|
Post by Tampa Bay Thunder on Jul 14, 2022 18:12:53 GMT -5
One effect this will have that's different is when FA's are signed late in the season, usually by teams missing the playoffs, to a 2x$3 contract solely to use the following year. Those players will be able to stay on the club for an additional year now. Maybe not a big deal, but it's an extra year on the cheap since there couldn't be minimum salaries anymore.
For that matter, 3 year contracts just have a minimum $3 salary now, and I imagine that could lead to a little less turnover for some of those guys. I'm thinking of those breakout players we see every year that get signed mid-season.
Overall though, It still seems like there would be more turnover with this format.
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Jul 14, 2022 23:29:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the video and explaining everything. I think I am pro this move.
I like the idea of having identified talent at a reasonable price and essentially having an RFA type situation where I control the next couple of years (if I choose to). I'd prefer to look at it that way rather than allowing GMs to get out from under bad decisions (me included).
I am not 100% clear on what happens to those already contracted for the upcoming 2022 season but that is only because I was listening to the video rather than seeing the screenshare with the spreadsheet. If I have any questions on that I can follow up later after the spreadsheet is updated with the colour coding.
I do wonder what it will do to FA bidding though. I think it will inflate salaries given GMs will now be seeing these as two year contracts and 'future GM me will worry about the third+ years later'. I get Adam's point that we tend not to think more than this season ahead, but I reckon some will whack an extra $x on the bid now, knowing that if it all goes to pot they can cut their losses at the end of the B year. That might be ok though because a player who has been overpaid may come back into FA more frequently than before when they would be locked up for 5 years. I am not saying this is a good or bad scenario - just interesting.
Thanks to Paul for bringing it through and all for articulating it well.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 15, 2022 15:29:26 GMT -5
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... As we get close to the voting stage, I just want to run this out there to make sure it's been considered. Do we want to stick with $5 and $10? Or change those numbers in some way. To me, that's the best way we can tweak things to meet any concerns about extensions and player turn over. The higher the figures, the more turn over we're going to have. I personally like $5 and $15 the best, because I think that's generally going to let managers extend good, mid-level talent finds for an extra couple years for a reasonable amount ($5), while making it so generally only the elite talent are off the market for the full 5 years ($15). I think $5 and $10 is a tad too light on the elite player end, and I think people should really have to consider when they are going to be taking talent out of the FA pool for that full 5 year term. If anyone is curious how it relates to our current system...: -2 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $3 ($3 / 2y / $6) -3 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $6 ($6 / 3y / $18) -4 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $12 ($12 / 4y / $48) -5 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $24 ($24 / 5y / $120) The salary to go from a 3y contract to a 4y is a $6+ raise (stand-in for a Y extension) The salary to go from a 4y contract to a 5y is a $12+ raise (stand-in for an X extension)
|
|
|
Post by Portland Buckaroos on Jul 15, 2022 21:48:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the video and explaining everything. I think I am pro this move. I like the idea of having identified talent at a reasonable price and essentially having an RFA type situation where I control the next couple of years (if I choose to). I'd prefer to look at it that way rather than allowing GMs to get out from under bad decisions (me included). I am not 100% clear on what happens to those already contracted for the upcoming 2022 season but that is only because I was listening to the video rather than seeing the screenshare with the spreadsheet. If I have any questions on that I can follow up later after the spreadsheet is updated with the colour coding. I do wonder what it will do to FA bidding though. I think it will inflate salaries given GMs will now be seeing these as two year contracts and 'future GM me will worry about the third+ years later'. I get Adam's point that we tend not to think more than this season ahead, but I reckon some will whack an extra $x on the bid now, knowing that if it all goes to pot they can cut their losses at the end of the B year. That might be ok though because a player who has been overpaid may come back into FA more frequently than before when they would be locked up for 5 years. I am not saying this is a good or bad scenario - just interesting. Thanks to Paul for bringing it through and all for articulating it well. So, this document has information about what we'll need to do to square our rosters with the new rules. Let me know if anything needs clarification. docs.google.com/document/d/1sEWixskhx8_S_MuyzK15P01REfJu9PZ2d9J1fFEveE8/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Jul 16, 2022 16:57:57 GMT -5
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... As we get close to the voting stage, I just want to run this out there to make sure it's been considered. Do we want to stick with $5 and $10? Or change those numbers in some way. To me, that's the best way we can tweak things to meet any concerns about extensions and player turn over. The higher the figures, the more turn over we're going to have. I personally like $5 and $15 the best, because I think that's generally going to let managers extend good, mid-level talent finds for an extra couple years for a reasonable amount ($5), while making it so generally only the elite talent are off the market for the full 5 years ($15). I think $5 and $10 is a tad too light on the elite player end, and I think people should really have to consider when they are going to be taking talent out of the FA pool for that full 5 year term. If anyone is curious how it relates to our current system...: -2 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $3 ($3 / 2y / $6) -3 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $6 ($6 / 3y / $18) -4 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $12 ($12 / 4y / $48) -5 year contracts must have a minimum salary of $24 ($24 / 5y / $120) The salary to go from a 3y contract to a 4y is a $6+ raise (stand-in for a Y extension) The salary to go from a 4y contract to a 5y is a $12+ raise (stand-in for an X extension) $15 seems too steep. You'd barely ever want to give a player a $15 raise and if that's the point - to only have 5% of players, if that, ever get that extension then that would do it. That would make it very easy to just extend the player for one year and then take your chances in winning the bid for him after that IF you wanted to retain him. We're still going to be bidding on these players and with only a two-year commitment I expect the bidding to be aggressive and competitive. Why wouldn't it? You get the player you want for the coming season and even if he falls flat on his face and sucks this season you only have him for one more year before you're out from under his contract. So with that being the case it's not like star players are going to be on low contracts - they're still going to get paid, maybe even moreseo than they have in the past. But making it a $15 raise takes a mid-tier player from $12 to $27 and that's punitive. Taking a player from $12 to $22...you might do that if the player has exceeded expectations but it's not a slam dunk by any means, especially with the three year commitment that comes with it. But taking a player from $12 to $27? No. You'd probably never do that because you could almost assuredly get him for less in free agency. I'm in favor of this proposal as it was written - $5 for one season extension, $10 for three season extension.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 16, 2022 17:28:43 GMT -5
