Financial Health of the HFNHL; Revenue Generation by the numbers

[MatthewFlames]

State of the League:

* all final total exclude playoff revenue & endorsement revenue.

Teams in the RED

None (trading for money has started!)

Teams will finish in the RED

Bruins (-3.4 million) - (No playoff revenue. 7.5 max endo - Finish 4 (max))
Devils (-3.2) - (will make playoffs - 6.5 endorsements - max 10. Finish - 3+ million)
Jets (-760K) - (Unlikely playoff revenue. 7.5 Max endo - Finish 7 (max))
Flames (-300K) - (no playoff revenue - 10.5 max endo - Finish 10 (max))
Wild (-950K) - (will make playoffs - 7.5 max endo - Finish 10+)

Teams to finish under $10 million

Penguins (7)
Rangers (4)
Capitals (2)
Blackhawks (7)
Blue Jackets (2)
Coyotes (5)
Sharks (5)

Teams to finish under $20 million

Canadiens (17)
Leafs (12)
Sabres (18)
Senators (10)
Hurricanes (17)
Lightning (18)
Oilers (15)
Ducks (16)

Neutral (20-40)

Islanders (21)
Panthers (22)
Predators (21)
Red Wings (34)
Avalanche (25)
Kings (32)
Stars (27)

Healthy (40+)

Flyers (48)
Blues (52)
Canucks (47)

While this is just a snapshot of today, it should noted that we have gone from 18 teams at less than 20 million to 20 teams (from when I did this mid-season last year). We've also lost two teams from the above $40 million+ category, and two teams from the $50 million+ category.

Endorsements

I have long argued that endorsements hurt the poor teams. Yet I constantly get told that endorsements make up for revenue losses and are how poor teams overcome being poor.

23 Teams applied for endorsements. I know that 2 chose not to do endorsements because of the lack of initial funds. 4 others - who knows (Robb just doesn't gamble, even in his fake life)

AVG COST per TEAM: $3,673,913
AVG MAX PAYOUT per TEAM: $10,282,608

Endorsements by teams with under $20 in the bank (10 of the 23)

AVG COST: $2,300,000 (1.3 million less than average)
AVG MAX PAYOUT: $7,100,000 (3 million less than average)

If you add in the two teams that didn't do endorsements - and will get zero -

The average payout for endorsements by poor teams is only $5,916,667.

Endorsements by teams with over $20 mil in the bank (13)

AVG COST: $4,730,769
AVG MAX PAYOUT: $12,730,769

Poor teams average $5.9 million, rich teams average $12.7 million.

It should be noted also that rich teams perform better and probably hit more of the endorsements while poor teams don't and therefore won't get the max as often. Below are stats relating to poor teams making the playoffs for perspective

Playoffs

There would seem to be a correlation to the ability to make the playoffs and money. I'll look at it from two perspectives. The first is finances versus playoffs (therefore the immediate probability to generate playoff revenue and improve the financial position of the franchise)

Poor Teams/Playoffs

Bruins (-3.4 million) - NO
Devils (-3.2) - YES
Jets (760K) - NO
Flames (300K) - NO
Wild (950K) - YES
Penguins (7) - NO
Rangers (4) - YES
Capitals (2) - NO
Blackhawks (7) - NO
Blue Jackets (2) - YES
Coyotes (5) - NO
Sharks (5) - NO

Only 4 out of the 12 teams in financial trouble are in a playoff spot.

3 are bubble teams who may still make it (fingers crossed!)


CAP versus PLAYOFF position

AVG league wide CAP $55,835,933

Playoff Teams: $58,994,250
Non Playoff Teams: $52,226,428

Difference is an average of 6.7 million dollars.

The more you spend - the better chance you have of being in the playoffs.

The $40 million dollar roster theory


This one if my favorite. Get a sub 40 million dollar roster and you'll make money.

Lets look at the facts.

Only the Capitals and the Lightning have $40 million or sub $40 million rosters. They are two of the three worst teams in the standings.

The Senators, Flames, Penguins, Jets, and Flyers have sub $50 million rosters.

ONLY the Flyers are in a playoff spot (in 8th).

