Future Salary Cap tweaks

[Spartan 4,665]

1 hour ago, Berocka said:

That's not how averages work

 

Total salaries/number of teams = average cap

 

Where the players play don't change the average cap hit

Correct

[BOOM 8,966]

Rename to the PHL. Poverty Hockey League.

[rory 1,994]

3 seasons too late

[Pifferfish 738]

Not that a personally really give a shit but I do agree with @dstevensonjr, league parity argument is whack. Go back 10 seasons and look at how many teams have shuffled in and out of the playoffs right. Then you have the seeding of the finalists which is really telling. You have a league were 5 and 4 seeds make the finals somewhat frequently, and 3 do it a ton too. It's very cool. So I think this is purely an issue of labeling, we don't have a parity problem.

 

we have a competition issue. Last season, the only reason we couldn't predict the 10 playoff teams easily is because out of 6 rebuilders, 4 shared a conference. This season it appears we are back to a 3 and 3 look. Which means we all pretty much know what 5 teams will be somewhere in the playoffs. If you want making the playoffs to feel more like a fight, make 5th seeds not a thing. No more WC!

 

you may say, oh well that would just lead to more sellers and a 4 rebuilders per conference, with what cap room though, every playoff contender besides probably London has their sphincter to the cap and 2 teams are currently in kind of in a cap negative situation looking for solutions.

[Spartan 4,665]

1 hour ago, Pifferfish said:

Not that a personally really give a shit but I do agree with @dstevensonjr, league parity argument is whack

I don't know where the parity argument came from, but it wasn't mentioned in the announcement and it's not the primary driver. Simply put, there was too much cap available across the league given the players we have in the league, and we didn't see that immediately changing given the state of draft classes. Dropping the cap is a small change, it's 2 million. Whether the S100 drop happens or not will be re-evaluated next offseason. Depending on how S100, S101, etc go, we could fully see a raise again by S103 if we see stronger draft classes leading to the need for more cap. When the average cap hit for teams is more than 10 million under our cap, we're going to make a small tweak.

[Pifferfish 738]

@Spartan quote from the last line of the announcement "The goal of these tweaks is to spread out players a bit to get the league parity more evened out." End quote.

[Pifferfish 738]

15 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I don't know where the parity argument came from, but it wasn't mentioned in the announcement and it's not the primary driver. Simply put, there was too much cap available across the league given the players we have in the league, and we didn't see that immediately changing given the state of draft classes. Dropping the cap is a small change, it's 2 million. Whether the S100 drop happens or not will be re-evaluated next offseason. Depending on how S100, S101, etc go, we could fully see a raise again by S103 if we see stronger draft classes leading to the need for more cap. When the average cap hit for teams is more than 10 million under our cap, we're going to make a small tweak.

And like I said, I'm more so trying to view it from the lens of it's presented as an issue being there, and the stated issue was parity but I'm just assuming that was a misspeak by Bek bc it didn't make sense. I think the cap going down will be fine and not matter much... But like it doesn't necessarily solve and problems, if the goal is solving problems then I don't see it doing that.

[Spartan 4,665]

3 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

@Spartan quote from the last line of the announcement "The goal of these tweaks is to spread out players a bit to get the league parity more evened out." End quote.

U right I didn't read that far after seeing the second plane hit S100 and raged internally

[Pifferfish 738]

9 minutes ago, Spartan said:

U right I didn't read that far after seeing the second plane hit S100 and raged internally

Understandable. As are the rest of us..

 RIP

[Spartan 4,665]

50 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

Understandable. As are the rest of us..

 RIP

But anyways, parity wasn't the factor on my mind when I was discussing it and voting on it. We don't want to contract teams over a slight recruitment lull while folks are holding off on recreating for S100. We had no recruitment budget due to the holiday drive. Regardless of parity, we take issue when the cap is unjustifiably high as demonstrated by the amount of available cap around the league. I share concerns about the viability of late stage career players sticking with teams given their cost and TPE inflation over the seasons, but that's always a concern to a GM who wants to keep a competitive window open and a player approaching retirement. Those decisions will always have to be made regardless of the cap.

[Triller 1,729]

Implement Gold Drafting!