Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:42 pm**

Keep all discussion to this thread. Here are the proposed changes.

Draft picks are going to be paid based on slot. Why? Because there's not really a better way to do it. The current NHL format is a base + "Exhbit 5" Bonuses (which will be discussed further down in this post). The way the NHL works is that the team must have enough cap room for the bonuses. As a result, a player like Tyler Seguin makes 900k per season, but his cap hit is 3.55M, based on the bonuses he is eligible to receive. Rather than keep track of all of these bonuses, we will pay guys slot money.

Here's the payscale:

Draft: 1-10 = 2.5M; 11-20 = 2M; 21-30 = 1.75M
31-40 = 1.5M; 41-50 = 1.25M; 51-60 = 1M
61-75 = 900k; 76-90 = 850k; 91-105 = 800k, 106-120 = 750k
5th-7th = 600k

As a result of these new numbers, UNDERAGED players on the FARM can make above the 1.2M threshold. This way we can still permit them to develop rapidly.

Entry level contracts (ELCs) will no longer be allowed to include team/player options.

Why do we enforce slot salaries over bonuses? Because, unlike the NHL, there is little to no chance of a player "busting" with EHM, especially as a first round pick. So all of these first/second players will range from great to good, and would likely hit their bonuses anyway within the first year of playing on the pro team.

----------------------------------------------------

Similarly, we obviously have a problem with young players making too little money. So, we will use the Exhibit 5 bonuses to increase their salaries. I'm still working on a capped number for these.

Exhibit 5 bonuses can be found here: http://www.nhlscap.com/Exhibit5.htm

In the NHL, each bonus is worth $212,500. For us, each bonus will be worth $250,000. In terms of the 2010 draft class, the bonus raises to the base salary will stop when the player reaches the new 2011 Draft slot format. For example, Brett Connolly, PHX's first round pick, currently makes $600,000. If he got three of the bonuses in his first contract year, his base salary would then be 1.35M (750k increase). If he got those three bonuses again, his salary would go up to 2.1M. If he got a different bonus and earned another 250k, his salary would be 2.35M. Another bonus would put him above the draft slot (9th overall), so his salary would be capped at 2.35M.

Also, any players under 25 that were signed to contracts after EHEC began are able to earn these Exhibit 5 bonuses. I have yet to decide how I am going to cap the salaries for these players, because some of them will earn a majority, if not all of these bonuses. A player like Phil Kessel, for example, would likely get at least seven, if not all nine of them. That would be a 2.25M increase. While that is not a ridiculous number for him (base would be 3.355M), he would earn some of these bonuses every year. And that would get pricey. So I'll be searching for a way to cap this.

The adjusted salary begins the following season. So it's not like it will happen the instant a player hits the 20-goal plateau.

--------------------------------------------------

Contracts will be limited to 4 years or 3 years + a team option. We see a handful of 5 and 6 year deals in the NHL, but they have escalating salaries and that would be a bit labor-intensive to keep an eye on here (read: I'm lazy).

-------------------------------------------------

The new contract raise rules will be based on the average of the 6 main stat categories. (It was discussed in last night's chat to use a weighted system on the more important ones and that can also be elaborated on in this thread.) In any event, for now, this is the framework for the new system. I expect this to be the system that we will use, with a few tweaks of course, to perfect it as much as possible. If a player has not reached his ceiling, the EXPECTED value will be used to determine the contract (I realize there are some issues with ST, PO, and CH in regards to this, so we'll have to figure that out).

This applies ONLY to PLAYERS UNDER 32:

85+ OF/DF average: 25% 5M+; 50% 4M+; 100% 3M-4M; 200% of current contract if under 3M; 300% if under 2M, 500% if under 1M

80-84 OF/DF average: 25% 5M+; 50% 4M+; 100% 3M+; 200% of current contract if under 3M; 250% if under 2M, 400% if under 1M

75-79 OF/DF average: 25% 4M+; 50% 3-4M+; 75% of current contract if under 3M; 150% if under 2M, 300% if under 1M

70-74 OF/DF average: 25% 3M+; 50% of current contract if under 3M; 75% if under 2M; 100% if under 1M

Players who average below 70 are TBD, but I think it would be safe to assume something along the lines of up to 20% decrease 4M+; up to 10% decrease 3-4M; 5% increase 2-3M, 10% increase 2M, 25% increase if under 1M. Just a rough guess, with no examples thrown in.

There are two caveats to this system. The first is the concept of a player who is a "specialist". This will be any player whose OF is 5 points higher than their DF or vice versa. Right off the top, any player whose OF is 5 or more points above the DF will be labeled an offensive specialist. As we know, offensive guys are paid more in real life. These players will receive an automatic 500k increase to their base salary from the percentages. Any "defensive specialist", 5 or more DF higher than OF will get 250k added to their base.

The other caveat is that any supplemental attributes (with the exception of fighting) with a value of 80 or more will lead to another 250k increase. So, a player with a 85 HI, a 84 SK, a 82 EN, and a 81 CON would get an extra 1M on their base salary.

I'm beginning to come around to Parker's idea last night of a human element in terms of arbitration and I think I have a concept that would suit his wishes, along with Dan's wishes of having some sort of human element to this. Players over the age of 32 will done on an arbitrary basis. What I mean by that is a group of GMs, from the opposite conference, will assess the older player and determine if his performance warrants a raise, a decrease, or a similar contract. We can use comparisons to similar players, both statistically and on their in-game attribute values.

It's an idea. One that can be elaborated on.

Now, let me hit you with some examples of this new system.

First example would be Steven Stamkos. Stamkos is 89 OF and 71 DF. (89 + 71) / 2 = 80. (his stickhandling may go up slightly, but he has technically reached his ceiling value). As a result, Stamkos falls under the 80-84 average. His current salary is 875k. Under the formula, his base salary must increase by 400%. 875,000 * 4 = 3.5M. Stamkos would also fall under the "offensive specialist" bonus, bringing his base salary to 4M. He also has four supplemental attributes above 80 (SK, EN, FA, and CON) leading to a 1M base salary increase. Steven Stamkos's next contract would be, at a minimum, 5M per season.

David Backes is 75 OF and 80 DF. (75 + 80) / 2 = 77.5. As a result, Backes falls under the 75-79 average. His current salary is 2.5M. Under the formula, his base salary must increase by 75%. 2,500,000 * .75 = 1,875,000. 1,875,000 + 2,500,000 = 4.375M. Backes would get a 250k increase for being a "defensive specialist" bringing him to 4.625M. He has four attributes above 80 (SK, EN, Strength, FA) adding another 1M to his base salary. David Backes next contract would be, at a minimum, 5.625M per season.

Let's use my hypothetical under 70 to look at Tim Connolly. Tim Connolly is vastly overpaid at 4.5M per. If we assume a 20% decrease for Tim Connolly, he would make 3.6M, though he would get another 500k for being an "offensive specialist". So that would give him a base of 4.1M. So, I'd probably tweak that down to something more like 30, or 40, maybe even 50%. At 30%, his base would be 3.15M, At 40%, 2.7M. At 50%, 2.25M. So I think we can see that something can be worked out here.

Maxim Lapierre was last night's example of one of the few times that this may not work. Lapierre is 68 OF 80 DF. That gives him a 74 average. He currently makes 900k. Under the formula, his base would increase 100%, to 1.8M. This is not a crazy number for an 80 DF guy with 99 HI. When you add in the escalators of being a "defensive specialist", that's 250k. He gets another 250k for 81 EN. That makes Lapierre worth 2.3M.

Is Maxim Lapierre worth 2.3M? We can debate that all day long. In real life? Probably not. In EHEC where there's a premium placed on HI? How about with his 49 PEN? Reasonably, we could set a decrease clause for attributes below a certain number. It's open to discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------

Another wrinkle to this financial policy is the "Franchise Tag". Similar to the NFL, the player will be "Franchise Tagged" and cannot be traded, but their contract is extended at a discount. Exactly what that discount will be, I'm not sure. But every team will have one of these. The player will receive a No Trade Clause that can be appealed to the Committee to be overturned.

Again, the exact discount isn't known just yet, but it will be worthwhile.

------------------------------------------------------

In summation, here is how to determine a player's future contract:

Player salary * (percentage increase based on the formula of the group where the player's ((OF + DF) / 2) falls). Check for any added increases (Attributes 80+, offensive/defensive specialist).

Not a perfect system by any means, but significantly more realistic than anything we have tried to do before. Again, use this thread for discussion.

In terms of contract extensions, the contract extensions will begin the following season. So the new contract will not count against this year's salary cap. I don't know what next year's will be, so don't ask. But, these new higher-percentage rules will not count against you for this season.