Only the Flyers stand to make extra revenue if they can hang onto that playoff spot. They are a team with a health bank balance anyway. Ironic.

So, will any of these 7 teams with sub $40 or sub $50 million actually make a profit?

The sub 40's - Capitals (just traded for a million and is shedding more salary too) - to be fair they carried a larger cap, closer to 50 for most of the year. Initial Bank: $4 million. Projected: $2.2. Capitals have no endorsement revenue because they made the judgement call that they couldn't afford to gamble any money. NET LOSS 2 million (incl. cash infusions)

The sub 40's - Lightning. Initial Bank: $14. Projected: 18.5. Endorsements Max $4. NET PROFIT $8.5 million (probably could have been higher if endorsements were better managed.)

The sub 50's - Senators. Initial Bank: $10.5 Projected: $10.9 Endorsements: 5.5 Max. NET PROFIT: $6 Max.

The sub 50's - Penguins. Initial Bank: $7.4 Projected: $7.1 Endorsements: Zero. NET LOSS 300K

The sub 50's - Flames. Initial Bank: 6.4 Projected: -300K. Endorsements: $12. NET PROFIT $6

The sub 50's - Jets. Initial Bank: $9 Projected: -$700K. Endorsements: $7.5 MAX NET LOSS $2.3

The sub 50's - Flyers. $55.5 Projected: $48.8 Endorsements: $10 max Playoffs 2.4 Min NET PROFIT $5.4+


RECAP

Making revenue within the regular season sim doesn't happen (except for the TBL and their 39 million dollar payroll)

Revenue generation comes from:

1) Playoff revenue

Only 1 out of every 3 poor teams will make the playoffs.
Teams who spend closer to the cap make the playoffs, teams that don't fail to make the playoffs.

Therefore rich teams can carry big caps and continue to make the playoffs.

2) Endorsements

But poor teams can't gamble funds, don't gamble them, or hedge their bets by opting in to fewer and cheaper endorsements.

Poor teams make 7 million on average less than rich teams.

Endorsements do not really help poor teams that much. No more than 3 home games revenue.

So, with extra revenue so hard to generate by poor teams - and even sub 50 million dollar rosters a hit and miss... Unless the Flyers go deep, they won't make more than 10 million profit. Even the Flames, Lightning & Sens can only make 6 - 8.5 million profit.

I know for the Flames we'll only have 1 of our Mountain Due and will probably miss another endorsement too - so we will actually only make about 1-3 million profit all told this year. 20 years till we can afford a real roster again!

If you consider that $20-$25 million is safe ground, that means poor teams who manage well will still need to remain poor for at least 3 to 5 more years before they can start to be able to afford increasing salary. Even then, one year of missed playoffs and they start the 5 year cycle all over again (which is what happened to the Flames).
-

Click to read more...

 

[Dryden]

But you forgot that if you are close trading for a Sedin could make your team and put you in the playoffs. Or is it that it would ruin your future and put you in an even bigger whole. Can't remember which

 

[MatthewFlames]

But you forgot that if you are close trading for a Sedin could make your team and put you in the playoffs. Or is it that it would ruin your future and put you in an even bigger whole. Can't remember which

Ask Jon if when he misses the playoffs

 

[Canuck09]

Awesome stuff Matt.

I think any system we have is going to favor the rich staying rich, and having the easiest time staying there, but we need something that helps the poor compete better. Endorsements have never been the answer to me. There's only 4-5 that get used, and as Matt pointed out, only the strong teams can afford to sign up for a full slate of them.

If the only solution is to drop down to $30M and ice an AHL/ECHL roster for a few years it really sucks the fun out of the league. Maybe not for the few teams who get to dress all star rosters, but for the others forced to trade players for cash and marginal picks.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Here are some other fun facts of note - on discussion points that often come up.

1: Amount of money in the league overall.

At the end of the 2003 regular seasons (no endorsements or playoffs) versus Today.

In 2003: $ 793,356,099
Today: $ 671,148,707 (note that by the same point (end of this season) we will have lost another 40-60 million projected)
Difference: - 122,207,392 (and counting)

So there is definitely less money available within a season for cash flow.

