Buds Board Keepers League

kimmer wroteCOLONlol 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.

Rebuilders get more assets for retaining.
Make good decisions.

KapG wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONIt'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.

What’s wrong giving the people more options? Also the activity in this league is not what it used to be but it’s pretty good compared to most leagues. If you don’t want to trade then do it but don’t take the option of getting more value for our expensive players.

TheNudge wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONIt'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.

What’s wrong giving the people more options? Also the activity in this league is not what it used to be but it’s pretty good compared to most leagues. If you don’t want to trade then do it but don’t take the option of getting more value for our expensive players.

More trades isn’t necessarily a good thing. We’ve had insane amounts of trades before. Look how fucked up the league got wrt to balance and how top heavy we got and still are because of it.

I don't think it'll be an automatic that every bad team with a bad contract is just going to give these guys away and eat salary and cause this league to shift wildly out of control.

How many players would even fall in this category? Big money, productive and would be worth rostering at a lower salary...while being on a bottom-tier team in this league?

I'll use my own examples:

Kyle Okposo...last year of his current deal. Had one of his most productive seasons with the Sabres...highest goal total since '15-16. If I had the choice...would I rather trade him and eat half of the salary or wait until this deal expires and maybe hope he signs another deal and stays relatively productive that someone might take him on next summer? What's really the big difference between these two choices? I'd only have to retain for a season or do I just roll the dice and hope he plays for another contract (hopefully a cheaper one)?

James van Riemsdyk...also in his last year of his current deal. Is he a $7 million player? Doubtful but he's still capable of 20-25 goals. I figure he's got at least one more contract in him. I see him as another "roll the dice" guy and I'd probably just let this season play out. Hope he's productive in his contract year and maybe he lands another decent deal where he can play in the middle of someone's lineup and hover around 20 goals. Maybe my best option would be to just hang onto him.

Cam Atkinson...3 years left on his deal but a better cap hit than Okposo or JVR while being more offensively productive. He's an overall better player in terms of categories. I think I can flip him at his current salary but if given the option...if I could get a little extra in return...why wouldn't I consider eating half of his salary to be able to trade him? He's 33...he'll be in his late 30s when his deal expires. What good does he do staying on my team if I'm not competing?

Oliver Ekman-Larsson...5 years left on his current deal and he's got a hefty cap hit. In all honesty, I don't know if I could get a good deal for him even if I retained salary. I'd probably put him on the block if retaining salary was an option but honestly, I'd probably be better off just keeping him and hope he has a bounce back season and his value improves. Right now, he's probably better off staying on my team.


Why do I say all of this? It's not a given I'd even trade the veterans I have with big contracts even if I could retain salary. Some guys in this format just aren't attractive pieces no matter what salary you attach to them.

The list of players who would be in this category can't be that long. What team is so desperate to shed salary that they'll eat a percentage of a contract just to get rid of them? And who is the team that would even want the player at a lower salary? Not every player is a trade option for every team.

I'm actually a little surprised that there's this much negative feeling around the topic. If you don't like cap retention deal, don't make them. If you want to retain cap because you know you can garner more assets from a contender that's strapped for cap then you have the option to do so. This creates flexibility and creativity that I think can actually allow lower tier teams to climb the standings if they do it correctly. Find the right deals with the right players. I'm for it.

I think we should cap the maximum number of years that you can retain to 3. And there should be a minimum or a maximum retention amount. Also a cap on the number of retained cap contracts any team can hold, I don't think the last point would be an issue since teams that would be retaining probably won't have more than a couple of assets worth retaining on. But just my thoughts.

I know for sure I would have significantly more attention on my Stamkos blocks @4.25 rather than @8.5...

koomzzz wroteCOLONIf you don't like cap retention deal, don't make them.

I'm getting this sentence embroidered on a pillow.

koomzzz wroteCOLONI'm actually a little surprised that there's this much negative feeling around the topic. If you don't like cap retention deal, don't make them. If you want to retain cap because you know you can garner more assets from a contender that's strapped for cap then you have the option to do so. This creates flexibility and creativity that I think can actually allow lower tier teams to climb the standings if they do it correctly. Find the right deals with the right players. I'm for it.

