|
|
Post by NJDevils on Apr 5, 2013 20:50:41 GMT -5
"there are far, far, FAR more players getting significant raises"
I call those stupid contracts.
We all got $50 mil or whatever it was because of the failure of any team to succeed financially and record wise and I said then that it was just a bandaid and it remains true. I have cash on hand but still lose money. I tend to think NJ has been pretty successful.
It won't get significantly worse because if everyone keeps doing it they can't keep adfing and selling. Selling off players for 10 cents to the dollar is exactly what happened to the Blackhawks.
Contracts got out of hand in real life and they responded by lowering the cap to what is or leagues max.
I am in another league where you don't bid on FAs based on salary, just term and signing bonus. The salary is locked in based on the players OV at the time the contract is signed and doesn't change with the OV. I'd be open to something like that but that's about it.
Raising the capnisnt going to solve any issues just as the cash infusion didn't. Its just a bandaid and in another season or two people will be screaming about raising it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Apr 5, 2013 22:28:22 GMT -5
"there are far, far, FAR more players getting significant raises" I call those stupid contracts. oh, so because i have to re-sign pietrangelo, benn, lucic and yandle to deals of 4+ mil after most of them made 900k....im guilty of giving them "bad contracts"? c'mon man every team has to re-sign their RFA's, many of which get significant raises. lets not be ridiculous. no - actually they didn't. they get plenty of value for every player they traded, at least that was the consensus at the time. because there was a significant market for their players. so while yes, they had to trade players away for the salary cap, there were teams lining up to take those players off their hands. whereas now, people are having trouble giving away 83 overall centers? that's just stupid actually, the cap in the NHL is tied to player salaries, meaning as salaries go up, so does the cap. the reason the cap went down is because the players share of 57% of league revenues was reduced to 50% the NHL comparisons just help further prove my point. that's terrible. you didn't read my original post very thoroughly apparently as i said the cap should be raised every season. the NHL does it, so should we. |
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Apr 5, 2013 22:46:23 GMT -5
I thought the NHL cap was tied to league revenue?
|
|
|
|
Post by NJDevils on Apr 5, 2013 23:04:59 GMT -5
I thought the NHL cap was tied to league revenue? Don't bring facts into a conversation with Alex. He's on a roll. |
|
|
|
Post by anaheimgm on Apr 5, 2013 23:05:12 GMT -5
GM's will give out stupid contracts. that will always happen, it doesn't matter what the salary cap is. the numbers might change, but stupid deals will always be shelled out. ... if we raise the cap, the bad GM's will still shell out terrible deals and the good GM's will use the extra cap room wisely. it's that simple. So why are we raising the cap again, so you guys have more room to dish out more stupid money? And if you traded for the guys making stupid money, that's your own problem too. I guess if you don't have any cap room, I'd ask you why you "use the extra cap room wisely"... Don't bring facts into a conversation with Alex. He's on a roll. Germans..?  |
|
|
|
Post by anaheimgm on Apr 5, 2013 23:10:49 GMT -5
oh, so because i have to re-sign pietrangelo, benn, lucic and yandle to deals of 4+ mil after most of them made 900k....im guilty of giving them bad contracts Not at all. You're guilty of not using your cap space wisely if you didn't plan ahead and don't have room to re-sign those guys... I guess those centers don't have great contracts if "half the league" can't afford them... The cap is tied to revenue, not salaries... If all the teams are losing money, the cap should be lowered... How do you feel about that I wonder? I mean you want the finances to mean something, you said. Maybe we should make the cap a function of revenue just like in real life! The NHL doesn't do it every yr. The cap is raised or lowered each year based on revenue. That's why the players pay into escrow... They only raise the cap when the revenues increase. |
|
|
|
Post by NJDevils on Apr 5, 2013 23:15:29 GMT -5
You're acting like if a team in the NHL had the amount of talent your team does they wouldn't have to deal players due to contracts.
Can't think of an example of that.....
Oh right, the Blackhawks.
The Bruins had the same problem with Phil Kessel. It happens.
The point of having a cap is so that one team can't have all of the talent and if they try to, at some point they run out of space and into problems. You took the talent, reaped the benefits for as long as you could, won unlike a number of others, and now have to play by the rules.
And the NHL Cap is 100% tied to league revenue, NOT player salaries. And it's coming down to ECFHL levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Apr 5, 2013 23:49:24 GMT -5
I've said all along, despite the fact that some seem to have forgotten, that we'd address issues with the cap and salary chart when needed. A quick glance at the rosters and there's only maybe 3 or 4 teams that would have a 79+ (which is the high end of the chart).
The chart was put in place for the exact reasons Tampa Bay mentioned. I don't have the time and patience to argue with teams about how their 78 overall players suck and should get modest raises. Unfortunately this isn't the real NHL and a player's rating is one of the only ways to gauge players in an admittedly flawed Simulator.
I don't care what team(s) it is, nobody should be able to keep all of their star players season to season. There needs to be turnover.
At the end of the coming season, I'll take a look at the ratings of players and see if the chart needs to be adjusted for mid-range players (71-77ov). It's very possible that this will need to be lowered to accomodate the rise of ratings.
One thing I will always be steadfast on is that superstars, 80+, will always command top dollars regardless of what their role is on their respective team is.
Also to add to this. I've been running FHL leagues since 1999. We've always been able to come up with ways to correct things before it was too late. The armaggedon naysayers can relax.
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Apr 5, 2013 23:49:42 GMT -5
You're acting like if a team in the NHL had the amount of talent your team does they wouldn't have to deal players due to contracts. Can't think of an example of that..... Oh right, the Blackhawks. The Bruins had the same problem with Phil Kessel. It happens. The point of having a cap is so that one team can't have all of the talent and if they try to, at some point they run out of space and into problems. You took the talent, reaped the benefits for as long as you could, won unlike a number of others, and now have to play by the rules again - ive said plenty of times this isn't about my team. i had to trade malkin last season and didn't complain. like you said, it happens. and my team is going to be fine this year again...it has nothing to do with me. i've run leagues before and i know the issues. this is going to be a problem, a problem that needs to be fixed now, before several teams are affected by whats going on - already some teams have been. you have done nothing to disprove any of the economical factors i've presented and keep rehashing the same old story. none of which has any merit correct. but player salaries (their share of the revenue) are tied to league revenue; thus the cap is also tied into player salaries. if league revenues go up, player salaries go up. if player salaries go up, the cap goes up. we don't have league revenues. but our player salaries are going up, thus, the cap should go up. it's pretty simple man....don't be dense. |
|
|
|
Post by anaheimgm on Apr 6, 2013 0:39:27 GMT -5
correct. but player salaries (their share of the revenue) are tied to league revenue; thus the cap is also tied into player salaries. if league revenues go up, player salaries go up. if player salaries go up, the cap goes up. we don't have league revenues. but our player salaries are going up, thus, the cap should go up. it's pretty simple man....don't be dense. "If A, then B. If B, then C." Nothing about that means "If C, then B." |
|
