Login

kit · 01-09-2017, 04:50 PM

Quote:Originally posted by MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 02:28 PM

Could you edit that underlined bit- think you might have autocorrected or something.

I seem to have lost the point you're trying to make on the casual bit. How do you think the changes would have affected you when you were on your previous player?

i have no idea. thtas my phones fault but im saying i wouldve signed the hometown discount. And no they wouldnt have because of the way my career went. But it couldve

BarnabasCollins · 01-09-2017, 04:52 PM

We are trying to be transparent and involve all of you in the decision process. Hell my contract is the biggest example of what is wrong and I have no issue in it being adjusted tbh.

prettyburn · 01-09-2017, 04:52 PM

Quote:Originally posted by MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 03:49 PM
I think grandfathering in contracts that these changes are in part designed to correct for would go against the point of making the changes, personally. We can disagree about whether the changes should happen, but grandfathering in crazy contracts sort of removes the teeth of this, don't you think?

Otherwise every GM would have the next day until this was finalized to sign their players to 20 season, minimum contracts :lol:

ArGarBarGar · 01-09-2017, 04:55 PM

Quote:Originally posted by belgarat@Jan 9 2017, 03:44 PM
The spirit of the rule was meant to deter the 30 season contracts like the one I signed for crap money. We were originally talking about 3 tiers of max contracts instead of the two we have in this proposal. The penalty was to prevent someone from locking themselves in a long term lower tier contract. With just the 2 tier contract lengths we have up their now it may be moot and unnecessary and we are currently discussing removing it. Just wanted people to understand the reasoning behind the original proposal.

The deterrence is the fact that there are no longer hometown discounts and there has been an added TPE tier.

Putting the punishment for players retiring early is just overkill.

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]

MWHazard · 01-09-2017, 04:57 PM

Quote:
Good point.  In the case above, because it creates an advantage, then an equal "punishment" should be out there.  I think that's the important thing to weigh here, advantage vs. penalty.  If a club can save 1/3rd the contract value, then the cap penalty should reflect that.  Perhaps in some way it could be the balance of what you'd be saving against the min vs. what the player was signed for.

This is why I liked the annual contract adjustment based on tiers.  It simplifies these sort of things.

I disagree on the auto-adjust, because it removes a lot of negotiation about deal structuring. That ship has sailed, though, so instead of hashing that out again-

I think that you're touching on the penalty valuation here in a helpful way. However, after listening to this discussion I would say that I'm in favor of removing the retirement penalty IF the max contract length provisions in 1.2 are retained.

.bojo · 01-09-2017, 04:57 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 9 2017, 03:55 PM

The deterrence is the fact that there are no longer hometown discounts and there has been an added TPE tier.

Putting the punishment for players retiring early is just overkill.

You're right. we're working on an alternate solution/axing the penalty

Wally · 01-09-2017, 04:57 PM

Regardless of whatever way this goes, I definitely have to say I appreciate the transparency from the HO throughout the process Smile

Now if a decision could be made soon, cause Portland is planning a takeover. Must do so accordingly, lol. K thanks.

prettyburn · 01-09-2017, 04:58 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 9 2017, 03:55 PM
The deterrence is the fact that there are no longer hometown discounts and there has been an added TPE tier.

Putting the punishment for players retiring early is just overkill.

I agree with you. Proposal's like this are built from a lot of different voices, and what seems important early on to one group may not end up being necessary once everything comes together. That's why we're asking for the outside input, helps us look back and decide something has already been taken care of (or that something got forgotten and desperately needs to be addressed).

Phobospwns · 01-09-2017, 04:58 PM

Quote:Originally posted by MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 03:57 PM
I think that you're touching on the penalty valuation here in a helpful way. However, after listening to this discussion I would say that I'm in favor of removing the retirement penalty IF the max contract length provisions in 1.2 are retained.

Agreed. For what it's worth, we had the same discussion in GOMHL (where I'm the financier & a GM), and we came to the conclusion that penalties for retiring players isn't a good system. Of course there we have a 3 year max contract- which is what you're referring to implementing here. One move (the max length) solves the other problem.

