|
|
Post by Erie Otters on Feb 8, 2016 21:44:53 GMT -5
Hey all. I had a few thoughts and Soo proposed the idea that I make a thread for it, to see what league members think.
As you all know, I haven't been here long. With that being said, I've already seen some crazy drops from top teams because they need all 3 reserve spots for their playoff push. Guys like Girgensons, Datsyuk, Marleau, Backlund, etc. should not be on the waiver wire/free agency in a 16-team, salary cap dynasty league.
Owners can't be at fault for this. Because there are only 3 reserve spots, teams pushing for the playoffs need every player on their NHL roster contributing to the fantasy league categories in a major way. Despite the struggles of a player like Girgensons this season, and despite the contract/age of Marleau and Datsyuk, they should not be on the waiver wire. With these guys available, it discourages trades.
Here is an example:
- Let's say the Montreal Canadiens and Miami Hurricanes are both competing for the championship. During the season, Montreal could trade a lot of their future (draft picks, young players, prospects) for immediate talent that can help them win the championship. Say, for example, Corey Perry. Then, after the trade deadline, a player like Datsyuk or Marleau is released to the waiver wire. A player with similar point production can be picked up by Miami for free. Montreal trades a lot of their future while Miami gets rid of nothing. Montreal is at an extreme disadvantage here.
Now, if we were to increase the amount of reserve spots from 3 to, say, 5, we would have to increase the salary cap. But we should be doing that anyway. I have always been one to defend a fantasy league's reality in terms of the NHL, but there are differences between a playoff team in this fantasy league and a playoff team in the NHL (playoff team in this fantasy league pretty much requires 2 starting goaltenders, and much better depth than the NHL).
Adding even 2 reserve spots means (16 teams X 2 players) 32 players from the waiver wire will no longer be there. This means that there is less quality available in free agency/waiver wire, which puts even more pressure on each GM to make a responsible trade for their respective team.
Like I said, guys like Datsyuk and Marleau are old and get paid a lot of money, but both have scored 60-70 points in the past two seasons (Datsyuk scored over a point-per-game last season). These guys should not be available on the waiver wire in a 16-team league. It creates a huge disadvantage for teams who have already traded a lot for their playoff push. Just my 2 cents, but I hope others share the same concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 23:00:30 GMT -5
I agree, you wouldn't like my other league, in the last 2 weeks I've picked up j.staal, Kesler, vlasic and Jokinen from free agency  |
|
|
|
Post by Saginaw Spirit on Feb 9, 2016 0:57:35 GMT -5
Is it possible to treat this like a real NHL scenario? Put the guy on waivers for 48 hours or 72 hours and if they clear they're eligible for your minor league team? I like that more than adding roster spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flint Firebirds on Feb 9, 2016 5:31:02 GMT -5
Whatever the majority wants I'm fine with. Either way it must be done in the offseason though as too much has happened already this year. Erie brings up fair points but at the same time I like the challenge of managing a tight cap with few bench spots. I think also having talent on the waiver wire helps out of a team gets a long term injury, it doesn't allow them to fall and give up all because they lost a goalie or key forward. It's not like that many of the teams have the cap space to pick up a Datsyuk anyhow unless someone is put on IR and when that player gets healthy you have a decision to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton Bulldogs on Feb 9, 2016 10:19:30 GMT -5
Fair point but at how much are we going to increase the salary cap. Dats and marleau combined is what 13.5 mil? I'm all for adding reserve spots but to what point do we increase cap space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarnia Sting on Feb 9, 2016 11:01:29 GMT -5
I'm on board for increasing the cap and reserve spots this summer.
Some thoughts...
Our current cap, 86.4 Mil divided by 23 players is 3.76M(ish)
So if we were to go up to 25 players....3.76X25 = 94M.
