Something to spend on; part 2/2

[Quik 4,113]

Continued from Part 1...

 

The Career Extension purchase would allow players to chase certain milestones, records, and even Continental Cups, that may not have been possible without extending. Doing so would then come at the cost of fighting depreciation. If you want a 9th season, you first lose out on the early career purchases, such as an Uncapped TPE purchase, or a TPA re-roll. If you want a 10th season, you lose out on a Jagr. If you want an 11th, you'd probably then lose out on the OBNF. Just based on salary, you could probably continue for a 12th or 13th, but it would be at the cost of not being very good.

 

The breakdown of this would look something roughly like this:

 

The Chris Chelios

9th Season: $10,000,000 / 9% depreciation

10th-11th Season: $10,000,000 / 10% depreciation

12th-13th Season: $10,000,000 / 12% depreciation

14th+ Season: $10,000,000 / 15% depreciation

 

Something like this wouldn't come until expansion has taken place, as there's already a squeeze on rosters for playing time, but is something I think can add a lot, and wouldn't force members to continue moving forward with their career, since it's not a "free" option.

[Beketov 8,996]

You and your bloody longer careers

[Quik 4,113]

5 minutes ago, Beketov said:

You and your bloody longer careers

I'll fight for them 'til the day I die (or inevitably get overthrown).

[Nykonax 1,563]

Call it the Gordie Howe. But it definitely is a good idea that does make you think about how to spend your player store money

[Beketov 8,996]

Just now, Quik said:

I'll fight for them 'til the day I die (or inevitably get overthrown).

Honestly I don’t even hate them I’m just torn on the idea that not everyone gets them. Can’t decide precisely where I sit on the fence.

[McWolf 3,115]

I like it. It would make old records beatable, but you'd be a lesser player for longer so it may even out in the end. It would definitely be hard to pick between playing 8 seasons as elite or playing 11 seasons as a great player, but never the best.

[Victor 10,911]

My argument against extending careers has always been that you lose out on recreates for future drafts first and foremost, above other considerations like impact on records.

 

This in particular just seems like a cheap way to earn more career points to benefit the 1%. Apart from points, there's no unattainable records given hits belongs to Parechkin, shutouts belongs to Clegane (who retired in S53 and S52), etc etc. And if you ignore the VHL's first 10 seasons then the scoring records are also perfectly attainable and have been achieved fairly recently (O'Malley, Rafter, Molholt, etc.).

 

Hard no from me.

[Quik 4,113]

4 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Honestly I don’t even hate them I’m just torn on the idea that not everyone gets them. Can’t decide precisely where I sit on the fence.

 

Eh, I mean literally any player who plays 8 seasons will earn enough to buy at least one (1*3 + 1.5*5 = 10.5). Any player who would realistically be looking at this will earn enough for at least 2, if not more, should they want to.

[Beketov 8,996]

Just now, Quik said:

 

Eh, I mean literally any player who plays 8 seasons will earn enough to buy at least one (1*3 + 1.5*5 = 10.5). Any player who would realistically be looking at this will earn enough for at least 2, if not more, should they want to.

I guess then the argument becomes what’s the point of making them an option? If everyone can have something they could just have it. Plus there’s @Victor‘a argument.

 

Anyway, my point is I remain on the fence. I always like it in theory but like it less the more I think about it. If we continue to have big first gen drafts consistently I feel less scared mind you.

[Quik 4,113]

2 minutes ago, Victor said:

My argument against extending careers has always been that you lose out on recreates for future drafts first and foremost, above other considerations like impact on records.

 

This in particular just seems like a cheap way to earn more career points to benefit the 1%. Apart from points, there's no unattainable records given hits belongs to Parechkin, shutouts belongs to Clegane (who retired in S53 and S52), etc etc. And if you ignore the VHL's first 10 seasons then the scoring records are also perfectly attainable and have been achieved fairly recently (O'Malley, Rafter, Molholt, etc.). 

 

Hard no from me.

 

Eh, most drafts recently have been heavily first gen. While there's no way to forecast how long that will last, I'd be willing to bet that spreading out recreates from each draft, rather than them all going up against each other every time (i.e. S63 draftees re-entering for the S72 draft together) wouldn't cause a huge issue.

 

In terms of career points, I mean, yeah, it's a way for people to go after counting stats. That's not exactly hidden. What's wrong with someone wanting to win 10 Cups? Or a first Cup if they can't do it in 8? Or hit 500 goals. Or 1000 points. Or 1500 points if that's how long they want to try and play for?

 

It's not so much the actual records, more the ability to push past them and create new ones, that are different.

[Quik 4,113]

4 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I guess then the argument becomes what’s the point of making them an option?

 

Makes it a choice again, of whether to buy Jagr/OBNF/Uncapped/Career Extension

 

Right now, it's pretty easy to load up and buy 2 Jagrs and OBNF, if not Still Kicking as well. Making it a purchasable option makes it a choice of what to buy.

[Victor 10,911]

Just now, Quik said:

 

Makes it a choice again, of whether to buy Jagr/OBNF/Uncapped/Career Extension

 

Right now, it's pretty easy to load up and buy 2 Jagrs and OBNF, if not Still Kicking as well. Making it a purchasable option makes it a choice of what to buy.

