Login

RomanesEuntDomus · 01-04-2017, 04:00 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 08:51 PM

What loopholes?

Most of them likely haven't been figured out yet or else they wouldn't be loopholes Wink

. But I'm talking about things like signing super short ELCs to then be able to re-sign long term for cheap, thinks that we are trying to combat with maximum contract lengths that I think would make the process both more complicated and boring.

Wally · 01-04-2017, 04:06 PM

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jan 4 2017, 01:06 PM
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.

*let me preface by saying this isnt targeted at you Red just about this idea, cause you aren't the only I've heard this argument from.

So what is wrong with the New England model, outside being filled with a bunch of sawftees, that makes them the example as to why we should have change? Shouldn't all GMs strive to be better at scouting both for the draft and for FAs?

I mean why would we change something to punish success? Shouldn't we create something that assists those working towards that same goal as NEW?

Totally for the new tiers, contract length limits, and a hometown discount... but let's make sure it's being done for the right reasons, not to punish teams for being "overly" successful.

ArGarBarGar · 01-04-2017, 04:07 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Pandar@Jan 4 2017, 02:59 PM

Well, what I just pointed out for example, where you can go from the lowest tier to the highest tier under one contract if the max length is .  Get to the upper edge of Tier 3, sign a Tier 3 contract for 6-8 seasons, and spend half or more of that time at the top tier while being paid less than half as much as your current tier.

I mean the current system has that, just moreso.

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]

RomanesEuntDomus · 01-04-2017, 04:08 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 09:07 PM

I mean the current system has that, just moreso.

That's why we want to change the system.

ArGarBarGar · 01-04-2017, 04:09 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Wally@Jan 4 2017, 03:06 PM

*let me preface by saying this isnt targeted at you Red just about this idea, cause you aren't the only I've heard this argument from.

So what is wrong with the New England model, outside being filled with a bunch of sawftees, that makes them the example as to why we should have change? Shouldn't all GMs strive to be better at scouting both for the draft and for FAs?

I mean why would we change something to punish success? Shouldn't we create something that assists those working towards that same goal as NEW?

Totally for the new tiers, contract length limits, and a hometown discount... but let's make sure it's being done for the right reasons, not to punish teams for being "overly" successful.

Because it isn't really realistic for the majority of the league and defeats the purpose of the salary cap in the first place.

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]

Wally · 01-04-2017, 04:13 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 02:09 PM

Because it isn't really realistic for the majority of the league and defeats the purpose of the salary cap in the first place.

Was more focused on the having so many active bodies comment... as I do agree with some of the limitations that should be put in place in regards to the salary.

Shouldn't we all, as GMs, be focused on ways to keep our players active and progressing? Isn't that how NEW has gotten where it has?

RomanesEuntDomus · 01-04-2017, 04:15 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Wally@Jan 4 2017, 09:06 PM

*let me preface by saying this isnt targeted at you Red just about this idea, cause you aren't the only I've heard this argument from.

So what is wrong with the New England model, outside being filled with a bunch of sawftees, that makes them the example as to why we should have change? Shouldn't all GMs strive to be better at scouting both for the draft and for FAs?

I mean why would we change something to punish success? Shouldn't we create something that assists those working towards that same goal as NEW?

Totally for the new tiers, contract length limits, and a hometown discount... but let's make sure it's being done for the right reasons, not to punish teams for being "overly" successful.

Because this league is meant to represent a salary cap world. You either make the cap mean something (like in the NHL) or might just as well not have one at all and have a soccer-like economy instead. A salary cap will always punish success to a certain extent, that's the whole reason it exists. Right now it isn't doing that.

I don't want to punish NEW one bit btw, hell it kinda feels like I'm the only guy not on their team who was happy that they have been able to win it all these past few seasons :lol: . But they are the prime example for what's wrong with the cap and why it's not working as intended as they largely built their roster on hometown-discounts and non-adjusted long term contracts.

Phobospwns · 01-04-2017, 04:17 PM

I think it's a great idea.

To all the people who keep saying "what's the point of deals then, everyone will just take the minimum, why bother with a contract" or "it really takes the hard part out of negotiation"

For the teams: Even if you were signing a guy at the min for multiple years, controlling their rights for a known, extended period of time puts you at a huge advantage over the possibility that they may leave every season, no?