In saying that I feel that for the sake of simplicity moving forward we should really be calculating our cap as a percentage above the NHL's cap as their number changes every year and ours should too. I like the idea of round numbers so 71.4M x 30% is 92.82M or 35% is 96.39M.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erie Otters on Feb 9, 2016 13:12:38 GMT -5
Whatever the majority wants I'm fine with. Either way it must be done in the offseason though as too much has happened already this year. Erie brings up fair points but at the same time I like the challenge of managing a tight cap with few bench spots. I think also having talent on the waiver wire helps out of a team gets a long term injury, it doesn't allow them to fall and give up all because they lost a goalie or key forward. It's not like that many of the teams have the cap space to pick up a Datsyuk anyhow unless someone is put on IR and when that player gets healthy you have a decision to make. If a team is hit with injuries, that GM should have an appropriate amount of depth. He shouldn't have to rely on the waiver wire to bail him out. What I'm proposing has worked tremendously well in the other league that I am in, as it requires the GM to make moves if the injury bug hits- not rely on a free bailout from the waiver wire. |
|
|
|
Post by London Knights on Feb 9, 2016 13:48:48 GMT -5
I agree. The only other alternative would be to freely move farm team players up and down. This would help with injury fill-ins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitchener Rangers on Feb 10, 2016 5:40:44 GMT -5
I agree with the named changes. However, you can't 'force' managers not to drop veteran players if they're in cap trouble. Sometimes it is much more beneficiary for a manager to cut one of his most expensive players and fill up the spot with a much cheaper guy to give more wiggle room.
Just meaning that even if we make the changes we will probably see the same scenario next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erie Otters on Feb 12, 2016 15:54:56 GMT -5
I agree with the named changes. However, you can't 'force' managers not to drop veteran players if they're in cap trouble. Sometimes it is much more beneficiary for a manager to cut one of his most expensive players and fill up the spot with a much cheaper guy to give more wiggle room. Just meaning that even if we make the changes we will probably see the same scenario next year. I have explicitly stated that it is not the GMs' faults for having to drop guys like Marleau and Datsyuk, but because of the way the league's rules are structured, top teams are forced to release players who shouldn't be released. I am not blaming any GM, nor am I blaming the moderators. This is a first year league in what looks like it could be a solid league for years to come. I am simply adding my 2 cents in coming from experienced and credentialed salary cap dynasty hockey leagues, with fantrax and boards. My intentions are to better the league for its future, not to place blame on any member of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Erie Otters on Feb 13, 2016 0:22:49 GMT -5
I'd also like to add that if we do agree to add reserve spots in the offseason, that each team be allowed to carry a maximum of 2 goalies. That way the value of goaltenders remains the same. Otherwise, the team with the most starting goaltenders wins each week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saginaw Spirit on Feb 13, 2016 9:59:35 GMT -5
Wasn't there a discussion earlier about allowing 3 goalies to be carried?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton Bulldogs on Feb 15, 2016 11:14:00 GMT -5
There was earlier into the season I do believe. I do not think anything has been brought up about it since
|
|
|
|
Post by Erie Otters on Feb 16, 2016 18:32:26 GMT -5
Wasn't there a discussion earlier about allowing 3 goalies to be carried? If there was it was before I joined the league. I think a maximum of 3 goalies would be something to talk about, but the problem is the value of goaltenders would be substantially higher than skaters. In order to be a top team you would essentially need 3 starting goalies. Perhaps if we move to allow 3 goalies that we put a minimum and maximum on how many goalie starts each team can have per week? I don't know. I really like the format of the league right now in terms of valuing each position and would hate to see that be erased. |
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Feb 17, 2016 17:48:55 GMT -5
An idea kicked around for goaltenders was adding an active prospect goaltender position. But that would also make prospect goalies insanely expensive and a disadvantage to the teams who don't have the rare stud prospect. But I think we fully resolved our goaltending issue by changing the rules to allow any player with a red flag to be placed on IR. This allows a GM to immediately cover his goaltending gaps. I am pretty comfortable with how this has worked out and haven't received any further complaints. Although I would like to here others opinions on the topic now that we have a solid sample size of the changes.
Maybe we add a 3rd IR position in the off season. We will see.
As far as the cap and extra roster positions. Do you think both roster positions and salary cap need to be added or does just increasing salary a higher % above NHL cap fully resolve the issue? I am not against making a calculated salary increase so previously mentioned players are rostered at all times. I don't think those players should be free agents. I don't like to see star players devalued because they are getting paid what they are worth. Anyway, if this change was made (cap increase) what would be the advantage to also increasing roster size? What disadvantages would come with it? Keep in mind we will already be adding more minor league positions. Adding more main roster spots will also create a higher demand for even more minor spots. Adding more roster spots will also require an even heftier salary increase to accommodate the additional players plus resolve the demand for high salaried vets. How deep do we really want to get? How far do we want to thin out our free agent list? How much do we want to alter our league over one off-season?
I'm not saying anything right now one way or the other, just trying to create more extensive conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sudbury Wolves on Feb 18, 2016 1:43:24 GMT -5
My $0.02. I don't think that having Datsyuk and Marleau being dropped by their respective teams is necessarily an indication that there is a problem with the system. Even the real nhl has had their fair share of guys who got bought out, not because of their talent, but because they didn't give enough value for what their cap hit was.
