|
Post by bjernagris (PHI) on Dec 29, 2015 14:00:00 GMT -5
I don't think the CRB would be a waterproof solution and I wasn't a fan of it at first, but after considering the options I came to the conclusion that it seems to be the least flawed option we have as long as the contract negotiation feature works the way it does currently. Therefore I am in favour of the CRB being implemented.
Some notes:
1) Impartiality will be ensured by not having CRB members negotiating their own players' contracts. Instead, Dax will step in as a replacement in these cases. 2) Given the uncertainty regarding how the CRB works, I could see an initial trial period being run, so we can evaluate how this whole thing would work. 3) The CRB would not IMPOSE contracts for any players, instead there would be negotiations between the CRB and the GM involved 4) The CRB will REVIEW every contract, but only get actively involved by vetoing/negotiating those that are deemed unrealistic. 5) UFA contracts should IMO not be scrutinized by the CRB 6) When reviewing and negotiating contracts, the CRB should factor in two things: (1) player's iNHL ability, potential and performance (2) real-life NHL contracts offered to same/similar players as reference points.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 29, 2015 15:06:23 GMT -5
I've changed my vote to Yes. Now go approve all my offers?
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Dec 29, 2015 16:04:45 GMT -5
Here are two things that need to be brought up. Players that have signed/re-signed contracts already no matter how ridiculous they are (cough Stamkos cough) should remain at the price they signed for. Not that we would be doing anything retroactive anyway but it would not be fair to penalize GM's for moves they have made prior to the CRB coming to fruition. I made moves that i would never have made if salary demands were not the way they currently are. I think that the CRB should come into effect no earlier than July 1st in game time.
The other thing to consider is the salary cap. Unlike the real NHL our salary cap looks like it's going to stay put. So while in real life that cap is likely to go up 2.5-3 million, here in the iNHL world our cap is likely to stay the same. So while for example a player like Steven Stamkos could get something like 10.5-11.0 million in real life, i think his salary would be a little less here maybe between 10.0-10.5 million. Of course that's for the CRB to decide.
|
|
|
Post by Dax (WPG) on Dec 29, 2015 17:57:34 GMT -5
I think already signed players such as Stammer will definitely need to be reviewed. We will however give all GM's the option of withdrawing from an already signed contact. I know this will complicate things but I am also affected by these processes with my re-signings of Scheifele, Trouba, Lowry, Hutch.
The salary cap will be going up in the off-season. I want to coincide this with the real NHL as much as I can. Probably by about $1-3 mil or so, we may have a vote on it. But only if we can get contracts under wraps with the CRB as it will even out the increase a little bit.
We want the league to be as realistic as possible. I will oversee and add my two cents where I see fit with the CRB. I want things to be fair but also have some lee-way.
Age, Position, Potential and current statistics will definitely play a role. For instance Eric Staal is currently up for renewal and having one hell of a season in the iNHL. If this continues Staal's demands are going to likely be pretty high. If he goes to Free Agency then it becomes a bidding war, where the highest term+total money is going to be the winner. Hopefully we see some bigger names hit free agency and possibly some overpayments by teams with cap space leading to some odd situations down the line. Like in the real NHL.
Players of a high calibre usually don't sign back to back 2 year bridge contracts. It's more often than not a 4 year bridge contract with a decent AAV sort of as a show me what you're capable of before you get the big contract type deal. Unless of course you are talking about McDavid, who is likely going to want a larger 6-8 year contract much like Hall and pals got from Edmonton.
We will only review those that look out of place and have already compiled a list. But we want to urge GM's to report any potential contracts they are about to sign that just seem out of place. The reward will be a big of leeway in negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Dec 29, 2015 19:42:45 GMT -5
I'm fine with this, but teams who's contracts are going to be retroactively changed are going to have to be given ample time to make the necessary changes to their roster to get under the cap. I already had a plan in place to do so. But if players that i thought i had locked in now have to get more money this will cause major problems for me unless i'm given the proper time to make changes. I might not have traded for Lindholm or Hudler had i known this. I gave up 1st and 2nd round draft picks not to mention young prospects. It was ok because i knew what i was doing at the time haha. This whole going back in time and changing existing contracts is going to be very inconvenient. Once again i'm ok with it but i hope we are given plenty of time to make changes since it looks like i'm going to need plenty of time to trade players away now that i will no longer be able to afford. I don't want to be taken advantage of because other GM's know i'm on a tight deadline to get under the cap. As part of the CRB i will still give my unbiased opinion though because it's what's best for the league. Of course i won't be the one dealing with my contracts so that part is out of my hands.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 29, 2015 19:52:16 GMT -5
For all the naysayers... I'd sure like to hear your input on why you think a CRB would be bad for the league, we have a vast amount of information on why we believe this would be a benefit / non benefit to the iNHL and considering your part of a 30 man group here, your opinion would be valued and would sure go a long ways into adding more input.
