[S39] --- (S32) D - Mattis Trumbauer

[diamond_ace 3,112]

S39 7m

[Corco 1,242]

?

[Guest]

?

It's simple, he is signing him to a max contract to play for Calgary. Silly as passing out max contracts to in actives is stupid regardless of how much salary you have to work with. But he is doing that.

[Corco 1,242]

It's simple, he is signing him to a max contract to play for Calgary. Silly as passing out max contracts to in actives is stupid regardless of how much salary you have to work with. But he is doing that.

No I re signed him.

[gregreg 930]

Actually boss you didn't

[Corco 1,242]

Actually boss you didn't

Oh wow I thought I made that post

[Guest]

Yeah it was never posted I'm assuming. He is just scraps at this point anyways.

[Higgins 3,618]

Having pensfan has screwed Vasteras you'll likely win without him.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

It's simple, he is signing him to a max contract to play for Calgary. Silly as passing out max contracts to in actives is stupid regardless of how much salary you have to work with. But he is doing that.

It is silly, I agree, and I wish we had some sort of inactive-cap that was lower than 7m, but if I want to guarantee getting him and not being outbid, this is the way to do it under the current finance system.

[Guest]

It is silly, I agree, and I wish we had some sort of inactive-cap that was lower than 7m, but if I want to guarantee getting him and not being outbid, this is the way to do it under the current finance system.

Yeah but give 7 Million to an inactive depreciated defenseman or give bonuses to guys staying in Calgary long-term?

 

Also I have a hard time thinking many teams can match over 4 million on these.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Yeah but give 7 Million to an inactive depreciated defenseman or give bonuses to guys staying in Calgary long-term?

 

Also I have a hard time thinking many teams can match over 4 million on these.

Honestly, I think we need to propose a new rule to the BOG. Inactives in FA (clear inactives, not borderline guys) can only make let's say 5m. Under the rules that are in effect now, I'm going to offer the 7m, I need guys, but for the interest of exactly what you were referring to, I think that's a proposal the BOG needs to look at.

[Guest]

Honestly, I think we need to propose a new rule to the BOG. Inactives in FA (clear inactives, not borderline guys) can only make let's say 5m. Under the rules that are in effect now, I'm going to offer the 7m, I need guys, but for the interest of exactly what you were referring to, I think that's a proposal the BOG needs to look at.

Not at all. A GM may offer an inactive as much to the cap as he wants (7 Million), a restriction on that makes no sense. So that you get another guy because of it?

 

You said you need guys, who traded all off Calgary's draft picks away? I never got rules changed in Cologne for simply not having enough guys or picks when starting out. I don't see your point at all here. Sign him for 5 Million, if Vasteras wants to compete surely they wouldn't waste 5 million on a depreciated defenseman who is barely 300 TPE and arguably worst than 250 TPE because of that depreciation.

[Frank 5,212]

S39: 7 000 000* NTC

 

 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Not at all. A GM may offer an inactive as much to the cap as he wants (7 Million), a restriction on that makes no sense. So that you get another guy because of it?

 

You said you need guys, who traded all off Calgary's draft picks away? I never got rules changed in Cologne for simply not having enough guys or picks when starting out. I don't see your point at all here. Sign him for 5 Million, if Vasteras wants to compete surely they wouldn't waste 5 million on a depreciated defenseman who is barely 300 TPE and arguably worst than 250 TPE because of that depreciation.

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTED ME TO NOT PAY HIM AS MUCH.

 

If the rules state that I can give him 7m, and if I don't Frank apparently will, then 7m it is. I basically have to go 7m in order to guarantee getting him (and you can speculate that this or that team might not have afforded him, but speculation is no guarantee). If you want to not pay inactives so much, put it in the damn rules. I agree with it in theory, but I'm not going to put the sake of the league over the sake of my team, it's that simple. I'm offering the rule change as an appeasement to you so that you can get me to not pay him 7m, because again I agree in theory with inactives not being paid, but tell me how exactly I can pay him less and still guarantee getting him on my team, if that's what you fucking want, because every damn time I post something, even if it's got nothing to do with you, you misinterpret it and then jump down my throat about the misinterpretation, then expecting me to defend a point I never made in the first place. I could say that the sky is blue, and you'd somehow find a way to criticize a trade or signing I made.

 

SO you have two choices: 

 

1. Quit acting like you're the GM of Calgary and deciding how I go about my business, and talking shit on every damn move I make, when it's pretty apparent if you could do better you'd still have Cologne, or Helsinki before that,

 

OR

 

2. If you want inactives to not get paid so much, make a rule forcing it to happen, then I can't do this.

[Frank 5,212]

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTED ME TO NOT PAY HIM AS MUCH.

