No offense Eggy but I can see why you aren't the biggest fan of this since NEW is pretty much the perfect example for why we need these changes. They have 20 players on their roster, almost all of them active and/or high TPE + a bunch of active prospects buried in the minors. They are the most stacked team in the league, can run four full lines and in the past the thing that prevented them from bringing in even more players wasn't even the cap, it was roster space. Of course the people in New England have done great work to make this possible, but something like this shouldn't be possible in a salary cap world.
Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 03:12 PM
This is a money based league, though. How do you regulate how contracts are handed out, which are the life-blood for a lot of players?
But the money doesn't serve it's purpose well. You can leave contracts untouched as far as the base/min/max or anything like that but instead of capping salary you cap tpe.
Quote:Originally posted by Kevin "Juice" Bieksa@Jan 4 2017, 03:12 PM
why punish a team that is active together? There should be strong teams and weak teams, they change regularly, the strong fall and the weak rise.
Also guys like Argar wouldnt want to get 2000+ TPE since it can start to cap their team
We'd have to do something like this (really basic idea, would have to crunch numbers later):
0-349 1
350-500 2
500-700 3
700-1000 4
1000-1500 5
1500+ 6
Then you say a team can only have 50 "points" on this chart. So 10 guys between 1000-1500 would cap a team ... This is a rough as fuck idea but it seems we want to limit tpe but are trying to do it through money. Why not go to the real source of the trouble?
Quote:Originally posted by Grapehead@Jan 4 2017, 11:24 AM Forcing the contract up every offseason (assuming they move up a tier) isn't the best solution in my mind. Having the ability to lock up a player for a few years at a bargain is all part of the real salary cap fun. However, locking them up for 20 seasons is garbage. I think just having a max term on contracts and eliminating the hometown discount would solve a lot of problems.
If we make it so everyone's contract is upgraded when they hit a new tpe tier then we might as well just scrap contracts and give players a fixed salary based on tpe. Why sign a player for 6 seasons and get yourself locked into a contract with a player who may go inactive or something? There's no benefit to the team or the player to have a mutli season contract at this point because the player will always make a base salary and they can never make less. There's no creative contract negotiations and no creative cap trades.
I like the idea of a one-time re-adjustment to handle old contracts, but I don't think doing it every season makes sense. Just limit contract length to ~4 seasons; then you have a built-in adjustment for each contract signing. (You'll also need to do something about the extreme length contracts - either make them continue to auto-update every 4 seasons, or cut their length.)
That being said, past a certain point, money doesn't serve much of a purpose in this league. There's not much incentive for a player to negotiate for a higher contract other than just wanting a higher number in their bank account anyway.
I also agree that the purpose of the salary cap is to maintain some degree of parity in the league, and it sounds like it may need to be lowered to achieve that end, even with these changes. Or switch to a TPE cap as Grapehead is suggesting, which is an interesting thought but would take a lot of work (and some time of disfunction while we work out the kinks) to be successful.
Quote:Originally posted by Grapehead@Jan 4 2017, 07:20 PM
We'd have to do something like this (really basic idea, would have to crunch numbers later):
0-349 1
350-500 2
500-700 3
700-1000 4
1000-1500 5
1500+ 6
Then you say a team can only have 50 "points" on this chart. So 10 guys between 1000-1500 would cap a team ... This is a rough as fuck idea but it seems we want to limit tpe but are trying to do it through money. Why not go to the real source of the trouble?
because you're limiting activity as a result from it.
Once you get to the 1000-1500 TPE range, its safe to stop getting TPE because your player should be where you want him, there's no point to be Eggy or Argar who want 2000+ TPE. A team that is that active should be rewarded in the sim and such.
Quote:Originally posted by Kevin "Juice" Bieksa@Jan 4 2017, 02:12 PM
why punish a team that is active together? There should be strong teams and weak teams, they change regularly, the strong fall and the weak rise.
[b]Also guys like Argar wouldnt want to get 2000+ TPE since it can start to cap their team[/b]
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
The one thing I don't get about this discussion is that people claim that they want to keep contract talks interesting and don't want to limit GMs options by adjusting salaries, but at the same time they are totally fine with severely limiting their options by implementing super strict maximum contract lengths that make contract talks super boring.
Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jan 4 2017, 01:26 PM The one thing I don't get about this discussion is that people claim that they want to keep contract talks interesting and don't want to limit GMs options by adjusting salarie, but at the same time they are fine with severely limiting options and making contract negotiations as a whole a lot less interesting by implementing super strict maximum lengths.
Well, it seems like one or the other needs to be limited, and I'd find it more interesting to negotiate salary than contract length.
Edit: Also, lower contract length is an alternative to adjusting salaries every season, by making it happen on a regular but less-frequent basis. It's a compromise, allowing for some negotiation without things going over the top as they have been recently.
Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jan 4 2017, 07:26 PM The one thing I don't get about this discussion is that people claim that they want to keep contract talks interesting and don't want to limit GMs options by adjusting salaries, but at the same time they are totally fine with severely limiting their options by implementing super strict maximum contract lengths that make contract talks super boring.
I guess they're mad about people signing for 20+ seasons
RomanesEuntDomus![[Image: Z21MZ56.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/Z21MZ56.jpg)
![[Image: Derisraka.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/222478577218617344/573776337865539604/Derisraka.png)
![[Image: 38718_s.png]](http://signavatar.com/38718_s.png)
![[Image: rW2c4Vz.png]](http://i.imgur.com/rW2c4Vz.png)
![[Image: B4x6AQm.png]](http://i.imgur.com/B4x6AQm.png)
![[Image: YztPk3T.png]](http://i.imgur.com/YztPk3T.png)
![[Image: 6by0kBi.png]](http://i.imgur.com/6by0kBi.png)
![[Image: IeEV7Iv.png]](https://i.imgur.com/IeEV7Iv.png)
![[Image: Zoone16.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Zoone16.gif)
![[Image: 9QVaMRC.png]](http://i.imgur.com/9QVaMRC.png)
![[Image: canybyK.png]](http://i.imgur.com/canybyK.png)
![[Image: sXDU6JX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sXDU6JX.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif)
![[Image: winter-500.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/709471992100945974/1109520965404201021/winter-500.png)
