|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 10, 2022 2:12:03 GMT -5
Hello everyone, So as was mentioned previously, Simi Valley Kings manager Paul has come up with an alternative means for the DHL to handle TERM Player salary structure and Free Agency. He's had this concept brewing for awhile, and has put a lot of thought into it. Because it is a change to such a fundamental aspect of our league, as well as having a level of complexity that's perhaps higher than what we'd usually see proposed in a rule-change, I decided to have Paul make a formal proposal to Jason (League Governor), Doug (League Legislator), and myself first. Everyone will have an opportunity to voice their opinion and ask questions, but I just wanted to have it pitched with the smaller group first, for the sake of clarity and ease of presentation. We made sure to record the presentation so everyone could have a look at it on their own time (if they so desire), but otherwise, Paul and Jason have written up some materials that may be enough to convey Paul's idea on their own. Conference Video:drive.google.com/file/d/11Zht7VFVWLVtqXLJmoPPfWeYjqTjUvjr/view?usp=sharingWritten Proposal:docs.google.com/document/d/1KskA1uoZcrytRcqas9rHJvIw0fd7hQqciXDS0r1CwoU/edit?usp=sharingWritten Referential Document:docs.google.com/document/d/1sEWixskhx8_S_MuyzK15P01REfJu9PZ2d9J1fFEveE8/edit?usp=sharingPlease peruse what you'd like of these materials, and likewise feel free to comment here with any questions or concerns you may have. Paul has offered to talk to anyone personally, if you want him to go over things with you 1-on-1. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 10, 2022 2:13:34 GMT -5
Supplemental flowchart here (work in progress), that may help convey things visually.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 10, 2022 19:21:40 GMT -5
Oh, I also want to mention that this is a proposal. There's flexibility here, and this is still considered a "work in progress". In other words, if you have any suggestions on tweaking finer details of the plan, feel free to mention those.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Jul 11, 2022 12:00:58 GMT -5
Hey Gentlemen.
Hope you are all having a terrific offseason. Happy to chat with anyone who has questions on this proposal. I mentioned on the Cervenka Summit thread that this idea addresses some of the suggestions many of you had about player contracts, buyouts and player extensions etc.. Would love to her what your thoughts are about it and to flesh out your concerns if you have any.
Reach out anytime.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Thunder on Jul 11, 2022 14:18:39 GMT -5
I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Jul 13, 2022 7:23:08 GMT -5
Ok...I think I like this idea. It's well thought out and adds complexity to this league, which I like.
Few questions:
1) players will still be on a team for a MAXIMUM of 5 years, right? If so, what's the purpose of this? To make teams pay more for thier 4-5 year deals? Personally, if we are going this route I'd at least like to see a year 6 or 7 option at a cost.
2) assuming this is a move to encourage more player turnover, I worry that this may result in good players not making market value as teams run into cap issues or withhold money. Not sure there is any way to know until we know, but it's a concern. Of course, this could be a good thing, but I think at most it'd be a good thing for half the teams and widen the gap between the top and bottom of the league. Do we, as a league, care?
3) is it worth exploring this with variations based on position? Perhaps jack up the cost of extending forwards or goalies? Or even having a variable cost structure based off player performance?
For instance, extending a player like Matthews or McDavid for $5 or $10 is a no-brainer, but what if that was just the base level, and we tiered it? 60-69 points = $5 increase, 70-79 = $10, 80-89 = $15, 90-99 = $20, 100+ = $25 (goalie performance would have to be factored as well)
It hardly seems right to be able to extend super star talent for the same cost as lesser player and, if the goal is to create more player turnover and more even rosters, this would definitely help that
This is all I have at the moment.
Again, I like this idea, just adding some food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Castleford Coyotes on Jul 13, 2022 10:28:46 GMT -5
Curious what happens with EL contracts on this one. What would players say in the 2nd year of the EL contract look like?