Questions, comments, concerns. Let them rip.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:09 pm**

Last night you said some possibilities about a franchise player tag. Is this still in discussion?

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:10 pm**

CapsGM wrote:Last night you said some possibilities about a franchise player tag. Is this still in discussion?

God damnit. I knew I'd forget something.

Yeah, I'll edit the post.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:22 pm**

Honestly, I like where this is heading to determine salaries. Makes for a more even system, the only downside being what was mentioned last night - that it essentially eliminates negotiating contracts (unless I'm missing something). Of course, with how EHM handles "negotiations", you really don't go back and forth with a player too much for the most part. You have your exceptions, naturally, but with the game's limited options you essentially give him something at least semi-close to what he wants.

Another thing too, what happens when a 22 year-old guy hits, say, that $4.5M plateau with the Exhibit 5 rule, but it turns out to be one or two flukey seasons? Its obviously rare that a guy that young will sign for less money when he renegotiates, but (assuming he pumped his stats while he was 21-22, say) what if there's a major drop off in his production in his 23-24 year-old years and his contract is up? Does his salary drop at all or go up in his new one? What about the same situation, but he's 27 and looking to sign his next deal? Would the Connolly example of a salary drop take place?

Hopefully I worded it well enough to understand, and I'm sure the answer is staring me in the face, but I tend to miss the obvious. Not poo-pooing the idea, just throwing some thoughts/scenarios out there.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:25 pm**

The biggest thing, Nick, is to handle the short-term. I also forgot to mention the cap on contract lengths.

With our sim schedule, we're talking a lot of max 4 year contracts here. That's 2015. I have no idea what any of us will be doing then. If we need to create a new solution for the next round of contracts, then we'll have to do that.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:33 pm**

Solid point. I guess we're all used to cruising through 20 seasons in EHM at the drop of a hat that our real-time schedule didn't dawn on me.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:39 pm**

Will salaries be adjusted for contract length? i.e. a one-year deal with less money to give more time for the player to prove himself versus a longer deal at market price? I remember this being talked about a bit yesterday, but wasn't sure.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:41 pm**

CapsGM wrote:Will salaries be adjusted for contract length? i.e. a one-year deal with less money to give more time for the player to prove himself versus a longer deal at market price? I remember this being talked about a bit yesterday, but wasn't sure.

It can be discussed. The problem is there is no player representation. So unless it was strictly regulated, everyone would sign guys year-by-year to save money on the cap. If there's a way to make it work, I'm for the realism.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:58 pm**

CapsGM wrote:Will salaries be adjusted for contract length? i.e. a one-year deal with less money to give more time for the player to prove himself versus a longer deal at market price? I remember this being talked about a bit yesterday, but wasn't sure.

Thinking about how this happens in the NHL... players don't know for sure they will develop to be 80 OV monsters when they're 21 and still ~70 OV, but if they've shown some promise and/or were drafted high they may still ask to be paid based on their potential. Or they might accept a smaller, short term contract in the hopes of cashing in big time the next year.

A simple example is for a guy coming off his ELC who's 72ish now and may reach 77.Hhe'll be worth maybe 3.5m at his ceiling. So normally a contract would be 4 years x 3.5m = 13m. Say if you commit to 3-4 years you get a 20% discount so it's only 2.8m. Alternately, you can offer a 1 year deal at the player's current ability, maybe worth 1.5m, knowing that the following season the player will be in for an even bigger raise, say 4 million or so. So for the sum of those 4 years, the total cap hit is the original 13m with no discount. It would have to be balanced so the total cap hit is larger for those who take the 1 season discount, because people naturally won't care very much about what happens 4 years from now. But I think there should be a way to tweak the numbers so there's a real choice between long and short term deals.

The other thing I mentioned last night that I'm concerned about is basing everything around raises. I think this makes some sense for guys negotiating their 3rd or 4th contracts - they are established players by then. But youngsters coming off their ELCs? Not so much. A 3rd round pick who just put up a PPG season isn't going to care that his base salary was just 400k when negotiating a new deal. I'm more in favour of just basing it on OV entirely, or at least adjusting the formulae so the new salary doesn't depend that much on their original one.

Another thing I'd suggest is that for the single stat bonuses, rather than just saying 80+ = 200k+, have a similar sliding scale of bonuses - 75+ is worth 100k, 80+ worth 150k, 85+ = 200, 90+ = 250, etc. It just nails down the whole specialists = worth more thing.

In general I would suggest not worrying about how complicated the formulas are. I can whip up something to calculate new contract values in no time. Hell, even basing it on stats is not that difficult - statistics.ehm is not really much harder to read than players.ehm.

I like the idea of Exhibit 5 bonuses. In fact, I'd prefer to see them used over fixed draft pick salaries in some way. Granted in the NHL it doesn't really matter if players hit their bonuses or not, since you need to make cap room for them either way. The one element it does add is that teams can regain cap space if it becomes impossible for the player to reach the bonus, which I think only really applies to a games played bonus. So I'm not sure what to do here. I like the idea of being able to pick a certain number of bonuses from the list when you sign a player, since that's more or less what happens in the NHL, but I'm not sure how to make this work.

There was something else I was going to mention but I forgot about it while writing this. Maybe about what each of the stats are worth - they're definitely not all equally important. I wouldn't pay extra for a 72 OV player with 100 CON, or a defenseman/50 DEF winger with 100 in faceoffs, but that's more nitty gritty details.

Oh yeah, and the existing exhibit 5 bonuses may need some additions/omissions to reflect how TA/GA are an important stat in this league (and worthless in the NHL) so defensive specialists can earn something other than icetime bonuses.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:16 am**

I think these "bonuses" should be performance-based, not attribute based. If he's a defensive specialist, take into account how he did in those defensive categories before determining a bonus. If he's an offensive "specialist" did he put up 30 goals? Did he put up 60 points (which I think is a minimum for a top 6 player) That's how it's done in real life, and if we're striving for that, might as well mimic it in that way.

There's always players in EHM that will over-perform, and under-perform. Which is why I suggest making it performance-based. There would be nothing more frustrating having an 82 OF, 70 DEF forward making $3M because he's 82 OF and him putting up 45 points in a season. If we're not making it performance-based, then for sure, making it possible that if they put up these "off-seasons" that they get decreased.

It's also going to get awfully expensive to actually use your draft picks. Which I guess in real life, they do end up making a decent chunk of money but they should have to prove something first. That's not really my issue with this though, my issue is that it's going to get very very expensive to field 3rd/4th liners. Yes, we're going to have a lot more quality players hitting FA market, but also a lot of them will sit there and rot because no one will be able to afford the $3M to sign them.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:24 am**

I like it, it freaking sucks for Stamkos though lol. It'll take some getting used to though. I think we should keep track of players attributes and if his skills decline he should have to take a salary cut.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:59 am**

The problem with performance-based bonuses (bonii?) is that it is a lot easier to intentionally hold back a player's performance than his attribute development in order to qualify a player for a lowball contract. Say Martin Hanzal's contract is coming up for renewal and I decide he's only going to play on the fourth line (or be sent to the farm) in order to prevent him from hitting any performance milestones. Also, a really weak team will end up with some crappy overpaid players because a 72OA 1st line player is still likely to produce 65 points on the season regardless of whether he has any business playing there. I think this was the general consensus of the guys at the Town Hall meeting; someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:16 pm**

Good stuff, guys. I'm heading out now, but I'll address these posts in a couple hours when I get back.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:27 pm**

Parker wrote:The problem with performance-based bonuses (bonii?) is that it is a lot easier to intentionally hold back a player's performance than his attribute development in order to qualify a player for a lowball contract. Say Martin Hanzal's contract is coming up for renewal and I decide he's only going to play on the fourth line (or be sent to the farm) in order to prevent him from hitting any performance milestones. Also, a really weak team will end up with some crappy overpaid players because a 72OA 1st line player is still likely to produce 65 points on the season regardless of whether he has any business playing there. I think this was the general consensus of the guys at the Town Hall meeting; someone correct me if I'm wrong.

None of that is unrealistic, though. If you're holding back a player who's producing well to avoid him hitting a bonus, well, you're handicapping your own team. It's a reasonable strategic choice, although it doesn't incorporate the more realistic view that a player would be unlikely to want to re-sign if this happened to them. The other point about a weak player producing on a bad team happens all the time and is part of the negotiation process in arbitration. Basing it on performance is quite realistic, because from what I understand in arbitration hearings they spend a while discussing comparable contracts, and it's usually only the GM who might bring up something attribute based (like video replays of the player having terrible positioning, weak skating, etc.).

