|
Post by bjernagris (PHI) on Dec 28, 2015 18:18:14 GMT -5
Please cast your vote regarding the Contract Review Board and voice any opinions or concerns below. More information in the related iNHL Announcement. We aim to make a final decision regarding this in connection with the coming Sunday's sim, so please make sure you have voted before Jan 3rd, 10pm Saskatchewan time.
|
|
|
Post by brob89 (NSH) on Dec 28, 2015 20:19:47 GMT -5
I am not for this. The longer we play, the less that the inhl will reflect reality. We need to just embrace that, and play the game while we continue to be in contact with developers about how to better this game. We're all playing in the same fictional reality and therefore equally able to take advantage of the bridge contract nonsense and other contract inaccuracies, and also we all started the game inheriting some crappy contracts (Ryan, Methot, MacArthur for me).
I had to pay Florida and Vancouver to take a couple of mine; Phillie did the same with the McDonald trade. That's just the nature of the challenge, I think.
Also, I don't think it's just as straightforward as all players wanting less than they would in real life. In single player mode, for instance, Ry. Johansson demands 9.9 million for 3 years after his present contract is up. Marcus Johansson initially wanted almost 6 million a year from me; I gave him 5.5 in the end. Neither of those, in my opinion, are less than they will ask for or get in real life (maybe even more).
If we find ourselves in a couple of years with a cap that isn't challenging enough for most teams, then we should adjust the cap. But giving 4-5 people control over the contracts I negotiate and sign with my players is not something I'm a fan of, and I think it affects the value of players in past/future trades.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 28, 2015 22:50:30 GMT -5
Not for this. The AI works within bounds ingrained in the coding to make it work with the cap
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2015 23:09:30 GMT -5
I voted against this idea as well. While I understand the rationale of the Executive Committee and I do agree that the AI is not perfect, I think without specified criteria on how the contract review board would decide on what they consider a "fair" contract, we, in my opinion, are just asking for trouble we don't need.
I can see regular scenarios where one contract is allowed to stand for a player from one team and a similar player's contract from another team is disallowed causing bad feelings, distrust in the process and suspicions of favoritism. As much as I respect the GMs who have been nominated, I don't think any GM can be totally unbiased, because they are affected by the contract negotiations with their own players. If my young star demands $5 million a season and a similar young gun signs with another team for $3.5 million, how can any GM say they are totally impartial and unbiased. It would be natural to feel that they should pay as much as I did.
I think without established and clear parameters, this type of Review board would be doomed to failure and the result would negatively impact the long-term success of the league. As flawed as the current system is, I think it's better than this alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Dax (WPG) on Dec 29, 2015 0:38:55 GMT -5
I think the best way to explain this is to use an example of a scenario that can occur without a CRB are that Edmonton becomes an absolute powerhouse in about 3-5 sim years when McDavid is getting paid 2.5 mil a season on a 2-4 years bridge contract posting up huuuuge seasons. Edmonton can very easily start to stack their roster by trading of other costlier assets to teams in need while mainting a very cheap and incredibly powerful team, sim ahead and test it yourself even in single player. Buffalo can do the same, as can Winnipeg, Tampa. Boston is in a very good position to be a powerhouse with very little cap hit. So much so that he will probably struggle to stay above the cap floor. We've done the testing. The game does not correct this itself and changing the salary cap to compensate will more than likely put other team's at a much worse disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Dec 29, 2015 2:16:26 GMT -5
Dax is right. And trust me as someone who is very close to the cap as Tampa's GM and someone who got Stamkos at a steal at 7.5 million a year my unbiased opinion is i think it's the right move to have a Contract Review Board. In a perfect world the game would handle contracts correctly, but one of the developers first hand has told me that the AI has trouble with cap management thus it takes the easy way out and often ops to pay players less than their value to avoid such cap issues. Bridge contacts would be a perfect example of that. Cap management is not a problem in online leagues as every one of us are competent GM's there for player salaries should more so reflect what they would in real life. If we get too many players getting undervalued contacts no team will run into cap issues which will mean powerhouse teams won't have to make the tough decisions as to who to keep. Less attractive players available during the off season. I even believe draft picks go down a bit in value since if no team is in cap trouble they don't need to trade their good but over priced 3rd line dman for picks to get some cap off the books if every team is in a comfortable spot cap wise. I understand why some people would be against it. As someone who is facing cap issues i voiced my concerns at first but if we ease into it the correct way i think it's the right move for the league.