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Jul 13, 2022 10:59:59 GMT -5
Curious what happens with EL contracts on this one. What would players say in the 2nd year of the EL contract look like? The EL system stays exactly the same. This system only applies to current players on our rosters now and new free agent acquisitions.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Jul 13, 2022 12:06:16 GMT -5
Ok...I think I like this idea. It's well thought out and adds complexity to this league, which I like. Few questions: 1) players will still be on a team for a MAXIMUM of 5 years, right? If so, what's the purpose of this? To make teams pay more for thier 4-5 year deals? Personally, if we are going this route I'd at least like to see a year 6 or 7 option at a cost. 2) assuming this is a move to encourage more player turnover, I worry that this may result in good players not making market value as teams run into cap issues or withhold money. Not sure there is any way to know until we know, but it's a concern. Of course, this could be a good thing, but I think at most it'd be a good thing for half the teams and widen the gap between the top and bottom of the league. Do we, as a league, care? 3) is it worth exploring this with variations based on position? Perhaps jack up the cost of extending forwards or goalies? Or even having a variable cost structure based off player performance? For instance, extending a player like Matthews or McDavid for $5 or $10 is a no-brainer, but what if that was just the base level, and we tiered it? 60-69 points = $5 increase, 70-79 = $10, 80-89 = $15, 90-99 = $20, 100+ = $25 (goalie performance would have to be factored as well) It hardly seems right to be able to extend super star talent for the same cost as lesser player and, if the goal is to create more player turnover and more even rosters, this would definitely help that This is all I have at the moment. Again, I like this idea, just adding some food for thought. Going to try and answer these as best as I can. Most of my answers will be opinion because you are making suggestions so very open to a discussion with the other owners. 1) Under this proposal, five years in the maximum as it stands now. The purpose of this is to encourage more turnover but to also create tough decisions for owners with how long to extend or not extend a player's deal and at what cost and how that affects a team's cap. 6 to 7 years for a player is an extremely long time and I think a half a decade is long enough. 2) I find managing the cap one of the more compelling aspects of our league and like pro clubs, tough decisions are a part of the equation. I like the idea of a team having to make real choices about contract lengths or terminations or shorter transitional deals to manage the cap. This is certainly a wait and see situation but the hope is that the turnover will help shorten the gap between the top and bottom and create more parity. 3) I don't think position is all that relevant here to be honest. I think you would be surprised how hard it may be to extend a superstar by $10. Case and point, Draisaitl on my team. $70 is a huge investment into obviously a top 5 player in the league but I also realize that $70 represents 23% of my cap...at $80 that jumps to 26% and that's meaty as you try to build long term consistency plus who becomes a cap casualty as a result. Plus I like the idea of rewarding teams for taking a shot on players for cheap and then rewarding them for taking that chance. Portland bids $3 for Adrian Kempe and he gets the chance to extend him. $13 for a 30 goal scorer is a good thing. There could be some merit changing the dollar amount for production but that could get awfully confusing but I am open to discussing if others like the idea. Ultimately I am glad you like the idea and are open to it. This is a proposal so lots of moving pieces and the idea is to get traction to implement and then work out the subtleties going forward. Hopefully we can the dialogue going. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Portland Buckaroos on Jul 13, 2022 12:09:52 GMT -5
Ok...I think I like this idea. It's well thought out and adds complexity to this league, which I like. Few questions: 1) players will still be on a team for a MAXIMUM of 5 years, right? If so, what's the purpose of this? To make teams pay more for thier 4-5 year deals? Personally, if we are going this route I'd at least like to see a year 6 or 7 option at a cost. 2) assuming this is a move to encourage more player turnover, I worry that this may result in good players not making market value as teams run into cap issues or withhold money. Not sure there is any way to know until we know, but it's a concern. Of course, this could be a good thing, but I think at most it'd be a good thing for half the teams and widen the gap between the top and bottom of the league. Do we, as a league, care? 3) is it worth exploring this with variations based on position? Perhaps jack up the cost of extending forwards or goalies? Or even having a variable cost structure based off player performance? For instance, extending a player like Matthews or McDavid for $5 or $10 is a no-brainer, but what if that was just the base level, and we tiered it? 60-69 points = $5 increase, 70-79 = $10, 80-89 = $15, 90-99 = $20, 100+ = $25 (goalie performance would have to be factored as well) It hardly seems right to be able to extend super star talent for the same cost as lesser player and, if the goal is to create more player turnover and more even rosters, this would definitely help that This is all I have at the moment. Again, I like this idea, just adding some food for thought. 