|
Post by Retamedt - Retired Bruins GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:13:20 GMT -5
The re-signing spectrum is way off. The highest rated defensemen in the game are 84s and that would put them in a column of between 4 and 5M max per season.
Players who are in the high 70s and do little to perform are still making significant dollar figures and since the entire league is run by high 70s to low 80s as an average, the dollar figures are a bit skewed and won't fit into a salary cap era unless the cap was appropriately placed at 65M or so to accommodate the high salaries.
Also, this conflicts with the so-called 85% rule which governs all re-signings to be no less than 85 percent of the former contract. This rule is also somewhat unreasonable as several players who are currently making significant dollar figures in the high 3s to even 10 million (see shanahan's 7mill as an 80) are rated 80 and lower and thus would not be able to make any less than 85 percent of their original contract when they clearly do not deserve that dollar figure.
I believe a simple submission of extension with point production is more than accommodating compared to this system. Let the staff do their job in reviewing rather than a nonsensical mechanical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:19:15 GMT -5
As much as I usually like a pre-determined set of guidelines, I do agree that this creates annoyances. Now I get the theory behind the 85% rule. You don;t just sign a guy high for one year to win FA, then re-sign him low. But with Shanahan, yeah, he went for 7M so the winner should not be able to sign him for dirt-cheap, BUT NJ is auctioning him off as we speak. So whoever ends up with him has an overpaid player who they can't resign for less than 5.95M.
Overall, I agree with this suggestion. The lower-line guys are getting a lot. Plus, the chart sucks for guys who just happen to sign long-term, expensive deals in the Real NHL, since I can't re-negotiate Ovechkin's epic salary based on our new chart. So if we have a set chart like that declaring value per rating, its a bit squitchy, and I'm not fond of it.
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:22:29 GMT -5
Read the salary cap thread in the rules. It clearly says the cap will rise each and every year by 3%. This whole thing is to balance out teams. Not all teams are right up to the cap limit. Some teams have plenty of cap to work with, like the Florida Panthers.
85% rule - You must have used the worst example out there. You are saying that Shanahan's $7 million dollar contract should be dropped lower then 85%? Take a look at who signed him. It was a GM from this league, not bashing Devils, he is a good guy. How is it fair to go out and bid league max on say Mats Sundin, and then the next year, drop his contract to $2.0 because of his rating? This keeps teams from signing players to huge contracts and then dropping their contract millions of dollars the next year.
I think this re-signing method is more then fair here.
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:24:56 GMT -5
Read the salary cap thread in the rules. It clearly says the cap will rise each and every year by 3%. This whole thing is to balance out teams. Not all teams are right up to the cap limit. Some teams have plenty of cap to work with, like the Florida Panthers. 85% rule - You must have used the worst example out there. You are saying that Shanahan's $7 million dollar contract should be dropped lower then 85%? Take a look at who signed him. It was a GM from this league, not bashing Devils, he is a good guy. How is it fair to go out and bid league max on say Mats Sundin, and then the next year, drop his contract to $2.0 because of his rating? This keeps teams from signing players to huge contracts and then dropping their contract millions of dollars the next year. I think this re-signing method is more then fair here. I don;t disagree, but I think we should add a clause that if YOU sign him, the percentage is different for a re-sign than if you ACQUIRE him...thoughts on that?
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:29:53 GMT -5
I don't think it's necessary. Why would you want to acquire a guy you know got signed for a huge contract? If you really want the guy, you have to take his contract, which might be really inflated. You can then thank the GM who made the ridiculous bid on him.
|
|
|
Post by Retamedt - Retired Bruins GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:31:49 GMT -5
Edmonton, what I'm saying is that we don't need a system to analyze what we pay someone with when "supposedly" have decently intelligent staff members who can make decisions on extensions themselves, if you find a problem with this remark then you're saying you're not responsible and intelligent enough to carry out a simple task as this.