The other thing is that in the NHL, Exhibit 5 bonuses for rookies are basically mandatory. As far as I understand, UFAs can't get performance bonuses unless they're in special situations (coming out of retirement, serious injury, etc.), and RFAs are a mixed bag. So the clear solution to me for bonuses as to have at least some level of GM discretion - then you know what risks you're taking and it's your own damn fault if the player hits all of their bonuses.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:22 pm**

Discretion can always be used in either circumstance. If the league brass is aware, (I'll use you with Hanzal as an example) you're stashing Hanzal down on the 4th line (or even worse) the AHL. I would say they would be able to use that as a determining factor in his next contract. You'd also be hurting your team in the process, but, I mean, maybe you think it's for the best to hold Hanzal back. Like I said, I think there would be some discretion used if said scenario came up.

I've seen a lot, a lot of players on different teams that will say be like, 78-70 or something (not in this file particularly, but I'm referring to ITC since I was there for about 6 years real life) and he will outscore a forward that is say 83-72. On my team, I had Blake Wheeler who was something like 78-74 on that team, and he would constantly put up between 50-60 points playing on third line ice time only. No PP time, no SH time (although that would barely count) and he would obviously outscore a lot of "better" players attribute wise. There was also a player called Brad Shaindlin, that everyone ragged on me was not good enough to be playing on my team, who was always challenging for the cup, but I kept him because he would put up very close to a point-per-game as a 80/62 forward. His linemates were around the same as well, so it wasn't like I stashed him with some 90+ offensive guys and he Henrik Sedin'd it. With that, I mean he didn't have 4x as many assists as goals.

You look at Tomas Plekanec in this file, on my team last year. He's a 73/67 forward (making a ridiculous $3.5M), and he put up over 50 points last year. If you would have told me that before the season started I would have laughed. I find, for whatever reason, EHM always has players on everyone's team that will perform past what you would think out of their attributes, and players that are underperforming to their attributes.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:43 pm**

I'll have an update on this closer to 10 when I sim. Gotta go ref two games among other shit. Sorry for the delayed response, guys.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:15 am**

Alright, let's try and answer some of these points.

I'm more in favour of just basing it on OV entirely, or at least adjusting the formulae so the new salary doesn't depend that much on their original one.

I'm not a big fan of basing it on OV, because there are guys like Luke Schenn, for example, who get shafted on OA because they suck so much offensively, but are defensive juggernauts. The old salary is in play because it gives a basis for a raise, and probably a realistic one at that.

Another thing I'd suggest is that for the single stat bonuses, rather than just saying 80+ = 200k+, have a similar sliding scale of bonuses - 75+ is worth 100k, 80+ worth 150k, 85+ = 200, 90+ = 250, etc. It just nails down the whole specialists = worth more thing.

This is reasonable. I've been thinking that the +5 OF/DF thing is largely inaccurate. It would label Backes as a "defensive specialist" when clearly he's a very two-way player. There are plenty more examples league-wide.

There was something else I was going to mention but I forgot about it while writing this. Maybe about what each of the stats are worth - they're definitely not all equally important. I wouldn't pay extra for a 72 OV player with 100 CON, or a defenseman/50 DEF winger with 100 in faceoffs, but that's more nitty gritty details.

Maybe not, but you don't think that the salaries of guys like Manny Malhotra and Sami Pahlsson, even Rod Brind'Amour, aren't inflated because of their ability to win faceoffs? Or some players don't get better contracts because they're tremendous skaters? Maybe the attribute bonuses for things like endurance or penalty are a little extreme, but I certainly think that there's a lot of value to a handful of them.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There's always players in EHM that will over-perform, and under-perform. Which is why I suggest making it performance-based. There would be nothing more frustrating having an 82 OF, 70 DEF forward making $3M because he's 82 OF and him putting up 45 points in a season. If we're not making it performance-based, then for sure, making it possible that if they put up these "off-seasons" that they get decreased.

But this is very realistic. Guy in a contract year has a huge season and then regresses. Happens more in other sports than hockey, but it's a very regular occurrence. In fact, I'd argue that going strictly off performance is somewhat unrealistic. Guys are paid what their potential value is, not necessarily what their statistical value is. Otherwise guys like Scott Gomez wouldn't have made 7.5M a season.

Frustrating? Yes. But does it happen in real-life? Absolutely.

It's also going to get awfully expensive to actually use your draft picks. Which I guess in real life, they do end up making a decent chunk of money but they should have to prove something first. That's not really my issue with this though, my issue is that it's going to get very very expensive to field 3rd/4th liners. Yes, we're going to have a lot more quality players hitting FA market, but also a lot of them will sit there and rot because no one will be able to afford the $3M to sign them.

In terms of the draft pick discussion, again, unlike the NHL, 1st and 2nd round picks will not bust. They'd likely reach a large portion of those Exhibit 5 bonuses anyway. This just heads it off at the pass.

As for the expensive 3rd/4th liners, yeah, I can see that argument. It's something I'll continue to work on.

I'll answer the other stuff in a little bit or tomorrow.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:49 am**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Alright, let's try and answer some of these points.

I'm more in favour of just basing it on OV entirely, or at least adjusting the formulae so the new salary doesn't depend that much on their original one.
I'm not a big fan of basing it on OV, because there are guys like Luke Schenn, for example, who get shafted on OA because they suck so much offensively, but are defensive juggernauts. The old salary is in play because it gives a basis for a raise, and probably a realistic one at that.

Sure, but as long as there are individual stat and 'specialist' bonuses (which Schenn would get a lot of) it doesn't matter as much. It's not fair to completely disregard a specialist's deficiencies

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Maybe not, but you don't think that the salaries of guys like Manny Malhotra and Sami Pahlsson, even Rod Brind'Amour, aren't inflated because of their ability to win faceoffs? Or some players don't get better contracts because they're tremendous skaters? Maybe the attribute bonuses for things like endurance or penalty are a little extreme, but I certainly think that there's a lot of value to a handful of them.

Faceoff ability is definitely valuable. But I meant more along the lines that certain combinations of stats are more valuable. A 100 FA, 50 DF forward is nowhere near as valuable as a 100 FA, 70 DF forward. Or more simply, a single super high stat here or there isn't necessarily going to make for a good player. Rico Fata would have 100 SK if he were in the file; I don't think anyone would pay him big bucks based just on that.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:But this is very realistic. Guy in a contract year has a huge season and then regresses. Happens more in other sports than hockey, but it's a very regular occurrence. In fact, I'd argue that going strictly off performance is somewhat unrealistic. Guys are paid what their potential value is, not necessarily what their statistical value is. Otherwise guys like Scott Gomez wouldn't have made 7.5M a season.

Both are important, though. With UFAs I would argue it's almost entirely based off production, although GMs don't necessarily look at their last season or their average performance but wishfully/lustfully look at their best seasons and pay based on that. Gomez had a monster career year in '05-'06 but didn't get his huge pay day until another season after that. I think it was as much Sather saying 'oh boy if Gomez could play like that again he'd be worth 7M' as much as thinking 'wow Gomez has great playmaking skills, he could get 100 points setting up Jagr'.

The thing is there are no real surprises with attributes in EHM; there are with production though. It's tough to say which should be rewarded more. Should Hanzal or Korpikoski get huge raises for their ~PPG seasons, despite not having particularly eye-popping attributes? I don't even know the answer to that, but over/under achieving certainly wouldn't go entirely unnoticed.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote: In terms of the draft pick discussion, again, unlike the NHL, 1st and 2nd round picks will not bust. They'd likely reach a large portion of those Exhibit 5 bonuses anyway. This just heads it off at the pass.

As for the expensive 3rd/4th liners, yeah, I can see that argument. It's something I'll continue to work on.

Right. I guess the problem is that GMs need a way to underpay players. Just like the NHL we have UFAs that can do that (or bite us in the ass if they're overpaid). However if all young players are getting paid fixed salaries, it's hard to find any bargains there. It's true that EHM is unlike the NHL in that players don't develop out of nowhere; it's entirely predictable. Still, NHL teams build contenders mostly by getting young, cheap players to peak alongside bargain vets at the same time. Carolina did it more with UFAs/veterans, while Chicago milked their young players pretty much the year before they were all due raises. I think we need to figure out a way to get both parts of that equation working to keep things fair and interesting. That's why I suggested some GM choice in bonuses; that allows for some strategy in when to bring up young players. Same thing with varying salaries based on age/contract term.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:11 pm**

Dan, none of these proposed changes are UFA-relevant yet. They're all contract extension terms. The UFA system, IMO, seemed to work relatively well last year and I don't see a major overhaul of that. Especially if these new contract extension things are going to produce more quality FAs. The fact is, teams are going to have to be more cost-conscious and that should naturally regulate FA salaries.

