|
|
Post by squeaky on Jun 28, 2007 8:07:54 GMT -5
The current UFA age is 28.
The current salary cap is 60 million. The salary floor is 40 million.
The current minimum salary is 300k.
The current maximum player salary is 7.5 million.
– The rookie pay is as follows (all on 3 year deals): 72 overall or less 300k, 73 350k, 74 400k, 75 500k, 76 600k, 77 800k, 78 1M, 79 1.25M, 80+ 1.5M
|
|
|
|
Post by darren on Sept 16, 2009 10:47:27 GMT -5
A few things to remember as we go into contract negotiations pretty soon.
- Salary cap has gone up 20%, from 50 to 60 million. The floor is now 40 million.
- Individual player max is up to 7.5 million.
- In negotiations, expect the player salaries to go up by around 10-15%. It's less then the cap is rising so it will give more breathing room.
|
|
|
|
Post by darren on Oct 22, 2009 18:19:15 GMT -5
From here on I think giving a bit of a discount on the second contract is a good idea.
Ex. Say Tavares's rookie deal expires and market value for him is about 4 million. I'd like to see the second contract be 75% of market value on a 2 year deal. So in the ballpark of 3 mil for 2 years is what he'd make.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonmilley on Oct 22, 2009 20:09:37 GMT -5
Why is that exactly? The real NHL seems to be going in the opposite direction. I don't see the point of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by squeaky on Oct 22, 2009 20:41:50 GMT -5
Why is that exactly? The real NHL seems to be going in the opposite direction. I don't see the point of this. I agree. All that will do is let the rich teams loaded with young talent keep their kids at a discount. |
|
|
|
Post by darren on Oct 23, 2009 0:10:01 GMT -5
Well my thinking is our rookie deals are only 3 IHL years. That's 1.5 NHL seasons. Pretty much nothing. And half the time a rookie comes in, plays 5 meaningless games in the NHL and then he's useless in the sim for the first two years of the rookie contract.
I thought this second contract thing helps a little against some salaries accelerating too fast. Only on a two year deal and at 75% it doesn't make a drastic difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonmilley on Oct 23, 2009 8:12:59 GMT -5
Well, this isn't going to make me very popular, but here goes:
I'll bet it does make a bit of a difference when you're trying to resign Stamkos, Oshie, Giroux, Little, and Okposo. A 25% deal on all of those contracts would add up pretty quick.
Sorry, but I feel like this is just you trying to change the rules to protect your team.
I just don't see the point of it. If I've learned anything in the time I've been here, and if Moscow is showing us anything right now, it's that winning is mostly luck in this sim anyway.
So...probably going to be tough for me to get any free agents now, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by squeaky on Oct 23, 2009 8:46:20 GMT -5
Are you implying that my team is maybe under-performing a little?
|
|
|
|
Post by habslive on Oct 23, 2009 9:10:36 GMT -5
I agree with Jon that players should be compensated in the same way as veterans for what they produce. Most of the best players in the NHL today are RFA age anyways, not UFA.
Ovechkin, Carter, Richards, Phaneuf, Lundqvist, Crosby, Malkin, Backstrom, Semin, Kovalchuk, Parise... you get the idea.
It didn't take long for these guys to reach their status, and it creates an unfair advantage for teams that are loaded with young talent. There's no reason 30 goals and 50 assists should be worth 6 million to a 24 year old but 8 million to a 34 year old.
|
|
|
|
Post by squeaky on Oct 23, 2009 11:26:57 GMT -5
Maybe we should just make rookie contracts a little longer. 4 seasons instead of 3?
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 23, 2009 11:30:50 GMT -5
I think we should just make the entry level contracts longer. A three year deal on the majority of new players coming into the league is pretty much useless especially when guys are being created after only playing a handful of games and getting a 70 OV rating. What's the appeal of getting young players if you're not going to get a discount on them? We've all seen a shift in the NHL to building your team through the draft to save money on the cap, why would it be any different in our league?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonmilley on Oct 23, 2009 11:33:08 GMT -5
I think I'd be okay with that, yeah. That way they're getting their new contracts on their second season ratings too.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 23, 2009 11:33:44 GMT -5
Maybe we should just make rookie contracts a little longer. 4 seasons instead of 3? I think it should be even longer. If we had 1 season for every NHL season, then the 3 would be fine, but we don't. It should really be 5 or 6. Also, maybe we don't bother creating rookies unless they play a certain amount of games. We could use the 9 game trial period in the NHL and if they get sent back down to junior before it's up, they don't get created or something along those lines. |
|
|
|
Post by ed on Oct 23, 2009 13:27:39 GMT -5
I like the 4 year rookie deal, it will also help create parity ;D Teams with a lot of cap space would be able to do some damage on the FA market ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by squeaky on Oct 23, 2009 16:05:22 GMT -5
Maybe we should just make rookie contracts a little longer. 4 seasons instead of 3? I think it should be even longer. If we had 1 season for every NHL season, then the 3 would be fine, but we don't. It should really be 5 or 6. Also, maybe we don't bother creating rookies unless they play a certain amount of games. We could use the 9 game trial period in the NHL and if they get sent back down to junior before it's up, they don't get created or something along those lines. I suppose now that we make our own ratings, we could just leave younger guys uncreated until they're worthwhile. We used to have to create them, because the ratings packages did. Id' support leaving guys as prospects until they play a certain number of NHL games or something. |
|