For players: Not everyone will take the min contract, c'mon, now. Does everyone take the min now? No... so why would that happen in the future, even if guys know they'll get small bumps annually. Doubtful.

Negotiation: NTC, Player options, team options are all in effect, right? That's even if a player is only interested in getting the min. But as I mentioned, there's a lot of players out there who want more, and who will jump teams to get it. Specifying a min isn't locking in contract numbers, there's still plenty of creativity to be had.

What are the current problem? Too many people getting way under paid, by taking home town discounts. That's something which needs to be eliminated. If you're looking to create more parity in the league, as a player gets better, they need to be harder to maintain on the roster. Any cap reform should involve the best teams having a harder time getting under the cap than the crap teams. What do the best teams have? The most TPE. Therefore, it makes sense to regulate by that.

Someone mentioned the TPE cap, and that might work too... except that training and equipment, two of the biggest ways guys earn TPE are based monetarily. I'm all for getting rid of money based training- but I highly doubt that type of change will happen here.

Merica · 01-04-2017, 04:18 PM

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jan 4 2017, 03:15 PM

Because this league is meant to represent a salary cap world. You either make the cap mean something (like in the NHL) or might just as well not have one at all and have a soccer-like economy instead. A salary cap will always punish success to a certain extent, that's the whole reason it exists. Right now it isn't doing that.

I don't want to punish NEW one bit btw, hell it kinda feels like I'm the only guy not on their team who was happy that they have been able to win it all these past few seasons  :lol: . But they are the prime example for what's wrong with the cap and why it's not working as intended as they largely built their roster on hometown-discounts and non-adjusted long term contracts.

But what's wrong with what NEW has done? I'm their biggest hater, but I'd think GMs should be aspiring to emulate their model- getting players to buy into their system and take discounts to build a dynasty.

Phobospwns · 01-04-2017, 04:19 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Wally@Jan 4 2017, 03:06 PM
let's make sure it's being done for the right reasons, not to punish teams for being "overly" successful.

That's really the whole idea of a robust salary cap system, frankly. To make it harder and harder to create a bigger and bigger gap between your team and the other teams in the league. That's the entire idea of parity.

ToeDragon84 · 01-04-2017, 04:19 PM

drop the cap

Phobospwns · 01-04-2017, 04:23 PM

Quote:Originally posted by RomanesEuntDomus@Jan 4 2017, 02:50 PM
It doesn't limit GMs options nearly as much as people make it sound either, unless not having a bunch of franchise players at $1M or $2M is what you consider too restrictive and limiting.

Agreed.

Wally · 01-04-2017, 04:25 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Phobospwns@Jan 4 2017, 02:19 PM

That's really the whole idea of a robust salary cap system, frankly.  To make it harder and harder to create a bigger and bigger gap between your team and the other teams in the league.  That's the entire idea of parity.

Just playing devils advocate... but why can't GMs, like myself, try and replicate their success? If they can do what they have done, why can't every other team? Why do I need to change the rules to create that same model in Portland but with less rainbows and unicorns everywhere. I just think I need to work harder at closing the gap internally, than look for the league to bring New England back to the playing field.

ArGarBarGar · 01-04-2017, 04:32 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Wally@Jan 4 2017, 03:25 PM

Just playing devils advocate... but why can't GMs, like myself, try and replicate their success? If they can do what they have done, why can't every other team?  Why do I need to change the rules to create that same model in Portland but with less rainbows and unicorns everywhere. I just think I need to work harder at closing the gap internally, than look for the league to bring New England back to the playing field.

They can try, nobody is saying they can't.

I'm not saying this because I'm jelly. Even with the proposed changes New England still has a killer core, a locker room that retains their players, and management that is successful. It just limits the loopholes they have been privy to and taken advantage of and makes the salary cap actually mean something.

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]

Wally · 01-04-2017, 04:35 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 4 2017, 02:32 PM

They can try, nobody is saying they can't.

I'm not saying this because I'm jelly. Even with the proposed changes New England still has a killer core, a locker room that retains their players, and management that is successful. It just limits the loopholes they have been privy to and taken advantage of and makes the salary cap actually mean something.

I think back when PLF signed that massive contract in the summer I went on a freshman rant about the salary cap lol

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us