4 more suggestions

[Hurricanes GM (Will)]

1. Trade deadline changed to 9pm mountain time .. most GM's are active at night and this who open up more trade opportunity right before buzzer ... keep the deadline on the last day before the last week of our regular season

2. I like our system of retaining cap at two years max encase a GM leaves but I suggest uping the limit from 10% to 25%  most contending teams had no room to add and this would help to provide for more trade opportunity.. 


3. Prospect over 50 limit penalty ... I suggest  (yes me) we up the over 50 prospect penalty from .60k to .80k or even $1mil per player to prevent GM's from hording players


4. Standing on fourm ... I can maybe undertake this but post the standings on the fourm at least once a month... Fantrax can be a bit confusing to figure out what the playoff implications are for each team ... 



Love to hear feedback from everyone thanks 

[Flames GM (Beamer)]

All good suggestions (and I've also thought of a few of those)

Input welcome on these and other suggestions.

Now is the time for GMs to add their 2 cents (or 2 pence (CBJ) or 2 rubles (NJ) for our non-Nonrth American GMs).

[Canucks GM (Heller)]

Love to see the suggestions! Personally, I'm a big fan of #1 and #3, nice thinking!

Also, to add my own suggestion (and this may just be my personal preference, and the fact I use it for every other league), I would definitely be in support of using a league GroupMe instead of Chatango. Might just be me though!

[Deleted]

I think #1 is a given, just because it would definitely be helpful for those working and not with computer access during the day. I like 3rd one too.

[Wild GM (Jonathan)]

I'm a fan of #2. I would have been able to add another piece before the deadline if that was the case. Also in the NHL, I believe when they trade a player at the deadline the GM getting the player only retains the remainder of that years salary if the players contract is expiring.

[Panthers GM (Klein)]

I like all of the suggestions and I almost feel like upping the retention amount to 25% is a must, 10% really barely helps at all. I've been in a league that allows up to 50% and a max of 3 retentions at one time, but that's too much I think and the max 2 years rule we have here is great, in case of GMs leaving. But Yeah, I like all of these suggestions.

[Golden Knights GM (Andy)]

Hey all.
I think Will’s suggestion #2 is legit.
Suggestion #3 is also great but I would push it harder, making it $1 million a player over limit!

[Blue Jackets GM (Andy)]

I am quite happy with all the suggestions currently made. No suggestions I can think of so far.

[Flames GM (Beamer)]

Thank you guys for the comments and thought here. The LMs will discuss these 4 ideas as well as the Lottery Draft concepts. We should have our thoughts out to yyou guys very soon.

Cheers,
Beamer

[Deleted]

all good, except for #2. Salary cap makes it balanced for all teams, so we don't have a few powerhouse teams stocking up on high salary players with retained cap. Plus it allows more players to hit free agency.

Retaining salary now lets me keep Carlson instead of releasing him to free agency.

[Deleted]

RE:#2 Teams still need to have the assets to be able to trade for a player while also having salary retained, we are trying to mimic real life NHL as close as possible.  One thing Beamer had mentioned about this is potentially "loading up a team" via salary cap retention. I think we can get as close to real NHL as possible, while also making sure trades are not malicious or detrimental to the league in any way.

[Deleted]

we do have retainment and lots of studs were traded this year...not many studs on free agency though...need a better balance on free agency

[Deleted]

By changing this is unfair to the weaker teams that will really only have the draft to get better players. One could argue the penalty to drop players of retaining half the salary is too high as well. Salary caps are there to provide balance across the league

[Avalanche GM (Robert)]

I see nothing wrong with these but #2 I am not sure what that is all about ... is there a way to give example of what that change would mean ... thanks

[Deleted]

Robert in your first year here we had 50% salary retainment. Meaning if you have Joe Schmo and his salary is 3m and someone wants to trade for Joe Schmo and they want you to pay some of his salary the max you could retain was 50%. We went down to 10% last season. There were alot of trades involved with the same teams dumping salary on certain teams when we were at 50%.

The current allowed in the real NHL is 50%

We want to raise it from 10% to somewhere below 50% so teams that may have inherited a bad contract or if a non playoff team wants to deal a pricey veteran, you can do so with salary retainment.