|
|
|
Post by brentdog on Dec 29, 2015 6:26:15 GMT -5
It's great that this poll has ignited such a lively debate around the subject of in-game contracts and I completely respect the opinion of those who feel things should stay as they are. With that said, I can't help but feel that by taking a laissez faire approach to the issue of obviously undervalued contracts we are storing up significant problems for ourselves down the line. Tom is correct in saying that AI cap logic is hard-coded into the game, but as Justin points out, the OOTP devs themselves have admitted that the AI doesn't handle the cap very well. Witness the 'free of charge' contract buyout on the 1st July, 2017; it's something of a fudge to ensure the AI doesn't get too tied down by bad contracts. It's why in solo games Kopitar almost always goes to free-agency and it's so easy for a human GM to stay under the salary cap. As Dax points out, players will struggle to stay above the salary floor in a couple of years time at this rate; that's already the case for myself and you need to bear in mind I have the Pat Kane contract on the books at $10.5m per annum. This will only get worse due to obviously undervalued deals in the shape of Rasmus Risolainen ($1.63m per year for 3 years) and Zemgus Girgensons ($1.68m per year for 3 years). RR should probably be getting at least double that amount, even for a bridge contract, whilst Girgensons would easily be looking at $2m+. In game this gives me an unfair advantage of at least $2.5m extra cap space to play about with, which allows me to unfairly exploit the bad contracts that other GMs have inherited pre-game. Ultimately GMs should be facing hard questions about who to sign and who to deal before they go to RFA or UFA but at the moment they're not. As things stand right now there is just one team projected to be over the salary cap in 2016/17, versus 8 that are going to be under it, some by as much as $10m. As for whether or not GMs on the contract review board would be biased, that's a fair question to raise and is exactly why we wouldn't be in charge of negotiating our own deals and Dax has a veto over any decisions made. I hope that by Justin and myself offering up examples of how this would impact on our own teams we have helped to allay any fears in this respect. As a final point, I'd like to remind everyone that we have already artificially tinkered with the contract system in-game by ignoring no trade clauses. No-one has said this isn't a good thing as in the main it benefits us by allowing more trades, but in reality it's something which already distorts the AI logic and the way the game is built, yet has done so without any obvious ill effects on our in-game experience. Ultimately though I'm more than happy to go with whatever the majority decide and I'd encourage everyone to vote and / or voice their opinion on the subject
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2015 7:38:52 GMT -5
Why do we automatically assume that the bridge contract is a bad thing? Sure you get a lower salary for players in the 21-23 range, but you also lose the ability to sign them to a seven or eight year contract at a reasonable number so you can better plan for the future. In my opinion, it's by abandoning the bridge contract that the NHL got themselves into the cap mess they are in today.
Do we want every team so tight against the cap that trading is impossible, like it is in the real NHL? Cap room allows teams to make deals and if we artificially raise salaries so everyone is tight against the cap, trading disappears and so does half the fun of this type of league. This is fantasy after all. I've made more trades this week than the entire NHL has made all season, and I'd hate to miss out on that. In the real NHL, because of cap restrictions, you are basically stuck with the team you start the season with. Is that what we want this league to be? Basically all we do all year is submit lineups.
Realism is fine, but I think by including bridge contracts, the AI system is actually producing a world that will be more enjoyable for the GMs involved.