1. To me, the idea is to add flexibility and to help GMs avoid adding anchor contracts. Adding more years didn't really come up? It felt like the five year maximum was sacrosanct. Might be something to consider. Maybe even something to add down the road if this proposal works out? 2. I think, if anything, we going to see more cap flexibility, not less...but...it's a tough one to predict. I personally suspect this will result in more parity, not less. Again, this is because it will make it easier for GMs to correct course if some signings don't work out. I do think it is very likely that there will be more activity during free agency in general. 3. I'm right there with you! In theory, anyway. I spent a lot of time thinking about different ways to have variable contract extensions based on performance or as a percentage of salary, etc. I think the argument against it is one of simplicity versus complexity. I thought the static extension costs was arbitrary at the beginning, but it might just make sense that considerations based on performance are simply the ones made during the initial signing and that the $5/$10 is the premium you pay for an extension and that's that. I don't know, something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Jul 13, 2022 12:19:48 GMT -5
Ok...I think I like this idea. It's well thought out and adds complexity to this league, which I like. Few questions: 1) players will still be on a team for a MAXIMUM of 5 years, right? If so, what's the purpose of this? To make teams pay more for thier 4-5 year deals? Personally, if we are going this route I'd at least like to see a year 6 or 7 option at a cost. 2) assuming this is a move to encourage more player turnover, I worry that this may result in good players not making market value as teams run into cap issues or withhold money. Not sure there is any way to know until we know, but it's a concern. Of course, this could be a good thing, but I think at most it'd be a good thing for half the teams and widen the gap between the top and bottom of the league. Do we, as a league, care? 3) is it worth exploring this with variations based on position? Perhaps jack up the cost of extending forwards or goalies? Or even having a variable cost structure based off player performance? For instance, extending a player like Matthews or McDavid for $5 or $10 is a no-brainer, but what if that was just the base level, and we tiered it? 60-69 points = $5 increase, 70-79 = $10, 80-89 = $15, 90-99 = $20, 100+ = $25 (goalie performance would have to be factored as well) It hardly seems right to be able to extend super star talent for the same cost as lesser player and, if the goal is to create more player turnover and more even rosters, this would definitely help that This is all I have at the moment. Again, I like this idea, just adding some food for thought. 1. To me, the idea is to add flexibility and to help GMs avoid adding anchor contracts. Adding more years didn't really come up? It felt like the five year maximum was sacrosanct. Might be something to consider. Maybe even something to add down the road if this proposal works out? 2. I think, if anything, we going to see more cap flexibility, not less...but...it's a tough one to predict. I personally suspect this will result in more parity, not less. Again, this is because it will make it easier for GMs to correct course if some signings don't work out. I do think it is very likely that there will be more activity during free agency in general. 3. I'm right there with you! In theory, anyway. I spent a lot of time thinking about different ways to have variable contract extensions based on performance or as a percentage of salary, etc. I think the argument against it is one of simplicity versus complexity. I thought the static extension costs was arbitrary at the beginning, but it might just make sense that considerations based on performance are simply the ones made during the initial signing and that the $5/$10 is the premium you pay for an extension and that's that. I don't know, something to think about. I'm Paul Catalano and I support this message.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 13, 2022 21:11:18 GMT -5