$15 seems too steep. You'd barely ever want to give a player a $15 raise and if that's the point - to only have 5% of players, if that, ever get that extension then that would do it. That would make it very easy to just extend the player for one year and then take your chances in winning the bid for him after that IF you wanted to retain him. We're still going to be bidding on these players and with only a two-year commitment I expect the bidding to be aggressive and competitive. Why wouldn't it? You get the player you want for the coming season and even if he falls flat on his face and sucks this season you only have him for one more year before you're out from under his contract. So with that being the case it's not like star players are going to be on low contracts - they're still going to get paid, maybe even moreseo than they have in the past. But making it a $15 raise takes a mid-tier player from $12 to $27 and that's punitive. Taking a player from $12 to $22...you might do that if the player has exceeded expectations but it's not a slam dunk by any means, especially with the three year commitment that comes with it. But taking a player from $12 to $27? No. You'd probably never do that because you could almost assuredly get him for less in free agency. Excellent points.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Jul 19, 2022 20:30:06 GMT -5
Sorry to drop a novel and then bounce, you've all made more excellent points and while they may counter my thoughts, I don't disagree at all.
However, one thing I hadn't thought of that was brought up - or maybe wasn't because I was going to give credit to whomever it was but can't find the point now - was what if you sign a player for $3 and absolutely hit a grand slam with the signing. Out of nowhere this guy is great. Obviously it's a no-brainer to extend him for the max at which point you've got yourself a star for $13?
That's the kind of scenario where I lean towards being in favour of performance based extensions.
THAT SAID:
1) I agree that we should go through a few years of this proposed change before adding layers because there's no better way to see what needs fixing with something in a league like this than doing it
2) I would not over the moon if I were in that scenario and not overtly upset if someone else scored big like that, I just think it helps my point that performance based extensions might be worth exploring.
3) I am absolutely in favour of this change without any additions from the rest of the league. I think it's a great and fun layer of complexity and if we try it and it doesn't work at all we have 11.5 brilliant minds to come up with fixes and solves.
Kudos again Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Jul 19, 2022 20:48:04 GMT -5
Thanks Alex. I will take some of the credit but the genius of this idea goes back to a fantasy baseball league I was in with a good friend named Allen. He was a huge baseball fan so as I sit here watching MLB's All-Star Game I think of my friend who sadly passed away a number of years ago from cancer while still in his 40s. Loved hockey as well and one my best memories as a Kings fan was taking him to a playoff game vs. the Blues where the Kings clinched the series. To this day it's the loudest sporting event I have ever attended...the last two minutes were deafening. Great to share that with him. Glad you endorse the idea and I appreciate your additional thoughts. It might take a season or two for the dust to settle but we should as a league evolve as more patterns present themselves. If you haven't already please vote on the Polls page so we can get on to additional business.
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Jul 22, 2022 22:57:38 GMT -5
Maybe instead of calling it the A-Z Contract Structure we call it the 'Allen Contract Structure' - or his surname, nickname etc?
|
|
|
Post by Portland Buckaroos on Jul 22, 2022 23:43:35 GMT -5
Maybe instead of calling it the A-Z Contract Structure we call it the 'Allen Contract Structure' - or his surname, nickname etc? I like "Alphabet Soup".
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Jul 23, 2022 7:15:40 GMT -5
Maybe instead of calling it the A-Z Contract Structure we call it the 'Allen Contract Structure' - or his surname, nickname etc? Love that idea
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Jul 23, 2022 7:18:21 GMT -5
Is there any chance of an amnesty buyout to go along with this rule change? Asking for a friend...
|
|
|
Post by Portland Buckaroos on Jul 23, 2022 12:15:25 GMT -5
Is there any chance of an amnesty buyout to go along with this rule change? Asking for a friend... I think the transition to the new system will provide your friend with the opportunity he/she/they are looking for. Switching over to new contracts means anyone who was signed before 2021 will either need an extension or be released. We all have some decisions ahead of us.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Jul 23, 2022 12:47:13 GMT -5
This is good.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 23, 2022 15:58:21 GMT -5
I'm currently working on a temporary spreadsheet that we will use to "retrofit" our rosters to the new contract system (The "Allen Contract Structure"?). Everyone (I think?) will have some decisions to make about some existing players that they have on their roster, which will include the option to out-right RELEASE if they so choose. This doesn't apply to all players, but basically any TERM player signed in 2020 or earlier. Essentially, you'll most likely have the opportunity to clear out some salary that way. That being said, OTHER players that fit that same classification may need raises in order to retain them for this year or beyond, despite already being signed for multiple years previously. The way I'm going forward with it at the moment is that you'll be able to mouse over eligible players and see what your salary options are (when it's ready). We're going to go ahead and do our draft lottery/off-season conference, and discuss/vote on other potential rule changes. After the dust has settled, and we are all aware of how the league will look rule-wise this coming season, I'll be reaching out to everyone about their roster decisions. So, there will still be time before any choices have to be made.
|
|