|
|
|
Post by brentdog on Dec 29, 2015 8:18:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that a bridge contract in and of itself is a bad thing, just that when they're undervalued they can distort the game. If we use Hampus Lindholm as an example in a recent game I just simmed through to test things, he signed a bridge contract of 2 years for $2.47m with Anaheim, upon the expiry of which he immediately signed another 2 year bridge @ $3.8m. That equates as an average value of $3.13m across 4 years for a player that has put up better stats than pretty much all his contemporaries in the game, most of whom command far higher salaries: pucksofafeather.com/2015/07/14/anaheim-ducks-d-man-hampus-lindholm-is-worth-big-money/I do take the point about the current NHL and how the salary cap limits trading, although I'd argue that no-trade and no-movement clauses have a bigger impact in that respect and we've already waived those in game. My fear kind of comes from the opposite end of things I suppose, insofar as no-one being anywhere near the cap could actively limit trades, as the threat of losing a player to RFA or UFA is significantly diminished and so there is no incentive to trade them for anything other than an absolutely golden deal.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 29, 2015 9:41:47 GMT -5
I think alot of you guys are looking at this the wrong way and believe we are trying to implement some sort of policy that doesn't let you mimic what your used to in your solo games. Or you are not completely understanding the long term effects that this can do to destroy our league. First things first, the iNHL leagues integrity and its structure must be maintained at all COSTS! This means wether you are for the CRB or against it, you really need to consider the long-term effects this has on people exploiting this making they're teams all out power houses. If you cannot understand this, play more solo games and see how those contracts are structured.. be darned if I sit back and watch this league crash slowly due to these exploits.
I do not want to pick on Justin here but he is the poster boy of whats going on and even he see's the deficiency in the way the game portrays contracts to players. When you have a Stamkos earning 7.5 Million dollars and should be paid like the rest of his superstar counterparts at around 10 plus, he's essentially saving crucial caproom to sign a dynamic player in Lindholm to a modest 2.2 Million dollars for three years!! Lindholm is an elite defencman and bypass's these bridge deals, hes a proven player that will sign for Anaheim at around 5 or 6 million dollars a season to compare him to his other NHL counterparts.
Heres more examples:
Chris Kreider has a caphit of 2.475 Million dollars, if Tom chooses to resign Mr. Kreider he only needs to dish out 2.977 Million ? Essentially one of the leagues premier power forwards is looking to make only 500k than his original bridge contract ? Kreider is 5 or 6 Million a season guy... heck could even draw 7 given his age and accomplishments, Compare him to Dubinsky and prove me wrong ?
Filip Forsberg who's a legit dynamic franchise player only seeking to sign a bridge deal of 2.5 Million dollars for 2 yrs ? Again, he's well into the big money bracket at this stage in his career..
Hampus Lindholm as mentioned is another dynamic defenceman who needs to be given his big payday, not a bridge deal ..
Sean Monahan resigning to a three year 2.3 Million deal ?? Hogwash!!!!!!!
The CRB isn't going to be established to pick on every single player who resigns, they are being established to look at players that create "interest" in such a way the GM can exploit this by creating a powerhouse team and still stay under the cap by millions of dollars. In time, as mentioned, draft picks will become less valuable and to be perfectly honest, teams will be hard up to even meet the cap but have so much talent oozing from them if played right making the league one sided and virtually become a plathora of problems and a mess! I hope the iNHL will maintain what the NHL reflects to its abilities and if this means we need to tinker a bit and adjust what deems fair for others than I hope you understand this all as some of us do.
Rob.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 9:51:29 GMT -5
I vote yes. I think it may be cumbersome to administer however I'm not seeing an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by brentdog on Dec 29, 2015 9:57:16 GMT -5
Passionate as usual there Rob
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 29, 2015 11:16:47 GMT -5
OK, in all honesty I see where you're coming from. In the current file I've made offers to several players, including Kreider (who is playing like shit in real life), Hayes (who is also playing like shit in real life) and Miller and it appears I'll be able to keep them.
What I'm afraid of is that judgements for iNHL will be based on real (or perceived) NHL. Will you take into account players NOT performing as expected. If Kreider finishes with 17 goals will he still get 6M on a RFA contract?
How will this work? Will we need to submit negotiated offers in game to a board who will then adjust the numbers? It seems unwieldy and will have a lot more hands on than the trade board which has pretty much let everything go.
