Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 2:58:39 GMT
3. As far as the cap goes... the reason many of us long term GM's are opposed to any changes is because if memory serves me correctly we had lowered the cap once after it was introduced and it took like 10 plus seasons to get it increased even though most of the league was cap tight and there was a huge pool of UFA's that shoudl have been in the league. IF we lower it again there is no way you will get a majority of teams to agree to increase it again later. As far as Atlanta's parity comment....Not all teams that are bottom feeders will even bother to sign UFA's even if you get rid of the weak team bs. What you end up having is a massive pool of useful players that sit for many seasons before they retire. I mean, the first part is why you put in the rules a way to measure it and have it change annually. No reason to have a vote on whether to increase (or decrease) it if you have a system in place, and it's really not that hard to come up with a system, as I did earlier with a few minutes of thought. As for useful players sitting, you might be right, they may sit for many seasons before retiring. But please explain the point of a salary cap if no one is near it? Might as well get rid of it entirely, if a perfectly useful salary cap is just sitting there, doing nothing for many seasons. But the cap isn't working? If no one is near it, then it's not working. It's like a nuclear deterrent, except that everyone knows we'd be stupid to nuke anything and most of the people we're attacking don't live in easily demarcated borders, so we don't have anywhere to aim the nuke. So what's the point in having it? I know I *just* rejoined, so it's weird for me to be strongly in favour or against any rule changes, but this to me just seems like a logical thing. We have a cap, no one is near it, so it's not doing it's job. Either get rid of the cap entirely or change the rules so it actually makes a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by dallasgm on Oct 3, 2016 12:26:52 GMT
Reason why no one is near it is because we just restarted this league give the players time they'll freed well go up and then everyone well be around the cap.. Just because most teams are no where near the cap that's no reason to make the rest of the league suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 13:55:38 GMT
Reason why no one is near it is because we just restarted this league give the players time they'll freed well go up and then everyone well be around the cap.. Just because most teams are no where near the cap that's no reason to make the rest of the league suffer. Right, so right now it's doing nothing, but in a few years we *think* it'll make a difference? And yes, it's think. Do we have evidence that the cap is set at a logical level for a few years from now? Not really, because how could you know what salaries will be at? You don't know what the draft will produce (although, since we're having that conversation as well, evidently it's not going to produce insane levels of 80 overall players who demand 10mil per year), you don't know how players will develop, and you don't know how GMs will keep salaries low. So, again, as it stands we have a cap that does nothing, but we *think* it'll matter in a few years, maybe, if we're right. But we might be wrong, it might be too high, or maybe even too low, so we'll probably have to change it in a few years anyway. And I get the idea that it's hard to decrease it now and then have to vote to increase it again in the future, but what's wrong with an organic cap that changes annually as salaries increase? Measure caps at the trade deadline (before roster limits are removed) and then announce the cap for next year between then and the draft, so that GMs have time to take it into account before doing draft trades and other off-season moves. You know, a little like that NHL thing that we're trying to emulate? |
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 3, 2016 13:57:46 GMT
The rest of the league? I assume you're talking about the 4 teams that are spending over $60m. Compare that to the 16 teams that are actually spending under $50m and it's pretty evident that a $70m cap currently is doing nothing.
I'm not advocating for the cap to be lowered to $50m, but I see no problem with is being lowered to $60m and then subsequently raised as the seasons go on. But right now the cap, where it stands, is accomplishing nothing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 15:13:48 GMT
Seconding Atlanta, I just think that if so few teams are close to the cap, then why bother having a cap at all? And to those who say it'll fix itself in a few seasons, I'm really confused by the unwillingness to change the cap on an annual basis like the NHL does. We could set a line; say, 20% below the cap, and if x teams are above that line, we boost the cap so that x-5 teams are above that line. Thus it would organically fluctuate, forcing people to make the kind of decisions that the Blackhawks are making every year (goodbye Panarin - me in June, 2017). Okay, so I'm going to run with my earlier idea for a second. For reference, before I begin, the NHL cap is 73mil, and the floor is ~74% of the cap (this coming season that means it's 54mil, last season they were 71.4mil and 52.8mil respectively). As such, the floor is ~26% from the cap, which makes my suggestion of a line at 20% feel a bit big, so I'm going to try with it at 15%, while using an x=15. So the cap would move when more than 15 teams are within 15% of the cap. Right now our cap is 70mil, which would increase if 15 teams were above 59.5mil (70mil * 0.85). Alas, there are just 5 teams above that, so it wouldn't be moving anytime soon. So let's go with 15% above the median for a second. This is a little tough, as the 15th highest cap hit is 51.4mil, whereas 16th is 49.7mil, so I'll use the average of the two: 50.55 / 0.85 = 59.5. So 15 teams are within 15% of that, but only 5 teams are above it. However, my suggestion was that the cap would increase once 15 teams were within 15%, which they are. The cap would then go up to have just 10 teams within 15%, as part of the annual fluctuation. In this case, that would move the line to between 53.887 and 53.368, so we'll go with a middle point of 53.6mil. 53.6mil / 0.85 = a cap of ~63mil. Just 4 teams would have to get below that, and only really 3 others are close (since only 7 teams are above 55mil), so even that might not go far enough. It's worth noting, the average cap hit right now is just under 50mil at 49.856 (or 71% of the cap). There are 3 teams lower than 50% of the cap, and if we used the NHL's floor (~51.8mil for us), then 17 teams would not be in cap compliance. |