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:32:21 GMT -5
I don't think it's necessary. Why would you want to acquire a guy you know got signed for a huge contract? If you really want the guy, you have to take his contract, which might be really inflated. You can then thank the GM who made the ridiculous bid on him. Yeah, but then the original signer still doesn't have to deal with it. They can still sign high, and trade away, and let someone else deal with it. Its kinda bullshit in and of itself. And you know he got signed high, so you PAY HIM THAT. But for one year. Not the rest of his life
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:38:52 GMT -5
It wouldn't be for the rest of his life. You sign him at 85% for 1 year every time. I do agree with you Ducks but this is the kinda stuff that happens on sim leagues. Teams with the cap will make these unthinkable offers. I really hate when it happens, unless you really want/need the guy, and you are going to keep him. Like with me, I signed Sundin at max. I really needed a top line center. I have no plans on moving him anytime soon. If I have my way, he will retire an Oiler. My plan with him is to sign him to a 1 year deal at 85% until he gets to the contract that he deserves. Boston, just shut up. Pittsburgh, not me, posted this. I then posted it in the contract extension board. This shows you didn't read the rules and you didn't know about it before I re-posted it. You bad talk me all you want, I could care less. As long as this makes you feel big, talking trash over the internet, keep on going
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:42:32 GMT -5
My plan with him is to sign him to a 1 year deal at 85% until he gets to the contract that he deserves. On paper, I have a problem with that too, but its just the system we have, so there's not much we can do. I think the guys should get something fair, based on how they produce. If Sakic is my leading scorer, he should be paid well for it. But if he is a 4th line washup, he should be paid as such.
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:47:23 GMT -5
Alright, I had thought a rule from PRO was brought over here, but I don't think it was. Anyways, the way you re-signed over there was based on Overall, Age and Production. I think that it should be like that here. This would eliminate from having to pay a certain amount to a guy who plays all 82 games but only racks up 5 points. He doesn't deserve too much money. Now say a guy with the same overall plays all 82 games and ends up with 50+ points, just because they share the same overall, doesn't mean they should get the same pay. I think production should be taken into account when re-signing players.
|
|
|
Post by Retamedt - Retired Bruins GM on Nov 25, 2008 0:58:16 GMT -5
Edmonton, I could kiss you for that.
|
|
|
Post by Tjhaskell - Retired Jets GM on Nov 25, 2008 1:20:52 GMT -5
It wouldn't be for the rest of his life. You sign him at 85% for 1 year every time. I do agree with you Ducks but this is the kinda stuff that happens on sim leagues. Teams with the cap will make these unthinkable offers. I really hate when it happens, unless you really want/need the guy, and you are going to keep him. Like with me, I signed Sundin at max. I really needed a top line center. I have no plans on moving him anytime soon. If I have my way, he will retire an Oiler. My plan with him is to sign him to a 1 year deal at 85% until he gets to the contract that he deserves. Boston, just shut up. Pittsburgh, not me, posted this. I then posted it in the contract extension board. This shows you didn't read the rules and you didn't know about it before I re-posted it. You bad talk me all you want, I could care less. As long as this makes you feel big, talking trash over the internet, keep on going i was actually going to do the exact same thing with khabiboulin in the other league we were in man. 6.75 mil is lots for khabby... I figured in like 3 years, i could get him down to a REASONABLE 4.13 Million... gotta love salary caps and stuff eh screws up some people.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Devils GM on Nov 25, 2008 8:25:08 GMT -5
Hey, look at that, Anaheim involving me, again...
I bid 7m on Shanahan, after that somebody bid $7,100,00, but then deleted their post, so now I got stuck with him, that is not what I wanted, so yea, I needed to auction him off.
|
|
|
Post by Tjhaskell - Retired Jets GM on Nov 25, 2008 13:38:06 GMT -5
Hey, look at that, Anaheim involving me, again... I bid 7m on Shanahan, after that somebody bid $7,100,00, but then deleted their post, so now I got stuck with him, that is not what I wanted, so yea, I needed to auction him off. aint that about a bitch. lol.
|
|
|
Post by jmcook on Nov 25, 2008 13:58:13 GMT -5
85% rule will not change. Or people will sign somebody for 10 mil and get him for 2mil the next season. That won't happen. The chart is a guidline. We Probably need a different chart for defensemen though. If you disagree with a players salary according to the chart you have the option to argue it according to how the player is playing for you. If you play a 79 player on your 1 st line he will score if you play an 85 player on your 3rd line he will score alote less than he would other wise.
|
|