|
|
Post by Mike Bastarache on Jul 23, 2009 10:54:00 GMT -5
You have 3 trys to resign the player. Each time you fail, the odds get harder. If you fail, he gives a list of teams he would consider signing an extension with. You can trade him to anywheres though. Based on the document I emailed out earlier, what do you feel about the numbers. Is asking for a 40% decrease in their asking price too steep? What about the odds/penalties? Should they remain the same the entire year or should they start out small and get larger as the year goes? What are your thoughts and ideas on the system? Do you find it stressfull, fun or you just don't care?  |
|
|
|
Post by larryc on Jul 23, 2009 11:07:33 GMT -5
I think it should be much harder to land those 60% asking price deals....not going to pick on folks but guys like Gonchar Boyle Briere Nabokov etc etc should not be taking the pay cuts they took at this stage of career bit early for that. (exception being kovalev he should have to pay the team to play hockey!!)
I still like the option of reducing the asking price by 60% but should be much harder in my opinion as it will dry up FA if everyone is able to sign at 60% off over time I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Arcesi-Moncton Wildcats on Jul 23, 2009 11:50:23 GMT -5
I like the way it works right now. As guys get older, they shouldn't be signing ludicrous contracts...i mean, is a 36 year older who gets injured all the time worth 10 million a season? I think not. This system allows us get better market value of the players and keep in line with the salary cap. I dont know how easy it is to sign someone at 60% because anytime I tried, I got rejected...all of mine came in at 80-100%. I think this is a great way...it's nerve racking, but adds excitement to the game and process. I love the idea of only having three tries and then having to deal the guy away...it will help keep some guys moving players and not necessarily sitting on the same guys for years. I think that this is the only realistic way to do contract singings in a sim league. I mean...if someone signs for 80% of their contract...it could be thought that he took the pay cut to try to keep the team as is like some players have in real life...or because he likes the city or management or ice time or for whatever reason could be thought of.
All in all...I think it is great the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafs on Jul 23, 2009 12:19:41 GMT -5
I think it's great as well. I have tried to sign a number of guys at 90% (after bonuses for years and such) and have been declined almost 75% of the time.
It's no easy task as it currently is and is quite a stress-creator around the office.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisd on Jul 23, 2009 12:26:41 GMT -5
I have just one problem with the contract extension system - I am not sure why the price goes up with longer contracts - sure it might make sense for quality younger players that do not have long ties with teams - but older established players and NHL/AHL borderline talent players that are signing extensions would likely prefer longer contracts for various reasons (such as ties with team/community, family reasons, increase chances of injury as they get older, less interest in big money as they get older and are rich enough already, etc.)
The formula could be based on age with prehaps an age of 32 being the break even point (i.e. player responds to a 1 yr or a 4 year at the same rate. When the player reaches 33 the player will take a slightly smaller amount for a four year than a 1 year and that continues to go down as the player gets older. To make it more realistic you could add a bit of randomness to the formula such as a dice toss of -5 to +5 adding or subtracting those years to the age formula as not everyone acts their age!.
|
|
