Login

Grapehead · 01-04-2017, 07:24 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Eggy Nog@Jan 4 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.

In my opinion lowering the cost of training would make semi-active players worth more and the active players worth slightly less by association. Not that that is a bad thing but worth considering.

Edit: by semi-active I mean people who can only afford training every so often and not every week.

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 07:40 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Grapehead@Jan 4 2017, 07:24 PM

In my opinion lowering the cost of training would make semi-active players worth more and the active players worth slightly less by association. Not that that is a bad thing but worth considering.

Edit: by semi-active I mean people who can only afford training every so often and not every week.

Also a good point. Like I said, I gave no thought to it just said what popped into my head. Out of curiosity, would making that change then lower the value of a contract and would we need a way to balance that out again?

karlssens · 01-04-2017, 07:49 PM

this may have been said already [i ain't reading 10 pages], but would this contract proposal restructure all values or just the minimum value of a contract? ex: a player with >1300TPE must be given $5mil or at least $5mil? Specifically can another team throw their wallet at them and offer $8mil or will the player make the same regardless of the team they ultimately sign with?

crutch · 01-04-2017, 07:50 PM

Quote:Originally posted by karlssens@Jan 4 2017, 04:49 PM
this may have been said already [i ain't reading 10 pages], but would this contract proposal restructure all values or just the minimum value of a contract? ex: a player with >1300TPE must be given $5mil or at least $5mil? Specifically can another team throw their wallet at them and offer $8mil or will the player make the same regardless of the team they ultimately sign with?

just minimums

Lunaro · 01-04-2017, 07:50 PM

Do contracts also scale down for regressing players/inactives?

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

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

Pandar · 01-04-2017, 07:56 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Lunaro@Jan 4 2017, 06:50 PM
Do contracts also scale down for regressing players/inactives?

I believe that they would not, under the current proposal. Players who ate in regression could sign new contracts based on regressed numbers, but would probably need to sign shorter term deals to make that possible, and not just get scaled down automatically.

Sorator · 01-04-2017, 08:05 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Grapehead+Jan 4 2017, 04:58 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (Grapehead @ Jan 4 2017, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
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.[/b]

It's not [i]unheard of. Brian Campbell signed for 1mil instead of the 4mil he was offered because he wanted to play in Chicago again, if I'm remembering the numbers correctly.

It doesn't happen often, though, yeah.

<!--QuoteBegin-Grapehead[/i]@Jan 4 2017, 05:11 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.[/quote]

I agree that a TPE cap system is ideal, but I have serious doubts about us being able to work out a good system and people being accepting of it, especially if the HO is wanting to vote on this within the week.

Kevin Juice Bieksa · 01-04-2017, 08:32 PM

Im back, time to backlog read and start replying to suggestions!

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

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 08:42 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Sorator@Jan 4 2017, 08:05 PM

It's not unheard of. Brian Campbell signed for 1mil instead of the 4mil he was offered because he wanted to play in Chicago again, if I'm remembering the numbers correctly.

It doesn't happen often, though, yeah.

I agree that a TPE cap system is ideal, but I have serious doubts about us being able to work out a good system and people being accepting of it, especially if the HO is wanting to vote on this within the week.

Why do we want to cap tpe earnings? We already cap PTs and hear endless complaints about that.

Kevin Juice Bieksa · 01-04-2017, 08:55 PM

Well first of all if this suggestion does go through, maximum seasons aren't an issue because their contract earnings go up if they get significantly better.

TPE Caps on a team is the stupidest idea I've heard for fixing league "balance". This is restricting activity per team which is fucking ridiculous. If a team like NEW and POR can obtain this many active players that are constantly growing in TPE counts, this is a dynasty and should be rewarded as such.

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

lil · 01-04-2017, 10:05 PM

Personally, I agree that the way to do this is cap contract length at 3-4 seasons. That's the better part of a year, but still short enough that you can't just keep good players for nothing indefinitely. I don't like scaling contracts as soon as someone hits a new TPE threshold for all the reasons discussed (yes, I did read all 10 pages), but I'm fine with a shorter contract length and the increased tiers for higher TPE. Also fine with increasing current minimums and keeping the cap at $70M no management.

I think hard caps on TPE per team would de-incentivize TPE earning (as someone said, getting to 999 and stopping), and that's the opposite of what we want.

I'm also a fan of not entirely doing away with hometown discount, but I'm more than okay with seeing it capped. I think it's interesting if instead of GMs, you make it the two longest-tenured players...because then you might be encouraged to trade a regressing inactive to clear out their spot.

Steelhead77 · 01-04-2017, 10:20 PM

I think removing hometown discounts is a terrible idea. This league is for fun. Players who show loyalty and want to stay with the same team and with the same group of friends should be allowed to play for less money if they choose to.

Again, this league is for fun, if someone is having fun on their team and wants to be a team player and take a discount they should be allowed to do that. That's always the way it's been as long as I've been here (S17). Players do that irl also.

I feel eliminating hometown discounts would force teams to move players who wanted to stay because the team would not be able to afford them. That's not the point of this league imo and would negatively effect someone's experience and activity.

I would strongly reccommend we keep hometown discounts regardless of tpe tier changes.

If you build a good team, create a fun environment where people want to play and more importantly stay (Calgary is a good example) those teams should be allowed to keep their players together as they grow. They should not be forced to move a player to a place he does not want to play because of certain restrictions.

I don't think we need to make any changes at all and especially not eliminating hometown discounts.

As someone who's been an SHL GM for 9 seasons and has built one of the strongest and deepest rosters in the league, I've found it hard enough to keep all my players under the cap even with hometown discounts and all my contracts are pretty low. I don't think GM's with deep rosters should be handcuffed even more by eliminating these discounts, especially on top of potential increase in contract tiers. That's just not needed.

Remember, change is not always needed. This is not the NHL. This is a simulated hockey league, for fun, where people come to hang out and enjoy a group of friends/teammates.

Let's not lose sight of that and start overthinking things.

If you must adjust contract tiers, that's one thing, but do not remove hometown discounts.

Thank you.

---> ParmBorg Highlights <---

#1 All-Time SHL Goal & Point Scorer
- First 2,000 TPE Player in SHL History -
- First 400 Goal Scorer in SHL History -
- Only 500 Goal Scorer in SHL History -
- First GM to Win 5 & 6 Challenge Cups -
Esa Anrikkanen Award - SMJHL ROY - Est. S34
Vidrik Onoprienko Award Winner - S45

Dragonite

Kevin Juice Bieksa · 01-04-2017, 10:30 PM

Esa :-x

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

ArGarBarGar · 01-04-2017, 10:46 PM

How deep are teams that have all these actives that would hate to leave?

I understand the point in theory, not sure I see it being the case in practice.

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]

ThatDamnWalrus · 01-04-2017, 10:49 PM

Capping contract length is the most idiotic suggestion there is.

More TPE tiers is fine.

Mixed on nixing the hometown discount.

Why punish players who do enough jobs/media/graphics to be able to take a discount with their team of choice?

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us