Financial Issues
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:23 pm
Here are my views on the problems with the current systems and possible options to consider. You may disagree with whether these are problems at all, but they're my views so whatever.
Problem: Rookie contracts are too cheap and (with options) too long. Furthermore, there are ways to get around the 3 year contract limit imposed by the game. This seems to be exacerbated by top draftees being NHL ready after just one AHL season, if not earlier.
Solution: Borrow the NHL rookie contract rules. 3 years, no options. Top 10 picks have a higher minimum salary (I don't know exactly what it is, but I think it's somewhere in the CBA). I would suggest perhaps having a minimum salary that scales down with draft position and/or POT. NHL rookies can make up to $3-4 million on their rookie contracts with bonuses. Granted those bonuses aren't always easily attainable but they do count against the cap.
Problem: Contract extensions to still-developing RFAs are unrealistically undervalued if the player is still well away from their ceilings.
Solution: This is obviously the toughest nut to crack, so here are some ideas, none of which will necessarily solve the problem entirely by itself.
1. Limit second contracts to 3 years max. This gives you 6 years of efficient production from a prospect before they ask for what (EHM thinks) they're worth.
2. No RFA negotiations until later in the year, perhaps March or once the regular season ends. This can sort of approximate how an improving player wouldn't want to re-up after a good start to a season if they think they'll have a career year.
3. Minimum salaries based on some permutation of current ratings and potential. I don't really like this, although it's basically what EHM does to figure out salary demands.
4. Minimum salaries based on player performance. That's what happens in real life, but then in real life they have long ass meetings and negotiations with agents. Doesn't sound tempting.
Problem: UFA age is too high, leading to a shortage of free agents. Last season was not so bad mostly because of ANA's unqualified RFAs.
Solution: Lower the UFA age gradually, say by 1 per year every year until it hits 28 or 27. However, as far as I know EHM has a hardcoded UFA age, so this requires some manual work, beyond that I don't ever recall RFAs refusing to re-sign the way greedy UFAs on bad teams do. In fact, right now it is advantageous to have low greed upcoming UFAs, because they don't require minimum raises like RFAs do. So this solution also requires some sensible system for re-signing players.
Problem: Bonuses don't count against the cap and seem to be more efficient than adding to base salary.
Solution: The current limit of 50% of the salary helps but doesn't completely solve the problem. Again, do what the NHL does and count bonuses against the cap. The easiest way is just to add bonus amount/number of years to the cap number. I suppose it could get more complicated with options...
Problem: Player options are always picked up (as far as I can tell) and team options are strictly better than an extra contract year.
Solution: At the minimum, have options (if they are permitted) count the same way as an extra year does. I don't know how to make team options 'cost' more than an extra year, though.
Problem: Some UFAs get signed to ridiculous bargain contracts in the dog days of summer. Not necessarily a problem, but it's not really realistic either
Solution: Fuck if I know. UFAs tend to request stupid contracts, so EHM's system is definitely no better. At the risk of drawing out the UFA process, I would suggest a week-long bidding period rather than 24/48 hour limits. Also, total contract value isn't entirely fair. Years 3-6 of the contract should be worth less than the first few, especially for younger UFAs. I highly doubt a 31 year old UFA would really prefer 6 years @ 500k over 1 year at 2.9 million.
Problem: Rookie contracts are too cheap and (with options) too long. Furthermore, there are ways to get around the 3 year contract limit imposed by the game. This seems to be exacerbated by top draftees being NHL ready after just one AHL season, if not earlier.
Solution: Borrow the NHL rookie contract rules. 3 years, no options. Top 10 picks have a higher minimum salary (I don't know exactly what it is, but I think it's somewhere in the CBA). I would suggest perhaps having a minimum salary that scales down with draft position and/or POT. NHL rookies can make up to $3-4 million on their rookie contracts with bonuses. Granted those bonuses aren't always easily attainable but they do count against the cap.
Problem: Contract extensions to still-developing RFAs are unrealistically undervalued if the player is still well away from their ceilings.
Solution: This is obviously the toughest nut to crack, so here are some ideas, none of which will necessarily solve the problem entirely by itself.
1. Limit second contracts to 3 years max. This gives you 6 years of efficient production from a prospect before they ask for what (EHM thinks) they're worth.
2. No RFA negotiations until later in the year, perhaps March or once the regular season ends. This can sort of approximate how an improving player wouldn't want to re-up after a good start to a season if they think they'll have a career year.
3. Minimum salaries based on some permutation of current ratings and potential. I don't really like this, although it's basically what EHM does to figure out salary demands.
4. Minimum salaries based on player performance. That's what happens in real life, but then in real life they have long ass meetings and negotiations with agents. Doesn't sound tempting.
Problem: UFA age is too high, leading to a shortage of free agents. Last season was not so bad mostly because of ANA's unqualified RFAs.
Solution: Lower the UFA age gradually, say by 1 per year every year until it hits 28 or 27. However, as far as I know EHM has a hardcoded UFA age, so this requires some manual work, beyond that I don't ever recall RFAs refusing to re-sign the way greedy UFAs on bad teams do. In fact, right now it is advantageous to have low greed upcoming UFAs, because they don't require minimum raises like RFAs do. So this solution also requires some sensible system for re-signing players.
Problem: Bonuses don't count against the cap and seem to be more efficient than adding to base salary.
Solution: The current limit of 50% of the salary helps but doesn't completely solve the problem. Again, do what the NHL does and count bonuses against the cap. The easiest way is just to add bonus amount/number of years to the cap number. I suppose it could get more complicated with options...
Problem: Player options are always picked up (as far as I can tell) and team options are strictly better than an extra contract year.
Solution: At the minimum, have options (if they are permitted) count the same way as an extra year does. I don't know how to make team options 'cost' more than an extra year, though.
Problem: Some UFAs get signed to ridiculous bargain contracts in the dog days of summer. Not necessarily a problem, but it's not really realistic either
Solution: Fuck if I know. UFAs tend to request stupid contracts, so EHM's system is definitely no better. At the risk of drawing out the UFA process, I would suggest a week-long bidding period rather than 24/48 hour limits. Also, total contract value isn't entirely fair. Years 3-6 of the contract should be worth less than the first few, especially for younger UFAs. I highly doubt a 31 year old UFA would really prefer 6 years @ 500k over 1 year at 2.9 million.