Login

Avakael · 09-14-2016, 10:46 PM

Quote:Originally posted by SwegKingu@Sep 15 2016, 07:11 AM
The negative side of this would be that players will have a hard time negotiating their contract to be above The minimum (depending on the Cap)

The idea of setting it at something above the actual average (112.5-117.5%) is to give GMs wiggle room to do exactly that, attract free agents, etc. The real problem for that is that the contracts themselves are virtually irrelevant compared to what can be earned in the media.

Samsung virtual assistant · 09-15-2016, 12:32 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Avakael@Sep 15 2016, 04:46 AM

The idea of setting it at something above the actual average (112.5-117.5%) is to give GMs wiggle room to do exactly that, attract free agents, etc. The real problem for that is that the contracts themselves are virtually irrelevant compared to what can be earned in the media.

Agreed.

Kevin Juice Bieksa · 09-15-2016, 12:36 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Avakael@Sep 15 2016, 02:46 AM

The idea of setting it at something above the actual average (112.5-117.5%) is to give GMs wiggle room to do exactly that, attract free agents, etc. The real problem for that is that the contracts themselves are virtually irrelevant compared to what can be earned in the media.

Once you enter a few seasons in, it's just not common for the media spamming guys in the SMJHL do the same in the SHL. I don't quite know anyone that used to post a lot of media do it still to this day. The majority of us do one media per season to buy equipment

All-time New England Wolfpack scorer
[Image: Derisraka.png]

fgh · 09-15-2016, 07:32 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Kevin "Juice" Bieksa@Sep 14 2016, 10:36 PM

Once you enter a few seasons in, it's just not common for the media spamming guys in the SMJHL do the same in the SHL. I don't quite know anyone that used to post a lot of media do it still to this day. The majority of us do one media per season to buy equipment

Or you get the podcasters that have a consistent stream of money to afford equipment and redistribution

Avakael · 09-15-2016, 08:57 AM

One other point- there absolutely needs to be some kind of mechanic to prevent particularly weak teams from driving the formula down. Buffalo and Hamilton alone are missing close to an entire teams worth of TPE compared to the league average- that cuts the cap in this model by millions.

Phobospwns · 09-15-2016, 10:57 AM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Sep 14 2016, 03:27 PM
The team that season doesn't benefit, so why should they pay more?

Paying more for a future benefit is a decision GMs should have to make. If it's not worth it to you as a GM for a player to be able to fend off regression better later, then don't pay for it in that player, and get a player who makes more sense in your team building/cap philosophies.

Again, the whole point is to make you make decisions, some of which might result in you letting good players walk. If you're tight against the cap, you might have to/choose to let a better player go, or avoid them. Other good teams may be in the same boat. That player now has a better chance of landing on a lesser team who needs him more.

You're a GM of one of the better teams in the league, and you've got one of the best players (thus, most expensive in a system like this) in the league, in yourself. No surprise you're against it. But if you consider it from the view of the GM of a shit team, would you feel the same way? A player or two shaking loose from the Chiefs and ending up on their squad would be a great win for them- and the creation of tighter competition in the league is a win for everyone.

ArGarBarGar · 09-15-2016, 11:12 AM

Just argue your point, don't go "oh well you have a good team with a highly paid player no wonder you don't like it."

I'm fine with a more accurate salary structure based on TPE, just not THAT high. 1500 or 1600 being the max would work out the way you are proposing, keeping people from punishing their teams just for banking TPE.

Alonzo Garbanzo Final Tallies (Among Defensemen):
2nd in Goals (208), All-Time Assists Leader (765)*, All-Time Points Leader (973), 3rd in Hits (2587), All-Time Blocked Shots Leader (1882)*
*All-Time Leader Among All Skaters
Player Profile | Update Thread
[Image: IeEV7Iv.png]

Phobospwns · 09-15-2016, 11:37 AM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Sep 15 2016, 10:12 AM
Just argue your point, don't go "oh well you have a good team with a highly paid player no wonder you don't like it."

I'm fine with a more accurate salary structure based on TPE, just not THAT high. 1500 or 1600 being the max would work out the way you are proposing, keeping people from punishing their teams just for banking TPE.

I'm not writing you off at all. Why should we ignore your context for your views, though? I think it's an important part of the process of talking about a change like this, to hear from those it would "most negatively" impact, don't get me wrong.

As far as the actual numbers go, of course they could be tweaked... I'm more or less speaking to the notion of a more robust salary cap structure in this league. I think basing it on TPE is a good idea. I think it'd be a really good thing, despite the fact that it'd be a pain point at the onset.

I'm not a GM, so I don't really know, what is the average value of all your players whose TPE levels are above say 1000?

Avakael · 09-15-2016, 11:50 AM

I'd actually be okay with capping the minimum contract growth on players that can't spend any more TPE. The point is so that it's tied to the actual value of the player, who remains no more valuable a cog on the team no matter how much extra TPE he or she earns from then on. The real benefit is being able to stick around for more seasons into regression, which is already covered by getting a contract then at all.

Phobospwns · 09-15-2016, 11:58 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Avakael@Sep 15 2016, 10:50 AM
The real benefit is being able to stick around for more seasons into regression, which is already covered by getting a contract then at all.

Well said.

Boomcheck · 09-15-2016, 06:46 PM

What about position changes between forwards and defense.

Would removing that be too much?

Schultzy · 09-15-2016, 08:31 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Boomcheck@Sep 15 2016, 06:46 PM
What about position changes between forwards and defense.

Would removing that be too much?

It's my understanding that that's already been removed.

There are no secondary positions anymore. Any forward can play any forward position without penalty to their attributes. But if a forward plays D or a Dman plays forward they suffer a 30% penalty to their attributes.

Boomcheck · 09-15-2016, 10:29 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Schultzy@Sep 15 2016, 04:31 PM

It's my understanding that that's already been removed.

There are no secondary positions anymore. Any forward can play any forward position without penalty to their attributes. But if a forward plays D or a Dman plays forward they suffer a 30% penalty to their attributes.

'Kay thanks

Avakael · 12-06-2016, 01:06 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Bojo@Sep 15 2016, 01:06 AM
I really dig this

Major changes to the SHL salary cap confirmed

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us