2: We spend more money on salaries

In 2003 pro salaries cost: 990,256,634
In 2013 pro salaries cost: 1,675,078,000

Avg per team in 2003: $33,008,554
Avg per team in 2013: $55,835,933

Per Team Increase of $22,827,379

3: In Sim revenue has not increased as much as salaries.

In Sim Revenue in 2003: $793,549,998
In Sim Revenue in 2013 (projected): $ 1,375,222,082

Increase of $581,672,084.

Per Team Increase of $ 19,389,069

There is a definite lag on revenue in the sim: By an average of over $100 million league wide.

Or $3,438,309 per team versus how much we spend.

 

[Lord Stanley]

Man I did these types of calculations my first year in the league and was told I was crazy. Your crazy to, I don't see anything wrong with this picture your painting Matt.

 

[Dryden]

Lockout!

 

[MatthewFlames]

Man I did these types of calculations my first year in the league and was told I was crazy. Your crazy to, I don't see anything wrong with this picture your painting Matt.

You know it.

Here is another bit of evidence for discussions: THE FINANCES SLIDER

In 2012 it was set at 50

Total league revenue was: 1,260,746,810

Average per team revenue was: 42,024,893

Average per game was: 1,024,997

In 2013 it is set to 55

Total projected league revenue: $1,375,222,082 (8.3% increase)

Average projected per team: $45,840,736

Average per game: $1,118,066

It works - 93,000 per game extra, or 3.8 million over the season.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

the problem is we are forced to spend NHL dollars without NHL revenues. we should be able to ice a team at the NHL floor, miss the playoffs and still breakeven.

As your maths shows, this isnt possible.

I can shave Burns (5.6), Booth (4.25) and Zubrus (3.5) that will get me down close to 30m!

I suppose thats the responsible thing to do but if we are an NHL sim for salaries, shouldnt we be for other financial issues? No one in the NHL can legally ice a 30m payroll, why should we be expected to all while paying NHL level contracts.

doesnt make sense.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Endorsements by teams with under $20 in the bank (10 of the 23)

AVG COST: $2,300,000 (1.3 million less than average)
AVG MAX PAYOUT: $7,100,000 (3 million less than average)

If you add in the two teams that didn't do endorsements - and will get zero -

The average payout for endorsements by poor teams is only $5,916,667.

Endorsements by teams with over $20 mil in the bank (13)

AVG COST: $4,730,769
AVG MAX PAYOUT: $12,730,769

Poor teams average $5.9 million, rich teams average $12.7 million.

Missing from this should actually be the profit margin for endorsements. That's even more interesting.

Poor teams make a profit of only 3.6 million while rich teams make a profit of 8 million.

That's over 100% more.

 

[Canuck09]

You know it.

Here is another bit of evidence for discussions: THE FINANCES SLIDER

In 2012 it was set at 50

Total league revenue was: 1,260,746,810

Average per team revenue was: 42,024,893

Average per game was: 1,024,997

In 2013 it is set to 55

Total projected league revenue: $1,375,222,082 (8.3% increase)

Average projected per team: $45,840,736

Average per game: $1,118,066

It works - 93,000 per game extra, or 3.8 million over the season.

I'm glad you posted this one because it's only this last small increase that has helped salvage things a little this year. Previous to this it was that much worse.

 

[MatthewFlames]

I'm glad you posted this one because it's only this last small increase that has helped salvage things a little this year. Previous to this it was that much worse.

I agree. Perhaps we could set a level where everyone thinks the minimum average should be revenue wise. I still think that 45.8 is a bit low. Only 3 teams have salaries lower than that this season. Only 7 teams have lower than 50.

The league average payroll is 55.8. If we scrap endorsements we could have each team made $50 and you'd lose 6 million if you missed. Making the first round of the playoffs guarantees you don't lose money. 2nd round or more and its profit. Or if you ran a 48 million payroll you could make 7 million. We could put in a salary floor which would replace our minimum OV (which seems scrapped anyway).