And, on Schenn, as it's written now, the 80+ attribute bonus only counts for the supplemental stats, not the six main. So even if he's 80+ in CH, PO, and HI, that already counts for his average and doesn't get counted a second time.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:19 pm**

Since were going for realism, what about home town discounts? If were going to use GM's to bargain for players or not, if a player has played his whole career with one team (or a really long time) could the idea of signing a certain % less of his market value be thought about?

So the 250k bonus for having a +80 attribute don't apply to SHT, STK, PM, CHK, POS and HIT? What do you think of changing 80 to 85 min? It is obv kinda of nitty, but I consider a 90 to be an elite skill and 85 very good. An 80 rating in a attribute will become almost average in a top 6 player over the next couple of seasons with the monsters lurking in the AHL.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:49 pm**

85 min is doable. So is a sliding scale like what Dan proposed.

The problem with performance-based bonuses (bonii?) is that it is a lot easier to intentionally hold back a player's performance than his attribute development in order to qualify a player for a lowball contract. Say Martin Hanzal's contract is coming up for renewal and I decide he's only going to play on the fourth line (or be sent to the farm) in order to prevent him from hitting any performance milestones. Also, a really weak team will end up with some crappy overpaid players because a 72OA 1st line player is still likely to produce 65 points on the season regardless of whether he has any business playing there. I think this was the general consensus of the guys at the Town Hall meeting; someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I get the argument about crappy overpaid players, but that happens in real life, too. And, to top it off, IMO, the best players on bad teams get overpaid because they look so much better than everyone else. I don't think that's unreasonable. Not to mention, with our cap floor, there's nothing wrong with having a couple of overpaid guys on a roster. Just like a guy who puts up 65 pts because they play with Joe Thornton and Alexander Radulov would probably get paid more even though he's not on their level.

My biggest issue with changing it from attribute-based to performance-based is two-fold. The first is the fear of obvious tanking by teams. They'll try and hide under the guise of stunting a player to avoid him hitting a performance bonus, but that just gives them more reason to shit the bed for a better draft pick. I'm not a big supporter of that. The other is that it would be unfair to teams with the luxury to do that as opposed to teams who can't. Could I or SJ or TB bench a player easier than a team fighting for 8th can? Absolutely. Whether it's because I have enough of a lead or because I have enough depth. I'm not sure that's fair to middle-of-the-pack teams.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

None of that is unrealistic, though. If you're holding back a player who's producing well to avoid him hitting a bonus, well, you're handicapping your own team. It's a reasonable strategic choice, although it doesn't incorporate the more realistic view that a player would be unlikely to want to re-sign if this happened to them. The other point about a weak player producing on a bad team happens all the time and is part of the negotiation process in arbitration. Basing it on performance is quite realistic, because from what I understand in arbitration hearings they spend a while discussing comparable contracts, and it's usually only the GM who might bring up something attribute based (like video replays of the player having terrible positioning, weak skating, etc.).

But, like I said above, it's subjective. Some teams have the luxury to do it. Others don't. If they don't, that inherently makes the system unfair. And, quite frankly, I think it's a fair system. Again, the bonuses we're talking about ONLY apply to the 2010 Draft Class and the players under-25 signed after EHEC began. We're not talking about the entire roster. So these bonuses encompass a relatively small percentage of the players. The sole purpose of the bonuses is to get the salaries to the point where they rightfully should be for those players. To fix the wrongs of the previous financial system.

The bonuses will in no way affect contract extensions for players who were signed prior to EHEC or to players over 25 who were signed after EHEC began. It's to fix the ELC and second-contract problems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You look at Tomas Plekanec in this file, on my team last year. He's a 73/67 forward (making a ridiculous $3.5M), and he put up over 50 points last year. If you would have told me that before the season started I would have laughed. I find, for whatever reason, EHM always has players on everyone's team that will perform past what you would think out of their attributes, and players that are underperforming to their attributes.

No different from real life. There are over and underachievers. What I'll need to do when I get a little bit of time is look at a bigger percentage of the guys who are eligible for contracts this year and determine how many of them are going to be pretty far off from what I think is fair market value. Obviously each GM is going to have their own opinion on what is fair market value for a player, but with the way EHM works, a guy could jump from 45 pts to 75 pts with different linemates. Because of it's numerical nature, everything can be successful if you get the right number combination together. So that's up to you. Some guys in EHM are capable of putting up 75 pts while in real life they'd never get above 50. That has to be taken in to account as well. Basically, attribute-based over performance-based.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not fair to completely disregard a specialist's deficiencies

No, it isn't. That's why it's the (OF + DF) / 2 average as the determining factor. David Backes as a 75-80 guy deserves more than Luke Schenn as a 54-84 guy or whatever he is. That's why the average comes in to play. There could be a "specialists" scale where somebody like a Derick Brassard or Nikita Filatov would get a bigger bonus as an offensive specialist because a 15 pt difference in OF over DF should be graded differently than a 5 pt difference. Similarly for a guy like Schenn with a 30 pt difference. The deficiencies dictate the OF/DF average. So they're clearly taken in to account.

Faceoff ability is definitely valuable. But I meant more along the lines that certain combinations of stats are more valuable. A 100 FA, 50 DF forward is nowhere near as valuable as a 100 FA, 70 DF forward. Or more simply, a single super high stat here or there isn't necessarily going to make for a good player. Rico Fata would have 100 SK if he were in the file; I don't think anyone would pay him big bucks based just on that.

Again, the higher DF forward = the higher percentage increase. I see the point that you're making, but even an extra 250k to the 50 DF forward would be pretty inconsequential. And at the end of the day, how many enormous discrepancies like that are we going to have? The 100 FA 50 DF guy will sit in UFA waiting to be assigned to an AHL team.

Both are important, though. With UFAs I would argue it's almost entirely based off production, although GMs don't necessarily look at their last season or their average performance but wishfully/lustfully look at their best seasons and pay based on that. Gomez had a monster career year in '05-'06 but didn't get his huge pay day until another season after that. I think it was as much Sather saying 'oh boy if Gomez could play like that again he'd be worth 7M' as much as thinking 'wow Gomez has great playmaking skills, he could get 100 points setting up Jagr'.

The thing is there are no real surprises with attributes in EHM; there are with production though. It's tough to say which should be rewarded more. Should Hanzal or Korpikoski get huge raises for their ~PPG seasons, despite not having particularly eye-popping attributes? I don't even know the answer to that, but over/under achieving certainly wouldn't go entirely unnoticed.

There are bargains and there are overpayments in real life and there will be here. I'd assume that every team has a guy like Hanzal/Korpikoski who is putting up tremendous numbers with marginal attributes. Those guys will just hold more value.

We cannot take all of the variability out of the game. Sure, the percentage increases are the same, but the players are not. Like I said above, everything is numbers-based in EHM. There aren't the same level of variables like real-life. If you can crack the code, then a bargain contract is your reward. I don't see where that's unreasonable.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:49 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:And, on Schenn, as it's written now, the 80+ attribute bonus only counts for the supplemental stats, not the six main. So even if he's 80+ in CH, PO, and HI, that already counts for his average and doesn't get counted a second time.

Ok. Then the only other thing I would concerned with is the specialist tag. Suppose you have two otherwise identical players with the following 'big six' ratings:

75 75 75 71 71 71 = 73 average
75 75 75 69 69 69 = 71 average

One gets the specialist tag and a 500k higher salary despite being objectively worse because he falls in the same OF/DF bracket. This is not really sensible. You can solve it somewhat by making smaller brackets, but I would instead suggest basing the specialist tag on the maximum of OF/DF rather than the difference between them. That would also have the desirable side effect of making the following players worth different amounts:

50 50 50 80 80 80 = 65 average
40 40 40 90 90 90 = 65 average
30 30 30 100 100 100 = 65 average

All three are extreme examples of specialists, but if there are no individual attribute bonuses for the big six, then they would be worth the same amount. We can debate whether they are worth the same, but I think most of us would agree that a 30 OF 100 DF player is more desirable than 50 OF 80 DF. Maybe it's not as cut and dry for 50/100 vs 60/90 or 40/100 vs 60/70, but still.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:56 pm**

SharksGM wrote:Ok. Then the only other thing I would concerned with is the specialist tag. Suppose you have two otherwise identical players with the following 'big six' ratings:

75 75 75 71 71 71 = 73 average
75 75 75 69 69 69 = 71 average

One gets the specialist tag and a 500k higher salary despite being objectively worse because he falls in the same OF/DF bracket. This is not really sensible. You can solve it somewhat by making smaller brackets, but I would instead suggest basing the specialist tag on the maximum of OF/DF rather than the difference between them. That would also have the desirable side effect of making the following players worth different amounts.