Voodoo I'm really not sure how salary detainment hurts the weaker teams here? If anything in significantly helps weaker teams with players that cant help them now, can be dealt with out having to have the trading partner have the full amount of cap space to acquire Joe Schmo


Example Colorado Trades
C Joe Schmo 1.00m (25% retained=.25m)

Joe Schmo heads to his new team at .75m cap hit

In years past it was 50%, last year was 10%, we are trying to find a good balance for trading money that helps everyone.

Voodoo I 100% would like to hear your input on retaining salary. I am just not sure what you mean when you are talking about upcoming UFAs such as Carlson ect

[Deleted]

Also 2 years max will not change.

2 years is the max to do anything here regarding salary retainment, dealing future draft picks, franchising, ect.

[Deleted]

There are many scenarios, the key is it gives me more options to get rid of bad contracts to keep good players such as Carlson instead of releasing them to free agency or I can now trade him and retain salary for something good in return. Of course the teams that are up against the salary cap want more cap retainment. Not all of our rules should follow the NHL, as teams shouldn't have to take 10 years like in the NHL to finish rebuilding. Plus in the NHL, teams are looking to make money and then win championships and can rebuild as long as they are making money. We don't make money, but should all have a chance on the championship now.

My thought is it gives a better chance for a team like the Canucks to get better. They have no players to trade and will be used to retain salaries for draft picks and likely will not get a stud player. So he has to wait 7-10 years to rebuild. If we don't have significant salary retainment, will allow more players to hit free agency and now the Canucks has cap to spend and can become a contender sooner.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2018 11:32:01 GMT -6 @voooodoooo said:

There are many scenarios, the key is it gives me more options to get rid of bad contracts to keep good players such as Carlson instead of releasing them to free agency or I can now trade him and retain salary for something good in return.

I'm not following how 25% Salary retainment hurts you getting rid of contracts or help you keep Carlson?
You said you can now trade him and retain salary for something good in return? I'm not following the 25% retainment of salary being a bad a hinderance to keeping your Dman or hurting your return on him in a trade

[Deleted]

And as far as the Canucks go I am just not seeing the correlation between salary retainment and the Canucks cutting their rebuild time in half. The Canucks do not have many players available to trade that would require salary retainment, but they are free to sign free agents and trade them as they please. 

I don't think salary retainment and losing players to free agency really have anything to do with each other in these examples. Most trades that couldn't be made were for players that are rentals and going to UFA regardless

For example

Canes sends:

LW Mikkel Boedker $5.53m
LW Scottie Upshall $0.70k


Rangers sends:

4th rd pick 2019 (anh)

Mikkel Boedker was getting pretty hot at around the time of this deal. CAR had actively been shopping Boedker for quite a while. If he could retain some more salary on Boedker he may have gotten better value for the player.
I personally wouldn't have signed Boedker to that kind of money but that's just me, but even the most foolproof signing could end up being in a player/money dump unexpectedly. IE real life Matt Beleskey, Jimmy Hayes ect.

I know Minnesotta has been trying to deal David Krejci since he joined here. Krejci salary is a little inflated for what he brings production wise, if he can shave some money off that salary for a prospective trade partner in negotiations that may accelerate his rebuild.  I use David Krejci as an example because of the GMs willingness to move him, not finding a partner because of salary, and that David Krejci's contract is a real life NHL deal and not a rookie SCD GM overpaying.


We have have been working on all the suggestions and ideas to improve the league so stay tuned!

[Deleted]

I can trade off orpik's contract, retain more of his salary to make the trade more attractive that will also now allow me to keep Carlson...so a scenario would be someone gets orpik and a draft pick for whatever and I get to save a star player from free agency and get rid of a bad contract. I'm a playoff contending team and this helps me more than it does a Coyotes team with salary cap who could have bid on him with a stronger chance of winning.

I'm using Carlson as an example but can use any star player as I'm being candid with my team as an example.

We have an amnesty rule that allows teams to drop Krejci. The higher we bring up the retainment the less chance we have of teams eating 50 percent of contract and dropping to free agency. Will be now let the bottom teams eat contracts instead.

Ultimately up to the league to decide and hopefully folks just don't look into their own best interest

[Deleted]

I understand both sides of this, Voodoo makes a great point as does Derek and the other side. I'd tend to say lets not fix what isn't broken and I don't think the current salary retention setting is broken in any way, because it is still very cool and fun to have big names in free agency, like Carlson for example as Voodoo pointed out.

