Parity... Another discussion I think we need

[favo_zomg]

The reason two people are voting for expansion is for parity. I believe that if there are players who believe that the only way we can obtain parity in the league is by an expansion draft, we need to take a further look into the rules and see what we can do before that happens.

Thinking about expansion, I went through my current roster to see who would protect and who would I would make available to be picked, the decisions seemed too easy. I don't think expansion is the answer to parity. I think we need to look at upping the cost of extensions again.

Using my team again, I lost Chris Kunitz and Kevin Klein to free agency. I was able to retain Peter Holland, Matt Belesky, Ryan Callahan, Pavel Datsyuk, Jimmy Hayes (who I traded), Kevan Miller, Mike Weber, and Corey Crawford and I still had 7m in cap with only 3 roster spots to fill and a minor system that is experiencing good growth. I have yet to miss the play-offs in this league, and only once I have failed to make the semi-finals.

Chicago has won every cup since the league opened.
Anaheim has failed once to make the cup final.

I am not sure how much of this we can contribute to good managership and how much we can contribute to low roster turnover. If Tony and Tyler can list their loses to free agency, that would help the conversation. But I think this is a conversation we need to start because people are looking towards expansion as a means to parity, and my initial run through is leaning towards expansion having very little effect on parity.

[SlackJack]

Personally, I think we're on a level playing field. Tony doesn't hoard talent so much as he re-loads with shrewd trades and FA acquisitions. I've been watching how he does it since I got into the league. Comparatively I know I am over-attached to my drafted prospects and manage with a little too much patience. My style makes me happy, but if you want to create a competitive team from scratch it is certainly possible.

Drew did as much last year and both Abby and Nelly were able to address huge goal-tending issues. The depth of this years FA market aside, I am always able to find good affordable players within an incredibly active market. It takes both skill and luck, but if you show me an active GM then I will show you a roster with a gem of a signing from the free-agent pool.

I want to file this whole conversation under 'be careful what you wish for'. This league shines for the balance it has. It may be time again to escalate the extension values but let's not rush to watering down a league that I recently described as the benchmark for profsl fantasy hockey.

[SlackJack]

As a tongue-in-cheek side note, I would say that if Abby wants parity he should answer all his mail! Just sayin buddy!! 

[Drew]

Sorry guys, I am going to answer a bunch of things just in this post that deal with parity and expansion.

I think parity is coming! As for expansion, it wasn't my intention to have an expansion for parity, I just have a ton of very capable GMs on the waiting list and will only be able to choose one for vacant Rangers position.

If you look Washington is one team we have all been watching and they now have Kuemper (who could win his job back or get traded) and Jones as well as Hackett where they hardly had a goalie last year another is Calgary who has been on the cusp each year but now has two solid tenders. Rangers before he left just acquired Schneider to go along with Holtby. LA is the only team with a lot of work left to do but that is simply due to the Gilly factor.

As for Tony and his Blackhawks, sorry going to be honest here, he wasn't the best team last year but hit a stride at the exact right time (playoffs  ). Some teams got unlucky Anaheim and Edmonton (both lost goalies for playoffs) and couldn't recover. St. Louis and Philly were both better teams than Chicago but just couldn't come through in the clutch. This would be the first year that Tony wasn't dominate and his roster has seen quite the turnover again (but he still has good goalies on his side). But he has done things right, trading off assets to acquire pieces that fit into his team and taking the appropriate risks (Steve Mason!!!).

From my teams perspective, I have been inching closer each year. Won the presidents trophy last year and have acquired some nice pieces to make a run next year. I have had to trade away some great prospects for immediate return (Dal Colle, Bennett, Gibson, Ehlers, etc.) which I hate to do but definitely allows rebuilding teams to actually rebuild and for me to compete. The only players I have remaining from my original roster (year 1) are Eberle, Hall and Lucic. It takes commitment, shrewdness and risky behaviour to try and assemble a competitive team here.

As for league turnover, we are solid. We are like a band of brothers, sometimes one goes down but than we gain a new one. We have half of our league has been here over 3 years. With around 13 being here at least a year. The only newbie, Rob has been around ProFSL forever and winter has returned after an absence but is an original member of Backyard, is "themarksman13" who from his activity and involvement seems like he will stick around to even veteran status. There is lots of certainty in the waiting list now with veterans in Jonathan, cho34, jlapo11, papps, BlueJaysTO as well as a good mix of young upcomers in Gorilla43, BAMF, iam$$ so I don't know about worrying about turnover if we add 2 expansion teams or even 4 as we have quite the pool of prospective GMs to choose from.
The only franchise that hasn't had stable ownership is New York. And if you look at the waiting list, those additions that haven't stayed around we some good quality GMs (Jesselton, Jesse, yahoolando, Anthony, SizzRat, among others) but real world came up which we can't predict.

Sorry guys, this probably sounds like rambling but just wanted to make a statement on our talks here. And finally, I wouldn't say I am for expansion because I like my team and I do things for a certain reason and an expansion would hurt that but I think the quality we would infuse would take Backyard up another notch in competitiveness and quality. I don't love huge changes to things that are working but a conversation is obviously needed as is going to let us know what direction to take the league!

[SlackJack]

To sharpen this up a little more I would say there are two distinct topics here. One is Parity, the other is expansion.

As far as Parity goes I want to reiterate that we have it. The major differences are in the choices and activity level of individual GM's. I am saying this as a GM who has turned-over almost every single asset from the team I initially took over. A team that was not a contender. Until someone makes a compelling case that the league is unfair and out of balance then no major changes are needed.

Regarding expansion, I am not at all in favour. If there is a long list of good GM's that want in then that is perfect, because we tend to loose a couple every year. That said, I can see that it will likely get pushed through regardless of how strong my argument is. If and when expansion happens I would like all unsigned prospects (ie. purely drafted properties) to be protected. So any player that is not under contract would be excluded from the expansion draft and GM's would then choose maybe 18-20 contracts to keep.

[abbyroad]

As a tongue-in-cheek side note, I would say that if Abby wants parity he should answer all his mail! Just sayin buddy!! 

In the 4yrs I have been here I might of not responded to maybe half dozen e-mails.................. for reasons I sometimes cant control ( internet, work ect.......) Sorry they all had to be you Slack..... Hahaha. And I usually don't respond if the offer is an obvious fleece job !!................... Just sayin

[favo_zomg]

So I guess we can boil it down to the difference between the top teams and the bottom teams is activity. I got it.

I guess if everyone is fine with the way things are, why even expand? Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should for the sake of doing it. I don't see any positives other then adding two more teams because e have a glut of waiting bodies. And as slack said, we always lose a gm or two, so they will eventually fill in.

[SlackJack]

So I guess we can boil it down to the difference between the top teams and the bottom teams is activity. I got it.

Obviously not. This is a keeper league, not a one year. Teams at the bottom may take a few years to contend....as they should.

[SlackJack]

Obviously not. This is a keeper league, not a one year. Teams at the bottom may take a few years to contend....as they should.

To put it another way: if Tony were to take an expansion team I don't think there is anyone here who would bet against him building a challenger.