I get to worrying that this becomes more like work than a game. It's also difficult to make decisions on the fly and discuss things during the day when there are no reports to view without the game. I got an offer from a team this morning. I can't begin to reply to him until late tonight. This will add one more thing that'll be happening where I'm flying blind.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 29, 2015 11:43:57 GMT -5
OK, in all honesty I see where you're coming from. In the current file I've made offers to several players, including Kreider (who is playing like shit in real life), Hayes (who is also playing like shit in real life) and Miller and it appears I'll be able to keep them. What I'm afraid of is that judgements for iNHL will be based on real (or perceived) NHL. Will you take into account players NOT performing as expected. If Kreider finishes with 17 goals will he still get 6M on a RFA contract? How will this work? Will we need to submit negotiated offers in game to a board who will then adjust the numbers? It seems unwieldy and will have a lot more hands on than the trade board which has pretty much let everything go. I get to worrying that this becomes more like work than a game. It's also difficult to make decisions on the fly and discuss things during the day when there are no reports to view without the game. I got an offer from a team this morning. I can't begin to reply to him until late tonight. This will add one more thing that'll be happening where I'm flying blind. Tom, Thanks for your opinion and I want to thank everyone else as I didn't mention this in my last post. Everyone's opinion is valued and I tip my hat to every single individual who has voted and involved themselves. I'd like to see more people get involved.. yes I'm pointing at you Dallas & Detroit! You two have been registered just about as long as Tom, Bjorn, Justin, and a few others such as myself. (I apologize as I'm missing a few others) Yes, the decisions will be based on real life contracts and but more certainly directed to the iNHL's performance of the individuals. This is why we have selected a team of three individuals who will offer they're unbiased and professional opinions. As you and everyone else are well aware, the game portrays contracts almost perfectly in some cases and just unbearably unrealistic in others. This is a flaw that is left to the developers to fix. We on the other hand can bypass all of this by creating our own structured board using respected and very knowledgeable people to keep our league free from unrealistic paydays and low cap-hits on elite players turning these low- salaried elite individuals into contract cancers that will eventually fold our league in half ... one way or another it will destroy the entire league we have here. I'll take Lucic for example, I am aware that Looch may command 5 - 6 million dollars in the real NHL but judging by his performance so far, I'm almost certain the CRB members will value my proposal more than the games and of course "real life". DO I expect to re-sign Looch to his 3.5 he's asking for on my end ? Most certainly not! It will either have me thinking in one way... Did I waste trading a bluechip Dano on a player that will walk after this year when my teams playing so bad ? Or will Looch get his arse in gear and play to his ability masking my trade with Calgary making me shed salary to propose a offer to him allowing the CRB board to review his stats and compare it to other players & the current NHL as it's major contributor. I may or may not be able to completely put this all into the best words for people to really get a feel for whats to follow if this board isn't implemented soon, but i do think you have a really good idea Tom on the outlook of things. I'm not affiliated with the CRB in any way as we discussed amongst ourselves the best suited GMs for this job but I do hope that GM's will find it to make sense down the stretch as the league is the major focus in all of this and having potential juggernaut teams like Justin's potentially being able to ice an all star line-up down the stretch if he sees fit to trade talented salary for "cheap" elite youth, who love signing undervalued bridge deals, will have a lot of people really opening they're eyes to this matter. I am not picking on Justin by any means fellas, Justin is well aware of the situation he is in and is one of the main contributors amongst others such as myself to kick this CRB board into high gear! Without his acknowledgments and his sportsmanship I think we'd be in a hell'va pickle if he would have rathered exploited the way the game functions currently and let the AI decide contracts and such. As mentioned previously it's all for the good of the iNHL, in keeping it healthy, competitive and fair! Even if we need to mimic the real NHL in such as way.
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2015 11:49:59 GMT -5
One final comment on this and I'll be quiet. I feel I'm being a bit too vocal as a new GM....lol.
As long as the application is consistently offering bridge contracts to players in that age range I don't see the problem. If Monahan signs for $2.3 million and Barkov wants $7 million then maybe we have a problem. But if no one is getting an advantage, i.e. some teams don't get to sign their young players to bridge contracts and others do, then where's the harm.
As I said before, cap space allows trading and trading to me is what makes this type of league fun.