Another suggestion I've put forth is that we raise the slider for the playoffs. If you're successful you make more money. Even if its' so that playoff games make you 1.5-2 million per game - that way a cure for being poor can also reward rich teams and not punish them. It would also increase the competitiveness of the league - and therefore the fun things like trading.

Last season the Flames went back into the hole because I spent more money trying to get into the playoffs but made a league low of 36 million revenue. $6 million below the average. Even with the 95% attendance I still lost money trying to get the $5.5 million dollar attendance endorsement. I would have been better off not bothering.

 

[Dryden]

You know it.

Here is another bit of evidence for discussions: THE FINANCES SLIDER

In 2012 it was set at 50

Total league revenue was: 1,260,746,810

Average per team revenue was: 42,024,893

Average per game was: 1,024,997

In 2013 it is set to 55

Total projected league revenue: $1,375,222,082 (8.3% increase)

Average projected per team: $45,840,736

Average per game: $1,118,066

It works - 93,000 per game extra, or 3.8 million over the season.

Slide it to 75. Do do do it

 

[kasper11]

If you consider that $20-$25 million is safe ground, that means poor teams who manage well will still need to remain poor for at least 3 to 5 more years before they can start to be able to afford increasing salary. Even then, one year of missed playoffs and they start the 5 year cycle all over again (which is what happened to the Flames).
-

Matt:

This is the only part of your post I really have an issue with. You seem to be suggesting that losing teams should be able to make $10-20M a season with a $45M payroll. That just isn't realistic and makes finances moot.

I think we need to settle on what the financial structure should ideally be. To me, something like:
Teams w/under $50M payroll that miss the playoffs make $3-5M
Teams w/payroll $50-60M that miss the playoffs lose money
Teams w/payroll > $60M that don't go at least into the second round lose money

Obviously, looking at the numbers, the revenue hasn't kept up with the salaries. Now, given that the salaries are based on the NHL salaries, and that the NHL cap increases based on revenues, it makes sense that our revenues should be increasing as salary goes up.

If we agree on what the financial structure should look like, the easy answer (for everyone but you or the sim demigod) is that you run a few test sims with the sliders adjusted until we hit something pretty close to what we want.

I agree that the revenue seems low and is tilted in the favor of the "haves". But, shouldn't the teams that are winning make more money? Don't they have higher attendance, sell more jerseys, get more advertising revenue? That is always going to be the case. The problem for these teams is generally going to be when you have that bad season like I did last year out of the blue. Things go downhill fast.

And for the record, I am not that far off from being in the same financial situation as you and Robb and others. My payroll is scheduled to jump pretty close to the cap next year with the Getzlaf/Tavares extensions, and after endorsements I will end the regular season with around $6M. If I lose in the first round of the playoffs, I will not be able to make it through next season with this payroll.

 

[MatthewFlames]

This is the only part of your post I really have an issue with. You seem to be suggesting that losing teams should be able to make $10-20M a season with a $45M payroll. That just isn't realistic and makes finances moot.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that we have a solid amount so I can plan somewhat. I just did my finances. I am making 6 million in endorsements. I am going to end up losing 2 million this year.

I've had a 45 million dollar payroll, only the Penguins and Lightning have less.

How am I supposed to make money again?

Oh yes, sell of my good players and get below 40 million and suck and make a few million a year for 10 years or more to build a bank balance. Really? I'm being condemned, with about a third of the other GM's to that? Basically being told I can't compete...

I think we need to settle on what the financial structure should ideally be. To me, something like:
Teams w/under $50M payroll that miss the playoffs make $3-5M
Teams w/payroll $50-60M that miss the playoffs lose money
Teams w/payroll > $60M that don't go at least into the second round lose money

But that's exactly what I am suggesting.

AVG revenue at 50 set within the sim.

NO ENDORSEMENTS.

Bump the slider for the playoffs so there is more money for making it.

When AVG revenue is set at 50, some teams will make 47, some will make 53.

If I had a 45 million payroll I would know that I could make between 3-6 million. Right now having a 45 million salary STILL means I have more chance of losing money than making any.

If I really rebuild and get to 40 million then I can make more for sucking more. But there has to be some way for poor teams to start building a buffer again. And please, everyone who thinks that just having a 40 million and signing up for better endorsements better read this thread again. Its harder to do than win the cup in this league.

