Quote:Originally posted by kit@Jan 9 2017, 12:17 PM
I mean t still would've effected me the same way. The only reason I was still here at some points was the blizzard LR. If at the end of one of my contracts tez or jedi would've told me I could only take a hometown discount to stay I wdon't old enough. Or I would've signed somewhere else and gone inactive most likely. I was still casual at that point just like those other players but I was elite
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?
#GOJETSGO S32 SHL Draft No. 1 Overall
Max Weber || D#39 || Portland Admirals/Winnipeg Jets ||
Quote:Originally posted by Mook@Jan 9 2017, 12:11 PM
First of all, I'm not worth signing at all ;
Second, Portland is a solid up and coming team, so I felt they would be a good example of a team that might feel the effect of getting boned moreso than others. I thought of it as a compliment I guess >:D<
I see what you're saying- If I were to make a big move to add a top FA to my young team, them boning me via the retirement thing could hurt my ability to grow.
I wasn't taking it as an insult btw. :D
#GOJETSGO S32 SHL Draft No. 1 Overall
Max Weber || D#39 || Portland Admirals/Winnipeg Jets ||
I disagree with the 1/3 cap hit for retiring players. If the goal is to make contracts more important why punish teams when players can be so volatile and retire at any time. If you insist on making a change I'd recommend making it so a player needs to buy themselves out of a contract before they can retire and recreate(or wait until a contract is finished). This is common in real life as players in the KHL often need to buy themselves out of their contracts to join the NHL (Komarov as an example). This will deter people from retiring and screwing over teams, while at the same time enforcing contracts on both the players and the teams.
At the end of the day, this is a game, everyone is here because they want to be here. If you restrict people's freedoms to enforce a rule that doesn't give any real competitive advantage, some may decide it's just not worth it and lose interest. I understand the goal to make this as "realistic" as possible, but rules should be focused on making this fair and fun for everyone. This rule in particular seems to be focusing more on realism than fairness and fun.
Quote:Originally posted by MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 04:34 PM
I see what you're saying- If I were to make a big move to add a top FA to my young team, them boning me via the retirement thing could hurt my ability to grow.
I wasn't taking it as an insult btw. :D
Exactly, I'm not saying something like this will happen to a team, just feels like a team getting punished for a players choice would suck. Thinking of worst case scenarios help me sleep at night
Quote:Originally posted by Mook@Jan 9 2017, 12:38 PM
Exactly, I'm not saying something like this will happen to a team, just feels like a team getting punished for a players choice would suck. Thinking of worst case scenarios help me sleep at night
A kindred spirit. My specialty is worst-case scenarios xD
#GOJETSGO S32 SHL Draft No. 1 Overall
Max Weber || D#39 || Portland Admirals/Winnipeg Jets ||
Quote:Originally posted by TommySalami@Jan 9 2017, 03:36 PM a rule that doesn't give any real competitive advantage
This is my bone of contention about that portion. There's no advantage to signing guys for 10 years and having them retire in 8... it's no different from signing them for 8 years at the same annual value and having them retire that 8th year. (if there is, and I'm missing it, someone clue me in).
Quote:Originally posted by TommySalami@Jan 9 2017, 12:36 PM I disagree with the 1/3 cap hit for retiring players. If the goal is to make contracts more important why punish teams when players can be so volatile and retire at any time. If you insist on making a change I'd recommend making it so a player needs to buy themselves out of a contract before they can retire and recreate(or wait until a contract is finished). This is common in real life as players in the KHL often need to buy themselves out of their contracts to join the NHL (Komarov as an example). This will deter people from retiring and screwing over teams, while at the same time enforcing contracts on both the players and the teams.
At the end of the day, this is a game, everyone is here because they want to be here. If you restrict people's freedoms to enforce a rule that doesn't give any real competitive advantage, some may decide it's just not worth it and lose interest. I understand the goal to make this as "realistic" as possible, but rules should be focused on making this fair and fun for everyone. This rule in particular seems to be focusing more on realism than fairness and fun.
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.
#GOJETSGO S32 SHL Draft No. 1 Overall
Max Weber || D#39 || Portland Admirals/Winnipeg Jets ||
Quote:Originally posted by Phobospwns@Jan 9 2017, 04:40 PM
This is my bone of contention about that portion. There's no advantage to signing guys for 10 years and having them retire in 8... it's no different from signing them for 8 years at the same annual value and having them retire that 8th year. (if there is, and I'm missing it, someone clue me in).