|
|
|
Post by mattgough60 on Dec 29, 2015 22:58:19 GMT -5
I'm for this. I think the combination of the CRB and a raise in the salary cap is the right step for our league. As Justin said, we all seek that authenticity and realism because it enhances our INHL experience. I think it's a difficult system to implement smoothly, and there will be a little bit of a struggle at the beginning due to the reviews on existing contracts across the league. Teams will need time to adjust their roster accordingly and fairly.
As long as all RFA are negotiated with a stronger influence regarding INHL statistics rather than from real life contracts, then I think the CRB can really work well with our league.
I could live with us continuing on the path we're on, realistically we're only simming 4 seasons before FHM 3 anyway, so I don't see any teams getting unbelievably stacked and powerhousing. But I do think the CRB is the best route, and the most authentic route for our league.
|
|
|
Post by Dax (WPG) on Dec 29, 2015 23:08:35 GMT -5
All GM's will be given until July 1st in game to sign new contracts. And up to the trade deadline to make trades.
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Dec 29, 2015 23:33:54 GMT -5
When you say sign new contracts are you including the ones that have already been signed but likely are going to be up for review by the CRB?
|
|
|
Post by Dax (WPG) on Dec 30, 2015 8:25:42 GMT -5
When you say sign new contracts are you including the ones that have already been signed but likely are going to be up for review by the CRB? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Pulse on Dec 30, 2015 12:58:06 GMT -5
I voted no, however I do think that there needs to be an 'as needed' monitoring of pretty much all game activity, with a hands off approach. There are still significant issues with this game and it may not be too long before its readily apparent how to abuse the AI in game. Stamkos for example, does not appear to be an abuse of AI...rather just a signing of a player who could do much better on the open market.
It may appear unrealistic, but we are not factoring in the hidden attributes. Ambition, Greed, and Loyalty are three player attributes that I think would contribute to a superstar wanting 7 a year or 10 a year.
If the system truly is 'broken' then I defer to the EC to make the right decision to correct a broken system. If asked my opinion on the matter though, I think we let the game logic do what it needs to do and adjust our strategy to building an iNHL team and not an NHL team.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2015 17:02:56 GMT -5
Not sure I'm understanding. We can sign guys until June in game? Are those their contracts going forward or will they be reviewed? Or are we starting the reviews after this season going forward?
|
|
|
Post by bjernagris (PHI) on Dec 30, 2015 17:14:10 GMT -5
IF we decide to proceed with this, contracts already signed would be reviewed retroactively. They should be agreed as soon as we can in order to give GMs more time to plan their cap situation for the '16-'17 season.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2015 17:48:58 GMT -5
OK.
I would suppose, Kreider, Hayes, Miller and Yandle will be on the review list.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2015 17:52:02 GMT -5
Which brings another thing to mind and a reason we need concrete rules soon.
What about traded players? Including guys traded months ago? A team could have acquired a player with no thought to this and possibly innocent of considering when signed and for how much. Then there are the guys signing going forward. How to negotiate that into a trade?
|
|
|
Post by bjernagris (PHI) on Dec 30, 2015 18:04:40 GMT -5
Tom, yes this is a problem and the main reason why the CRB should have been introduced earlier. It will not be 100% fair to those who have traded for players thinking they'd have cap space for coming seasons, but from the Exec Board's POV this is the best way to keep the league as healthy as possible. The CRB has been instructed to apply a certain portion of leniency to GMs negatively affected in these particular cases.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2015 18:15:48 GMT -5
OK, I'm just throwing things out there as they occur to me. Not looking to knock it down, but just making sure all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by Dax (WPG) on Dec 30, 2015 18:27:47 GMT -5
OK. I would suppose, Kreider, Hayes, Miller and Yandle will be on the review list. Which brings another thing to mind and a reason we need concrete rules soon. What about traded players? Including guys traded months ago? A team could have acquired a player with no thought to this and possibly innocent of considering when signed and for how much. Then there are the guys signing going forward. How to negotiate that into a trade? We will only be reviewing those contracts we deem to be well under market value. So it really depends on what you offer Kreider, Hayes, Miler and Yandle in game. If someone on the Board raises a flag over it, then it will be reviewed and we will come back to you and let you know that we think there should be a re-negotiation. You can also alert us that what a player wants to sign for is not realistic and we can then have negotiations. You can also just try to sign them for whatever you think they should be worth, above their in-game asking price. For instance I'm looking at Kreider right now in game. He wants a 1 year deal @ $3.277 AAV which isn't to bad. But in all honesty he is more likely to want a long term deal after already coming off a 2 year bridge deal and he is going to want a higher AAV. What kind of player of his calibre wants a 1 year bridge contract after just coming off a bridge contract? Especially with the season he is having in game? It's just not realistic. You will find if you start to offer him a higher term+AAV in game, he is more than likely to accept. So you can try and do it on your own or you can come to us and negotiate with board. (The Board is more realistic) Unfortunately traded players will still be under scrutiny. But the GM's of those players can renegotiate new contacts. It sucks but I think it will make things more even going forward. I really wish we could have implemented this sooner. But I urge everyone to realize that this is a learning process for all of us and everyone is effected by it. We just want a level playing field for all GM's. Some are already in positions of power and without any limitations on that power, limitations that exist in real life. It will be extremely hard for those at the bottom to compete within our time frame. This gives the bottom feeders more of a chance to move upwards rather than staying there for the entire duration of our sim.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2015 18:34:47 GMT -5
The guys I've mentioned have all signed so their new contracts should be in game.