[Deleted]

Since I used Carlson as an example and someone could point this out, which really doesnt have anything to do with what we are talking about, yes I also realize that I'd get a hometown discount on him in the free agency bidding...I'm trying to be candid as possible for folks to consider

[Deleted]

Wes this was the first year of Salary cap retention at 10%

Last season and seasons before it was 50% and we had some issues with that. IE non playoff teams being used to dump salaries at a high rate.(WE RECOMMEND RESPONSIBLE FREE AGENT BIDDING, THAT ITSELF WILL ALLEVIATE MOST ISSUES.)We have remedied this issue moving forward and we will unroll changes to salary retention and other minor changes very soon. IE trade deadline, prospect storage Fees ect.

Voodoo I think you are overlooking the fact that we have the franchise tag in place for teams to retain their star players and not lose them to free agency. I think your concern with available stars during free agency is due to the franchise tag, which is implemented specifically for star players to be retained.
(at the penalty of costing a lot of money)

I was going just leave it but in this thread you have specifically made two different statements regarding rule changes and making changes regarding best interest.

"Of course the teams that are up against the salary cap want more cap retainment"

"Ultimately up to the league to decide and hopefully folks just don't look into their own best interest"

I can only speak for myself but I know I put the betterment of the league as a whole ahead of my "insert current year" roster. Alot of us have been here for a few seasons and we have had ups and downs but have come out the other end a much better league. I just hope that where you made a similar comment twice that you do not think anyone involved in rule changes is doing anything malicious or selfish.

If I wanted to use being a LM to my advantage I'd figure out a way to sign Tavares to a cheap extension. Instead he is going to be like 12 million.....dammit lol

Also I think Dougie Hamilton was paid like 8m Doll hairs so a John Carlson who is arguably one of the best two way Dman in the world, will cost alot more than Dougie. Might want to franchise Carlson and lock him up.

[Deleted]

Of course I know the franchise tag, as you know, I've been here since the beginning. No doubt I agree that you put the betterment of the league as a whole. But I disagree with significant rule changes without a good league discussion and your position is very strongly pro change to an increase in salary retention as a LM.

Note that the thread says the LM will get with us and your first post says that "teams need to have the assets to be able to trade for a player while also having salary retained". I strongly disagree with that statement and teams need to have the assets to trade and to aquire players off free agency.

[Deleted]

I think what I'm trying to say is getting taken the wrong way in your second paragraph.

What I am trying to say is a team should get more for a player when retaining some salary.

When I say "teams need to have the assets to be able to trade for a player while also having salary retained" I mean if a team is going to retain 25% of a players salary for a trade, that should be compensated. So when I say a team needs to have the assets to acquire a player with retained salary, I'm saying that team is going to be paying for that convenience.

Hockey is unique from football and Baseball where you can trade any amount of money for any asset, IE picks players ect.
In football and baseball there are 3 currencies: Players Picks and Cash. In slapshot there are two currencies: Players and picks. I'm not advocating ever being able to "buy" a player in slapshot with cash like we can in blitz and MCD. I know you are not but a good amount of people here are in either Blitz or MCD or another Baseball or football league and can relate to what I'm saying.

I'm not the best at articulating what I am trying to say sometimes. So sorry for the confusion.

As far as me being Pro-Raising retention percentage. I am because it has been brought to my attention by other LMs and many GMs that the 10% was too low. After looking at trades and looking at the players that got stuck on non competitive rosters after trade deadline, I found that many teams could've benefitted from being able to keep some salary in a trade, so they could get something for their expiring UFA as opposed to losing them for nothing. That is what I observed in salary retention when I looked into it and talked to some teams about it. As far as my stance on it before it was brought to attention by Carolina was to leave it even though it was "kinda strict" from what we had in years back.

[Deleted]

I know you know about the Franchise Tag, now you are just giving me a hard time lol. One of your points of concern was not enough stars in free agency. We have the Franchise tag in place for that exact reason. So teams can retain there stars(at a cost, franchise tags on good players are not cheap)

[Deleted]

I understand your point and what you are trying to say...an expiring UFA contract is just fine and teams do not need to get anything out of it...it all balances out thats what the salary cap is for..for league parity. Retaining salary is a loophole around the salary cap to stock up on big players. We have other tools for folks to use to get rid of bad contracts, retain star players, etc.

One could also argue that a player is punished too high for dropping a player, maybe it shouldn't be 50%? Maybe it should be 38%, ha? But I wouldn't advocate that either.

If anyone knows about expiring UFAs its me because my team is up there in the most FAs every year since we started this league.