S42: Contracting the VHLM

[Advantage 2,891]

So a team like Seattle where everyone is loyal, it's easy to keep everyone who wants to play? With some cap going up due to the TPE brackets, just won't happen.

Except it is easy to keep the majority of those members.  When they are making the minimum, you will find that you can pretty easily fit the majority of the team.

 

There may be a point where you have to trade a few guys to younger guys who will be loyal...this is in place for a reason.

[Munk 1,298]

Holy shut up chwis n make me gm u promised

[Molholt 2,185]

Sorry, I meant my non-asshole teammates.

Not wanting to be on a team does not make me an asshole. In fact, it has to do with my own player no team specifically.

But it does counter your point. Every team has places they can shed/move cap and maintain the loyal ones.

[eaglesfan036 4,603]

I like how contracting the VHLM turned into VHL salary cap by the second page

[boubabi 4,725]

trade everyone for goalies

 

thats the trick 

[Victor 10,947]

I like how contracting the VHLM turned into VHL salary cap by the second page

no one cares about the VHLM

[Tagger 2,722]

Jones, I'm looking at the Bears roster and I'm not really seeing why you don't believe that you'd be able to keep all of them that want to stay there for the foreseeable future. From what I see, there's enough players leaving the team either through retirement (Villeneuve) or other means (From his posts, I presume Savage) in the near future, along with a few players on welfare and one inactive to suggest that you should be able to keep all of them that want to be there on the team without exceeding the current salary cap. And that's not even accounting for the possibility that any of those that are currently active going inactive.

Edited March 24, 2015 by YEAH!

[Munk 1,298]

Jones, I'm looking at the Bears roster and I'm not really seeing why you don't believe that you'd be able to keep all of them that want to stay there for the foreseeable future. From what I see, there's enough players leaving the team either through retirement (Villeneuve) or other means (From his posts, I presume Savage) in the near future, along with a few players on welfare and one inactive to suggest that you should be able to keep all of them that want to be there on the team without exceeding the current salary cap. And that's not even accounting for the possibility that any of those that are currently active going inactive.

U always no watto say yuh! Ur da best be my ayss

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

Jones, I'm looking at the Bears roster and I'm not really seeing why you don't believe that you'd be able to keep all of them that want to stay there for the foreseeable future. From what I see, there's enough players leaving the team either through retirement (Villeneuve) or other means (From his posts, I presume Savage) in the near future, along with a few players on welfare and one inactive to suggest that you should be able to keep all of them that want to be there on the team without exceeding the current salary cap. And that's not even accounting for the possibility that any of those that are currently active going inactive.

 

Well the thing is you aren't accounting for trades that could happen or even free agency that is coming up.

[Tagger 2,722]

Well the thing is you aren't accounting for trades that could happen or even free agency that is coming up.

By those, I presume you mean trading for/signing more/better players? If so, what you're in fact saying is not "We need to up the salary cap because I can't keep all of the players that I want to keep", but instead saying "We need to up the salary cap because I can't add to the players that want to stay here without removing some", which isn't nearly a good enough reason to increase the salary cap. If you want to add players to your team but don't have the financial leeway to do so whilst keeping the players that want to stay, then that's on you to make the decision as to whether you want to keep those that want to stay or to improve the team.

[Kendrick 4,741]

Is Mikaelsson on a rookie contract? Why is he making 4,000,000 a season? I get talking about raising the cap because of loyalty, but if loyalty was your end game why take a max loaded contract?

 

By the way several teams have kept guys who remained loyal and fit them under the cap. Helsinki seems to be doing pretty good, even able to go acquire one of the top contracts to play goaltender for them by means of a trade.

 

As Chris pointed out, look at New York. They seemed to run over other teams the last 4-5 season with the same core. Hell even going out and grabbing Bentley. So I'm not sure where the argument comes where the VHL Cap needs to increase to reward loyalty and gain a bigger player base in the VHL. Like I stated before, you want more players on your roster and an increased cap? Go out and recruit your asses off so they arrive in shipment size.

[Munk 1,298]

NY hasn't been the same since i left

 

 

lr has gone done a lot  

[Frank 5,212]

Oh look Draper stole my idea. 

[Victor 10,947]

NY hasn't been the same since i left

 

 

lr has gone done a lot

we have done a lot. like not letting munk leave.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

Is Mikaelsson on a rookie contract? Why is he making 4,000,000 a season? I get talking about raising the cap because of loyalty, but if loyalty was your end game why take a max loaded contract?

