Retention

[DApolloS]

Then you wouldn't be able to retain on an 8 year contract period. If you set a limit, it needs to be for the contract. So if we say you can't retain more than 2 years, you can only retain on contracts with 2 years or less remaining.

[Da_Hawks]

Then you wouldn't be able to retain on an 8 year contract period. If you set a limit, it needs to be for the contract. So if we say you can't retain more than 2 years, you can only retain on contracts with 2 years or less remaining.

This was my suggestion.

[TheNudge]

Then you wouldn't be able to retain on an 8 year contract period. If you set a limit, it needs to be for the contract. So if we say you can't retain more than 2 years, you can only retain on contracts with 2 years or less remaining.

That doesn’t help creating value for those long contracts. Those short term contract can be solve by trading two mid contract for a more lucrative one. The goal here was to give value to those contracts that are extremely hard to trade since their too long and too expensive. Also your option will create more problems because you’re forcing those bad teams to retain money on a long term contracts. Having dead money on a 8 years vs 2 years will be the end of those teams because while you can get rid of contracts during the off season, you can’t do the same to dead money.

[DApolloS]

We wouldn't be forcing anyone to retain on long term deals. You could only retain on contracts with a maximum term left. So if we decide 2 years is the max, then only deals with 2 years remaining can be retained. By making it so you can retain aax amount of years on any deal will require more work each season. The NHL doesn't allow partial retaining. You retain a % of the cap of the contract. It should also be like that here, but to stop teams frscrewing themselves, you set a cap. It isn't hard to figure out.

[TheNudge]

We wouldn't be forcing anyone to retain on long term deals. You could only retain on contracts with a maximum term left. So if we decide 2 years is the max, then only deals with 2 years remaining can be retained. By making it so you can retain aax amount of years on any deal will require more work each season. The NHL doesn't allow partial retaining. You retain a % of the cap of the contract. It should also be like that here, but to stop teams frscrewing themselves, you set a cap. It isn't hard to figure out.

Still a shitty proposal. Not like I didn’t understand you the first time you posted it. Your proposal is still flawed since some idiot will retain one of those contracts. At least my suggestion won’t leave any idiot with a bag of dead money. Sorry but no thank you !!

[DApolloS]

Not sure how my proposal will leave someone with a bag of dead money, but ok.

[Shoalzie]

Cap retention is actual dead money.

[Shoalzie]

I think it makes sense to not allow retention on a full 8-year deal because...let's be honest...we're all year to year around. A new GM inheriting 7 or 8 years of dead money is stupid.

Putting a limit on years remaining is a good idea. 4 would be a lot...leaving it to 3 or less makes sense and it's easier to manage. Retaining cap for a full 8 years...it's kind of nonsensical for a team to do.

We've dealt with this for years. A team trades a player a year before their next big contract kicks in. This cap retention would be a way to move a player with the last year or 2 or 3 left on a big money contract.

[kimmer]

whatever

[KapG]

whatever

Exactly

Ngl find it funny how frank comes back in the league and gets very vocal about this and now all of a sudden it’s on the verge of happening lmao. I still don’t get this insane need to create more trades. We used to have handfuls of trades every day and look how that all turned out. It’s taken us what, 6-7 years to get some form of parity back (we still aren’t even there) Just wait until GMs start getting raped by some of the killers we have in here. Not gonna end well but….like you said….whatever

[kimmer]

i play in two other leagues with retention, probably dont need this league to follow suit, it's my chills league

[Shoalzie]

It's been a discussion within the CC for a bit. I brought it up internally...I thought it would be a way to stimulate trade activity. The flat cap has stagnated action around here. Convince me that it hasn't.

This won't create parity in the league...far from it. It's an avenue for cap-strapped playoff teams to acquire more talent.

I don't see teams who are contending to be on the receiving end of cap retention. This will be vehicle for bottom-tier teams to eat salary in order to move out big money veterans.

[Booboo (hawks)]

If we're voting, which i know we aren't, I'd be against retention for all reasons previously mentioned. New guys 2 cents

[kimmer]

lol retention doesnt create any sort of barrier or parity, like at all

it's literally good for two things: rebuilders to stash away cap and "help" contenders out for stockpiling more future assets so they can accelerate rebuild hopefully (i certainly would charge a premium with futures ++ if they wanted to take Laine off me @ 50% retention)
and in turn, also good for contenders on trade front and can start loading up like crazy. Ovi or Sid @ 4.5 mil, fit him in, contend.

[Shoalzie]

i play in two other leagues with retention, probably dont need this league to follow suit, it's my chills league

Take your feelings out of it...how many more trades have happened in those leagues because of cap retention?

[Shoalzie]

This would be a tremendous debate topic for a league video chat by the way...

[DApolloS]

I won't be wearing pants. Just a warning.

[Shoalzie]

Well, it's the summer...you should be wearing shorts.

[kimmer]

i play in two other leagues with retention, probably dont need this league to follow suit, it's my chills league

Take your feelings out of it...how many more trades have happened in those leagues because of cap retention?

oh it ups the trade front huge.
come deadline time contenders are 2x stronger than they would under the cap

[KapG]

It's been a discussion within the CC for a bit. I brought it up internally...I thought it would be a way to stimulate trade activity. The flat cap has stagnated action around here. Convince me that it hasn't.

This won't create parity in the league...far from it. It's an avenue for cap-strapped playoff teams to acquire more talent.

I don't see teams who are contending to be on the receiving end of cap retention. This will be vehicle for bottom-tier teams to eat salary in order to move out big money veterans.

Why this need to have trades all the time? I personally don’t get it. We still get lots of trades it’s just not insane like it used to be and I’m just not convinced that’s actually a bad thing.