Dear Dynasty

[jmtrops]

Franchise NHL is a money league if you want to join that one.

no I dont want a money league

[SlackJack]

Franchise NHL is a money league if you want to join that one.

[papps]

Franchise NHL is a money league if you want to join that one.

[jmtrops]

I agree with everything but the money. making money as a prize for winning will only cause problems. every one here wants to win so add a little money is not really going to change that and the money is not going to be big enough to make people sacrifice the future to have a shot at winning for a year or two. now the thing that makes this league unique is our tie to the real teams and thats also what will make it unfair if we were to add money, since some team would have a big advantage based on where and how well their real team drafts. also there is the problem that if we all of a sudden added money then the good teams start out with a much higher chance of winning that money. now I have seen leagues with money that how much everyone pays in is based on how they finished the previous year. something like the 1st place pays $19 and last place pays $1, 2nd pays $18 19th pays $2. this would make a total of $200 payout. maybe $125 for 1st and $75 for 2nd. if we were to consider the money it would have to be something like this with some other rule changes to increase fairness. one we should do is all team changes should be claimed like waivers. a period in the off season if someone wants to switch to one of the unclaimed teams you put a claim in and teams that finished with worst record can claim that team over them. not that this would happen but a good team could switch teams to get improved draft picks. maybe you can only switch teams 1 in 10 years or something or we just say teams cant switch at all the team you have your stuck with.

[SlackJack]

Great stuff all around. Love the passion Shooter defends 5 year contracts with and have to admit I'm in it to watch my picks develop over the long haul. Also agree with Rob that it'll take a bit for the new extension rules to play out and that a $$$ incentive could really do great things for the league. I know it doesn't appeal to everyone but I imagine the upside would be considerable in terms of interest and activity. That said I think we're doing fine as is.

[Rob]

Ryan responded - he's had sick kids the last few weeks. He'll get back on track here soon.

[Rob]

Doesn't look like COL lineups are getting set.  I'm hoping we haven't lost Ryan.  I sent an email.

Great thread, guys.  I think the answer to the first question: is the playing field level, is yes.  I believe that a competent GM can build a team here (even from a broken franchise) into a contender.  Is the level playing field question more directed to the top tier?  Where 2 teams sit above the rest?  Even so, I believe the answer is yes.  Vancouver was built from scratch from the wreckage of a badly managed franchise.  St Louis wasn't always as indomitable.  And at one point it looked like Anaheim would never lose.  I believe both of the two front-runners will come back down to earth once certain contracts start expiring, and we'll have other teams taking up the mantle up top.  Maybe the same names will float around up there, but some of that's just skill.  With 10 playoff seeds, opportunity for anyone to get hot and take out one of the top guns is always there. 

Is there enough incentive to win?  That one I'm not as sure about.  I know I've sold off hot young assets at trade deadline time several times to compete for a title here.  But I know many have not, choosing to take a long-view.  And I think that mentality is the majority - especially in the last 5 years.  We've all been more conservative.  Myself included. 

Simple solution on that one.  A few of us have mentioned it in the past...... Money!

That's really the solution if we deem incentive is a problem enough that we choose to solve it. 

Regarding prospect contract length - I'd really like to see how the new extension rules play out over the next couple seasons before making more economic changes.

[WestCoastExpress]

Nice analysis Shooter.

You lost me a bit once I read "Colorado has 8 goalies plus one" hahaha.
Sheesh, why does COL have so many tenders?!

[shooter47]

Personally I like the setup for this league. I joined this league because I wanted to be able to build a dynasty and not lose most of my roster every year. If I wanted that I would go play in one year leagues. I like that you can build a team and hold on to players you draft and watch them develop. Hellebuyck and Saros are players I drafted way back in 2013. I like holding on to those guys and knowing that my investment 6 years ago has turned out to be a good player.

There is a tendency for all teams in this league to chase younger players that we view as having great potential. I think this is partly due to "Shiny New Toy" syndrome. We always want the new shiny toy over the player that has been around and we have noticed the perceived warts those players have or they haven't turned into what we thought they could be quick enough. Players take time to develop though and those shiny new players draft as 18 year old will show their own warts a year or two after the draft. I think we also chase younger players because you can hit a homerun and get a great player that will be very valuable for a long time on your roster.

One of the reasons I think the league is so focused on younger players is due to the roster size of the league. We have 20 teams and 30 roster spots. That is 600 players total. The NHL has 31 teams with a max roster size of 23. That is 713 players. But how many of those players play every game. An NHL team typically plays 12 forwards, 6 defensemen and two goalies. That is 20 players per team that play regularly. So that ends up being 620 players. But some of these players are grinders that don't score many if any points and will never have huge values in this league. So teams like Arizona and Boston are going to find more value holding a prospect in a main roster slot that may have some future value then to roster a 3rd line or 4th line player or a teams 6th defender.

I just don't think you will ever see tons of rental players being moved in this league. When half the teams in the league make the playoffs (10/20) and a few of teams don't have rental players to trade (Boston, Arizona, etc.). The only deals I think you will ever see is if a playoff team is trying to fill in a position they are short on or had injuries at. Roster balance definitely matters in this league because your trying to maximize value and games played across 5 different positions. Does having a 7th center you never start really help your team? No. Having an 8th defensemen who doesn't score as well but will get you a couple games a week is probably a better player to own.

On a busy night in the league where most teams are playing we start 17 players total (3C, 3LW, 3RW, 6D & 2G). So as a playoff team if I'm not upgrading on one of these "typical starters" for my team I'm probably not going to be super interested. If I can upgrade my 5th Center its not as big of an upgrade on my team as if I can upgrade my 3rd Center. If that guy only gets a game maybe two a week that 0.5 pt or 1 pt/game upgrade doesn't make that big of an impact. If I only have 3 centers though I might be willing to trade something to get a reliable 4th center who will play 2 or 3 games a week for me.

Not to pick on anyone but Colorado is a playoff team that could make some deals to help there team this year. They have 8 goalies on their NHL roster and one more in the minors that is getting good playing time. But they can only start 2 goalies a day. That 971.5 points their goalies have scored this year have only translated into 437 points in the standings because they miss so many starts. If they dealt a couple for skaters who get them a few more games during the week they would probably score alot better in the playoffs.

As far as prospect contracts are concerned I don't have a problem with the 5 year deals. Players in the NHL sign deals of similar lengths and I like being able to have a player I invested on for a while. I also think the resign value changes are going to eliminate some of the position issues the old system had and you will pay for the performance of the player regardless of position. In the old system defensemen and wingers were greatly undervalued and I built my team around them for a long time. Komarov is a winger that I was able to extend last offseason for 0.9m a year. Starting this offseason he would cost me almost $4m a year to extend. Alot more of these type of players will end up on FA then in previous years. But it might take a year or two to happen due to existing contracts not expiring right away.

[jmtrops]

the new contract system is going to make it harder for the good teams to stay together but we need to see what it will do in a couple of years. If I had to resign all my guys with the new system at the start of this year I would have been about 20M over the cap. at the end of this year if I had to resign all my guys to the new system based on their current scoring pace my total number would be 119M + 19M in dead money. And Im not a good team so in a couple of years the money is going to catch up with most teams and make them make some tough decisions.