Retention

[TheNudge]

I was wondering why it’s not allowed ? Nhl does it and I always thought we’re trying to miror the nhl. This tool would greatly help anyone that have cap. Those team would be able to turnaround their team faster. The cons of this tools are the following: 1) it’s a pain to keep track 2) teams might l start retenaing too many contracts. 3) teams might end up with a big shit show with all the dead money. Easy solution 1) limit the number each team can retain 2) limit the % one team can retain. Just an idea!! Can I get some feedback?

[Da_Hawks]

NHL rules for retention work fine. Use those.

[DApolloS]

NHLDL has retained contracts. You can only retain 2 contracts at a time, a contract can only be retained twice and a cap hit can only be retained up to 50%. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

My assumption as to why we might not be using it is it could be more work for Shoalzie and whoever else does the sheets.

[Matthew]

And we are 13 years into the league. Teams have been built based on specific player value.

[TheNudge]

NHLDL has retained contracts. You can only retain 2 contracts at a time, a contract can only be retained twice and a cap hit can only be retained up to 50%. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

My assumption as to why we might not be using it is it could be more work for Shoalzie and whoever else does the sheets.

I was simply asking since in my other league we follow those retention rules ; 50% rentention, 2 rention per team at all time and no longer then 2 years per retention.

It was just an idea!

[Da_Hawks]

And we are 13 years into the league. Teams have been built based on specific player value.

That's a very short-sighted comment.

There are many things this league does that the NHL does not that would greatly improve the quality. For example, buyouts resulting in new cap hits... NHL has one team who gets a hit and another who benefits. Ours has just a team that benefits.

This is all mostly due to logistical spreadsheet issues. Can all be solved at some point, but as the Isles GM pointed out, lots of manual work for one person.

[KapG]

Don’t really care about retention myself tbh.

[CasperX22]

And we are 13 years into the league. Teams have been built based on specific player value.

I'm sure reducing the GP threshold to 850 in regular season didn't affect player value either

[Brian]

Retention is interesting, but unless the league is willing to hire an accountant, it seems like that is a shit-ton of work to administer for interesting.

[Bruyns]

And we are 13 years into the league. Teams have been built based on specific player value.

I'm sure reducing the GP threshold to 850 in regular season didn't affect player value either

CC is discussing this.

[Bruyns]

Retention is interesting, but unless the league is willing to hire an accountant, it seems like that is a shit-ton of work to administer for interesting.

Scott's spreadsheet would help, but he already puts a ton of time and effort into this league.

Other arguments against retention have been:

-Poor performing GMs will still make questionable deals setting back their teams even more and potentially leaving teams with dead cap space if they quit.
-Asset rich teams will now have the ability to further separate themselves from the pack with unrealistic lineups of multiple star players at 50% retained which would never happen in the NHL.
-BBKL has been striving towards increased parity and the league has definitely improved in that aspect, retention would decrease parity.

It is acknowledged that it could help facilitate movement of bad contracts and provide a chance for teams with cap space to get a better return by taking on dead cap. So far CC has felt that doesn't outweigh the potential negative impacts. Right now teams with cap space can still get quality players at a reduced price, creating an arms war of what contenders can exploit GMs and obtain the most cap friendly retentions might not be best.

As for NHLDL it has been a mixed bag, some bad GMs have really hurt their teams with retention, but parity is OK and we don't have super teams with McDavid 50% retained. I'd say the biggest problem has been GMs not knowing how to value retention and getting talked into retaining and thinking they have cap space so it's no big deal.

[Shoalzie]

We don't really utilize the salary cap tracking on Fantrax and it's not like we can create an additional asset with a salary value. I believe we could do that in CBS.

I've said in the past if we implemented this it can easily be tracked on the forum and on the Google sheets. I can set up modified salary figures for players and I can create a "dummy asset" that can stay with a team with a salary attached to it.

The execution of isn't very complicated...we'd just need to establish some simple ground rules.

[kyuss]

Other arguments against retention have been:

-Poor performing GMs will still make questionable deals setting back their teams even more and potentially leaving teams with dead cap space if they quit.
-Asset rich teams will now have the ability to further separate themselves from the pack with unrealistic lineups of multiple star players at 50% retained which would never happen in the NHL.
-BBKL has been striving towards increased parity and the league has definitely improved in that aspect, retention would decrease parity.

just two things about this:
- I don't get the 'unrealistic' lineups thing cause we'd apply the same NHL limitations to the use of cap retention (iirc that is a couple of 50%-salary-retained players)
- you would have less parity in terms of in-season performance, but more parity in terms of assets, cause with salary retention good players with high salary on non-competing teams would all of a sudden have a market.

The real issue with salary retention is if we can manage it in an effective, realistic way.

We already don't have pro-rated cap-hit, so retention would bring us closer to the NHL, right now we use their salaries and cap hit but not the rules that allow competitive teams to pay to add more talent.

[Shoalzie]

I've always looked at this concept as a "stimulus plan" for our trade market. I think this conversation has gained momentum during this flat cap era.

One of the biggest reasons certain players won't get traded in this league is their cap hit. I think you'd see veteran players get moved to contenders if you could get them at half of their current AAV.

As Matt pointed out, It would widen the talent gap between the have's and have-not's. However, it would at least bottom teams a way to move assets that would've been untradeable under our current rules.

[Shoalzie]

The real issue with salary retention is if we can manage it in an effective, realistic way.

I already have a mechanism in place where players can have a different salary value (in-season) week over week.

I've used the Evander Kane situation as an example. He had his old contract with the Sharks...it gets terminated, so he's free agent briefly...then signs a new contract with different salary. Kane had 3 different salary values attached to him last season.

I can basically take a player and if salary is retained a trade, I'll change the player's salary from that point on.

For the retained salary, I'd just create an asset that will be owned by the team who is retaining salary from a trade and that money would count towards the cap.

[Da_Hawks]

In another league we only allowed teams to retain on deals with 2 years left... to save us from those long-term effects and GMs quiting, etc.

[Matthew]

There should be a grace period. Like tell teams it is coming and then implement it in a future season. So teams can ready themselves for the new era.

[Shoalzie]

There should be a grace period. Like tell teams it is coming and then implement it in a future season. So teams can ready themselves for the new era.

I think we should set this up a year prior to this being implemented.

[kyuss]

Yeah obviously this should not start to be applied right away. If approved and announced then we can discuss if we can start using it from next off season or later

[Shoalzie]

Yeah, set it up for the 2023 offseason. Doesn't make sense to do this effective immediately when we're already through our draft and NHL free agency starts tomorrow.