If the AVG salary for a playoff team is 58, I could lose as much as 10 million for missing the playoffs. But I'm not gonna lose 25 and end up bankrupt in one year. Which is what happened to my Flames (22 back to nothing).

You can still set additional financial gains for everyone, for participation, or financial rewards for success if thats needed but in this system I don't think it will.

Right now the thing I absolutely hate is that even when I have the third lowest payroll in the league I still lose money. I still have no chance at winning or at ever competing again.

 

[kasper11]

Matt --- My question though is that if you are making $3-6M per year, isn't it still going to take you 3-5 years until you are in the range that you consider stable ($20M+)?

Or do you think that $10M or so would be the new stable with a better financial model?

For the record, I like the endorsements and think we should keep them. Maybe scale them back a bit if we are raising the generic revenue.

Is there anyone who would be against raising the slider for revenue right now? Can you change this post into a poll?

 

[MatthewFlames]

Matt --- My question though is that if you are making $3-6M per year, isn't it still going to take you 3-5 years until you are in the range that you consider stable ($20M+)?

Or do you think that $10M or so would be the new stable with a better financial model?

For the record, I like the endorsements and think we should keep them. Maybe scale them back a bit if we are raising the generic revenue.

Is there anyone who would be against raising the slider for revenue right now? Can you change this post into a poll?

3 to 5 years sucks but its a way out. In that time I will dump all my good players for youngster or picks and by the time they hit 2nd contracts I can afford them (especially since 2nd contracts for these guys is now 5 million +).

But right now I just spent a year sucking, my team got weaker, I didn't really get anything for my salary dumps because there isn't a market for it, and I'm still gonna lose money. I'm not even gonna make 1 or 2 million, which is a twenty year path back to stable.

And trust me, stable doesn't mean you can spend 60 million. Right now the system allows a 20-30 million dollar loss and nobody seems to think that's not okay. But people get up in arms because OMG you might make 10 million in a season? I don't get it.

The league is losing is competitiveness. There are 27 sellers. Yes partly its the cap. But mostly its the financial situation. You know that if you eff it up, or even if you make the 2nd round of the playoffs and get endorsements at 10 you will still lose money and not build any buffer for the future or for your new contracts.

In fact, for all the people who complain that GM's are irresponsible, spending wildly. Its' mostly a myth. I want to know - where are the teams that are over the cap? Where are the teams even AT the cap. There are the same number of teams over 62 million as under 50 million. 7. And of those all will make the playoffs except the Blackhawks.

Yeah, its great getting a draft pick that could be top 5. But knowing that in three years I'm still gonna have less than 10 million in the bank and have to trade that player because I can't afford his 5 million dollar deal makes it all pointless.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Matt --- My question though is that if you are making $3-6M per year, isn't it still going to take you 3-5 years until you are in the range that you consider stable ($20M+)?

Or do you think that $10M or so would be the new stable with a better financial model?

For the record, I like the endorsements and think we should keep them. Maybe scale them back a bit if we are raising the generic revenue.

Is there anyone who would be against raising the slider for revenue right now? Can you change this post into a poll?

- $10-12 million might be closer to the new stable if the revenue imbalance is corrected.

- I don't mind having some endorsements/rewards next season, but they can't be considered part of the break-even requirement. And the current ones needs vastly overhauled, including scaling back the rewards and eliminating the buy-ins. We have to see this year's endorsements through, though (probably obvious, but just to be clear!).

- Given that we are acknowledging that the revenues have been broke. For the past three seasons, I'd suggest a one-time float of $5 million each for teams with under a $10 million balance to get them solvent again and start the new world with something more like a level playing field. While my Jackets would theoretically be one of those teams, I'm willing to waive that subsidy in my case.

- I propose upping the slider to a $50 million average (whether that's one or two ticks) at the All Star break.

 

[kasper11]

3 to 5 years sucks but its a way out. In that time I will dump all my good players for youngster or picks and by the time they hit 2nd contracts I can afford them (especially since 2nd contracts for these guys is now 5 million +).

