Buds Board Keepers League

Brian wroteCOLONRetention 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.

Not as difficult as you may think.

I'd have to build something into the weekly sheets for the "retained salary" to live and to be counted towards the cap. And I'd create a retained salary asset that a team would own for the balance of the player's contract. I can easily change a player's salary week-to-week so making modifications in-season is very simple.

I have weekly grids for rosters, position, signed/unsigned status, salary and waiver status. All those are statuses that can change at any point during the season. That's how your sheets populate on a given week with that week's information.

Matthew wroteCOLONThere 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.

All we need is GMs making even more awful trades. Which is exactly what will happen. Honestly, some teams can barely manage their cap without retention and now we are going to potentially give them even more ways to get fleeced by the sneaky fuckers that we have in this league? Just seems like an awful idea. Hopefully the CC shuts this idea down.

Kyle, look at it this way...imagine the trade options you could have if you wanted to trade Matt Duchene with a $4 million cap hit versus the full $8 million? He had a very good year but you're going to have a hard time convincing contending teams that are tight against the cap to take that player off your hands. Veterans signed to long term deals for $6/7/8/9 million a year...those guys are next to untradeable.

I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence here...I don't think teams are lining up to take on Kyle Okposo or James van Riemsdyk at their current salary when their most productive seasons are behind them. Even Okposo had a decent season but if you've got $6 million under your cap...you can find better players to take up that salary that Okposo. However, if I could move either of them for half their salary...it opens up possibilities.

Salary retention will jailbreak a lot of veterans on big ticket deals and bottom tier teams would benefit.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONKyle, look at it this way...imagine the trade options you could have if you wanted to trade Matt Duchene with a $4 million cap hit versus the full $8 million? He had a very good year but you're going to have a hard time convincing contending teams that are tight against the cap to take that player off your hands. Veterans signed to long term deals for $6/7/8/9 million a year...those guys are next to untradeable.

I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence here...I don't think teams are lining up to take on Kyle Okposo or James van Riemsdyk at their current salary when their most productive seasons are behind them. Even Okposo had a decent season but if you've got $6 million under your cap...you can find better players to take up that salary that Okposo. However, if I could move either of them for half their salary...it opens up possibilities.

Salary retention will jailbreak a lot of veterans on big ticket deals and bottom tier teams would benefit.

From the looks of it retention is going to get put in the league anyways so I’m pretty much just complaining to complain. Is what it is.

Maybe you are right and bottom tier teams are going to benefit. I don’t see it working out that way though lol. Several of the GMs in this league are absolute killers and this is just going to give them more options. Guess we will see some messed up trades though so from an entertainment pov that should be fun.

It would be one of those things that you won't really know until we use it and see some teams make deals with this involved. What will it look like?

We see NHL teams basically get more in return if they retain salary in a deal. Would that be the case here? I don't see much value in just taking dead money just to move out a player. You'd be doing a team a favor so they should be a little extra in return.

The talent gap between the top and the bottom teams is already quite large...but teams still only have so much cap room to work with. If a team has $5 million under the cap...the team could get a $5 million player or they can an $7/8/9 million player and pay extra for the other team to retain salary. But once that cap room is used up...that's it.

We still need to work out details but I think this is a concept we should've tried a while ago.

KapG wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONKyle, look at it this way...imagine the trade options you could have if you wanted to trade Matt Duchene with a $4 million cap hit versus the full $8 million? He had a very good year but you're going to have a hard time convincing contending teams that are tight against the cap to take that player off your hands. Veterans signed to long term deals for $6/7/8/9 million a year...those guys are next to untradeable.

I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence here...I don't think teams are lining up to take on Kyle Okposo or James van Riemsdyk at their current salary when their most productive seasons are behind them. Even Okposo had a decent season but if you've got $6 million under your cap...you can find better players to take up that salary that Okposo. However, if I could move either of them for half their salary...it opens up possibilities.

Salary retention will jailbreak a lot of veterans on big ticket deals and bottom tier teams would benefit.

From the looks of it retention is going to get put in the league anyways so I’m pretty much just complaining to complain. Is what it is.

Maybe you are right and bottom tier teams are going to benefit. I don’t see it working out that way though lol. Several of the GMs in this league are absolute killers and this is just going to give them more options. Guess we will see some messed up trades though so from an entertainment pov that should be fun.

I agree

Rich get richer and weaker teams continue to make bad trades and now have teams with dead cap furthering the divide between good and bad.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONIt would be one of those things that you won't really know until we use it and see some teams make deals with this involved. What will it look like?

We see NHL teams basically get more in return if they retain salary in a deal. Would that be the case here? I don't see much value in just taking dead money just to move out a player. You'd be doing a team a favor so they should be a little extra in return.

