|
|
Post by boltsgm on Apr 21, 2020 23:30:36 GMT
Current NHL (2019-20) $81.5m and doesn't include AHL Salaries and going up again for next season
GHL (2028-29) $70m and this includes AHL salaries (this is a joke)
How about raising it to a realistic total and getting rid of the AHL Salaries counting against the cap.
If we can raise the injury levels to "make it more Realistic" why can't we do the same with the Cap???
|
|
|
|
Post by islandersgm on Apr 21, 2020 23:33:17 GMT
IMO things should be kept simple. Some of these things are hard to keep up with for those running the league.
Keep a hard cap on teams throughout the regular season. Resign when the playoffs start or give yourself enough flexibility to resign without going over the cap.
If teams are able to sign and go over the cap are we supposed to keep track of what their position was before that to make other moves like signing ufas and making trades or are they supposed to be prohibited from signing UFas or making trades that take on salary? It seems like it complicates things more than it benefits anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Apr 21, 2020 23:41:56 GMT
Current NHL (2019-20) $81.5m and doesn't include AHL Salaries and going up again for next season GHL (2028-29) $70m and this includes AHL salaries (this is a joke) How about raising it to a realistic total and getting rid of the AHL Salaries counting against the cap. If we can raise the injury levels to "make it more Realistic" why can't we do the same with the Cap???
Salaries in game are not realistic though. I mean, you've got 5 players who are roughly at 1ppg and their salaries range from 4.5 to 6.0mil. The real TB had three this season around 1ppg, making between 6.75 and 9.5. You can easily negotiate players to take a far lower salary than they would in real life. The highest scorer in the league right now, Hoyal with Ottawa, is over 2.0ppg and making just 5.0mil. That's better numbers than Connor Macdavid at less than half his real salary.
Honestly, the only joke here is you suggesting that a game made around 2001 *before there was even a salary cap* would be able to match up realistically with salaries and a cap from 20 years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by boltsgm on Apr 21, 2020 23:45:04 GMT
and yet we institute a Cap in a game that 20 yrs old as you put it, to make it more realistic hmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Apr 22, 2020 0:02:38 GMT
and yet we institute a Cap in a game that 20 yrs old as you put it, to make it more realistic hmmm
Yes, we use a cap - not to make it more realistic but to try and ensure a level playing field, thus why it is based on the game's salaries and not real life.
|
|
|
|
Post by dallasgm on Apr 22, 2020 1:10:00 GMT
I'll act like a child all I want to
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen (League Admin) on Apr 22, 2020 2:26:19 GMT
I like GM's who sign there 1 year players at the start of the season. It saves me a shed load of grief come rollover time. So that wont be changing  |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen (League Admin) on Apr 22, 2020 2:28:41 GMT
The CAP is in the game to spread players out around the league and it looks like it is starting to do that. It will remain the same for that reason.
In terms of seperating the NHL and AHL salaries. Unless there is a very easy and straight forward way to do that, its not happening. Im not adding up and monitoring the differences between 60 teams. Hard Pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by boltsgm on Apr 22, 2020 2:40:20 GMT
The CAP is in the game to spread players out around the league and it looks like it is starting to do that. It will remain the same for that reason. In terms of seperating the NHL and AHL salaries. Unless there is a very easy and straight forward way to do that, its not happening. Im not adding up and monitoring the differences between 60 teams. Hard Pass. their is an easy way (EHM add-on, like Shoot Outs for example) ask TOR gm he uses it for his league. |
|
|
|
Post by islandersgm on Apr 22, 2020 3:09:26 GMT
I don't think the cap should be raised either. The teams run by a GM already have an advantage over caretaken/available teams. GM teams are already loaded with talent, have the better drafts, and in some cases RFAs that should be playing in the league. A higher cap would increase that disparity imo.
I understand from a simming point it is much more convenient to have contracts throughout the season then all at once at the end. However, if we allowed teams to go over the cap for that, how do we manage it? Do they have a free pass to do whatever else they want after that because they are already over the cap from resigning and we aren't watching it? Are they restricted from making any moves that take on salary? I don't see a realistic way to allow it without it opening up more issues.
I am honestly surprised that there even has to be a discussion about a rule that has been around for so long and its a pretty common and reasonable rule.
I wasn't trying to start anything or personally attack anyone with my comments. If it had been a single team having an issue than letting Stephen resolve it with the GM would have been the normal course of action. With it being three separate teams it warranted more of a group discussion. A single occurrence is one thing and often justified through trades, transactions, or injuries but each of these teams have already been over the cap this season. It does become a league issue when Dallas has multiple instances of going over the cap and Montreal seems to casually be staying over the cap. Tampa Bay has also had multiple instances of going over the cap and solving it by inside trading their player to their other team without advertising them to the league first.
GMs can act like they are being unfairly targeted because they were barely over the cap or would have resolved it by the next sim but the reason other GMs are speaking up is because it appears to becoming habitual. That is why objections are being raised.
I don't want to cause any rifts in the league. I am good with whatever approach Stephen deems most appropriate. I just want everyone to be on the same page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen (League Admin) on Apr 22, 2020 10:20:55 GMT
In the past the cap has not been a major problem, but the last couple of seasons have seen a couple of teams really struggling to sign players. Florida lost a lot of good players because so many were signed to high contracts, nashville, tampa bay, I even had to clear players out on phoenix.
