Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 8:47:18 GMT -5
I like the system we have and I do think it works.
But if the majority believes in this change, then I think it's worth doing.
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Sept 1, 2015 11:11:46 GMT -5
I don't think we need to set the cap at $300 just to accommodate the teams that have already made moves in future years, nor should they be forced to become compliant. Leave all moves that have already been processed alone and things will work themselves out within three years. Only three teams have more than $275 on the books in 2017-2018 and those that have less can make moves to get back up to $275 if they wish. Otherwise, leave things as they are.
Will those three have an advantage? Maybe so but no more so than the six teams that can get themselves up to $300 under the system you (Moscow) are proposing.
The easiest system to enforce is one that says you cannot make a trade to take your team over $275 in any year beginning in 2017-18. The three teams that are already over that number that season cannot make a trade to go over their current number.
Ultimately I want this under control and while I prefer the $275 cap because it's the only one that is truly a salary cap, I can live with the $275/$300 hybrid as a step forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 11:17:37 GMT -5
The $275/$300 makes more sense now, thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 22:28:13 GMT -5
So.... Does that mean I can still trade for cap this year? Because I feel like I would have approached this year and free agency differently if there had already been a $275/$300 budget/hard cap.
I think using this for next year (as a testing point and then moving forward) makes sense. Changing things midway through a season (as we're now most of the way through the busiest part of league activity) never really makes sense to me.
Basically, trade me all your cap space. I'm still around $100 behind Doug's team last year which conveniently didn't have Doug complaining about Doug acquiring cap space.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Sept 3, 2015 4:17:39 GMT -5
Man, that would have been a hilarious situation...
I'm okay with the proposed change and while I don't see my team coming near the $275 mark let alone the $300 mark this season, I agree it shouldn't go into place until next season.
However, maybe for a stop-gap this year we should just veto trades where ONLY cash and picks are involved (i.e. buying a draft pick). I would hope that between the 12 of us it won't be an issue.
....and just while the old brain juices are flowing here - would it be possible that instead of physically trading cap space to another team in order for players/contracts to fit, that teams would instead retain salary?
So if for instance I trade Malkin at a hit of $44 but the receiving manager needs his hit to be at $30 or below, I could retain $14 of Malkin's salary (which could be tossed at the bottom of my team buyout style) and Malkin would henceforth show up on the new roster at a cap hit of $30. I'm sure the spreadsheet is far more intricate that I will ever know, but maybe it's a good fix?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 8:40:51 GMT -5
....and just while the old brain juices are flowing here - would it be possible that instead of physically trading cap space to another team in order for players/contracts to fit, that teams would instead retain salary? ^ I really, really like that idea
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Sept 3, 2015 11:20:29 GMT -5
....and just while the old brain juices are flowing here - would it be possible that instead of physically trading cap space to another team in order for players/contracts to fit, that teams would instead retain salary? ^ I really, really like that idea I'm glad you like that idea, it was mine back in the first post of this thread. I suggest we do one of two things: 1. Ban trades that send cash/cap space one way or another.The exception to this would be trades where you are paying a portion (or all) or a players salary you are trading to another team. If I find someone to take David Clarkson this season and I agree to pay $10 of his $15 salary, that's perfectly acceptable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 11:49:11 GMT -5
I asked the same thing and got the response from Adam as a yes… as that was how I traded Malkin last season…
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Sept 3, 2015 12:22:16 GMT -5
As I've stated in my posts previously, this season will be unaffected and salary trading (for 2015 budgets) will be un-hindered, so teams are allowed to trade as much as they want (like it's been for previous seasons). Any trades affecting future season budgets (including trades made this season FOR future seasons) would be restrained under the new rules, however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 17:49:51 GMT -5
As I've stated in my posts previously, this season will be unaffected and salary trading (for 2015 budgets) will be un-hindered, so teams are allowed to trade as much as they want (like it's been for previous seasons). Any trades affecting future season budgets (including trades made this season FOR future seasons) would be restrained under the new rules, however. So we can continue to trade cap for this year (2015) only without hindrance, but we're currently working out what things will look like for future seasons (with.a $275/$300 cap proposed), so we cannot make any trades involving cap for 2016 and beyond until this has been settled. Am I understanding this correctly? Makes sense that this year would remain unaffected by major changes. It also makes sense that we would hold off on future cap trades until we all know what rules we will be working with moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Sept 3, 2015 18:27:47 GMT -5
No trades directly involving salary being exchanged (in any year) are allowed at the moment. Depending on how things play out exactly (I've been doing a lot of pondering and experimenting behind the scenes the last couple days to figure things out), there's a good chance I'm going to leave this season's salary trading rules like they were before the issue, for the sake of fairness.
Everyone's best to just not trade at all at the moment, but I'm not going to stop you if it's just player for player, draft picks for draft picks, and any mix in between.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Sept 3, 2015 21:23:02 GMT -5
As mentioned, I've been thinking long and hard about this decision, and I believe the best option we have is the Budget/Cap solution. It's not ideal, but I think it's the option that steps on the least amount of toes, is reasonably easy to implement, and still allows us the flexibility that I believe keeps our trade market strong.
The fundamental issue here that we were looking to address was people trading/receiving extra salary uncontrollably. That's the bottom line, and this solution puts a hard stop to that by drawing a line in the sand.
After long deliberation though, I'm leaning for a $295 cap, instead of a $300 cap. This takes the maximum obtainable leeway on salary from $25 in a season down to $20. There was concern over the $25 sum and how it would potentially create too large of a divide. By setting the bar at $20, it gives people a decent amount of wiggle room, while restricting them from taking on an entire years worth of salary of a 5y TERM player (at minimum value). Setting the bar at $295 also keeps every team in the league cap-compliant from the 2016 season and on.
Are there any final protests to this (especially the limit changing from $300 to $295)? If not, this will be implemented very soon. I've already done the rough work and have a new format for the finances on the spreadsheet, in anticipation of implementation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 22:09:35 GMT -5
Iiked the $25 just because it allowed in theory a 5 year contract to be moved and for it to be covered (I recognize that 5 year contracts start at $24)...
I guess the $275/$300 just feels like easier numbers to work with. If $25 is too much, we could consider deopping it next year. Less change (or slower, more gradual change) is often most helpful when tinkering with a system that is already very effective.
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Sept 4, 2015 11:13:06 GMT -5
As mentioned, I've been thinking long and hard about this decision, and I believe the best option we have is the Budget/Cap solution. It's not ideal, but I think it's the option that steps on the least amount of toes, is reasonably easy to implement, and still allows us the flexibility that I believe keeps our trade market strong. The fundamental issue here that we were looking to address was people trading/receiving extra salary uncontrollably. That's the bottom line, and this solution puts a hard stop to that by drawing a line in the sand. After long deliberation though, I'm leaning for a $295 cap, instead of a $300 cap. This takes the maximum obtainable leeway on salary from $25 in a season down to $20. There was concern over the $25 sum and how it would potentially create too large of a divide. By setting the bar at $20, it gives people a decent amount of wiggle room, while restricting them from taking on an entire years worth of salary of a 5y TERM player (at minimum value). Setting the bar at $295 also keeps every team in the league cap-compliant from the 2016 season and on. Are there any final protests to this (especially the limit changing from $300 to $295)? If not, this will be implemented very soon. I've already done the rough work and have a new format for the finances on the spreadsheet, in anticipation of implementation. $295 is a large step forward from where we were and while I'd prefer the $275 hard cap I think $295 is a fine compromise between the two. Your plan and timeline has the support of the Stockholm Syndrome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 11:36:09 GMT -5
I'll throw my support behind the "$275/$300."
|
|