Thanks for putting some thoughts together and sharing them with us, Alex. 1) players will still be on a team for a MAXIMUM of 5 years, right? If so, what's the purpose of this? To make teams pay more for thier 4-5 year deals? Personally, if we are going this route I'd at least like to see a year 6 or 7 option at a cost. As the others have mentioned, I think 5y is plenty. More often than not, I think it's only going to be the best-of-the-best that make it a full 5y anyways, and I don't want to keep elite talent out of the grasp more than we need to. 2) assuming this is a move to encourage more player turnover, I worry that this may result in good players not making market value as teams run into cap issues or withhold money. Not sure there is any way to know until we know, but it's a concern. Of course, this could be a good thing, but I think at most it'd be a good thing for half the teams and widen the gap between the top and bottom of the league. Do we, as a league, care? While I'm intrigued by Paul's proposal, I'm still skeptical on the claim that it's going to encourage more player turnover or help with league parity. Perhaps in minute ways, but I don't think it will change all that much in terms of these concerns. I could be wrong though. That being said, I don't think it's going to make turnover/parity WORSE, either? I think it will help people get out of their mistakes easier, which can help bad teams that are struggling mostly due to their bad gambles. On your question of, "Do we, as a league, care?", I will say that I would like to try and adjust the league this off-season to make it easier for bad teams to get better, and harder for good teams to stay good. Again, I'm not sure how much this proposal really addresses those concerns, but I at least see it as a means to help bad teams out, so that's a win? Personally, my stance on this whole proposal is to vote for it if you think it sounds fun or would make the league more entertaining for you, because I really see that as the main draw with it. 3) is it worth exploring this with variations based on position? Perhaps jack up the cost of extending forwards or goalies? Or even having a variable cost structure based off player performance? For instance, extending a player like Matthews or McDavid for $5 or $10 is a no-brainer, but what if that was just the base level, and we tiered it? 60-69 points = $5 increase, 70-79 = $10, 80-89 = $15, 90-99 = $20, 100+ = $25 (goalie performance would have to be factored as well) It hardly seems right to be able to extend super star talent for the same cost as lesser player and, if the goal is to create more player turnover and more even rosters, this would definitely help that Very intriguing ideas here, and I think it's something to consider in the future. As it is now, I wouldn't want to complicate it anymore than we need to. The simple $-/$5/$10 system works in being easy to learn and remember, and I think it ALSO makes it so that people will be less likely to be extending non-high-tier talent with the X and Y options, keeping the FA talent pool fresh. As commish, I don't WANT people to be using X and Y a lot. I know people will, but by having an elite forward and a depth forward be the same cost to extend, it will encourage managers to not do it lightly. Perhaps in two or three seasons, we see that there's a disparity worth addressing and if so we can consider this more then? But until it shows to be a problem, I don't think we need to over-complicate things. THAT being said, Paul has voiced that the $5 and $10 figures are pretty much arbitrary, so if we think those numbers need adjusting, THAT is something I think we should really talk about before this goes for official vote. I'd be happy with $5 and $15, personally. I think going the full 5 years should be costly. I'd even consider Y being $10 and X being $20...
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 13, 2022 21:31:51 GMT -5
View AttachmentSupplemental flowchart here (work in progress), that may help convey things visually. Also, after some discussion between me and the others involved in this proposal, I've come to the conclusion that I think "C" being a contract option is redundant, and any situation where it may come up could simply be deemed a "Z" contract instead. The only difference I could really come up with between a "C" contract and a "Z" contract was that "C" or "Z" would indicate whether a contract is expiring with or without an extension, and I see no reason for that to exist? To me, it only complicates things needlessly. So, for simplicity sake, I think we only need to tag contracts as A, B, X, Y or Z. Revised flowchart: ^Under this labelling, a "Z" contract immediately signifies that contract terms are coming to an end that off-season. I know the accompanying outlines here already includes the "C" option, and you may have already become familiar with the proposal with that label, so this may complicate things in the short-term, but I also feel it's best to nip this in the bud now, before we get used to the more complicated labelling. Note that this has NO structural change to Paul's proposal, this is merely clerical/labelling/presentation, that is all. If you have any questions, please ask.
|
|
|
Post by Castleford Coyotes on Jul 14, 2022 11:44:18 GMT -5
I like this idea a lot, the increased salary commitment means guys on $70+ are harder to keep and could allow for a more even league.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Jul 14, 2022 12:06:19 GMT -5
I like this idea a lot, the increased salary commitment means guys on $70+ are harder to keep and could allow for a more even league. I completely agree. The argument that Draisaitl is an easy candidate for a $10 extension is not a slam dunk knowing that I could have extended a player like a JT Miller at a $16 for 3 years and use the $64 in cap savings to pursue other players. It makes for awesome team deliberations and decisions and opens up more turnover. I’ve done this proposal in other fantasy type leagues and that’s exactly what happens.
|
|