|
|
|
Post by Dax (WPG) on Dec 30, 2015 18:38:37 GMT -5
The guys I've mentioned have all signed so their new contracts should be in game. Okay I'm still looking at last league file. Haven't gotten around to downloading the new one yet as I believe another is inbound.
|
|
|
Post by Dax (WPG) on Dec 30, 2015 18:39:13 GMT -5
The guys I've mentioned have all signed so their new contracts should be in game. What did you sign Kreider for in game? Do you remember?
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2015 20:00:35 GMT -5
The guys I've mentioned have all signed so their new contracts should be in game. What did you sign Kreider for in game? Do you remember? I'll have to wait until I get back on the home computer later. Maybe we need a place where we can list new signings we think the committee might be interested in checking? This way we can get some sign-off and move on
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 30, 2015 23:16:43 GMT -5
The guys I've mentioned have all signed so their new contracts should be in game. What did you sign Kreider for in game? Do you remember? Kreider - 2yrs 2,840,500/yr Hayes - 1yr 1,650,000 Miller - 3yr 960,000/yr Yandle - 4yr 5,810,000/yr (offered)
|
|
|
Post by jon on Dec 30, 2015 23:39:03 GMT -5
My opinion would be : Kreider definitely needs to be reviewed ; Yandle is okay-ish but he's having a huge season, maybe reviewed after CRB consultation ; Hayes is cheap-ish but probably okay due to it being only 1 year, so no review ; Miller is kinda long-ish but not a big deal, no review
|
|
|
Post by Beans (BOS) on Dec 31, 2015 11:44:00 GMT -5
If the CRB says Yandle has to get a raise over the 5.8 he was offered, NYR basically gets no hometown discount. He's going to have to pay the UFA market price with any sort of increase, which is what real NHL GMs try to avoid.
In every future sim I have seen, Kreider breaks the bank when he hits UFA, so I also don't think he needs to get a raise on this bridge deal. He's clearly signing low for low term to get paid at UFA.
|
|
|
Post by Beans (BOS) on Dec 31, 2015 11:52:35 GMT -5
Also, I don't think Stamkos should be reviewed (though I get the CRB is basically a reaction to his extension). The long-term "damage" to the League of this one superstar contract (at most a $2 million discount) is probably minimal and not at all proportionate to the potential harm to Tampa given all the moves Justin made without any knowledge of the CRB.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 31, 2015 14:13:53 GMT -5
If the CRB says Yandle has to get a raise over the 5.8 he was offered, NYR basically gets no hometown discount. He's going to have to pay the UFA market price with any sort of increase, which is what real NHL GMs try to avoid. In every future sim I have seen, Kreider breaks the bank when he hits UFA, so I also don't think he needs to get a raise on this bridge deal. He's clearly signing low for low term to get paid at UFA. I'd hope that if Kreider is to get more money I get a chance to add a couple years. Buying up some UFA time.
|
|
|
Post by Beans (BOS) on Dec 31, 2015 14:18:12 GMT -5
If the CRB says Yandle has to get a raise over the 5.8 he was offered, NYR basically gets no hometown discount. He's going to have to pay the UFA market price with any sort of increase, which is what real NHL GMs try to avoid. In every future sim I have seen, Kreider breaks the bank when he hits UFA, so I also don't think he needs to get a raise on this bridge deal. He's clearly signing low for low term to get paid at UFA. I'd hope that if Kreider is to get more money I get a chance to add a couple years. Buying up some UFA time. That also seems fair.
|
|