| Date | 2013-01-30 06:13 |
| Message | teams with good picks in the redraft in a strong FA year will see value in trading away players with high years to make cap room for the talent available. 3-5 years from now.. its easier to trade an asset with a defined end date to their value. |
| Date | 2013-01-30 03:58 |
| Message | Again that's all just my opinion on the impact but here's why I think trading increases... All players will now have a tangible contract attached, which makes the players value more defined as an asset. Basically for a lot of players their worth to a GM will be much more cut and dry. Rebuilding and competing GM's will know much more clearly which player/contracts they value. So there will be more trades that fit once the open ended keeper status is removed. Currently all players are somewhat overvalued by the owning GM and underbid by the buyer because there's always a what if factor with them, the unreached potential is always a draw. With a contract length attached the window will be more defined and the value to a GM will be more measured. |
| Date | 2013-01-30 11:40 |
| Message | Can you clarify how you envision trades being easier and more frequent? If I now have to worry about staying under any sort of cap, doesn't that make trading more difficult because there are more variables? |
| Date | 2013-01-30 08:53 |
| Message | Here's my take on the impact (depending on # of years for the cap): -This system needs around 3 years before we see a real impact. All good players will be signed for at least a few years, and until those good players start retiring/contract runs out/career ending injuries/etc the talent in the pool will be well hoarded by all GM's. -Little to no impact in the near future for Cam and Dan's team, they'd be able to distribute their contracts to make sure they still have the same control over the next 2 or 3 years. -Decreases value of active young player/prospects. Now that the trajectory of the player must be timed with contract years risked. -Decreases value of tier 2 prospects. Superstar prospects that have an impact immediately are still full value, but any prospects that need a few years of development will lose value within the pool. -Increase in value to mature depth players, players like Jagr that can be signed for 1 year become slightly more valuable. -Trades should be easier and a little more frequent. -Overall the change won't do much to bring the gap between teams together, because the pool is still oriented to reward research and strategy quite heavily. |
| Date | 2013-01-30 08:52 |
| Message | Sounds good to me, the only condition I'd add is a buyout option, if I have Stamkos for 12 and he goes to the KHL, I suggest the option of buying him out in the summer for 6 years off the season contract cap. I'm gonna post my take on the impact of the change. It shouldn't be read as for or against the change, it's just my opinion on how it will change. As for my stance if we want change, then this is a nice clean way to go and that's very important. |
| Date | 2013-01-29 07:58 |
| Message | love it |
| Date | 2013-01-28 02:13 |
| Message | You are probably right that partial protection wouldn't fix anything and I also have no interest in a dollar/auction format. The type of contract system I was thinking of would involve a set total number of contract years to be allotted to all the players on our current teams. You could give players whatever number of years you want to give ie. I would be able to give Stamkos 5 years or 12 years out of 120 total years to fill the 27 man roster(or whatever total we set). I could give St. Louis 1-2 years. When the contract is up, the player goes back into free agency and is free to be picked up by another GM. If the player is picked, the GM would assign a number of years to the contract as long as they stay under the limit. I haven't really thought through potential issues but this system would be fairly simple to manage and wouldn't require a lot of re-tooling...or maybe it would? |
| Date | 2013-01-28 12:31 |
| Message | I understand the value of a protected list... and yes obviously you would lose some value... but my point is it doesn't solve any issues, for the rest of the GM's. The GM that it helps the most is me... because my top end can compete with yours and Dans (assuming Ovechkin scores more than once this season) and my issue is depth. Beyond that all it does it give the middle of the pack and bottom feeding GM's the illusion of parity. I agree that it does increase the issue of firesales and tanking. Dan and I created an auction pool a few years ago where all GM's have X dollars to spend and bid on the players to fill rosters. It has been a nightmare since day 1 to finetune all the different rules and everyone has a different opinion... I highly recommend we don't go down the $ value auction route. Other than that I'm open to whatever format type is decided on. I just hope it has the effect we're looking for. |
| Date | 2013-01-28 10:52 |
| Message | The idea of contracts and caps is one that I've always been interested in but it could be far more complicated than our current format depending on how it would be done. It would also require more dedication from GM's which some may not want or be able to do. The idea is simple enough but once you add in trade ramifications, prospects and cap levels, issues begin to pile up. The part of this system that would be great is that it would force GM's to make more decisions which is where winning and losing should be decided. Phil, doing a partial protected list would lock up your core but, in theory, would also force GM's to expose some valuable non-core players. For example, with my team, Martin St. Louis is not part of the core of my team due to age but he is still a top 10ish player in the NHL. If I'm forced to expose him via a numbers game because I feel Patrik Berglund has more overall value, then my team would be weakened and a lower team could be made significantly better in the short term. There are also issues though as teams that are out of the hunt early would just pawn off any player of value that would be exposed if kept. My vote would be to investigate a simple (key word) contract/cap type format. |
| Date | 2013-01-28 09:27 |
| Message | I'm fine with anything, I like the pool as is, and I think the current state of everyone rebuilding is because of Rob's dynasty coming to an end and everyone seeing Cam and Dan's rebuilds work so well... (mine too until I traded it all to Cam lol). I think the disparate levels of interest and activity add to the problem, and it's a chicken and egg debate about what caused what. So, I agree if everyone wants a change, let's make a change. I don't think protected rosters get us very far though because currently between Dan, Cam and Myself we have 23 of the top 30 forwards in the league (according to Dobber). So protecting 10 players just locks the best players on the teams where you don't want them. |