I also have concerns about the selective nature of the proposal. If we are not going to review every single extension, how is that fair to the GM's who have their contracts reviewed and rejected. I just think we are opening a can of worms that we'll regret later.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 29, 2015 12:02:54 GMT -5
One final comment on this and I'll be quiet. I feel I'm being a bit too vocal as a new GM....lol. As long as the application is consistently offering bridge contracts to players in that age range I don't see the problem. If Monahan signs for $2.3 million and Barkov wants $7 million then maybe we have a problem. But if no one is getting an advantage, i.e. some teams don't get to sign their young players to bridge contracts and others do, then where's the harm. As I said before, cap space allows trading and trading to me is what makes this type of league fun. I also have concerns about the selective nature of the proposal. If we are not going to review every single extension, how is that fair to the GM's who have their contracts reviewed and rejected. I just think we are opening a can of worms that we'll regret later. Be as vocal as you want Joe!!! Its good to have this much people involved! without passionate people what the hell kind of league would we be ? I know it would be absolutely boring if no-one gave a rats ass and i would have hit the trail a long time ago. For instance, I'm not speaking for the potential CRB board but yes, Monohan would need to be adjusted as it wouldn't be necessarily fair to have him signed to such a modest amount for three long seasons. This would make Gaudreau whos obviously a franchise player at this point able to sign the same type of bridge at 2.5 or whichever which is completely unrealistic and bogus. By not looking at every single contract, is an understatement, I'm sure they will review every single signing that goes thru that is substantial and especially the elite youth of the iNHL world. Bridge deals can be used but they will obviously be looked at and reviewed in alot more sense than the way this game does it. Anything that jumps out like "Monahans 2.3 over three years" is certainly going to raise eyebrows. The board would be in control of these factors and I guess we'd essentially need to trust them to be the judge, jury and in some cases such as Stamkos... (Sorry Justin) Executioner! Let's focus on the guys like Kane who's been contracted at 10.5 Million caphit or GM Tommy in Pittsburgh who's struggling to find ways to find talent to fit in his cap burdoned world of Crosby, Malkin and company there. It wouldn't be fair to ice lineups that what players should be making while the Ovies, Getzlafs and Toews of the hockey world look like burdons in comparison to cheap elite players that should be around they're salary so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 29, 2015 12:09:41 GMT -5
One final comment on this and I'll be quiet. I feel I'm being a bit too vocal as a new GM....lol. As long as the application is consistently offering bridge contracts to players in that age range I don't see the problem. If Monahan signs for $2.3 million and Barkov wants $7 million then maybe we have a problem. But if no one is getting an advantage, i.e. some teams don't get to sign their young players to bridge contracts and others do, then where's the harm. As I said before, cap space allows trading and trading to me is what makes this type of league fun. I also have concerns about the selective nature of the proposal. If we are not going to review every single extension, how is that fair to the GM's who have their contracts reviewed and rejected. I just think we are opening a can of worms that we'll regret later. Don't be quiet. Being quiet is the worst thing you can do, regardless of which side of this question you're on. Once accepted into the league you're one of 30. Your opinion is as valuable going forward as anyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 29, 2015 12:11:27 GMT -5
Rob's starting to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by Beans (BOS) on Dec 29, 2015 12:14:40 GMT -5
I agree with Joe MacDonald...I think it will be hard to consistently apply the review in terms of (a) who is being reviewed and (b) how much to adjust salaries. There are simply too many factors to consider which can lead to a "can of worms". I also agree that everyone is on the same playing field as is.
However, I also see Rob's point that long-term the consequences could be severe and negative if salary demands are way off. That said, I do not think this scenario is an absolute guarantee...a decent possibility but we just don't know how things are going to play out in our League across 30 real GMs. The Stamkos deal was light but look at what Perron got from Pittsburgh (seems heavy).
Alternate idea: This idea has been rejected by the exec board but I think it is a reasonable middle ground. We should investigate by how much on average RFAs and UFAs are "underpaid". We could then reverse this by using a multiplier on future contracts. For example, we see that UFAs on average take 20% less than what we think is reasonable, we would then multiply each UFA contract by 1.2. This way the GM gets to negotiate with the player based on the player's in-game "feelings" but we can keep salaries in line with real life. Similarly, if we find that RFAs tend to take a 30% discount, we'd multiply each RFA contract by 1.3. This is a rule that is more easily applied in a uniform fashion.
Just some thoughts. Apologies to the execs and CRB members who have had to see me post this multiple times.
|
|
|
Post by brentdog on Dec 29, 2015 12:15:36 GMT -5
Don't be quiet. Being quiet is the worst thing you can do, regardless of which side of this question you're on. Once accepted into the league you're one of 30. Your opinion is as valuable going forward as anyone else's. Couldn't have put it any better myself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this, that's the whole point of opening the poll and having the debate
|
|
|
Post by Beans (BOS) on Dec 29, 2015 12:17:51 GMT -5
I also do not think that there is any need for a contract review for any player signed who is currently a UFA. Yes (pending approval of the CRB) for pending UFAs but not for guys on the market for everyone to sign.