Reasonable point. Which is what I took in to account in my previous post which you obviously couldn't have read yet since this was posted so close behind it. The 5 pt gap is a bit too small, I agree with that sentiment. If we're looking more like 8 or 10+, I think it's a much more thought-out system.

50 50 50 80 80 80 = 65 average
40 40 40 90 90 90 = 65 average
30 30 30 100 100 100 = 65 average

All three are extreme examples of specialists, but if there are no individual attribute bonuses for the big six, then they would be worth the same amount. We can debate whether they are worth the same, but I think most of us would agree that a 30 OF 100 DF player is more desirable than 50 OF 80 DF. Maybe it's not as cut and dry for 50/100 vs 60/90 or 40/100 vs 60/70, but still.

I get the overall point that you're making, but this is not an occurrence in EHM. I know the theory you're presenting, but it's a gross misrepresentation of the concept. Completely unwarranted, especially when compared to the more reasonable example above.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:01 pm**

Still not sure about this

So the 250k bonus for having a +80 attribute don't apply to SHT, STK, PM, CHK, POS and HIT?

.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:21 pm**

Tampa Bay GM wrote:Still not sure about this
So the 250k bonus for having a +80 attribute don't apply to SHT, STK, PM, CHK, POS and HIT?
.

It was addressed earlier in the thread. Because those main 6 already account for the average, they do not count for the bonus. The bonuses are for supplementary stats (including CON) only.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:22 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:I get the overall point that you're making, but this is not an occurrence in EHM. I know the theory you're presenting, but it's a gross misrepresentation of the concept. Completely unwarranted, especially when compared to the more reasonable example above.

Ok, I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense at this, but what I really mean is that a high OFF/DEF rating is what the specialist tag seems to be getting at. Schenn's a defensive specialist because his DEF is huge, not mainly because his OFF sucks. It's both semantics and math, but if I wanted to find someone great on the PK I would go sort players by DEF rather than DEF-OFF.

Another way I would suggest doing it is making OV = (OFF+DEF+max(DEF,OFF))/3, or some variation thereof. So 75/75 = 75 OV, 80/70 = 76.7, 90/60 = 80 OV, etc.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:28 pm**

SharksGM wrote:Ok, I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense at this, but what I really mean is that a high OFF/DEF rating is what the specialist tag seems to be getting at. Schenn's a defensive specialist because his DEF is huge, not mainly because his OFF sucks. It's both semantics and math, but if I wanted to find someone great on the PK I would go sort players by DEF rather than DEF-OFF.

Another way I would suggest doing it is making OV = (OFF+DEF+max(DEF,OFF))/3, or some variation thereof. So 75/75 = 75 OV, 80/70 = 76.7, 90/60 = 80 OV, etc.

Not taking any offense whatsoever. Just wanted to make my feelings clear. If there's going to be criticism, constructive is the way to go. Not something completely impossible to try and prove a point.

What do you mean by "max"? I'm not clear on that.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:33 pm**

I mean the maximum of DEF and OFF, so in that case the higher of OFF/DEF is weighted by 2/3 and the lower by 1/3. A straight up average is just .50/.50. Those ratios can also vary based on, well, anything really, although I think that's unnecessarily complicated.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:13 pm**

I think it's an awesome idea. A few more things...

- didn't hear ur thoughts on home town discounts.

- I think the the % scale towards 70-85 off/def players makin over 2m is a little to high. Draftees and the rest look spot on.

- now that I understand the specialist thing, make a 1m/500k bonus for elite specialists for a single off/def attribute 10-15 points above his off/def #?

- franchising a player = good idea, any special rules with negotiating with one? Possible home town discount, I.e stamkos.

- i would like to see a scale using max contract length/year salary. This system would make things inflated if all contracts r 4 yrs or less. I think 7-8 yr deals should b an option for deals 5-6m+ IMO.

- EHEC >>>>>>> fantasy hockey

Posted: **Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:11 pm**

I would be in favour of of making the 80 min for determining bonuses to 85. I would agree with Justin that if we're going to be at this for a few more years (at the least), then 80 guys in OF or DEF are going to become a lot more normal than a 85 OF/DEF guy. (obviously).

Posted: **Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:11 pm**

I'll answer these questions tonight. Had a late night last night a couple hours away at a buddy's house (explains the lack of a sim last night). Sorry guys.

Posted: **Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:53 pm**

I don't know if this has been discussed, but should deficiencies be taken into account? I'm talking about the non-big six stats (and obviously leadership, fighting, faceoffs for non-centers, etc. excluded). If there's bonuses for high attributes then maybe low attributes should be penalized, i.e. -$100k for a <55 stat to take into account poor skating/discipline/consistency.

Posted: **Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:01 pm**

Tampa Bay GM wrote:I think it's an awesome idea. A few more things...

- didn't hear ur thoughts on home town discounts.

No. See franchise tag.

- I think the the % scale towards 70-85 off/def players makin over 2m is a little to high. Draftees and the rest look spot on.

Has to be. Too many good players being underpaid. Especially looking past this offseason and in to next when the 3 year ELC real-life deals are ending.

- now that I understand the specialist thing, make a 1m/500k bonus for elite specialists for a single off/def attribute 10-15 points above his off/def #?

Will be reviewed. The +5 is too small a gap.

- franchising a player = good idea, any special rules with negotiating with one? Possible home town discount, I.e stamkos.

Franchise tag = hometown discount. Similarly, might do one for guys looking at 10+ years with same team. Nothing else. Pro sports are greedy.

- i would like to see a scale using max contract length/year salary. This system would make things inflated if all contracts r 4 yrs or less. I think 7-8 yr deals should b an option for deals 5-6m+ IMO.

Not going to lie, I don't see any merit to 7-8 year deals. Why? Because who knows what the league will be doing in 7 years. Capping them at 4, maybe 5, and fixing a problem. We'll fix another problem down the line if it becomes one. Especially in the case of players who fall into the raise system and only want 1-2 year deals. That will be something we'll need to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. IE, where the arbitrator concept may come in to play.

- EHEC >>>>>>> fantasy hockey

Thanks.

Posted: **Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:02 pm**

Montreal Canadiens wrote:I would be in favour of of making the 80 min for determining bonuses to 85. I would agree with Justin that if we're going to be at this for a few more years (at the least), then 80 guys in OF or DEF are going to become a lot more normal than a 85 OF/DEF guy. (obviously).

Mentioned above, but yes, 80 may be a bit low. Probably looking at 85 min or some sort of scaled system that would begin at 80.

Posted: **Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:04 pm**

CapsGM wrote:I don't know if this has been discussed, but should deficiencies be taken into account? I'm talking about the non-big six stats (and obviously leadership, fighting, faceoffs for non-centers, etc. excluded). If there's bonuses for high attributes then maybe low attributes should be penalized, i.e. -$100k for a <55 stat to take into account poor skating/discipline/consistency.

On some level, though, I don't want to do that because it's up to you to evaluate if you want to pay a player under the current system. If I start making deductions and scaling things back, then it's going to be easier to just keep everybody. The point of this is to have to make decisions and to fix the low salaries that we were burdened with at the start from not having a good financial system in place to begin with.

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:46 pm**

Here's a table of what minimum salaries are for the brackets posted above.

I made up some brackets from < 70 OV; they are 0-1, 1-2, 2+ with raises of 25%, 0%, -25%.
After thinking about it some more they should probably be more like <600k = 25%, 600k-1.2M = 15%, 1.2M-1.6M = 10%, 1.6-2.4=0%; 2.4M+ = -20%, with the idea that low OV players are subject to roughly the minimum 10% raises for a qualifying offer unless they're terribly over/underpaid. But that's all for the committee to decide.

Anyways, salaries are in millions of $. You read off the chart by OV from the side and previous salary at the top; the new salary is the contents of the table.

