Login

Merica · 01-04-2017, 05:24 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Phobospwns@Jan 4 2017, 03:48 PM

If it were that easy, a team like BUF wouldn't be stuck sucking for so long.

A solid salary cap system doesn't prevent teams from jumping out and being stand outs as a rule... it just makes it harder to do so.  Look at the NFL, one of the best leagues regarding salary cap structure, there's still a number of dominant teams that have persisted... but at least the bad teams have a chance to make a ripple- every year there's a team that goes from worst in their division to the best.

Let's take this away from just NEW.  Let's look at the conference finals over the past few years:

West:
S31: Blizzard vs. Riot
S30: Blizzard vs. Dragons
S29: Blizzard vs. Dragons
S28: Blizzard vs. Jets

East:
S31: Northstars vs. Wolfpack
S30: Platoon vs. Wolfpack
S29: Northstars vs. Steelhawks
S28: Platoon vs. Steelhawks

Ok, so out of a total of 16 possible slots over those 4 years in both conf finals, we've got merely 8 teams repeated in a 14 team league.  Ya know what'd be better and more exciting?  Seeing that number at 10, or 12.

Who were the bottom 2 teams in those years?

S31: Jets, Steelhawks
S30: Admirals, Steelhawks
S29: Panthers, Stampede
S28: Admirals, Stampede

8 possible spots, 4 teams combining to be the worst year in, year out.  The Stampede never finished higher than 12th in the league overall.  The Admirals were never better than 11th.

Obviously it's not as simple as "just try to do what they did" to replicate what NEW and EDM have done... for the players on those 6 teams who haven't been past the 1st round of the playoffs in over 4 years, it's pretty beat- and especially to play for lowly Buffalo or Portland.  As a player, why would you ever leave your successful team to go to one of those teams?  With a good salary cap system- GMs will be forced to cut players loose, and players will filter down to those lower tier teams.  A better cap system brings NEW and EDM back to the pack, and catches BUF and POR back up to it, and creates a more fun, more challenging environment for players and GMs alike.

PS - this made me really appreciate the Blizzard's run.  Damn.

It's hard for me to consider Portland and Buffalo as good counter arguments. Everyone knew expansion teams would be way behind- and then you add things like tampering, GM turnover and the constant self-inflicted issues they've had, their not a good representation of what you're trying to argue for. They've shot themselves in the foot, and it's had nothing to do with the cap structure.

But, I understand what you're saying. However I personally don't ever foresee a day when there is parity across the board and honestly I don't ever want to see it- every league in Sports history has their shitty teams. It's part of the game.

MWHazard · 01-04-2017, 05:47 PM

Quote:Originally posted by BuildTheWall@Jan 4 2017, 01:24 PM

It's hard for me to consider Portland and Buffalo as good counter arguments.  Everyone knew expansion teams would be way behind- and then you add things like tampering, GM turnover and the constant self-inflicted issues they've had, their not a good representation of what you're trying to argue for. They've shot themselves in the foot, and it's had nothing to do with the cap structure.

But, I understand what you're saying. However I personally don't ever foresee a day when there is parity across the board and honestly I don't ever want to see it- every league in Sports history has their shitty teams. It's part of the game.

As someone trying to bring a perennial basement-dweller out of said basement, I don't want parity for the sake of parity. I want to climb past the "good" teams and become the team everybody is looking to beat, so I appreciate that last paragraph of yours immensely.

Lunaro · 01-04-2017, 05:49 PM

Wait what's everyone's issue with the hometown discount?

Sigs by Kit, Maxy, Mook, LazyEye, Wasty, Ragnar, Bushito, Frank, 701, Pandar

Player Page | Update Thread
[Image: 263vaqs.png]

Muerto · 01-04-2017, 06:17 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Lunaro@Jan 4 2017, 02:49 PM
Wait what's everyone's issue with the hometown discount?

they want those players to be more likely to seek Free Agency rather than rewarding a team for creating a positive, winning environment which makes people want to stay

Sorator · 01-04-2017, 06:39 PM

I like the idea of a somewhat short max contract length (4 or 5 seasons). That builds in a TPE adjustment while still letting savvy GMs save some cap space by signing something on the longer end to keep a player longer.

I don't know how contract extensions work currently, but if you allow players to sign an extension in their last season of an existing contract, with the extension having to meet their new TPE tier (either at the time of signing or at the time it takes effect), you still can have some longer-term security without risking free agency for those that want it.

