07-25-2018, 10:43 PMWasty Wrote: LAP missing my 100M lol but since Max is technically in the smjhl I understand

07-25-2018, 10:44 PMiamslm22 Wrote:

07-25-2018, 10:43 PMWasty Wrote: LAP missing my 100M lol but since Max is technically in the smjhl I understand

You're contributing to the 3.4 Billion in the Junior league.

07-25-2018, 06:09 PMztevans Wrote:

07-25-2018, 05:37 PMBlastmeaway Wrote: Why tho? They should hit the teams cap just like every other player would for having similar TPE numbers.

I mean, the idea behind what he's saying is that at some point, you're no longer paying that player as someone with similar TPE numbers. With that said, at certain point it would just make sense to drop the inactive instead of paying him $2M+ over his tier, so I don't think it's a necessary change. It polices itself. A "good" inactive is worth the extra money. Once they stop being good? YEET.

EDIT FOR CAVEAT: It makes more sense for low-TPE inactives who were given decent ELCs but never reached that TPE plateau. They wouldn't be used for anything more than fillers, but it really limits GM options in that regard because nobody wants to pay 4-5m for a 500 TPE inactive. But, again, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.

07-26-2018, 12:30 AMJayWhy Wrote:

07-25-2018, 06:09 PMztevans Wrote:

07-25-2018, 05:37 PMBlastmeaway Wrote: Why tho? They should hit the teams cap just like every other player would for having similar TPE numbers.

I mean, the idea behind what he's saying is that at some point, you're no longer paying that player as someone with similar TPE numbers. With that said, at certain point it would just make sense to drop the inactive instead of paying him $2M+ over his tier, so I don't think it's a necessary change. It polices itself. A "good" inactive is worth the extra money. Once they stop being good? YEET.

EDIT FOR CAVEAT: It makes more sense for low-TPE inactives who were given decent ELCs but never reached that TPE plateau. They wouldn't be used for anything more than fillers, but it really limits GM options in that regard because nobody wants to pay 4-5m for a 500 TPE inactive. But, again, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.

I'm just going to throw out my old suggestion on this one. To me, the real reason to say an inactive has to be signed to their current contract is more so for the GM who signs them to that deal. They made their bed and have to lay in it, essentially. Now, that ends up punishing the other teams in the league because now they can't get this person because of somebody else giving an enormous contract once. This happens less frequently now, but still often enough and every penny counts. Thus, I suggested essentially a tier system of the contract only applying for re-signing teams. Since you get first option at them anyway, you get the option to re-sign your player but they must be at their latest contract rate. Say you sign a 500 TPE player for 6M, if you want them back, it's 6M. However, any other team in FA is able to sign them for their minimum by the rulebook. This allows for more variety on teams as the inactives could move around and decrease their contract, while also policing contracts to force GMs to be careful about who they're spending on and how much they're spending on them. It keeps the good inactives moving around and within the league as well.

Also, Wasty, I'm in the same boat. 112M here, not included with MAN. But, really helping to beef up that SMJHL a bit more.

07-26-2018, 10:16 AMGrapehead Wrote:

07-26-2018, 12:30 AMJayWhy Wrote:

07-25-2018, 06:09 PMztevans Wrote:

07-25-2018, 05:37 PMBlastmeaway Wrote: Why tho? They should hit the teams cap just like every other player would for having similar TPE numbers.

I mean, the idea behind what he's saying is that at some point, you're no longer paying that player as someone with similar TPE numbers. With that said, at certain point it would just make sense to drop the inactive instead of paying him $2M+ over his tier, so I don't think it's a necessary change. It polices itself. A "good" inactive is worth the extra money. Once they stop being good? YEET.

EDIT FOR CAVEAT: It makes more sense for low-TPE inactives who were given decent ELCs but never reached that TPE plateau. They wouldn't be used for anything more than fillers, but it really limits GM options in that regard because nobody wants to pay 4-5m for a 500 TPE inactive. But, again, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.

I'm just going to throw out my old suggestion on this one. To me, the real reason to say an inactive has to be signed to their current contract is more so for the GM who signs them to that deal. They made their bed and have to lay in it, essentially. Now, that ends up punishing the other teams in the league because now they can't get this person because of somebody else giving an enormous contract once. This happens less frequently now, but still often enough and every penny counts. Thus, I suggested essentially a tier system of the contract only applying for re-signing teams. Since you get first option at them anyway, you get the option to re-sign your player but they must be at their latest contract rate. Say you sign a 500 TPE player for 6M, if you want them back, it's 6M. However, any other team in FA is able to sign them for their minimum by the rulebook. This allows for more variety on teams as the inactives could move around and decrease their contract, while also policing contracts to force GMs to be careful about who they're spending on and how much they're spending on them. It keeps the good inactives moving around and within the league as well.

Also, Wasty, I'm in the same boat. 112M here, not included with MAN. But, really helping to beef up that SMJHL a bit more.

Damn, that's a great idea