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 3, 2016 15:30:15 GMT
Seconding Atlanta, I just think that if so few teams are close to the cap, then why bother having a cap at all? And to those who say it'll fix itself in a few seasons, I'm really confused by the unwillingness to change the cap on an annual basis like the NHL does. We could set a line; say, 20% below the cap, and if x teams are above that line, we boost the cap so that x-5 teams are above that line. Thus it would organically fluctuate, forcing people to make the kind of decisions that the Blackhawks are making every year (goodbye Panarin - me in June, 2017). Okay, so I'm going to run with my earlier idea for a second. For reference, before I begin, the NHL cap is 73mil, and the floor is ~74% of the cap (this coming season that means it's 54mil, last season they were 71.4mil and 52.8mil respectively). As such, the floor is ~26% from the cap, which makes my suggestion of a line at 20% feel a bit big, so I'm going to try with it at 15%, while using an x=15. So the cap would move when more than 15 teams are within 15% of the cap. Right now our cap is 70mil, which would increase if 15 teams were above 59.5mil (70mil * 0.85). Alas, there are just 5 teams above that, so it wouldn't be moving anytime soon. So let's go with 15% above the median for a second. This is a little tough, as the 15th highest cap hit is 51.4mil, whereas 16th is 49.7mil, so I'll use the average of the two: 50.55 / 0.85 = 59.5. So 15 teams are within 15% of that, but only 5 teams are above it. However, my suggestion was that the cap would increase once 15 teams were within 15%, which they are. The cap would then go up to have just 10 teams within 15%, as part of the annual fluctuation. In this case, that would move the line to between 53.887 and 53.368, so we'll go with a middle point of 53.6mil. 53.6mil / 0.85 = a cap of ~63mil. Just 4 teams would have to get below that, and only really 3 others are close (since only 7 teams are above 55mil), so even that might not go far enough. It's worth noting, the average cap hit right now is just under 50mil at 49.856 (or 71% of the cap). There are 3 teams lower than 50% of the cap, and if we used the NHL's floor (~51.8mil for us), then 17 teams would not be in cap compliance. Great work. This really puts things into perspective with respect to the cap and how it's just too high right now |
|
|
|
Post by Philly Pete on Oct 3, 2016 23:55:58 GMT
Ok i like TO's... so i wouldn't want to see them removed.
With the lack of quality UFA, i say we do something like this; take 3-5 players (as an example) from the finals teams and make a similar 28y/o UFA. w/ 110 greed so in a few years they are UFA. I would say that we restrict the starting goalies, 1st line Fs, and top pair D-men from being copied. We can even set them at a $4m+ guaranteed cap hit so we start using cap space... Yes, that will increase the skill level of the league but it won't be full on draft edit so it'll have a smaller affect...
I'm ok with 1.15b or whatever we use for the draft...
Floor/Cap I don't want to tinker with this yet.
Only other thing i would go and outlaw are team having more than 3 1sts in any draft... that's how leagues get ruined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 7:40:09 GMT
Im never keen of any kind of slary caps, neither real or fantasy leagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 5, 2016 19:23:58 GMT
I wish more GMs would comment/vote on these proposed rule changes. Maybe some sort of incentive program for those that do in order to get more GMs involved?
|
|
|
|
Post by dallasgm on Oct 5, 2016 21:02:11 GMT
This league is barely two seasons in. And certain people are asking for rule changes already. We have tried this stuff before and it did not work at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 5, 2016 23:10:57 GMT
How old the league is shouldn't decide whether or not changes should be made to the rules. Lowering the cap now will have little negative affects on the league. It would be done to make the cap actually mean something, because right now, it's doing nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dallasgm on Oct 6, 2016 23:50:42 GMT
Leaving the cap where it is well have no effect on the league either  |
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 12, 2016 2:15:14 GMT
Stephen, curious as to what your final decision is for the proposed rule changes? More specifically with regards to the cap, because I'm assuming we will be using 1.15b to create the draft. The cap was really the only one that was split 50/50 on what to do...
|
|
|
|
Post by lebas on Oct 12, 2016 2:27:30 GMT
Leave the cap or in a few seasons we'll have this same debate to raise it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Oct 12, 2016 2:46:33 GMT
Stephen, curious as to what your final decision is for the proposed rule changes? More specifically with regards to the cap, because I'm assuming we will be using 1.15b to create the draft. The cap was really the only one that was split 50/50 on what to do... The cap debate is not 50/50. There are 2 GM's in favour of lowering it and the rest of the ones responding had no interest. |
|
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.