The way I look at it, say I plan on retiring in S36 and am signed until then, but the SMJHL draft class in S35 has a lot of friends and looks to be a good one. One season with a regressing player won't make a difference to me so I want to retire to join them. With literally no repercussions to myself, I can retire and move on to the next player, while the team and GM have to recover from my decision to abandon them
To expand, and another scenario
Say I'm signed for 5 seasons in tier 5, but I go inactive for the first 3. I come back with no interest in continuing with training that player and feel I have fallen behind, so I retire and make a new player
I have no issue with the new tiers, but taking penalty for players retiring early and existing contracts not being grandfathered in are both insanely dumb,
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.
Quote:Originally posted by belgarat@Jan 9 2017, 04:44 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.
You don't tell me what you are talking about! I tell you what you are talking about!
Quote:Originally posted by Phobospwns@Jan 9 2017, 12:40 PM
This is my bone of contention about that portion. There's no advantage to signing guys for 10 years and having them retire in 8... it's no different from signing them for 8 years at the same annual value and having them retire that 8th year. (if there is, and I'm missing it, someone clue me in).
Given the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE, and the one-time adjustment included in the proposal, I don't think the "sign super long-term while you're still low TPE" move has a lot of value anymore. If a later version of the proposal eliminated the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE, the move gains value again especially if done after the one-time adjustment. The retirement punishment would be necessary in that case, which is why I'm very very supportive of the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE.
#GOJETSGO S32 SHL Draft No. 1 Overall
Max Weber || D#39 || Portland Admirals/Winnipeg Jets ||
The way I look at it, say I plan on retiring in S36 and am signed until then, but the SMJHL draft class in S35 has a lot of friends and looks to be a good one. One season with a regressing player won't make a difference to me so I want to retire to join them. With literally no repercussions to myself, I can retire and move on to the next player, while the team and GM have to recover from my decision to abandon them[/b]
My point was more in relation to the cap itself. What advantage (with NO penalty) does a GM have cap wise by extending a player for 15 years to have him retire in 6, vs. signing him for 6 years and having him retire in 6.
For example, if there's no amortizing of contract monies to alter the cap hits at the beginning of a contract, based on the long terms of the contract (which would create an advantage- this is how NFL signing bonuses work), why punish people? Going back to the NFL example, that's why dead money exists. So you can't sign a guy for 5 years and get a cap break when you plan on only playing him for 5.
If the guys on the team, the cap hit is the cap hit, independent of the ensuing years. Therefore, if the contract is terminated by the player, the rest of the hits should go away, independent of the years already done.
<!--QuoteBegin-MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 03:47 PM Given the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE, and the one-time adjustment included in the proposal, I don't think the "sign super long-term while you're still low TPE" move has a lot of value anymore. If a later version of the proposal eliminated the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE, the move gains value again especially if done after the one-time adjustment. The retirement punishment would be necessary in that case, which is why I'm very very supportive of the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE.[/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.
Quote:Originally posted by Phobospwns@Jan 9 2017, 03:40 PM
This is my bone of contention about that portion. There's no advantage to signing guys for 10 years and having them retire in 8... it's no different from signing them for 8 years at the same annual value and having them retire that 8th year. (if there is, and I'm missing it, someone clue me in).
In addition, I don't understand the idea of imposing a penalty on retired players to make it more realistic. It is less realistic. In real life, a player signed a 5-year contract can retire in any year and the team nor the player would receive a penalty. The only players that do are 35+ year players and players who retire when they have been paid more than their salary cap average. The SHL doesn't have an AAV system, so it's impossible to pay someone more than their cap (or budget) amount.
Quote:Originally posted by Brandon@Jan 9 2017, 12:44 PM I have no issue with the new tiers, but taking penalty for players retiring early and existing contracts not being grandfathered in are both insanely dumb,
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?
#GOJETSGO S32 SHL Draft No. 1 Overall
Max Weber || D#39 || Portland Admirals/Winnipeg Jets ||
MWHazard![[Image: pQ2EKtU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/pQ2EKtU.png)
![[Image: SHLEmoteJets.png]](http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff60/NJDHalo3/SHLEmoteJets.png)
![[Image: TommySalami.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/TommySalami.gif)
![[Image: creller_dragons.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/831282703767830599/903291231524761640/creller_dragons.png)
![[Image: eyM9Y3U.png]](https://i.imgur.com/eyM9Y3U.png)
![[Image: 2gotrRl.png]](https://i.imgur.com/2gotrRl.png)
![[Image: iUd7IJE.png]](https://i.imgur.com/iUd7IJE.png)
![[Image: rhodes.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/694020619620188191/997234193056665711/rhodes.png)
![[Image: tZTGSGj.png]](http://i.imgur.com/tZTGSGj.png)
![[Image: 2AFxw6o.png]](http://i.imgur.com/2AFxw6o.png)