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2015 12:20:03 GMT -5
One final comment on this and I'll be quiet. I feel I'm being a bit too vocal as a new GM....lol. As long as the application is consistently offering bridge contracts to players in that age range I don't see the problem. If Monahan signs for $2.3 million and Barkov wants $7 million then maybe we have a problem. But if no one is getting an advantage, i.e. some teams don't get to sign their young players to bridge contracts and others do, then where's the harm. As I said before, cap space allows trading and trading to me is what makes this type of league fun. I also have concerns about the selective nature of the proposal. If we are not going to review every single extension, how is that fair to the GM's who have their contracts reviewed and rejected. I just think we are opening a can of worms that we'll regret later. Be as vocal as you want Joe!!! Its good to have this much people involved! without passionate people what the hell kind of league would we be ? I know it would be absolutely boring if no-one gave a rats ass and i would have hit the trail a long time ago. For instance, I'm not speaking for the potential CRB board but yes, Monohan would need to be adjusted as it wouldn't be necessarily fair to have him signed to such a modest amount for three long seasons. This would make Gaudreau whos obviously a franchise player at this point able to sign the same type of bridge at 2.5 or whichever which is completely unrealistic and bogus. By not looking at every single contract, is an understatement, I'm sure they will review every single signing that goes thru that is substantial and especially the elite youth of the iNHL world. Bridge deals will always be used but they will obviously be looked at and reviewed in alot more sense than the way this game does it. Anything that jumps out like "Monahans 2.3 over three years" is certainly going to raise eyebrows. The board would be in control of these factors and I guess we'd essentially need to trust them to be the judge, jury and in some cases such as Stamkos... (Sorry Justin) Executioner! Let's focus on the guys like Kane who's been contracted at 10.5 Million caphit or GM Tommy in Pittsburgh who's struggling to find ways to find talent to fit in his cap burdoned world of Crosby, Malkin and company there. It wouldn't be fair to ice lineups that exceed what players should be making while the Ovies, Getzlafs and Toews odf the hockey world look like burdons. I actually do agree that Monahan should have signed for more, but also allowed me to sign him for more years to make that investment worthwhile. I actually offered him $6 million/year for seven years and probably would have offered more but was told that he only wanted a bridge contract. I guess my major concern is how can we do this without set guidelines? Is it going to be done on a case by case basis? Who's qualified to judge what each player is worth to each individual team? It has nothing to do with trusting the members of the committee or questioning that they have the best interests of the league in mind, but do I really want three rival GMs, with their own interests and biases, telling me how much my player should be paid?
|
|
|
Post by Beans (BOS) on Dec 29, 2015 12:22:32 GMT -5
Joe, the CRB and execs discussed some factors that would be taken into consideration (Age, UFA/RFA, length of contract, whether the GM reported which would be a cause for leniency) but we would need to hammer these out before the CRB came into effect. And I do agree with you that even then there is a bit too much discretion for my liking. However, I am definitely the only outlier among the execs and will stand with whatever the League decides.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 29, 2015 12:35:01 GMT -5
All good points Joe. The real issue in all of this is the games inability to judge and determine this by itself. The game is still running on a stage one platform and unfortunately I do not think we'll see anything of this nature fixed until the later stages of FHM2 patches or a release of a brand new product in FHM3. If I need to put my faith into three actual people to determine various contracts to keep this league as realistic to it's NHL counterpart then so be it... I think it's a risk all of us will need to take and look at from the outside of the iNHL's box. I for one am peering more into the looking glass at the state of a league two or three seasons from now and cringe to see elite youth making less than what they should be earning and some teams rosters looking like an all star lineup at cheap discount rates still unable to meet the leagues min cap. while players like Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Getzlaf, Ovechkin, etc.. become "untradeable"
I think I'm just ranting now lol. I certianly hope everyone see's the two sides here and I do not think there's a clear answer to it all other than they'res more risk involved by NOT having a CRB implemented then not having some kind of measuring device to secure the overall integrity of this league looking forward.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 29, 2015 12:35:09 GMT -5
I see we have 18 votes in. Have the execs posted votes? Just wondering what the participation level is.
