Login

prettyburn · 01-09-2017, 05:47 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ThatDamnWalrus@Jan 9 2017, 04:45 PM

Toews and Kane just signed 11 year extensions a year or so ago. There is no cap on length.

They signed just under $11M contracts (10.5 I believe), but only for 8 years. Current NHL rules have a maximum of 8 years re-signing, 7 years signing new - that's why there was talk of Stamkos' rights being traded if he was going to sign elsewhere.

Hallsy · 01-09-2017, 05:47 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ThatDamnWalrus@Jan 9 2017, 03:45 PM

Toews and Kane just signed 11 year extensions a year or so ago. There is no cap on length.

There is an 7 year cap for FA and a 8 Year cap on non- free agents

kit · 01-09-2017, 05:49 PM

Quote:Originally posted by prettyburn@Jan 9 2017, 03:47 PM

They signed just under $11M contracts (10.5 I believe), but only for 8 years. Current NHL rules have a maximum of 8 years re-signing, 7 years signing new - that's why there was talk of Stamkos' rights being traded if he was going to sign elsewhere.

Yeah that rule came in cuz parise and sisters contracts

.bojo · 01-09-2017, 05:49 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Muerto@Jan 9 2017, 04:44 PM
I really don't like the idea of having to adjust contracts up every season just because a player has updated to a new tier. , there would be no point in offering/signing any contract longer than 1 season.

especially if contract length is being maxed out, a player who keeps developing will get their payday on their next contract, why not allow players/teams to work out relative deals? Sometimes players have a decent bank account (esp. recreates) and can sign relatively low contracts in their early years to help out the team that drafts them. It seems unfair to take that option away.

Just one time, not every season.

ThatDamnWalrus · 01-09-2017, 05:49 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ArGarBarGar@Jan 9 2017, 04:47 PM

This is wrong.

8 years for signing an existing player.
7 years for signing a free agent.

You are right, but its because the NHL uses AAV instead of our cap system. Capping lengths in the SHL makes no sense other than to over complicate things.

Hallsy · 01-09-2017, 05:50 PM

Also there reason for having an cap is because the NHL uses an AAV system which actually makes sense.

ArGarBarGar · 01-09-2017, 05:51 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ThatDamnWalrus@Jan 9 2017, 04:49 PM

You are right, but its because the NHL uses AAV instead of our cap system. Capping lengths in the SHL makes no sense other than to over complicate things.

The length is capped for lower tier contracts to prevent teams from signing 20 year contracts for 4th year players.

I think that should be revised, though.

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]

Muerto · 01-09-2017, 05:52 PM

Quote:Originally posted by prettyburn@Jan 9 2017, 02:45 PM

That's why adjusting contracts isn't in this proposal, I agree all of your points here  :lol:

Well, even the one-time adjustment I don't really like, even if it's not an ongoing thing done every season. I mean, selfishly, I have some players on great value contracts for the team, and now those contracts are basically useless if this goes through

prettyburn · 01-09-2017, 05:55 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Muerto@Jan 9 2017, 04:52 PM
Well, even the one-time adjustment I don't really like, even if it's not an ongoing thing done every season. I mean, selfishly, I have some players on great value contracts for the team, and now those contracts are basically useless if this goes through

The problem is if we don't implement this all at once, it could leave some teams very unequally benefited or punished. I definitely get why you'd be against it as a GM, but it's the fairest way to go about implementation (as far as options I've thought of, at least).

Baelor Swift · 01-09-2017, 05:59 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Eggy Nog@Jan 9 2017, 04:34 PM
I think overall my biggest fear is still that we'll end up moving towards styles of teams that try to run out their top 6 and top 3-4 D and not play anyone else so that players end up getting upwards of 25 minutes a game. I'd rather see us move away from that style of building a team, and my #1 concern remains that this kind of a cap structure would move us in a direction where teams are driven towards that.

So which teams should be contracted then? We don't have enough actives for more than a few teams to be running more than six active forwards and four active D. I don't think any GM has a goal of not having enough depth when it's pretty clear that depth tends to be very important in team success here. What this will do is increase parity, hopefully create a situation in which we have a more even distribution of players across teams, and hopefully generate more activity and better member retention. Keeping things the same isn't going to solve the issue you mentioned.

ThatDamnWalrus · 01-09-2017, 06:02 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Baelor Swift@Jan 9 2017, 04:59 PM

So which teams should be contracted then? We don't have enough actives for more than a few teams to be running more than six active forwards and four active D. I don't think any GM has a goal of not having enough depth when it's pretty clear that depth tends to be very important in team success here. What this will do is increase parity, hopefully create a situation in which we have a more even distribution of players across teams, and hopefully generate more activity and better member retention. Keeping things the same isn't going to solve the issue you mentioned.

Forcing players off teams will not help generate more activity.

Hallsy · 01-09-2017, 06:04 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Baelor Swift@Jan 9 2017, 03:59 PM

So which teams should be contracted then? We don't have enough actives for more than a few teams to be running more than six active forwards and four active D. I don't think any GM has a goal of not having enough depth when it's pretty clear that depth tends to be very important in team success here. What this will do is increase parity, hopefully create a situation in which we have a more even distribution of players across teams, and hopefully generate more activity and better member retention. Keeping things the same isn't going to solve the issue you mentioned.

Which professional sports league has parity? Also the SHL has some parity, 6 teams in the east were in the hunt for the post-season until the very end and in the west didnt the last place playoff team get in because of ROW?

Baelor Swift · 01-09-2017, 06:10 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ThatDamnMcJesus@Jan 9 2017, 05:04 PM

Which professional sports league has parity?

This isn't a professional sports league.

ThatDamnWalrus · 01-09-2017, 06:10 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Baelor Swift@Jan 9 2017, 05:10 PM

This isn't a professional sports league.

So stop trying to make the Salary/Contract system work like it is one.

Baelor Swift · 01-09-2017, 06:12 PM

Quote:Originally posted by ThatDamnWalrus@Jan 9 2017, 05:02 PM

Forcing players off teams will not help generate more activity.

Because forcing players off teams is the point of all this? Please come back when your brain is working.

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%

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us