New rule change suggestions.

[Dynasty Empire]

Please state how you would alter the current proposal to better work with Hockey.

[Dwayne Bowe]

I think the 300% is too much unless....We eliminate the forced call up rule which would then give guys more options as to when they call up a player and have to pay his contract.

[Dwayne Bowe]

Maybe an original member can explain why the  forced call up rule was put in to begin with? I wasn’t in the network at the very beginning.

[CFL Rejects]

I can totally live with the hard cap and support it 100%. I can live with the raise in prices for the rookies by $4 for a first round pick but the resigning costs are totally ridiculous. Personally I make trades to build my team through the draft so I can build a team that will compete for years to come. So for doing that I am now being punished because someone else doesn't want to put the effort in that some of our managers do. This is bullshit! The ones that put forth this kind of effort should be rewarded not punished! This is the exact reason we have contract keeper leagues.....

[Team Canada]

I agree with CFL points besides the not putting forth the effort part as I think I make enough moves per year to justify effort, without giving a crap about rookies lol. Anyways, I'm glad discussions are taking place to improve the league.

[Frost Giant]

I really don't see a problem with the new rookie format. No one has an issue signing Sidney Crosby to a $43 contract in FA, why shouldn't Connor McDavid cost as much? If you are unsure of a players potential after the initial rookie contract, only sign the player to an additional one year. In the example given in the post, a $4 rookie deal would be $6 for one year. Then, at 300% the next contract would be $18. I would gladly pay $18 for McDavid. If you don't think the player is worth that after the first year, let the contract lapse, and go after the player in FA. That will certainly determine that players market value. You are not being punished. We are now being asked to put a more correct value on rookies. It is going to force everyone now to really pay attention to who they draft, and when. It is actually preventing managers from being lazy, by making managers make better decisions, not only with draft picks, but how they trade for players by making prospects less of an afterthought.

[CFL Rejects]

I can see your point however you are punishing people for drafting well. 300% is totally out of hand. So it totally punishes a manager like me who is building through the draft while it helps a manager that trades their picks every year. If thats the case get rid of the minor league roster totally

[Frost Giant]

Well, since this is the suggestion post, would lowering the cap increase to say 250% be better?

[CFL Rejects]

I would personally prefer to either bring the resign at 300% or the sign cost to $4 one or the other not both

[Stark Direwolves]

I also agree that changes need to be made. I also think, however, that the proposed changes are too much all at once.
-I would rather the cap be +/- $60
-I believe that the percentage bumps on re-signs for the rookies should be linked to performance. I realize that this is added work for you guys who are just volunteering, so I propose something simple, like the Yahoo rank for the contract year of the player (or an average of his 2 or 3 previous final rankings if injuries, etc affected performance in the contract year). My thinking here is that not all first rounders are Connor McDavid. There are actually much more Patrik Stefans. While it's true we can simply just drop these guys instead of re-signing them, it is creating a lot of roster turnover and I generally don't enjoy lots of roster turnover. That's why I like this network. We're a dynasty network. Should the McDavids of the world be subject to a 300% raise after contract year 5? Yes. But should everyone who happened to be drafted in our first round? No. There are metrics out there that we can use, second-hand, not a lot of extra work, to determine the jump from a list of say, 150%, 200%, 250% or 300%. If it's black and white and considers our stat categories (hence the yahoo ranking idea) it will be fair for all.
**If this is not considered as a possible solution, I do not support a 300% jump. It's too high for too many players. If you'd prefer not to consider performance (which is how salaries are determined in the real world, btw) then a 200% jump is high enough.
***ALSO - I am willing to help out with this. I can produce a 4-column list every year of which players fall into which categories. There won't be many players to worry about for the next couple of years.
-Streaming should not be eliminated. If a manager has managed his cap well enough to have this luxury, good for him. He does, however, incur the risk of losing any player he places on waivers. I agree, though, that excessive use of this needs to be addressed, so a weekly waiver transaction limit should be adopted. Perhaps, say, 3 per week?

I am in no way looking at this from a me-first/my-roster-first perspective. We are all here for fun. We aren't getting paid. So I'm thinking about what I find fun. If it's not fun, there are literally thousands of other things I could be doing with my time. That's it. The proposed rules as they stand wouldn't impact me any more than anyone else. I'm just speaking from what I think is going to be more fun, therefore, better for the network. Easier to retain GMs when it's fun.

