To introduce more liquidity to the trades possible in the FUNHL, I suggest the following rule change:
After season end, before pre-entry-draft trading begins, team owners can designate any two players on their team as having Franchise Player (FP) status.
All teams must have two FPs at the Entry Draft (ED). These two players cannot be drafted by other teams.
The players designated as FPs keep their status until the end of the season (i.e. cannot be waived or dropped.) After the ED is complete, there is no limit to the number of FPs that can, or must, be on a team.
At season end, all FP status disappears, unless the player is one of the two designated as an FP by the manager.
6 comments:
Ugh.
Franchise players are meant to represent players like Sundin, Yashin, Pronger, etc., players with massive ability and massive contracts.
It should be noted that teams do not flip the switch on players like these very often - in part because they have so much invested in them. When the switch is flipped (as in the case of Yashin's buy-out), it costs the team to do so.
So...the current NHL structure of contracts and how it affects GMs is precisely analogous to our current system. If you wish to replace an FP willy-nilly, it means you've lost some ground vs the competition. Not a lot, and by no means a fatal to your season amount, but enough that you should be discouraged from making frivolous contract offers to marginal talent.
In other words, my objection to your proposal is precisely what you see as its chief benefit - it makes FPs too 'fluid'.
There is nothing in my system that stops you from designating the same two FPs year after year, or insisting that one FP be traded for another.
What it does do is eliminate the iron bars of the FP system, and let people devise new strategies mid-season without being stuck with an underperformer who can't be traded off. (I give you exhibit A: the Scourge.)
I also don't see why you find the notion that, say Bob, might run his team the way Edmonton does, and trade FPs for a pretty song. Or, say Brian, might run his team the way Toronto does and vacuum up every one time FP that isn't nailed down. And since the Oilers and Leafs strategies are present in the NHL, why shouldn't they be present in the FUNHL?
(Granted, neither strategy seems terribly effective, but I don't see why the rules should protect managers from themselves. Especially if they let more conservative managers continue to run their team conservatively, albeit to their detriment.)
Actually, the comments I'd like to hear are from the prolific five big traders (at least for the LBs) It seems to me Doug, Brian, Dan, Bob and Rob are the ones who could make the most of this... and make the most of potentially indefinitely protected prospects.
What is the thought from you guys?
-Richard.
Being able to dump your FP at anytime is kinda counter to the whole philosphy of this pool is it not? The premise is about building your franchise and rewarding those that make good fp decisions and punishing those that did not.
It's not so much that we want to punish bad FP decisions, but that we don't want them to be 'oh well, who cares, doesn't really matter' decisions.
They are supposed to represent the large, long term contracts for the best 24 players in the league. When you make the wrong call and sign an Alexei Yashin to a long term deal, it shouldn't be painless to get yourself out of it (and let's face facts, its far less painful in the FUNHL to get rid of Yashin than it is in the NHL).
One other thing to consider, is that our current FP methodology prevents teams from 'going over the cap' by collecting more than two at any time. This forces GMs to be creative and to build their teams through trade and draft strategies that don't hinge on 'just collect the best 24 guys'.
I don't have the historical authority to go out on this limb, or this years stats to reference, but, based on Cameron's last reply I wonder: in the top 3 teams, what percentage of points came from prospects, who are protected, but tradeable properties for 6 years (not unlike what I'm suggesting for FPs); and what percentage came from FPs? If the prospects are producing more points than the FPs, then my system already effectively exists (you can trade limitlessly for good players); I'm just proposing we eliminate the manacles.
Also, how many FPs are FPs for longer than 6 years? (I assume most of them play in the NHL for longer than they are FPs in the FUNHL) If prospects are protected for longer than FPs, with the same guaranteed contract-renewal as desired, then, again, my system already exists.
Finally, Cameron, my system doesn't allow for a new draft of FPs each year; therefore, unless the top 24 players are spread evenly two per team, (they aren't) a goal of "collect all the FPs" is meaningless beyond a desire for a lot of bold-type on the spreadsheet. The best possible team this year did not consist of only FPs.
Hi Richard,
You said that wanted to hear from me, so here goes.
Your proposal kinda goes against the whole notion for Franchise Players that we set up so I will go down as opposed.
In a nutshell, FPs, Prospects and RFAs are all part of a spectrum of ideas we have incorporated (over time) to balance (however imperfectly) two very different types of pools: year-to-year pools where every draft is a fresh page and keeper pools where every year bears a striking similarity to the last. Both extremes, like ours, include trading so they have a some (or if you are Bob - almost total) flexibility but at either extreme some problems can occur.
One-off pools don't provide any continuity and trades near the end of the season can become meaningless for one party and crucial for another - bad. True keeper leagues pose the risk that a few teams acquire all the talent and most teams feel that they will never have a chance - maybe even worse.
Our set-up, which is by no means perfect, does have the flexibility borne of taking a little from column A and a little from column B. The most truly "keeper" aspect are FPs and it can be a challenge to trade them since you have to get one back in every deal but you were able to trade Sakic for Jovanovski, then trade Jovo back for Sakic and finally Sakic for Richards so I would argue that it wasn't that big a challenge for you to change up your FPs.
You can also replace your FPs at the ED. It can be expensive (in the sense that you are a round "behind" everyone until the 9th) but if the improvement in FP is worth it then it would seem to be worth it.
In answer to your question of how the top three teams compare as per FP and Prospect pts: I had the closest ratio with 181pts from FPs and 179.7 from prospects; Brian's ratio was 191.67pts from FPs and 137pts from prospects; while Dan is even more weighted towards FPs with 215.13pts from his FPs and only 138pts from prospects.
Post a Comment