But right now I just spent a year sucking, my team got weaker, I didn't really get anything for my salary dumps because there isn't a market for it, and I'm still gonna lose money. I'm not even gonna make 1 or 2 million, which is a twenty year path back to stable.

And trust me, stable doesn't mean you can spend 60 million. Right now the system allows a 20-30 million dollar loss and nobody seems to think that's not okay. But people get up in arms because OMG you might make 10 million in a season? I don't get it.

The league is losing is competitiveness. There are 27 sellers. Yes partly its the cap. But mostly its the financial situation. You know that if you eff it up, or even if you make the 2nd round of the playoffs and get endorsements at 10 you will still lose money and not build any buffer for the future or for your new contracts.

In fact, for all the people who complain that GM's are irresponsible, spending wildly. Its' mostly a myth. I want to know - where are the teams that are over the cap? Where are the teams even AT the cap. There are the same number of teams over 62 million as under 50 million. 7. And of those all will make the playoffs except the Blackhawks.

Yeah, its great getting a draft pick that could be top 5. But knowing that in three years I'm still gonna have less than 10 million in the bank and have to trade that player because I can't afford his 5 million dollar deal makes it all pointless.

Well, I don't mind $10M gains, I just didn't want to see that be the minimum.

And the myth of teams spending wildly is due to another problem, namely the auto-resign drying up the UFA market forcing teams to overpay for mediocre talent. But that is a discussion for another day

 

[kasper11]

- $10-12 million might be closer to the new stable if the revenue imbalance is corrected.

- I don't mind having some endorsements/rewards next season, but they can't be considered part of the break-even requirement. And the current ones needs vastly overhauled, including scaling back the rewards and eliminating the buy-ins. We have to see this year's endorsements through, though (probably obvious, but just to be clear!).

- Given that we are acknowledging that the revenues have been broke. For the past three seasons, I'd suggest a one-time float of $5 million each for teams with under a $10 million balance to get them solvent again and start the new world with something more like a level playing field. While my Jackets would theoretically be one of those teams, I'm willing to waive that subsidy in my case.

- I propose upping the slider to a $50 million average (whether that's one or two ticks) at the All Star break.

Two amendments I would make...
1) The float needs to be done at the end of the season. As of now I am under $10M, but with a decent playoff run I won't be.

2) The slider should be increased (or decreased) every year to account for changes to the salary cap. The whole point of the NHL cap was that salaries should be a set percentage of revenues. The obvious correlation is that revenues are a set multiple of salaries. So, if our salaries are going to go up (or down) with the NHL salaries, so should our revenue. Either that or we have this same discussion 3 years from now.

(Yeah, this is probably what you had in mind, figured it was best to point it out now so that people aren't surprised later)

 

[MatthewFlames]

Two amendments I would make...
1) The float needs to be done at the end of the season. As of now I am under $10M, but with a decent playoff run I won't be.

2) The slider should be increased (or decreased) every year to account for changes to the salary cap. The whole point of the NHL cap was that salaries should be a set percentage of revenues. The obvious correlation is that revenues are a set multiple of salaries. So, if our salaries are going to go up (or down) with the NHL salaries, so should our revenue. Either that or we have this same discussion 3 years from now.

(Yeah, this is probably what you had in mind, figured it was best to point it out now so that people aren't surprised later)

I actually don't mind not having a float. I am happy to start where I am. Don't need give-aways as much as a reliable actual way to get out of the perpetual cycle without having to resort to a) ten years of trying to make money b) by having a 35 million dollar roster (even though I've been trying to get down there since the summer, but I just can't find a way to give away the decent players I have for nothing to the vultures....)

I also don't think changes need to be made immediately. But they should be this off-season. Or we can have this chat again next year.

I agree that the slider would have to be adjusted as the cap moves. And if this is a change thats implemented then we should allow ourselves the flexibility to adjust in season - if its either not enough or if its too much.

 

[Ohio Jones]

I actually don't mind not having a float. I am happy to start where I am. Don't need give-aways as much as a reliable actual way to get out of the perpetual cycle without having to resort to a) ten years of trying to make money b) by having a 35 million dollar roster (even though I've been trying to get down there since the summer, but I just can't find a way to give away the decent players I have for nothing to the vultures....)