Code: Select all

SA	0.4	0.8	1.2	1.6	2	2.4	2.8	3.2	3.6	4	4.4	4.8	5.2	5.6	6	6.4	6.8	7.2	7.6	8	8.4	8.8
OV
65	0.5	1	1.2	1.6	1.5	1.8	2.1	2.4	2.7	3	3.3	3.6	3.9	4.2	4.5	4.8	5.1	5.4	5.7	6	6.3	6.6	
67	0.5	1	1.2	1.6	1.5	1.8	2.1	2.4	2.7	3	3.3	3.6	3.9	4.2	4.5	4.8	5.1	5.4	5.7	6	6.3	6.6	
69	0.5	1	1.2	1.6	1.5	1.8	2.1	2.4	2.7	3	3.3	3.6	3.9	4.2	4.5	4.8	5.1	5.4	5.7	6	6.3	6.6	
71	0.8	1.6	2.1	2.8	3	3.6	4.2	4	4.5	5	5.5	6	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
73	0.8	1.6	2.1	2.8	3	3.6	4.2	4	4.5	5	5.5	6	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
75	1.6	3.2	3	4	3.5	4.2	4.9	4.8	5.4	5	5.5	6	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
77	1.6	3.2	3	4	3.5	4.2	4.9	4.8	5.4	5	5.5	6	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
79	1.6	3.2	3	4	3.5	4.2	4.9	4.8	5.4	5	5.5	6	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
81	2	4	4.2	5.6	6	7.2	8.4	6.4	7.2	6	6.6	7.2	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
83	2	4	4.2	5.6	6	7.2	8.4	6.4	7.2	6	6.6	7.2	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
85	2.4	4.8	4.8	6.4	6	7.2	8.4	6.4	7.2	6	6.6	7.2	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
87	2.4	4.8	4.8	6.4	6	7.2	8.4	6.4	7.2	6	6.6	7.2	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11	
89	2.4	4.8	4.8	6.4	6	7.2	8.4	6.4	7.2	6	6.6	7.2	6.5	7	7.5	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.5	11

In principle I think they are fine. I would like to see more brackets in the 70-80 range because that's where the bulk of players are going to lie; there's a huge jump from 74 OV to 75-76 OV. This could also be resolved by making this just a smooth function of overall/previous salary. It would be a pain in the ass to come up with a function like that, sure, but so is coming up with reasonable brackets and I don't see any intrinsic advantage to using brackets.

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:21 pm**

I would also suggest alternatives to signing low OV but high POT players - guys who are mid-high 60s now but should finish up in the low-mid 70s. That particular development area can be slow for 7 pot guys and it's possible that their minimum salaries will be above 1.2M. For example, a <70 OV player with a 70-72OV ceiling who makes over $600k right now is due a 100% raise and will make over $1.2M on their next contract, meaning they'll be ineligible to play on the farm.

One example is a guy like Alec Martinez. Right now he's a good farm defenseman and nothing more, making $875k on the last year of his contract. He'll finish up at 71-72OV (but see below for some qualifiers to that). So by the formula he's due to make 1.75 million. Is he worth that much? Certainly not the way he is right now; with another year of development and more like 72 OFF/70 DF ratings maybe. What I'd like to see is an option to sign him at $1.2M for one more year of farm action (no team/player option either). Either this can be from tweaking of the brackets or an option to sign players short term (1-2 years) at somewhere between their current and expected OV. The former is obviously easier while the latter is more difficult to accomplish but I would argue more realistic.

Back on the subject of Mr. Martinez; while he's scheduled to develop into 70+ OFF and DEF he's also going to be way above his ceilings on DEF+SK (which is why I traded for him in the first place). If I were to use pot*ceil to figure out his OV, it would probably be below 70 and not an issue in the first place; however, he will actually exceed pot*ceil by quite a bit. Now I know for a fact that 7+ pot forwards can easily get up to their pot in ST regardless of what their actual ceiling is. Similarly, defensemen can develop CH+PO well above their ceilings to a max of POT. Some attributes also decay to POT level even if the ceiling is above 100 (almost everything except SH, PL and HI as far as I can tell). Players appear to be able to develop to their POT in certain ratings as long as that rating starts above POT*ceiling (I believe this was the case for Mr. Martinez). Some ratings will also not necessarily decay to the player's POT depending on their age. And finally, players can be stunted (sometimes permanently, sometimes not) by being kept in the AHL too long. If I knew exactly how all of these things worked I would be an EHM superstar; in practice I mostly just figured them out by simming ahead.

The point of all that is that pot*ceil isn't necessarily where a player's ratings will end up, even if you take into account modifiers to the ceilings. The system should have some flexibility to account for that, or maybe someone who's thoroughly tested this stuff can elaborate on how exactly it works.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
CapsGM wrote:I don't know if this has been discussed, but should deficiencies be taken into account? I'm talking about the non-big six stats (and obviously leadership, fighting, faceoffs for non-centers, etc. excluded). If there's bonuses for high attributes then maybe low attributes should be penalized, i.e. -$100k for a <55 stat to take into account poor skating/discipline/consistency.
On some level, though, I don't want to do that because it's up to you to evaluate if you want to pay a player under the current system. If I start making deductions and scaling things back, then it's going to be easier to just keep everybody. The point of this is to have to make decisions and to fix the low salaries that we were burdened with at the start from not having a good financial system in place to begin with.

I think CON should be treated differently from attributes, though. Players with 70+ CON are valued much more than 60ish, and I don't think a single $250k/$500k bonus covers that - especially for goalies. I guess we haven't really discussed goalies up to now but they're a good example of players where literally nothing matters besides POT and CON.

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:26 pm**

I can fastsim ahead 3-4 years and save and then use that as a baseline. If he doesn't make it there because you don't train him right or whatever, that's too bad.

I've been thinking about a different scale for high-CON, because you will be getting consistent play and that's worthwhile.

I'll re-evaluate the 70-74, but that bracket probably is too big. The difference between 74 and 70 is substantial. 80 and 76, not so much. Still a top two line guy. But 74 and 70 may be a change of two lines.

Either way, this will be done before I leave, whether it's perfect or not. So something will be done during the next week and it will have to be lived with. It'll still be an upgrade.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:24 am**

I tried to make up a formula that does more or less the same thing as the brackets above. Let me know if the results look reasonable.

Code: Select all

OV\SAL	0.40	0.80	1.20	1.60	2.00	2.40	2.80	3.20	3.60	4.00	4.40	4.80	5.20	5.60	6.00	6.40	6.80	7.20	7.60	8.00	8.40	8.80	
65.00	0.44	0.88	1.32	1.76	2.20	2.64	3.08	3.52	3.96	4.40	4.84	5.28	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
67.00	0.44	0.88	1.32	1.76	2.20	2.64	3.08	3.52	3.96	4.40	4.84	5.28	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
69.00	0.49	0.88	1.32	1.76	2.20	2.64	3.08	3.52	3.96	4.40	4.84	5.28	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
71.00	0.94	1.16	1.39	1.76	2.20	2.64	3.08	3.52	3.96	4.40	4.84	5.28	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
73.00	1.53	1.73	1.93	2.12	2.32	2.64	3.08	3.52	3.96	4.40	4.84	5.28	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
75.00	2.22	2.40	2.59	2.77	2.95	3.14	3.32	3.52	3.96	4.40	4.84	5.28	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
77.00	2.94	3.12	3.29	3.47	3.65	3.82	4.00	4.18	4.35	4.53	4.84	5.28	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
79.00	3.64	3.81	3.99	4.16	4.33	4.51	4.68	4.85	5.03	5.20	5.37	5.55	5.72	6.16	6.60	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
81.00	4.28	4.45	4.62	4.79	4.96	5.14	5.31	5.48	5.65	5.82	5.99	6.16	6.33	6.50	6.68	7.04	7.48	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
83.00	4.83	5.00	5.17	5.34	5.51	5.68	5.85	6.02	6.19	6.36	6.53	6.70	6.87	7.04	7.21	7.38	7.55	7.92	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
85.00	5.27	5.44	5.61	5.78	5.95	6.12	6.29	6.46	6.63	6.79	6.96	7.13	7.30	7.47	7.64	7.81	7.98	8.15	8.36	8.80	9.24	9.68	
87.00	5.60	5.77	5.94	6.11	6.27	6.44	6.61	6.78	6.95	7.12	7.28	7.45	7.62	7.79	7.96	8.13	8.29	8.46	8.63	8.80	9.24	9.68	
89.00	5.60	5.77	5.94	6.11	6.27	6.44	6.61	6.78	6.95	7.12	7.28	7.45	7.62	7.79	7.96	8.13	8.29	8.46	8.63	8.80	9.24	9.68

The basics of it: Each overall has a base worth, which increases slowly at very low OV and high OV and more rapidly around a medium OV (which I set to 75). Base worth goes from a minimum of 400k to a maximum of 8 million. The player then gets a minimum of 70% of this base worth up to 110%, depending on how much higher his current salary is than the minimum. So currently underpaid, presumably unproven players can be signed at a discount (= less of a raise) compared to an equivalent player earning decent money. There's also a minimum 10% qualifying offer. I think this accomplishes pretty much the same thing as raises with brackets, but in a somewhat more explicit and possibly confusing way. Thoughts?