At the end of the day we all want the same thing. In my experience though, a lot of major changes all at once are generally a bad thing. If we compromise and, say, lower the increments, and we find later that it wasn't enough we can make another adjustment down the road. That's a safer approach for something that, in my opinion, has been fun and working for the most part. Again, I recognize that our current structure isn't sustainable and needs to be adjusted. Let's just be calculated and careful.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the work you do as well as the opportunity to voice ideas.

[Stark Direwolves]

$4, $6, $6.75, $7.50, $8.25, $24.75, $27.25, $30, $33, $49.50, $54.50, $60

That's a 12 year career right there.

The argument that $49.50 is okay for McDavid is actually not a great one. The only reason anyone can afford to drive Crosby into the $40's is because their roster is buoyed by cheaper rookies. You're eliminating the cheaper rookies and limiting cap at the same time with no regard for the effect this will have on the market value of free agents. Crosby types will not have the same value. Because nobody will be able to afford them. Therefore, 300% is much too much.

[Beer League Barons]

I have let my feelings been known in the discord channel but I will post a blurb here also.

This is a dynasty league, it is not a roster should turn over every 2-4 years league, that is what standard contract leagues are for. By changing the resign amount on rookies we are effectively removing the dynasty aspect from the league. Dynasties can only be made from great drafting to get talent below market value, it's the same in the NHL. You can have long term success without doing this but your team is not a dynasty, it is simply a good, different team. I am ok with the 4, 3, 2, 1, 1 structure of new entry level contracts, it shows the added value of drafting well in earlier rounds.  Leave the resign costs as they are now. I think that cap trading should be linked to the players being traded, and that you can only retain salary, not just give salary away. I.E. I want to trade Malkin, I can keep up to 50% of his salary to make it more enticing. I shouldn't be able to trade him to someone who is at the cap already, and that person can get the cap from other teams. I also shouldn't be able to loan him out to someone at no charge to that persons cap either, hence only being able to retain 50%. There does need to be some additional accountability for cap dollars, right now there is no real cap per team, just a league wide one.

Let's make our league better but let's not throw away the dynasty aspect. Leave that to standard contract leagues, there are lots of those out there, there is only one FSC Dynasty Contract League!

[Beer League Barons]

Mar 25, 2018 14:03:24 GMT -5 Dwayne Bowe said:

Maybe an original member can explain why the  forced call up rule was put in to begin with? I wasn’t in the network at the very beginning.

Without forced call ups a manager could simply hang onto the 1st overall picks for 3-4 years and then ice them all for $2 entry level.  We need forced call ups.

[Dwayne Bowe]

Isn’t that a strategy though? Keep your good players in the minors then bring them up all together. I’m sure NHL team employ the strategy of “letting them season in the CHL” one more year partly to get them for a longer timeframe in terms of contract

[CFL Rejects]

I would like to see our rooking call up reduced from 82 games to 42 games. The reasoning..... First off we have a tremendous amount of cap floating around, several managers (myself included)have over $40 in cap with only 2 or 3 slots to fill. By making forced call up earlier it will force us to use some of this cap to resign these players, this will have several effects on FA. First it will use up some of this cap that is floating around, second it will add more "skilled" players to the FA pool rather than the $1 stat padders. And lastly it will make draft picks more valuable for example I knew I could keep several minor players down again this year and save the cap as well as save a year of cheap contract so rather than be forced to call them up I traded away my later round picks.  So next year I will have roughly 5 players I can call up to fill my roster this will free up a ton of cap again next year so the circle will continue......

Also  I would like to see hockey follow baseball and eliminate the buyout of players in their last year of a contract.  The only thing this accomplishes is players are being bought out in their last year to free up money to make resigns easier.  

[Hitmen]

I agree The first thing we need to fix is one year buyouts after the season. Like the rule we have in baseball. I like the deadline moved from end of season to trade deadline. It way to easy to get out of bad contracts.

I believe players are still FA eliable after 25 games. 82 games is only for forced call up. If that the case changing from 82 to 42 will have little to no effect.

[Hitmen]

Also to fix that problem the only way is the raise the cost of rookie contract and resign. Which we have done but it will take years to correct the inbalance and that only if we have increased it by the right amount and only time will tell that.