|
|
|
Post by brentdog on Dec 29, 2015 12:45:40 GMT -5
Alternate idea: This idea has been rejected by the exec board but I think it is a reasonable middle ground. We should investigate by how much on average RFAs and UFAs are "underpaid". We could then reverse this by using a multiplier on future contracts. For example, we see that UFAs on average take 20% less than what we think is reasonable, we would then multiply each UFA contract by 1.2. This way the GM gets to negotiate with the player based on the player's in-game "feelings" but we can keep salaries in line with real life. Similarly, if we find that RFAs tend to take a 30% discount, we'd multiply each RFA contract by 1.3. This is a rule that is more easily applied in a uniform fashion. Just some thoughts. Apologies to the execs and CRB members who have had to see me post this multiple times. That would be ideal, but you'd have to think if it was this easy to implement the FHM2 Devs would have come up with it already. The difficulty in applying a specific averaged out formula also arises in the variation in ability between players with similar contracts. If you look at the examples from my own team I gave above, then Rasmus Ristolainen and Zemgus Girgensons have accepted in-game contracts that are broadly the same. Yet Ristolainen is self evidently a better player in terms of both current ability and future potential, a possible elite-level defenceman who should command a more lucrative contract both now and in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2015 12:49:17 GMT -5
Just wanted to say, that despite my opposing view point, I will quite happily accept the decision of the majority and if the Contract Review Board is put in place, give it my full support. I just want to make sure if we do this, we do it right and consider all potential pitfalls.
|
|
|
Post by Beans (BOS) on Dec 29, 2015 12:54:20 GMT -5
Alternate idea: This idea has been rejected by the exec board but I think it is a reasonable middle ground. We should investigate by how much on average RFAs and UFAs are "underpaid". We could then reverse this by using a multiplier on future contracts. For example, we see that UFAs on average take 20% less than what we think is reasonable, we would then multiply each UFA contract by 1.2. This way the GM gets to negotiate with the player based on the player's in-game "feelings" but we can keep salaries in line with real life. Similarly, if we find that RFAs tend to take a 30% discount, we'd multiply each RFA contract by 1.3. This is a rule that is more easily applied in a uniform fashion. Just some thoughts. Apologies to the execs and CRB members who have had to see me post this multiple times. That would be ideal, but you'd have to think if it was this easy to implement the FHM2 Devs would have come up with it already. The difficulty in applying a specific averaged out formula also arises in the variation in ability between players with similar contracts. If you look at the examples from my own team I gave above, then Rasmus Ristolainen and Zemgus Girgensons have accepted in-game contracts that are broadly the same. Yet Ristolainen is self evidently a better player in terms of both current ability and future potential, a possible elite-level defenceman who should command a more lucrative contract both now and in the future.
Agreed that it is not a perfect solution at all. There will still be weird variations like we see now but the salaries should be more in-line with reality in general. The benefit is that it's easier to apply in terms of time and uniformity.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 29, 2015 12:58:34 GMT -5
You'd think the AI could use some kind of sliding scale with current and potential ratings to raise/lower the amount from the average.
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Dec 29, 2015 13:32:26 GMT -5
Well i had a long post with lots of great points to further add to the discussion but i hit the back button and it was erased. So disgusted haha. I was trying to write this and watch the World Juniors at the same time. Anyway many people here have brought up good points. Both for and against the idea of a CRB but if you look at it closely i think it's great idea.
Obviously this is just a game but we play games like this for the realism. We want the latest rosters, the latest ratings for players why? Because we want that realism. Contacts shouldn't be any different and as it stands right now it's not realistic. Joe brought up the fact that if everyone is against the cap it will make trading more difficult. He's right it would, but when our season first started all the contracts were identical to the NHL and there were plenty of trades. You are always going to have teams that are tight to the cap and you will always have bottom feeder teams (cap floor) who will just be waiting for a cap stuck team to offload a guy they can no longer afford. Then there are the middle guys.
The Contract Review Board is in place for two reasons. One to make the game more realistic but mostly to stop the exploitation of a horrible contract system.
|
|