I also don't think changes need to be made immediately. But they should be this off-season. Or we can have this chat again next year.

I agree that the slider would have to be adjusted as the cap moves. And if this is a change thats implemented then we should allow ourselves the flexibility to adjust in season - if its either not enough or if its too much.

If we acknowledge the revenue is out of whack, and we're open to the idea of adjusting it in-season going forward, I don't see the issue with starting the adjustment at the All Star Break, otherwise we're just keeping our collective foot down on the throat of troubled teams like yours an extra few months out of principle. Seems wrongheaded to me: see a problem, fix it. It's not going to skew competition amongst the teams already in the hunt, so I fail to see the negative impact.

 

[MatthewFlames]

If we acknowledge the revenue is out of whack, and we're open to the idea of adjusting it in-season going forward, I don't see the issue with starting the adjustment at the All Star Break, otherwise we're just keeping our collective foot down on the throat of troubled teams like yours an extra few months out of principle. Seems wrongheaded to me: see a problem, fix it. It's not going to skew competition amongst the teams already in the hunt, so I fail to see the negative impact.

I don't see any negative impact either - I'm just wary of infuriating the opposition by mid-season changes. They've already got enough to deal with

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

My main observation to all of this is if it seems that the slider actually works in a rather linear and controllable way, that is ALWAYS the better way to go. But in past, the slider had some massive and uncontrolled impacts as I recall in test seasons when increasing it, so we opted for endorsements, top-ups etc. If we are reasonably confident a bump at mid-season won't send the finances into the stratosphere, I'm all for it.

And the main reason it is such a poor sellers market right now is because the cap is actually getting adjusted downwards going forward (I think), whereas in the past 3-4 years the cap has increased significantly the following year, so acquiring expensive guys at the deadline was ok because auto-signing them or taking on a big long-term contract wasn't as big a deal going forward given the extra cap room the following year. Not the case this year, so a guy like St. Louis or similar, becomes a challenge to fit into your team this year AND next year.

The current league economics basically require you to have several rookie cap type players with 70+ ratings so you are good enough to make decent money, while have some highly economical players in terms of bang for your buck. These are tough players to acquire for competitive teams, so a lot of teams seem to get caught in a rut of having all of their best players being very expensive. Teams like the Flames and Blue Jackets (not calling you out, just two examples) don't have any 70 rated skaters making less than $1M, and that is a tough way to go. In the case of the Flames, they don't have a 70 rated skater making less than $2M. Even in the NHL, if all of your premiere players are past their rookie deals, you are going to have some cap issues. Having a few of these guys doesn't guarantee you make money, but it helps a lot.

All of this being said, there are several teams that were near broke that have turned it around in terms of building back up their finances. It's not impossible to do, although it is very difficult if you hang on to the idea you want to be a Cup contender AND get your bank balance up from the brink to average.

I still think auto-sign is an absolute must from a logistical standpoint (agents) for many reasons, but having different rules in place to go along with this auto-sign deal might also help. People forget that auto-sign can also be a really GOOD thing, when an NHL team signs a player to a long-term deal BEFORE their play improves. Our autosign can also save you $3-6 million on rookie deals, as I've been paying Jordan Eberle for top line production for 3 years at $850k. Rookie deals in the NHL routinely pay top guys $3M-$4M with bonuses. But one idea I've been thinking is each team gets 1-3 discounts to apply each year to new deals in re-signing existing players against the auto-sign, similar to the loyalty factor we've applied for players. Something like one 15% discount and one 30% discount for a couple of guys as a consideration of using a franchise's good will, so you could get a deal or two at a discount each year, at the judgement of the GM. Something to consider.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Teams like the Flames and Blue Jackets (not calling you out, just two examples) don't have any 70 rated skaters making less than $1M,

I blame the people making the ratings

#takingnoresponsibilityforbeing****




EDIT: WAIT A MINUTE: My rookie deals: Skinner, 69. Anisimov, 69. Gardiner, 69. There is a trend here... did Alvaro make these ratings?????