I think we should cap the maximum number of years that you can retain to 3. And there should be a minimum or a maximum retention amount. Also a cap on the number of retained cap contracts any team can hold, I don't think the last point would be an issue since teams that would be retaining probably won't have more than a couple of assets worth retaining on. But just my thoughts.

I know for sure I would have significantly more attention on my Stamkos blocks @4.25 rather than @8.5...

You and Scott hit on the nose. Why be scared of this advantage? Also like I mentioned I think 50% should be the limit, also set a limit how many retention one team can do and length . By setting those limitation, you simply increase the value of the Retention since there’s less to be had and you also lower the risk one team might take on. I for one only see the benefits by allowing teams to retain. Yes yes there’s always risk but with a bunch of capable gm, the risk are quite low.

I think you have to look at all teams not just how it benefits rebuilders. Lets look at some good teams like WSH, PIT, NJD, MIN, PHI etc. These are teams with good rosters who could go on a long playoff run if the breaks went their way. They also don't have a ton of valuable prospects and picks to make their team better. Now we allow retention and other good teams like NSH, DAL, ANA, COL add retained stars giving them a big advantage.

I just see this as a league that has been about maximizing your roster and allowing contenders to add retained players really hurts league parity when some good teams might not be able to compete. We just saw a 633-540 LA team miss the playoffs and any team 1-8 could have came out of the West. I think we are in a good spot, my team is getting weaker out East and while still the weaker conference right now I think teams will be getting tighter in the standings.

Sure retention will increase trades and give rebuilders a chance to move some high paid contracts. I would also say no one forced a team to acquire an Okposo, JVR, OEL or Atkinson and acquiring a player like that comes at a much lower cost. Pumping up the value of those players at 50% retention will help teams if they make good trades and that is a huge if. On the other side of the coin giving top teams more ways to make their teams even better decreases parity and instead of having a wide open West you might have two or three overpowered teams and less hope for others.

That's just my $.02 on why I don't see the need for retention, but I like it in NHLDL and if we put up a poll and say 25 of 32 GMs want it then of course I would be supportive. I do feel like starting a league with retentions is also way different then adding it in 10+ years later.

I get resistance to a change like this but it's at least a mechanism the NHL uses. It's not like we're making something up.

Let's not forget, we just gave the middle the finger the current NHL playoff format because we didn't like it. We can do things our way...we're not a 100% copy of the real NHL.

I think this like the playoff system should be a league-wide decision. There's some strong pro and con arguments...really would be curious to do an informal poll for it.

I agree, changes this big should not be just CC deciding.

Bruyns wroteCOLONI think you have to look at all teams not just how it benefits rebuilders. Lets look at some good teams like WSH, PIT, NJD, MIN, PHI etc. These are teams with good rosters who could go on a long playoff run if the breaks went their way. They also don't have a ton of valuable prospects and picks to make their team better. Now we allow retention and other good teams like NSH, DAL, ANA, COL add retained stars giving them a big advantage.

I just see this as a league that has been about maximizing your roster and allowing contenders to add retained players really hurts league parity when some good teams might not be able to compete. We just saw a 633-540 LA team miss the playoffs and any team 1-8 could have came out of the West. I think we are in a good spot, my team is getting weaker out East and while still the weaker conference right now I think teams will be getting tighter in the standings.

Sure retention will increase trades and give rebuilders a chance to move some high paid contracts. I would also say no one forced a team to acquire an Okposo, JVR, OEL or Atkinson and acquiring a player like that comes at a much lower cost. Pumping up the value of those players at 50% retention will help teams if they make good trades and that is a huge if. On the other side of the coin giving top teams more ways to make their teams even better decreases parity and instead of having a wide open West you might have two or three overpowered teams and less hope for others.

That's just my $.02 on why I don't see the need for retention, but I like it in NHLDL and if we put up a poll and say 25 of 32 GMs want it then of course I would be supportive. I do feel like starting a league with retentions is also way different then adding it in 10+ years later.