I guess we never discussed the minimum raise other than Adam implying that overpaid, <70 OV players could be signed at a discount. I don't know if that's really realistic either; in the NHL as far as I understand the minimum 10% raise for a qualifying offer from the old CBA is still intact. The only reason an RFA would accept an offer below their qualifier is basically to give a hometown discount, which isn't being implemented.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:47 am**

PM me the percentages in the form that I have them written out further up in the thread so it's easier for me to understand.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:36 pm**

I think we should take a look at how we deal with players making over the AHL max. If you draft a pot booster in the 2nd round, he will have a min salary of 1m. So lets say you sign him, and he either misses the boost both years or it takes till the second year when he's 19. He plays his first AHL season with one year remaining on his deal. Unless he was an extremely developed JNR player it be debatable if he was NHL ready after 1 season in the AHL. Thats not factoring in injuries that could occur during the regular season, and players that play for a deep organization where NHL spots might not be ready/in no rush to call up young players.

After the first season, the 25% raise would take the base salary of said player to 1.25m making him ineligible to play in the AHL. It's not a big deal, but I think that kinda stinks and isn't realistic to have a 21 year old prospect be ineligible to play in the minors. Could we maybe look into changing it to something involving there age/GP in the AHL to determine exemptions from the 1.2m rule?

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:46 pm**

Tampa Bay GM wrote:I think we should take a look at how we deal with players making over the AHL max. If you draft a pot booster in the 2nd round, he will have a min salary of 1m. So lets say you sign him, and he either misses the boost both years or it takes till the second year when he's 19. He plays his first AHL season with one year remaining on his deal. Unless he was an extremely developed JNR player it be debatable if he was NHL ready after 1 season in the AHL. Thats not factoring in injuries that could occur during the regular season, and players that play for a deep organization where NHL spots might not be ready/in no rush to call up young players.

After the first season, the 25% raise would take the base salary of said player to 1.25m making him ineligible to play in the AHL. It's not a big deal, but I think that kinda stinks and isn't realistic to have a 21 year old prospect be ineligible to play in the minors. Could we maybe look into changing it to something involving there age/GP in the AHL to determine exemptions from the 1.2m rule?

I already said that draft picks do not count toward the 1.2M max. Read over the thread, Justin. Many of the answers to your questions have already been answered.

The exact wording reads underaged players. If after 3 years, he still sucks too much to be in the NHL, then there's a problem.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:21 pm**

The 2nd pro contract by the draftee wouldn't count for the 1.2m max either? I'm not talkin about the elc, it's three years after that (2 of those years being spent in junior).

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:24 pm**

Tampa Bay GM wrote:The 2nd pro contract by the draftee wouldn't count for the 1.2m max either? I'm not talkin about the elc, it's three years after that (2 of those years being spent in junior).

Regarding who? If the guy isn't in the NHL by 20 as a top two round pick, then there's something wrong. The entire point of the 1.2M is to prevent teams from storing overpaid guys on the farm. There's going to be provisions for younger guys and I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. If I failed to make that clear, my bad.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:07 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:PM me the percentages in the form that I have them written out further up in the thread so it's easier for me to understand.

Once I finish this program I'll send it out so everyone can use it. It won't take much effort to get it to output raise percentages instead of new salaries.

Anyhow, I finished writing up code that will calculate new salaries by the original system Adam proposed and some other alternatives. For now, here's a list of the new minimum salaries of key RFAs schedule to make over $1.5m based on their current stats. I have done absolutely nothing to account for any eventual stat improvement, so for the majority of players this is far less than their actual new salary will be.

The new salary includes any ratings bonuses and specialist bonuses. The ratings bonuses and specialist bonuses are listed in the last two columns as well for reference. You might note that I didn't count Backes as a specialist; his OFF is actually 75.6666 and DEF 80 and I didn't round either rating. This sort of thing is why I would advise against having a strict definition of a specialist and instead use a modified OV rating. (I might also add that in my opinion a defenseman with OFF=DEF is already a specialist; while I would consider something like DEF > OFF + 10 the condition for a defensive defenseman.)

Code: Select all

Name	OV	Current $		New $	Ratings bonuses	Specialist bonuses
Leclaire, Pascal	80	3.8	7.85	0.25	0
Weber, Shea	84.2	4.5	7.75	0.75	0.25
Koivu, Mikko	84	3.25	7.5	0.75	0.25
Carter, Jeff	77.4	5	7.5	0.75	0.5
Bergeron, Patrice	72.93	4.75	7.44	1	0.5
Seabrook, Brent	79.13	3.5	6	0.75	0
Parisé, Zach	78.53	3.12	5.94	0.75	0.5
Pitkänen, Joni	77.2	4	5.75	0.25	0.5
Backes, David	77.4	2.5	5.38	1	0
Williams, Justin	73.53	3.5	5.12	0.25	0.5
Mason, Steve	84.6	0.85	5	0.75	0
Stamkos, Steven	78.73	0.88	5	1	0.5
Varlamov, Simeon	82.6	0.82	4.86	0.75	0
Frolík, Michael	80.13	0.85	4.75	0.5	0
Sutter, Brandon	79.4	0.88	4.5	0.75	0.25
Pickard, Chet	80.6	0.88	4.38	0	0
Grebeshkov, Denis	70.6	3.25	4.31	0	0.25
Boychuk, Zach	75.07	0.88	4.25	0.25	0.5
Couture, Logan	76.47	0.88	4.25	0.5	0.25
Stafford, Drew	77.73	2	4.25	0.75	0
Helenius, Riku	81.33	0.82	4.11	0	0
Smith, Mike	78.33	2.2	4.1	0.25	0
Johnson, Jack	79.53	1.43	4.06	0.5	0
Hodgson, Cody	79.47	0.88	4	0.5	0
Connolly, Tim	69.67	4.5	3.88	0	0.5
Cheechoo, Jonathan	72.33	3	3.75	0	0
Byfuglien, Dustin	72.4	3	3.75	0	0
Doughty, Drew	77.93	0.88	3.75	0	0.25
Daley, Trevor	72.27	2.3	3.7	0	0.25
Bernier, Jonathan	76.47	0.84	3.62	0.25	0
McCollum, Thomas	77.27	0.88	3.5	0	0
Bernier, Steve	70.67	2	3.5	0.25	0.25
Callahan, Ryan	70.2	2.3	3.45	0	0
Anderson, Craig	73.4	1.8	3.4	0.25	0
Elliott, Brian	75.4	0.85	3.4	0	0
Enroth, Jhonas	75.87	0.85	3.4	0	0
Irving, Leland	76.27	0.85	3.4	0	0
Neuvirth, Michal	76.07	0.82	3.29	0	0
Dekanich, Mark	75.73	0.8	3.2	0	0
Stajan, Matt	73.07	2.1	3.15	0	0
Bieksa, Kevin	67.87	3.75	3.06	0	0.25
Filatov, Nikita	72.93	0.88	3	0.75	0.5
Vrbata, Radim	66.87	3	3	0.25	0.5
Wolski, Wojtek	67.93	3	3	0.25	0.5
Smid, Ladislav	70.67	1.35	2.86	0.25	0.25
Turris, Kyle	72.4	0.88	2.75	0.5	0.5
Boedker, Mikkel	72.07	0.88	2.75	0.5	0.5
Holtby, Braden	76.73	0.68	2.73	0	0
O'Sullivan, Patrick	66.27	2.92	2.69	0	0.5
Giroux, Claude	72.87	0.82	2.64	0.5	0.5
Ehrhoff, Christian	69.13	3.1	2.58	0	0.25
Bogosian, Zach	74.8	0.88	2.5	0.5	0.25
Voracek, Jakub	74.93	0.88	2.5	0.25	0.5
Jokinen, Jussi	69	1.7	2.45	0.25	0.5
Berglund, Patrik	71.33	0.85	2.45	0.75	0
Yandle, Keith	72.33	1.2	2.35	0	0.25
Schenn, Luke	71.07	0.88	2.25	0.25	0.25
Blum, Jonathon	74	0.88	2.25	0.5	0
Sbisa, Luca	71.53	0.88	2.25	0.25	0.25
Bailey, Josh	71.93	0.88	2.25	0.5	0
Anisimov, Artem	74.13	0.82	2.14	0	0.5
Alzner, Karl	66.93	0.88	2.09	0.75	0.25
Laich, Brooks	69.6	2.07	2.05	0.25	0.25
Hickey, Thomas	70.93	0.88	2	0.25	0
Kobasew, Chuck	68.67	2.33	2	0	0.25
Nilsson, Robert	69.47	2	2	0	0.5
Tangradi, Eric	70.53	0.88	2	0	0.25
Bishop, Ben	73	0.85	1.95	0.25	0
Eller, Lars	68.93	0.88	1.84	0.25	0.5
Gillies, Colton	66.47	0.88	1.84	0.5	0.25
Tokarski, Dustin	78	0.45	1.8	0	0
Allen, Jake	71.73	0.88	1.75	0	0
Tikhonov, Viktor	71.53	0.88	1.75	0	0
Miettinen, Antti	68.6	2.33	1.75	0	0
Grachev, Evgeny	71	0.88	1.75	0	0
Smith, Jeremy	74.07	0.88	1.75	0	0
Gervais, Bruno	70.07	0.74	1.73	0	0.25
Sexsmith, Tyson	72.47	0.86	1.72	0	0
Zatkoff, Jeff	74	0.85	1.7	0	0
Stoa, Ryan	72.8	0.85	1.7	0	0
LaRose, Chad	68.8	1.7	1.7	0	0
Howard, Jimmy	74.8	0.72	1.68	0.25	0
Prucha, Petr	66	1.1	1.6	0	0.5
Backlund, Mikael	65.8	0.88	1.59	0	0.5
Nödl, Andreas	65.13	0.85	1.56	0	0.5
Vishnevskiy, Ivan	66.2	0.85	1.56	0.25	0.25
Simmonds, Wayne	69.13	0.82	1.53	0.25	0.25
Ersberg, Erik	71.07	0.75	1.5	0	0