Sean · 01-09-2017, 05:00 PM

Quote:Originally posted by MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 03:44 PM

The "fun" factor is an important point that others made on the last thread. It's worth preserving as something to keep in mind.

On the retirement thing, I didn't want to eliminate it entirely because I think I understand the HO's logic in including it. However, setting limits on the extent of the penalty and the circumstance should probably be accounted for.

What if the penalty was retained, but at 33%, for only the next year after the retirement?

Just spitballing here, but that would mean that somebody who has a long-term deal for 6 mil a season that reitres well before the end of it (never really intended on playing it out) costs 2 mil in a penalty the next season? That reduces the impact of people dicking over teams they don't like by retiring directly after signing a deal, and still penalizes GMs for attempting to stretch deals out for so long the issue of renegotiation never comes up. The % could perhaps be 50%, since the impact is only in one year.

I think my biggest contention with the rule is only one party is affected as the result of the breaking of the contract. Player and Team agree to a contract, as this rule stands the team is the only party penalized when the contract is not honoured. the only way to make it fair is to punish both parties (player and team). So you're left with a situation in which you're either punishing the people participating on your site for something that doesn't give them an unfair advantage, or unfairly punishing teams in situations they have no control. Not only is this not realistic, it makes the site less fun.

However, if your goal is to add this as a stipulation for the site, the player should face some sort of hardship as well to recreate while under a contract. Ultimately a team can't decide whether or not someone retires, punishing them won't affect the rate at which people retire.

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points

MWHazard · 01-09-2017, 05:06 PM

Quote:Originally posted by TommySalami@Jan 9 2017, 01:00 PM

I think my biggest contention with the rule is only one party is affected as the result of the breaking of the contract. Player and Team agree to a contract, as this rule stands the team is the only party penalized when the contract is not honoured. the only way to make it fair is to punish both parties (player and team). So you're left with a situation in which you're either punishing the people participating on your site for something that doesn't give them an unfair advantage, or unfairly punishing teams in situations they have no control. Not only is this not realistic, it makes the site less fun.

However, if your goal is to add this as a stipulation for the site, the player should face some sort of hardship as well to recreate while under a contract. Ultimately a team can't decide whether or not someone retires, punishing them won't affect the rate at which people retire.

Yeah, after thinking more on it, I'm on the "remove the retirement penalty" train as I noted above and it sounds like that might be the way this is headed.

The_Mazais · 01-09-2017, 05:07 PM

#VoteForPedro

Brandon · 01-09-2017, 05:08 PM

Quote:Originally posted by MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 03:49 PM

I think grandfathering in contracts that these changes are in part designed to correct for would go against the point of making the changes, personally. We can disagree about whether the changes should happen, but grandfathering in crazy contracts sort of removes the teeth of this, don't you think?

To me this is about preventing future problem contracts, I don't think it's fair to teams right now that have their budgets planned around their current contracts to all of a sudden have an extra $7M dropped on them because of contracts they did not agree to.

Re: teams changing contracts to get around this before it takes effect, why not put a ban on altering contracts until changes have been finalized? Prevents any shady behind door alterations.

BarnabasCollins · 01-09-2017, 05:11 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Brandon@Jan 9 2017, 03:08 PM

To me this is about preventing future problem contracts, I don't think it's fair to teams right now that have their budgets planned around their current contracts to all of a sudden have an extra $7M dropped on them because of contracts they did not agree to.

Re: teams changing contracts to get around this before it takes effect, why not put a ban on altering contracts until changes have been finalized? Prevents any shady behind door alterations.

Thats' why there is a season before it happens and buyouts during that offseason to mitigate those effects.

Steelhead77 · 01-09-2017, 05:11 PM

DO NOT REMOVE HOMETOWN DISCOUNTS, PLEASE.

I made my point about it in this POST. I would hope the opinion of one of the longest tenured GM's would be taken into heavily consideration on this matter.

I voted NO on this.

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

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us

Poll: Would you like to see these changes to the Salary system in the SHL? You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes	0%	0	0%
No	0%	0	0%
Total		0 vote(s)	0%