As a fringe playoff team/tweener for contending and rebuilding I get that other angles should be looked at. But this is more about building rosters in the way that you want to. With a league that has this much history, the teams that are built like WSH, PIT NJD etc. that you mentioned are built that way by their own accord. Similarly NSH et.al. have built their teams in their own ways as well. I see the angle of this potentially helping teams at the very top and helping teams at the very bottom, while the middle 50% or so actually has a higher probability of suffering regression from this change. But as one of those teams, there is opportunity to be had still. I think this also comes down to smart deal-making and not just bending over to a top team because they are willing to make an offer.

I'd be curious to see a league wide opinion as well, since it's only been a a fraction of the league chiming in so far.

Certainly agree it's way simpler to have this from the start rather than implementing after GMs have been putting together rosters for years... I like the idea, but considering both sides of this coin, I can definitely see why one wouldn't like it. Its tricky

Bruyns wroteCOLONI think you have to look at all teams not just how it benefits rebuilders. Lets look at some good teams like WSH, PIT, NJD, MIN, PHI etc. These are teams with good rosters who could go on a long playoff run if the breaks went their way. They also don't have a ton of valuable prospects and picks to make their team better. Now we allow retention and other good teams like NSH, DAL, ANA, COL add retained stars giving them a big advantage.

I just see this as a league that has been about maximizing your roster and allowing contenders to add retained players really hurts league parity when some good teams might not be able to compete. We just saw a 633-540 LA team miss the playoffs and any team 1-8 could have came out of the West. I think we are in a good spot, my team is getting weaker out East and while still the weaker conference right now I think teams will be getting tighter in the standings.

Sure retention will increase trades and give rebuilders a chance to move some high paid contracts. I would also say no one forced a team to acquire an Okposo, JVR, OEL or Atkinson and acquiring a player like that comes at a much lower cost. Pumping up the value of those players at 50% retention will help teams if they make good trades and that is a huge if. On the other side of the coin giving top teams more ways to make their teams even better decreases parity and instead of having a wide open West you might have two or three overpowered teams and less hope for others.

That's just my $.02 on why I don't see the need for retention, but I like it in NHLDL and if we put up a poll and say 25 of 32 GMs want it then of course I would be supportive. I do feel like starting a league with retentions is also way different then adding it in 10+ years later.

+1

Yes it allows playoff contenders to bulk up for a run making our playoffs more exciting.
Rebuilding teams would get more assets from these contenders helping them rebuild.

I really don't See a flaw from having this implemented in our league.

Not sure I understand
If you cap the retention at three years for example what happens to it then for say an 8 year deal?

I think we'd set a limit of how much term has to be remaining on the deal. 7 or 8 years of cap retention seems silly.

dave1959 wroteCOLONNot sure I understand
If you cap the retention at three years for example what happens to it then for say an 8 year deal?

It’s quite easy, i’ll give you an example

Team A trade : Kreider (6.50(2027)) + retain 50% for 2 years (3.25/3.25/6.50/6.50/6.50)

Team B tradd: prosoects + picks


Team A, now have 3.25 of dead money for 2 years instead for 5 years.

3 years is too much imo. We cap draft picks available to two years to prevent teams being dogshit if a GM leaves. Personally I'd want only 1 year of retention, but definitely think it should be 2 max.

Matthew wroteCOLON3 years is too much imo. We cap draft picks available to two years to prevent teams being dogshit if a GM leaves. Personally I'd want only 1 year of retention, but definitely think it should be 2 max.

2 years is plenty enough and you should be able to retain contracts including that are longer then 2 years.

Nvm.

TheNudge wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONNot sure I understand
If you cap the retention at three years for example what happens to it then for say an 8 year deal?

It’s quite easy, i’ll give you an example

Team A trade : Kreider (6.50(2027)) + retain 50% for 2 years (3.25/3.25/6.50/6.50/6.50)

Team B tradd: prosoects + picks


Team A, now have 3.25 of dead money for 2 years instead for 5 years.

This isn't even the way we here had initially talked about...prior to you rejoining. I'm not a fan of your idea.

Retaining salary basically means you eat part of player's salary for the balance of their contract. I don't see anywhere in the NHL where a team only retained for part of the contract.

If we set the limit at 3 years, that means a player can't have more than 3 years left on their deal. The cap retention and the player's contract would expire at the same time. The player would sign a new deal and the BBKL team would have the player at that full price.