I think it's a pretty easy choice for most people though - you can bank enough TPE to have enough to fight off depreciation. Or maybe not fight off but retain the same build. Guaranteed more people would go for extending their careers if given the choice in which case everyone gets to extend their careers and..... ehhh. Then you have an advantage to people who got better brand deals and and that's not really a meritocracy and either way more than 9-10 seasons is unrealistic because you'd need a lot of money, so really all you're doing here is extending careers from 8 to 9/10 for no real reason? That's not really enough time to really make unique new records, but enough to muddy the waters and write off the 8-season records (despite most of them being quite attainable).

[Quik 4,113]

21 minutes ago, Victor said:

I think it's a pretty easy choice for most people though - you can bank enough TPE to have enough to fight off depreciation. Or maybe not fight off but retain the same build. Guaranteed more people would go for extending their careers if given the choice in which case everyone gets to extend their careers and..... ehhh. Then you have an advantage to people who got better brand deals and and that's not really a meritocracy and either way more than 9-10 seasons is unrealistic because you'd need a lot of money, so really all you're doing here is extending careers from 8 to 9/10 for no real reason? That's not really enough time to really make unique new records, but enough to muddy the waters and write off the 8-season records (despite most of them being quite attainable). 

 

Brand deals doesn't really change anything from how it is now, or am I missing something about bigger brand deals impact right now?

 

And yeah, sure, you can fight off depreciation by banking, but I think you're overestimating how much that can fight off depreciation when it hits 10% and greater. Hell, I think you've overestimating how much banking really prevents without purchases. I'm nearing the TPE record, and without OBNF+Jagr this season, I'd have about 130 less TPA this season. If I wanted to extend my career further, I'd be down to about 800 TPA next season, which, yeah, is still legit, but then I'd be down to around 650 the following season, 500ish the season after that, etc. I think I calculated last time I brought this up in the BOG that it doesn't really level off until you're around 350ish TPA (restoring after depreciation), at which point you're not likely to have enough cash to go for too much longer. I think I had it around 15-16 seasons absolute max before you can't really afford to keep going, assuming you only purchase the extension, unless you're somehow signing max deals as a <500 TPA player...

 

Once I get down to 400 TPA, that's still a useful player, not someone who will be getting season records, but someone who I would still enjoy and would have a chance at hitting some cool milestones. I mean, just getting to 1000 games would be cool for someone to hit.

[Victor 10,911]

17 minutes ago, Quik said:

I think you're overestimating how much that can fight off depreciation when it hits 10% and greater. Hell, I think you've overestimating how much banking really prevents without purchases.

I'm not, hence I said you're only realistically extending careers by 1-2 seasons, not more. For two reasons - the effects of depreciation as you said and also because who the hell has $30+mil to spend?

 

My point was that people will pick extending their career over 8 seasons instead of fighting depreciation in s8, simply for the novelty factor and because banking TPE is enough to remain a good/elite player in s8 even without purchasing anything.

 

As for the impact of brands, this goes back to the "who has the money" point above. Well, the most money will be had by the people with the best deals, so inherent disadvantage for everyone else.

[Quik 4,113]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

I'm not, hence I said you're only realistically extending careers by 1-2 seasons, not more. For two reasons - the effects of depreciation as you said and also because who the hell has $30+mil to spend? 

 

A fair amount of people can have over $30M to spend in their careers. Bassolino just dropped ~$22M in the store, in his 6th season, and while Smarch is a fantastic member, he hasn't exactly capped out with this player. There's also earning in the 9th+ season idk if you are taking into account here. With expansion, there will be cap space for players to actually take more than the minimum salary for their bracket (also encouraging player movement and possibilities where big FAs sign with "bad" teams for more money).

 

And even talking about money, you have rookies making $4M+ because their teams are trash, or $3M because they got returned to the VHLM. It's not like only ones making money in the VHL are the ones you would expect to...

[Victor 10,911]

So the max you can earn in your first 3 seasons is $12mil (3 of $4mil). Then assume the player earns max $5.5mil for 5 seasons is $27.5mil. So that's an unrealistic maximum of less than $40mil. So maybe I should change my estimate to 10-11 seasons, but either way that's not more options as much as it's extending everyone's careers by 1-2 seasons which I'm not sure offers the diversity you want.

[Quik 4,113]

Just now, Victor said:

So the max you can earn in your first 3 seasons is $12mil (3 of $4mil). Then assume the player earns max $5.5mil for 5 seasons is $27.5mil. So that's an unrealistic maximum of less than $40mil. So maybe I should change my estimate to 10-11 seasons, but either way that's not more options as much as it's extending everyone's careers by 1-2 seasons which I'm not sure offers the diversity you want.

 

I think people missed that when the brackets changed, the maximums changed (though, it was never $5.5 anyway, unless you're just saying they take the min during vet contracts - which you probably are). Assuming you have a player who only signs max deals, they could end up with 3*6 + 5*9. That's $63M. Plus up to $3M for VHLM pre-draft, a player could theoretically earn $66M, without endorsements, by the time they finish their 8-season career.

 

Also, side note, that's an insane amount and is why I argued for a floating max of 4 brackets above, to prevent such crazy earning potential.