Part of this style of fantasy is making those tough decisions on the make up of one's team and trying to fit everyone you can under the cap. And, because of the cap, sometimes tough choices have to be made. I myself was debating dropping Vanek, but managed to find a trade partner for him.
Regarding adding extra roster spots...i don't see much point. Look at our free agents. I feel that Datsyuk and marleau were more of an aberration as opposed to the norm. Who are you gonna pick up right now if someone gets injured? Backlund? Desharnais? Eller?
Salary is another thing though, most of the teams seem to be very close to the cap with a few bottom feeders having decent room. We could up the cap to make more space for trades. It would make the higher paid players have more value since you could stock up on them more. But i feel that this is definitely something that should be a decided on way in advance of when it is enacted, so that gms have a chance to modify their teams accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitchener Rangers on Feb 22, 2016 6:14:09 GMT -5
I agree with the named changes. However, you can't 'force' managers not to drop veteran players if they're in cap trouble. Sometimes it is much more beneficiary for a manager to cut one of his most expensive players and fill up the spot with a much cheaper guy to give more wiggle room. Just meaning that even if we make the changes we will probably see the same scenario next year. I have explicitly stated that it is not the GMs' faults for having to drop guys like Marleau and Datsyuk, but because of the way the league's rules are structured, top teams are forced to release players who shouldn't be released. I am not blaming any GM, nor am I blaming the moderators. This is a first year league in what looks like it could be a solid league for years to come. I am simply adding my 2 cents in coming from experienced and credentialed salary cap dynasty hockey leagues, with fantrax and boards. My intentions are to better the league for its future, not to place blame on any member of it. I have explicitly stated that I think these things will still happen no matter the league structure. Because other managers gauge value of these type of players differently, especially in a dynasty league. I'm the first to say that people go way to young in a dynasty league but that is their choice. Btw just so you know, I'm going to drop Eric Staal soon. His 8.25M cap is too much for me to handle with his lousy production and he has no trade value. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitchener Rangers on Feb 22, 2016 6:16:12 GMT -5
My $0.02. I don't think that having Datsyuk and Marleau being dropped by their respective teams is necessarily an indication that there is a problem with the system. Even the real nhl has had their fair share of guys who got bought out, not because of their talent, but because they didn't give enough value for what their cap hit was. Part of this style of fantasy is making those tough decisions on the make up of one's team and trying to fit everyone you can under the cap. And, because of the cap, sometimes tough choices have to be made. I myself was debating dropping Vanek, but managed to find a trade partner for him. Regarding adding extra roster spots...i don't see much point. Look at our free agents. I feel that Datsyuk and marleau were more of an aberration as opposed to the norm. Who are you gonna pick up right now if someone gets injured? Backlund? Desharnais? Eller? Salary is another thing though, most of the teams seem to be very close to the cap with a few bottom feeders having decent room. We could up the cap to make more space for trades. It would make the higher paid players have more value since you could stock up on them more. But i feel that this is definitely something that should be a decided on way in advance of when it is enacted, so that gms have a chance to modify their teams accordingly. Also, I feel that it is good that at least you have some choice of options at free agency when your superstars with heavy salary go down. If there is no option left then it is a humongous downgrade. |
|
|
|
Post by Flint Firebirds on Feb 22, 2016 8:54:08 GMT -5
And can cause someone to go into tank mode or just stop caring and logging in. That's my biggest gripe in some leagues is when someone realizes they have no chance they give it minimal effort and attention
|
|
|
|
Post by Erie Otters on Feb 23, 2016 11:00:11 GMT -5
I have explicitly stated that it is not the GMs' faults for having to drop guys like Marleau and Datsyuk, but because of the way the league's rules are structured, top teams are forced to release players who shouldn't be released. I am not blaming any GM, nor am I blaming the moderators. This is a first year league in what looks like it could be a solid league for years to come. I am simply adding my 2 cents in coming from experienced and credentialed salary cap dynasty hockey leagues, with fantrax and boards. My intentions are to better the league for its future, not to place blame on any member of it. I have explicitly stated that I think these things will still happen no matter the league structure. Because other managers gauge value of these type of players differently, especially in a dynasty league. I'm the first to say that people go way to young in a dynasty league but that is their choice. Btw just so you know, I'm going to drop Eric Staal soon. His 8.25M cap is too much for me to handle with his lousy production and he has no trade value. Do you have any evidence supporting your argument, or would you prefer to stick with predictions? |
|
