2.5m
3 thru 5 - 2.5M 2.0m
6 thru 10 - 2.0M 1.6m   
11 thru 17 - 1.5M 1.4m
18 thru 25 - 1.0M 1.2m
26 thru 30 - 500k 700k
30 thru 60 and over - 200k 500k

I think the actual minimum wage in the NHL is around $525k