 

If the rules state that I can give him 7m, and if I don't Frank apparently will, then 7m it is. I basically have to go 7m in order to guarantee getting him (and you can speculate that this or that team might not have afforded him, but speculation is no guarantee). If you want to not pay inactives so much, put it in the damn rules. I agree with it in theory, but I'm not going to put the sake of the league over the sake of my team, it's that simple. I'm offering the rule change as an appeasement to you so that you can get me to not pay him 7m, because again I agree in theory with inactives not being paid, but tell me how exactly I can pay him less and still guarantee getting him on my team, if that's what you fucking want, because every damn time I post something, even if it's got nothing to do with you, you misinterpret it and then jump down my throat about the misinterpretation, then expecting me to defend a point I never made in the first place. I could say that the sky is blue, and you'd somehow find a way to criticize a trade or signing I made.

 

SO you have two choices: 

 

1. Quit acting like you're the GM of Calgary and deciding how I go about my business, and talking shit on every damn move I make, when it's pretty apparent if you could do better you'd still have Cologne, or Helsinki before that,

 

OR

 

2. If you want inactives to not get paid so much, make a rule forcing it to happen, then I can't do this.

 

Or get rid of the fucking cap floor. 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Or get rid of the fucking cap floor. 

Quota of likes reached, but that would also be a good thing to do, although it wouldn't affect this move. I'd still be signing him for the 7m because he will still serve a purpose on my semi-competitive-ish team.

[Frank 5,212]

Quota of likes reached, but that would also be a good thing to do, although it wouldn't affect this move. I'd still be signing him for the 7m because he will still serve a purpose on my semi-competitive-ish team.

 

But then he might get a more reasonable salary too. Maybe we should install BoG members as agents for inactives...

[Guest]

SO you have two choices: 

 

1. Quit acting like you're the GM of Calgary and deciding how I go about my business, and talking shit on every damn move I make, when it's pretty apparent if you could do better you'd still have Cologne, or Helsinki before that,

 

OR

 

2. If you want inactives to not get paid so much, make a rule forcing it to happen, then I can't do this.

The awkward silence until he clues into the fact I stepped down from both of those positions. Why not go after another inactive that may not be depreciated? Or trade for a inactive using a 3rd rounder for the future. There's other ways of doing it too, calm down. The reason I usually post is because os many times you've said something in regards to a master plan or that "Jason knows something we don't", when 3 years later we are looking at a Calgary team with out as much movement as a master plan would have people believe. As a member I'm allowed to look at scenarios. I never insulted you, I pondered your moves. Devise has done it in the past all the time and he has taken heat for it. I never expected to not take heat but it's funny to see.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

The awkward silence until he clues into the fact I stepped down from both of those positions. Why not go after another inactive that may not be depreciated? Or trade for a inactive using a 3rd rounder for the future. There's other ways of doing it too, calm down. The reason I usually post is because os many times you've said something in regards to a master plan or that "Jason knows something we don't", when 3 years later we are looking at a Calgary team with out as much movement as a master plan would have people believe. As a member I'm allowed to look at scenarios. I never insulted you, I pondered your moves. Devise has done it in the past all the time and he has taken heat for it. I never expected to not take heat but it's funny to see.

The thing I usually know that you don't isn't some great, franchise-altering thing, it's usually just something that changes the thing you previously said. The most recent example was when you said I actually needed a forward more than defense, in the one draft thread. I knew that Yuma was going to FA, which meant I definitely needed defense more. You were likely unaware of that at the time. That minor fact changed my need, and therefore had an effect on your statement, without having to be a master plan.

[Guest]

The thing I usually know that you don't isn't some great, franchise-altering thing, it's usually just something that changes the thing you previously said. The most recent example was when you said I actually needed a forward more than defense, in the one draft thread. I knew that Yuma was going to FA, which meant I definitely needed defense more. You were likely unaware of that at the time. That minor fact changed my need, and therefore had an effect on your statement, without having to be a master plan.

I was aware of that. I looked at your prospects though and the sure volume of players at each position. Yes Defenseman could've been a need, but there are a lot of holes.

By the way the suggestion of not signing and inactive but giving bonuses out was a suggestion, as long-term it makes more sense.

[Mike 708]

I agree with Jason now that Kendrick isn't on Riga anymore I don't have to pretend to like him.

[Doomsday 4,130]

I agree with Jason now that Kendrick isn't on Riga anymore I don't have to pretend to like him.

Honestly, that's some pretty weak shit right there. If you don't like the guy, don't be a bitch about it.

[Mike 708]

That is harsh man you brought a gun to a knife fight.

[Frank 5,212]

I agree with Jason now that Kendrick isn't on Riga anymore I don't have to pretend to like him.

But you still like me right?

[Guest]

I agree with Jason now that Kendrick isn't on Riga anymore I don't have to pretend to like him.

Yeah that's not really that legit.

I'm making a case for paying actives bonuses and not going out to fill the roster with guys who aren't much better. I guess we can't see that Trumbauer is massively depreciated without anything banked, thus he is about as good as 250 TPE. By mid-way a defenseman who is young at 200 TPE now or a player on his team could become more valuable with a pay raise. I never made it to slander his choice, but to question the thinking behind it.