Granted, we've already discussed potential changes to the original system so I don't intend to alarm people or anything, but I do think that some things clearly need to be addressed. Goalies are one. I also don't think the specialist bonuses are enough for defensive defensemen - Luke Schenn surely is worth at least $3M even in the NHL, and he's rated a top 10 defensive d-man in EHEC which I would say is more like $4-5 M. Alzner deserves more too. Other salaries that popped out at me are Filatov (low in my opinion - HI is much more important for offensive forwards than CH/PO, so I put little stock in his low DF), Stajan (arguably worth his current salary; I would really hesitate to pay him $3m considering his performance), Berglund (dude is kicking all kinds of ass for his ratings - I suspect because of his 99 FA) and Bergeron (no way does he deserve a significant raise).

Anyhow, I've posted a ton of words in this thread already. I just wanted to say that although I understand Adam's desire to get this done sooner rather than later, I wouldn't mind waiting longer for an improved system. The only real important milestone I can think of is the trade deadline, and that's February 28th in the NHL (which we don't necessarily need to comply with).

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:09 pm**

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:
Tampa Bay GM wrote:The 2nd pro contract by the draftee wouldn't count for the 1.2m max either? I'm not talkin about the elc, it's three years after that (2 of those years being spent in junior).
Regarding who? If the guy isn't in the NHL by 20 as a top two round pick, then there's something wrong. The entire point of the 1.2M is to prevent teams from storing overpaid guys on the farm. There's going to be provisions for younger guys and I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. If I failed to make that clear, my bad.

Regarding pot boosters. I'll give some examples:

Johan Larsson has 3 more years on his contract and has two more years of JNR eligibility/2 more chances 4 a pot boost. I'm at work, but I'm guessing he's around 50 to 55 oa. Let's say he misses the boost this year and get it's next (he'd be 20 yrs old). Two seasons in the SEL and two NHL training camps might get him to 60ish oa for the start of his first AHL season. So after his first year in the AHL I would guess he'd b around 70 oa. His contract would b up, he'd be ineligible to play in the AHL anymore but he probably won't b good enuf to crack my top 6 so im almost forced to play him in the NHL with limited icetime which would effect his development.

Larsson isn't a 2nd rounder but that was a deep draft. Could we look into setting a rule like a player first 100-164 (164 being two full seasons) he is not eligible for the 1.2 max.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:53 pm**

Dan, no matter what, this will be done by this Friday and everything will be my final decision. I appreciate the help, the feedback, and the time put in to it, but at the end of the day, I want this to be mine and something I can look back at and be proud of. So, I understand that you want a perfect system, but there's no chance of that happening and I don't intend to wait for one. When I get a bit to sit down and price out some guys, I will finalize a system. It will feature some bargains and some overpaid guys, because that's realistic.

Don't take my post the wrong way, because the help is appreciated, but there are other things I need to get to. This will be done Friday and the policy will have to be lived with.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:00 pm**

Tampa Bay GM wrote:Regarding pot boosters. I'll give some examples:

Johan Larsson has 3 more years on his contract and has two more years of JNR eligibility/2 more chances 4 a pot boost. I'm at work, but I'm guessing he's around 50 to 55 oa. Let's say he misses the boost this year and get it's next (he'd be 20 yrs old). Two seasons in the SEL and two NHL training camps might get him to 60ish oa for the start of his first AHL season. So after his first year in the AHL I would guess he'd b around 70 oa. His contract would b up, he'd be ineligible to play in the AHL anymore but he probably won't b good enuf to crack my top 6 so im almost forced to play him in the NHL with limited icetime which would effect his development.

Larsson isn't a 2nd rounder but that was a deep draft. Could we look into setting a rule like a player first 100-164 (164 being two full seasons) he is not eligible for the 1.2 max.

I'm not making special cases for each individual player or situation. This isn't intended to make your job easy. It's intended to fix the current underpaying contracts and to ensure that it doesn't happen again. If Larsson's not good enough, then get rid of him. Not ask me to create loopholes so that he can be hidden on the farm. Some guys just don't make it. That's how it is.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:27 pm**

One change I'm already going with is smaller brackets and altering percentages for some levels.

85+ remains the same.
80-84 remains the same.
75-79 is now, 75-76, and 77-79.
70-74 is now 70-71 and 72-74.
Players in the 60-70 range with a 73+ OF or DF will comprise a bracket of their own.
Everyone 59 and under who will not make the NHL will remain equal to/what they are asking in-game.

77-79 bracket: 25% 4M+; 50% 3-4M+; 75% of current contract if under 3M; 150% if under 2M, 300% if under 1M
75-76 bracket: decrease 10% 5M+, decrease 5% 4M+, 25% current contract under 4M; 50% current contract under 3M; 100% under 2M, 250% if under 1M
72-74: decrease 20% 4M+; decrease 10% 3-4M; 40% current contract under 3M; 75% under 2M; 200% under 1M
70-71: decrease 30% 4M+; decrease 20% 3-4M; 30% current contract under 3M; 75% under 2M; 150% under 1M
<70 range w/ one 73+ OF/DF (grinders mostly): decrease 20% over 4M+; decrease 10% over 3-4M; 10% current contract under 3M; 50% under 2M; 75% under 1M
60-70 range w/out one 73+ OF/DF: 20% under 2M; 50% under 1M; I don't think any guys fall above 2M, but if they do, it will be a TBA decrease

Attribute bonuses apply to all. Same as Exhibit 5.

New attribute bonuses: 80+ = 100k, 85+ = 200k. 80+ CON = 250k.

New specialist bonuses: 350k for OF +10 or DF +10.

Farm rules remain 1.2M per, except for underaged players developing on farm with new draft slot payscale. Also, 2010 draft class getting Exhibit 5 bonuses are still eligible for over-salaried farm players on their ELC contract. Second contract will not apply for 2010 Draft Class.

This post is tentative while I look at players that fall under these categories.

Players over 32 will be submitted to an arbitration board to be announced after the potential candidates for the board are informed. I will be the chairman of said board and will contact GMs in private. They will be granted access to a hidden forum where all arbitration discussions will take place. Teams will submit their offer and the board will decide if the offer is adequate or should be higher. No offers lower than the proposed offer will be suggested by the arbitration board.

Right now I am looking at devising a goaltender system via POT + CON. By and large, these are the two most meaningful stats for goaltenders. Not sure exactly what I'll be putting together for a bracket, but I'll look at the upcoming FA goaltenders and start piecing something together.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:53 pm**

Here's the list of a handful of guys that I've been able to put together based on the newly-revised brackets.

Brad Richards: (75) 7.8M; 7.32M
Joe Thornton: (78.5) 7.2M; 9.65M
Simon Gagne: (76) 5.25M; 5.275M
Jeff Carter: (79) 5M; 7.25M
Patrice Bergeron: (73) 4.75M; 4.45M
Shea Weber: (84.5) 4.5M; 7.975M
Scott Hannan: (57.5) 4.5M; 4.2M
Tim Connolly: (70.5) 4.5M; 3.5M
Eric Brewer: (69) 4.25M; 4M
Joni Pitkanen: (78) 4M; 5.2M
Kevin Bieksa: (69) 3.75M; 3.725M
Justin Williams: (74) 3.5M; 3.6M
Brent Seabrook: (79) 3.5M; 5.9M

Clearly most of these guys are solid market value and a couple are still overpaid. But, that's just the way it works in real life and how it will work around here. I'm thinking that this is pretty close to the finished system, with a couple of tweaks still coming, especially for goaltenders.

The arbitration board will reign over players over 32. 32 & under will be part of the percentages because of A. EHEC's retirement policy and its differences from EHM's and B. because with a 4 year contract, the player will be just 36 at the end of the contract.

Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

EHEC Financial Policy Changes

EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes

Re: EHEC Financial Policy Changes