The talent gap between the top and the bottom teams is already quite large...but teams still only have so much cap room to work with. If a team has $5 million under the cap...the team could get a $5 million player or they can an $7/8/9 million player and pay extra for the other team to retain salary. But once that cap room is used up...that's it.

We still need to work out details but I think this is a concept we should've tried a while ago.

Finally, this makes me quite happy. There’s one thing we need to do for it to work which is limit the amount one team can retain (lenght/ % and the number). Once that’s determined then it would reduced the risk. I just don’t see the negative from allowing a team to retain. Let’s finalize the details!! GL Scott!!

Frank...this has been an off-and-on topic around here during these COVID years with the flat cap. Trade activity has hit a bit of lull when teams don't have extra money to spend.

We'll keep the conversation going.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONKyle, look at it this way...imagine the trade options you could have if you wanted to trade Matt Duchene with a $4 million cap hit versus the full $8 million? He had a very good year but you're going to have a hard time convincing contending teams that are tight against the cap to take that player off your hands. Veterans signed to long term deals for $6/7/8/9 million a year...those guys are next to untradeable.

I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence here...I don't think teams are lining up to take on Kyle Okposo or James van Riemsdyk at their current salary when their most productive seasons are behind them. Even Okposo had a decent season but if you've got $6 million under your cap...you can find better players to take up that salary that Okposo. However, if I could move either of them for half their salary...it opens up possibilities.

Salary retention will jailbreak a lot of veterans on big ticket deals and bottom tier teams would benefit.

From the looks of it retention is going to get put in the league anyways so I’m pretty much just complaining to complain. Is what it is.

Maybe you are right and bottom tier teams are going to benefit. I don’t see it working out that way though lol. Several of the GMs in this league are absolute killers and this is just going to give them more options. Guess we will see some messed up trades though so from an entertainment pov that should be fun.

I agree

Rich get richer and weaker teams continue to make bad trades and now have teams with dead cap furthering the divide between good and bad.

Call me a pessimist but this is exactly what I see happening.

Imagine if bottom team that own Malkin is able to retain 50%. It would greatly increase his value and those poor team will get richer. You simply need to understand how to work the system.

Funny you mention Malkin, Frank...I got a 1st round pick for him a couple years ago but I basically had to take salary back for it work. I got Getzlaf and Kris Russell in the deal...aging players that don't have much of a shelf life. I later flipped Getzlaf in another deal and he's obviously since retired. I'm holding out hope Russell gets another contract.

If you can trade a guy like a Malkin for half the salary...you can get a better return and in fact, you can command a better return. Contending teams can't use the excuse that you have to take players with similar salaries back. Some players just won't get traded to contenders in this league because they make too much money in their later years. Those guys basically rot on bottom-tier rosters. We almost have to keep them until they retire because they rarely outperform those contracts.

The only issue I see that would come of this is what happens when a player that has been retained gets bought out IRL? Do both teams cap get wiped out? Does only the team that owns the player get wiped? Before you do something like this, you have to look at l of the "what ifs" and make desicions on them before it happens for real.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONThere 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.

23-24 let's go!

Lolol I like the idea but we would need to make it so you can only retain on one player once. Fuckers would have Connor McDavid at 2M salary with the way trades can go in here.

bills09 wroteCOLONLolol I like the idea but we would need to make it so you can only retain on one player once. Fuckers would have Connor McDavid at 2M salary with the way trades can go in here.

Here’s my trade in my other league;


To Mtl: Gurianov + Foerester + 1st 2022 Jets


To Jets : Teuvo Teräväinen + retention 50 % for this year only

To Edmonton: 5th Mtl 2022 to retain 50% on 2.7 M of TT


Mtl trades: TT + retention + 5th Mtl 2022


Jets Trade: Gurianov + Foerester + 1st 2022 Jets

Edmonton gives: retention 50 on the 2.7M for only this season (2021-2022) . I’m Jets in the deal and I won my league. Made back to back finals in a 32 team league but sadly only won it once.

i dont believe in the NHL you can retain for only 1 year if a player has 2 years remaining on his contract. you can only retain a percentage of the entirety of the remaining cap.

Matthew wroteCOLONi dont believe in the NHL you can retain for only 1 year if a player has 2 years remaining on his contract. you can only retain a percentage of the entirety of the remaining cap.

Really ? That’s weird, normally that’s what you want to avoid at least in a fantasy league. You want to make those retention available for a short period (2 years max).

I agree, the whole contract or nothing.

we couldnt do the whole contract if its like 8 years. a GM would screw up a team and quit and a team would be unfixable for almost a decade lol.

Matthew wroteCOLONwe couldnt do the whole contract if its like 8 years. a GM would screw up a team and quit and a team would be unfixable for almost a decade lol.

Exactly, that’s why I was saying we got no choice to limit the amount of years one team can retain. I say it should be 2 years and one could definitely get max value for a short period since the goal is to win the cup now and not in 8 years.