 

By the way several teams have kept guys who remained loyal and fit them under the cap. Helsinki seems to be doing pretty good, even able to go acquire one of the top contracts to play goaltender for them by means of a trade.

 

As Chris pointed out, look at New York. They seemed to run over other teams the last 4-5 season with the same core. Hell even going out and grabbing Bentley. So I'm not sure where the argument comes where the VHL Cap needs to increase to reward loyalty and gain a bigger player base in the VHL. Like I stated before, you want more players on your roster and an increased cap? Go out and recruit your asses off so they arrive in shipment size.

 

Bushito offered out those contracts because at the time it was myself, him and Corco. There was tons of room for cap. So for me to not take 4M in my rookie year would have been stupid. Then this season, I couldn't take a pay cut because the VHL rules don't allow it so I had to stick what what was already given to me.

[Munk 1,298]

we have done a lot. like not letting munk leave.

 

fml autocorrect 

 

 

u got me m8 

 

ps recreate with me 

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

So how about maybe since all you stiffs are too stuck on keeping the cap, allow a person to have their contract reworked then. Say someone making like 6M can drop down to like 4 or 5M and help the team out. Seems a little less problems with all you guys whining about not wanting to bump the cap. But the only way it can be reworked is if they are on at least a 3/4 year deal and they play out at least their first year on that deal.

[Munk 1,298]

do u even gm m8 thats not a gd idea imo 

 

too easy of a cope out.. wud need restrictions ex tpe bracket 

Edited March 25, 2015 by Munk

[Kendrick 4,741]

So how about maybe since all you stiffs are too stuck on keeping the cap, allow a person to have their contract reworked then. Say someone making like 6M can drop down to like 4 or 5M and help the team out. Seems a little less problems with all you guys whining about not wanting to bump the cap. But the only way it can be reworked is if they are on at least a 3/4 year deal and they play out at least their first year on that deal.

No one was whining about about not bumping the cap up. In fact people were whining the cap should go up. Look at the entire conversation, the "cap going up" party brought it up, thus considered whining.

 

We've never had issues before, not sure why we'd rework an area that doesn't need to be reworked. Also accepting that 4 M is not your fault, but then that falls on the GM. So in this case we can sum this all up by saying: Good GM's make the cap work for them; they don't work for the cap.

[Kesler 1,514]

Haha,

[Kendrick 4,741]

do u even gm m8 thats not a gd idea imo 

 

too easy of a cope out.. wud need restrictions ex tpe bracket 

He obviously brings up a good point because he is Munk. Its basically saying "You can re-structure that players contract because you don't know how to GM properly and plan a budget in which 90% of the past GM's have been able to work with quite smoothly".

[Munk 1,298]

Haha,

 

post of the fukin  yr 10/10 fgt 

 

 

He obviously brings up a good point because he is Munk. Its basically saying "You can re-structure that players contract because you don't know how to GM properly and plan a budget in which 90% of the past GM's have been able to work with quite smoothly".

 

 

 

ya dats wat i sad smh kenny but thx for recipreating it <3

Edited March 25, 2015 by Munk

[Kesler 1,514]

post of the fukin  yr 10/10 fgt 

You know what I learned in school today Munk? Well I know your probably not gonna guess or know so I will tell you. Canadians teachers teach their students to not be racist or to be homophobic, so you going around and posting "fgt" all over the place shows that you did not go to school. 

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

No one was whining about about not bumping the cap up. In fact people were whining the cap should go up. Look at the entire conversation, the "cap going up" party brought it up, thus considered whining.

 

We've never had issues before, not sure why we'd rework an area that doesn't need to be reworked. Also accepting that 4 M is not your fault, but then that falls on the GM. So in this case we can sum this all up by saying: Good GM's make the cap work for them; they don't work for the cap.

 

Actually its the same stiffs who always try to think that the league isn't changing. One really good move was made today. Don't take 1 step forward only to fall back 5. Keep moving forward and make that cap number rise. Don't make the league the same old boring thing. Make change and draw in new members. Pretty sure everyone has seen it happen in real life so make it happen here and make the VHL better for it's own good.

[BOOM 8,758]

Davos will be fine.

 

In Coach we trust.