Login

*Tomen* · 01-04-2017, 01:29 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Bojo@Jan 4 2017, 06:27 PM

Once we figure out the "cutoff" date, it should simply be a matter of looking at the roster pages to verify.

#BojoCreatesJobs

A good cutoff would be the official now is the offseason post ?

Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany

3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)

MWHazard · 01-04-2017, 01:29 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 09:20 AM

Since I have been around people have wanted the salary cap to actually matter.

I think this does a pretty good job of that, wouldn't one say?

I haven't been around long enough/around long enough as a GM to hear a lot of salary cap deficiency/surplus discussions, but I would want to see what the cap situation for the teams would look like under a proposed change to the contract structure, all else equal before supporting such a change.

I also think that within reason, players should be allowed to sign for whatever they want, aside from a few benchmarks that apply at the time of the contract signing.

This does sort of remove a lot of the negotiation from signing players.

Not that it really needs pointing out, but NHL player contracts don't automatically increase in value if a player gets really damn good before the contract expires. Sure, there are incentives, but we can do that now ("Hit 1000 TPE before S35 and you get a 1m bonus").

I'm not saying I'm firmly in the "oppose" camp, but I'm not in the "support" camp either.

ArGarBarGar · 01-04-2017, 01:31 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Eggy Nog@Jan 4 2017, 12:29 PM

Then don't sign your players to one.

If a player wants to sign long term and the GM is fine with it, there's no reason to put a restriction on it if we're adjusting contracts ever offseason anyway.

Were we not adjusting contracts every offseason then I'd be more inclined to agree.

Hence why I was against that proposal.

Keep up. I know it's hard to see things on top of the SHL but us peasants have good ideas too!

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]

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 01:33 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Bojo@Jan 4 2017, 01:18 PM

Pandar crunched the numbers, and I believe only one team in S33 would go over, but by s34 everyone would be ok.

I'd be curious, if you were willing, to see how you got to these numbers. I feel like this is just going to force everyone to sign for minimum and reduce the value of a contract even more.

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 01:34 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 01:31 PM

Hence why I was against that proposal.

Keep up. I know it's hard to see things on top of the SHL but us peasants have good ideas too!

I think I misunderstood you then. When you said you agree with restructuring contracts with the new rules, do you mean just a one off thing?

ArGarBarGar · 01-04-2017, 01:35 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Eggy Nog@Jan 4 2017, 12:34 PM

I think I misunderstood you then. When you said you agree with restructuring contracts with the new rules, do you mean just a one off thing?

Correct, one time in S34, get everyone on the same page, then don't restructure again.

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]

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 01:35 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 01:35 PM

Correct, one time in S34, get everyone on the same page, then don't restructure again.

Oh.

Well carry on then.

Chris-McZehrl · 01-04-2017, 01:35 PM

MWHazard · 01-04-2017, 01:38 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 09:35 AM

Correct, one time in S34, get everyone on the same page, then don't restructure again.

A one-time restructure is more palatable than auto -restructuring every season but I'm not sure that was the proposal on the table per the OP.

Edit: I'm sure you know that, was just pointing it out for clarity's sake.

*Tomen* · 01-04-2017, 01:40 PM

Wait so contracts will always only be adjusted up but not down? Will people who signed long term contracts get the chance to change the length of their contracts? I would like to not have a contract of like 6M when my player is already regressing and is way under that TPE cap.

Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany

3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)

Wasty · 01-04-2017, 01:41 PM

Honestly I am very much opposed to the idea of contract automatically going up just because a player is active and developing. I guess we can toss negotiations out the window as said by some already here. Also why does someone with 1500 TPE actually need 5M a season? It's not like we can do a lot with money here anyways so we're just gonna have a bunch of players with massive bank accounts and they won't need to write media or do graphics.

This just penalizes teams that have full active rosters that want to stick together for awhile.

Losing hometown discount just seems not necessary too. If someone puts up 5+ seasons to a franchise then why not reward them?

The only thing I've agreed with is maybe a cap on length of contract. 10 seasons seems like a nice cap imo

#40 Niclas Wastlund - W - VANCOUVER WHALERS Whalers

/ TORONTO NORTH STARS Stars

grimreaper · 01-04-2017, 01:44 PM

I like the idea of adjusting contracts in the offseason, but do agree it might make contract negotiations a bit worthless and most players will end up just signing at the minimum. Perhaps do a one-off restructure in S34, and make the max length of contracts 4 years? That way clever GMs can lock up a player for a few years at under market value, but won't be able to sign a player for their entire career. I know 4 years may seem short for a max, but it would remove the need for offseason restructuring every year as well as giving GMs and players some room to get creative.

Eggy216 · 01-04-2017, 01:46 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Wasty@Jan 4 2017, 01:41 PM
Honestly I am very much opposed to the idea of contract automatically going up just because a player is active and developing. I guess we can toss negotiations out the window as said by some already here. Also why does someone with 1500 TPE actually need 5M a season? It's not like we can do a lot with money here anyways so we're just gonna have a bunch of players with massive bank accounts and they won't need to write media or do graphics.

This just penalizes teams that have full active rosters that want to stick together for awhile.

I think these two things pretty much sum up my thoughts on the matter.

I think the cap already has an impact, even if it may not have as much of an impact as people want. If anything, maybe consider not making these changes and just adjusting how high the cap is? It would probably cause the desired results without getting rid of contract negotiations altogether.

MWHazard · 01-04-2017, 01:50 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Wasty@Jan 4 2017, 09:41 AM
Honestly I am very much opposed to the idea of contract automatically going up just because a player is active and developing. I guess we can toss negotiations out the window as said by some already here. Also why does someone with 1500 TPE actually need 5M a season? It's not like we can do a lot with money here anyways so we're just gonna have a bunch of players with massive bank accounts and they won't need to write media or do graphics.

This just penalizes teams that have full active rosters that want to stick together for awhile.

Losing hometown discount just seems not necessary too. If someone puts up 5+ seasons to a franchise then why not reward them?

The only thing I've agreed with is maybe a cap on length of contract. 10 seasons seems like a nice cap imo

I agree with a lot of this. I think though that the contract minimums in this proposal are not so much to reward players for being active but rather to limit how many of those one team could reasonably afford.

This creates some weird incentives on the edges of the TPE thresholds- there are penalties in place for "timing" TPE to game the thresholds, but honestly you wonder if maybe it'd be better for your second line LW who's loyal and doesn't mind missing out on some TPE long-term to stay at 999 and just not earn TPE (as opposed to gaming things by just not claiming it). That seems contrary to the point of being a player, which for most people I'd wager is to build a top player and have fun doing it, in addition to all of the social aspects of the league.

I think this proposal perhaps could harm both of those motivations for activity.

.bojo · 01-04-2017, 01:51 PM

This is great feedback. I think the biggest resistance is the fluctuating min contracts. Some of us already agree with that and are looking at it again.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us