Quote:Originally posted by Lunaro+Jan 4 2017, 03:49 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lunaro @ Jan 4 2017, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wait what's everyone's issue with the hometown discount?[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Muerto@Jan 4 2017, 04:17 PM

they want those players to be more likely to seek Free Agency rather than rewarding a team for creating a positive, winning environment which makes people want to stay[/quote]

No, I don't have an issue with players staying with the same team long-term; that's fine. But I don't see why they should be exempt from the otherwise normal salary rules when doing so.

If the point of the salary cap is to encourage parity, hometown discounts don't make sense. (If the point of the salary cap isn't to encourage parity, I don't see what the point of the salary cap is.)

Justice · 01-04-2017, 06:44 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Bojo@Jan 4 2017, 11:01 AM
[b]Feeback[/b]

who made this clown commish

ToeDragon84 · 01-04-2017, 06:50 PM

Drop the cap fuck everything else

Grapehead · 01-04-2017, 06:58 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Muerto@Jan 4 2017, 06:17 PM

they want those players to be more likely to seek Free Agency rather than rewarding a team for creating a positive, winning environment which makes people want to stay

My beef with the hometown discount is the sheer value of it. Of course NHL players take the so-called hometown discount, but do you want to show me one that takes HALF? A hometown discount in the NHL is 1 to 2 (at most) million below market value. The SHL hometown discount would be like having Crosby come off a 9 million dollar contract and take a 3 million dollar contract.

Muerto · 01-04-2017, 07:01 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Grapehead@Jan 4 2017, 03:58 PM

My beef with the hometown discount is the sheer value of it. Of course NHL players take the so-called hometown discount, but do you want to show me one that takes HALF? A hometown discount in the NHL is 1 to 2 (at most) million below market value. The SHL hometown discount would be like having Crosby come off a 9 million dollar contract and take a 3 million dollar contract.

maybe we could limit it to 1 or 2 players only, kind of like the franchise tag in the NFL

Grapehead · 01-04-2017, 07:07 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Muerto@Jan 4 2017, 07:01 PM

maybe we could limit it to 1 or 2 players only, kind of like the franchise tag in the NFL

Yeah, that's a good idea as well.

Grapehead · 01-04-2017, 07:11 PM

A big problem I see with all these discussions is that nobody seems to acknowledge that this is pretend money. You can't expect people to give it the same concern as the real money NHL players deal with. When you're playing a game on the internet it's a lot easier to pass up your chance to make a $10m contract. For a real human, it's hard to cut that down to $8m even. So we can't apply the same logic and expect the same result. We need a special kind of cap system tailored to our game.

That's why I think a TPE cap system of some kind, while keeping contracts the same way they are now, would be so effective. You could still have team budgets (so as to prevent too much money being produced) but it would be a soft restriction. Or like a max contract value. Then have a restriction on the amount of tpe you can have on your roster.

Trying to build a team under the cap is a challenge, but it's a challenge in getting good players to sign for very little. Trying to build a team under the cap is a challenge, by actually limiting over skill. Forcing GMs to not only balance their roster with high tpe players, but focusing on build strength.

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 07:11 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Muerto@Jan 4 2017, 07:01 PM

maybe we could limit it to 1 or 2 players only, kind of like the franchise tag in the NFL

GMs only? And only while they're running the team?

Wasty · 01-04-2017, 07:19 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Grapehead@Jan 4 2017, 02:58 PM

My beef with the hometown discount is the sheer value of it. Of course NHL players take the so-called hometown discount, but do you want to show me one that takes HALF? A hometown discount in the NHL is 1 to 2 (at most) million below market value. The SHL hometown discount would be like having Crosby come off a 9 million dollar contract and take a 3 million dollar contract.

That would be 1/3 of his seasonly salary, not half.

#40 Niclas Wastlund - W - VANCOUVER WHALERS Whalers

/ TORONTO NORTH STARS Stars

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 07:22 PM

Out of curiosity, would changing the cost of training instead do anything?

Not saying we should or that it would be a good idea, just throwing it out there.

Grapehead · 01-04-2017, 07:23 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Wasty@Jan 4 2017, 07:19 PM

That would be 1/3 of his seasonly salary, not half.

I'm comparing market value to the hometown discount. Because the SHL hometown discount can be signed for half of the minimum contract. Generally a minimum contract value wouldn't be market value for a player. In that case it's really weird to compare the SHL and NHL contract systems.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us