This raises a question for discussion. Should there be a limit on greed? I know we have implemented the option to reduce greed through the reward scheme, but im not sure how much a couple of points a season will actually make. It does annoy me when teams draft well and then see their players come out of their first contract asking for $8,000,000+ salaries. Maybe have a salary cap range, though that may be to complicated?
|
|
|
|
Post by leafsgm on Apr 22, 2020 12:03:13 GMT
Here's an interesting one that Arty mentioned about signing players with 1 year left on their current deals to new contracts. It is an advantage to do it at the start of the season (less money) before they develop even more (raising their asking price). What if we did not allow GMs to do that, until at least a certain point of the season? Either January, or once the season is over? From what I understand, if a player has a PO and a TO, and one year remaining on their contract, you can sign them to lower deals in September and October in game. It is an advantage if you have cap room at the start of the season. I do not believe that limiting a GMs ability to sign a player at any point is good for the game. Why take away a GMs ability to sign their players at lower amounts of $$. Part of the game is staying under the cap. If we limit that, then you will have teams continually trying to get under the cap as contract costs go up. I understand it may be an effort to try to drive up activity , trades, waivers, etc., but just frustrating to the GMs who are trying to keep their houses in order. That being said, if someone makes a transaction that puts them marginally over the cap because it is not being monitored by the league, they should get some flexibility in an effort to get under the cap in 1 sim. If a guy makes a trade or signing and the simmer didn't notice then the GM should be given a chance to get under. Perhaps there should be an updated list every sim of where people are in terms of their cap, so that people who sim can take notice and reject trades, signings, etc when things are being entered. I think that when you over-rule a league, it takes a bit of fun out of the game and just makes it frustrating. Leave it as it is and just manage the current rules you have bit better and then these cap things will not be issues in the future. People won't be accused of breaking rules intentionally. If you have rules already, enforce them. That is why they are rules. |
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Apr 22, 2020 12:53:12 GMT
Here's an interesting one that Arty mentioned about signing players with 1 year left on their current deals to new contracts. It is an advantage to do it at the start of the season (less money) before they develop even more (raising their asking price). What if we did not allow GMs to do that, until at least a certain point of the season? Either January, or once the season is over? From what I understand, if a player has a PO and a TO, and one year remaining on their contract, you can sign them to lower deals in September and October in game. It is an advantage if you have cap room at the start of the season. I do not believe that limiting a GMs ability to sign a player at any point is good for the game. Why take away a GMs ability to sign their players at lower amounts of $$. Part of the game is staying under the cap. If we limit that, then you will have teams continually trying to get under the cap as contract costs go up. I understand it may be an effort to try to drive up activity , trades, waivers, etc., but just frustrating to the GMs who are trying to keep their houses in order. That being said, if someone makes a transaction that puts them marginally over the cap because it is not being monitored by the league, they should get some flexibility in an effort to get under the cap in 1 sim. If a guy makes a trade or signing and the simmer didn't notice then the GM should be given a chance to get under. Perhaps there should be an updated list every sim of where people are in terms of their cap, so that people who sim can take notice and reject trades, signings, etc when things are being entered. I think that when you over-rule a league, it takes a bit of fun out of the game and just makes it frustrating. Leave it as it is and just manage the current rules you have bit better and then these cap things will not be issues in the future. People won't be accused of breaking rules intentionally. If you have rules already, enforce them. That is why they are rules.
I think this is a very reasonable suggestion, I will try to quickly do up a table and post it so as to not add extra work on the simmers.
|
|
|
|
Post by artemy (NJ) on Apr 22, 2020 13:43:06 GMT
In the past the cap has not been a major problem, but the last couple of seasons have seen a couple of teams really struggling to sign players. Florida lost a lot of good players because so many were signed to high contracts, nashville, tampa bay, I even had to clear players out on phoenix. This raises a question for discussion. Should there be a limit on greed? I know we have implemented the option to reduce greed through the reward scheme, but im not sure how much a couple of points a season will actually make. It does annoy me when teams draft well and then see their players come out of their first contract asking for $8,000,000+ salaries. Maybe have a salary cap range, though that may be to complicated? Totally against raising salary cap Raising will make stronger teams even more stronger. All this Shatner started because of one GM unable to manage the cap Totally understand that we may have no time to follow the team regularly (that's what happened to MTL as far as I understand) And in case with TB everyone was loyal more or less until that move with resigning 70 mln is absolutely enough to keep parity in the league and keep a competitive roster. Trade your franchise players for top picks to keep balance and that's it Separating budgets is one more problem. Checking every sim? Come on. The whole situation right now is stupid. We have rules and breaking them means punishment It's like parking a car near emergency exit Emergency case may never happen and your car will never do harm but it's a rule and you will not park it there cause you will get a ban. Same Shatner here Sure EHM is losing its popularity and keeping everyone here glad and happy is important, but being respectful to parity between Gms and to rules is also important |
|
|
|
Post by artemy (NJ) on Apr 22, 2020 13:47:06 GMT
Comparing with NHL in terms of salaries is a joke. Never seen best players signed at average salaries as max signing bonus was offered
Take NJ for example. Christian Lafrenniere wanted 8.5 mln. Fair? Pretty fair, may 6 mln is okay for a franchise type of a player
I signed him for 2.6 mln after 3 tries with max bonus.
Anywhere in NHL so many loyal players? Not sure
And I am voting against the raising cap despite in a couple of seasons i will have problems with guys like Frye, Willis, and others
That is why I resigned Kinigader in advance.
What will I do? Probably trade for a pick or smth like that. But definitely not lobbing cap raise
|
|
i'll be doing it all on friday as its teh only day off I have at the moment. Sorry, we are down people and its long late shifts at teh moment.