Trade Deadline(s)

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
NHL Trade Deadline has come and gone, with HFNHL Jackets Piche, Geoffrion, Moore and Gilbert all moving. But overall, what a dud! I expected it to be slow, and yet was still surprised. The Sportsnet Strategy Desk with Smith, Quinn, Lawton and MacLean was cool, too bad they had so little to talk about.

Unlike the HFNHL, where we've already seen a tonne of movement including major pieces. And there are still 4 days to go!

But will there be any more significant movement? The few buyers out there have already loaded up with assets like Ryan and Kipprusoff... Who has cap room left? The Leafs? Anyone else? Meanwhile, there are lots of sellers on the market. We'll see if one or two of them can move some more salary before the deadline - especially Ottawa, which has to make some moves happen.

But yeah, I don't expect deadline day itself to see many more deals than the NHL had. If that.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
NHL Trade Deadline has come and gone, with HFNHL Jackets Piche, Geoffrion, Moore and Gilbert all moving. But overall, what a dud! I expected it to be slow, and yet was still surprised. The Sportsnet Strategy Desk with Smith, Quinn, Lawton and MacLean was cool, too bad they had so little to talk about.

Unlike the HFNHL, where we've already seen a tonne of movement including major pieces. And there are still 4 days to go!

But will there be any more significant movement? The few buyers out there have already loaded up with assets like Ryan and Kipprusoff... Who has cap room left? The Leafs? Anyone else? Meanwhile, there are lots of sellers on the market. We'll see if one or two of them can move some more salary before the deadline - especially Ottawa, which has to make some moves happen.

But yeah, I don't expect deadline day itself to see many more deals than the NHL had. If that.

The issue with HFNHL is that everyone wants 'YOUTHS" regardless where they are playing. I think it is time for us to being minimum salary requirements just like NHL. The minimum ov rating has not worked and will never worked. I am buying, if there are team out there wants to make a deal. I have enough cap room to add player or two but the deal has to be right one for my team.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
Conversely, there are a lot of folks offering substandard assets for quality players. I refuse to move a 70 OVR player in this league for a player that is playing in the ECHL. As a guy that doesn't really like to get picks back in trades, I want an asset that I can scout. Or at least a bust with a pedigree!
 

kasper11

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,674
13
New York
Visit site
I think part of the problem is that quite a few expected playoff teams have struggled so bad. You have teams like NJ, StL, Cal, Bos flooding the market with veteran players. Then, the teams that are actually making the playoffs aren't really confident enough in their teams to be major buyers, especially for older players.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
I think part of the problem is that quite a few expected playoff teams have struggled so bad. You have teams like NJ, StL, Cal, Bos flooding the market with veteran players. Then, the teams that are actually making the playoffs aren't really confident enough in their teams to be major buyers, especially for older players.

The issue is not with the team you mentioned above as these teams are trading their potential UFA players and have enough in their prospect to be competitive next season.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
Conversely, there are a lot of folks offering substandard assets for quality players. I refuse to move a 70 OVR player in this league for a player that is playing in the ECHL. As a guy that doesn't really like to get picks back in trades, I want an asset that I can scout. Or at least a bust with a pedigree!
I can understand not trading your 70 rated players for picks and ECHL but trading your 22 year up and coming NHL ready players for prospects is head scratcher. So when are you planning to compete? In next 10 years? Trust me, I have been through this road and it is no fun seeing your team lose day in and day out. Also, look at my prospect list of the past and you will notice more bust than sucess. Players like Folitov, Chapanov, Radulov, Beach Esposito were only few of them.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
I can understand not trading your 70 rated players for picks and ECHL but trading your 22 year up and coming NHL ready players for prospects is head scratcher. So when are you planning to compete? In next 10 years? Trust me, I have been through this road and it is no fun seeing your team lose day in and day out. Also, look at my prospect list of the past and you will notice more bust than sucess. Players like Folitov, Chapanov, Radulov, Beach Esposito were only few of them.

I don't know if you were speaking specifically about my trades recently, or just in general, but if it was in reference to my Orlov and McBain trade it was just one that I felt I needed to make. McBain, 24, is at a pivotal point in his career with Carolina. I have watched every game of his career with perhaps the exception of a handful of games and I felt I was in position to make a call on his upside at this point. I just don't see him rising to the top the way that others might. Orlov was tougher as a 20 year old playing in the NHL, but it was a calculated risk for me.

I suppose that just underscores the importance for me of getting good assets back for highly rated players when I deal them. I don't aspire to be a prospect collector, but that is where I am in my development with this team. I can't deal highly rated players for assets that would do less for my team than keeping the player.
 

Canuck09

Registered User
Jul 4, 2004
2,040
197
Vancouver
I can't deal highly rated players for assets that would do less for my team than keeping the player.

This is where I get stuck.

Half my team is having an off NHL season so most are working that angle to drive the price down, fair enough. At some point though my players on off years are still worth more to me than some random pick or prospect.

In the end, I keep my underperforming players because offers aren't up to what I'd like and my team is in limbo. Neither seriously competing or rebuilding. Fun times.
 

HFNHLOilers

Registered User
Dec 13, 2008
1,238
119
Brampton
I think one of the problems is well everyone was geering up and gauging there teams i quickly dispatched of my Vets which filled hole teams would be looking for at this point in time as well i was quick is getting value for my guys and with the teams patching there spots thanks to me there is less for u guys ;)
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
I don't know if you were speaking specifically about my trades recently, or just in general, but if it was in reference to my Orlov and McBain trade it was just one that I felt I needed to make. McBain, 24, is at a pivotal point in his career with Carolina. I have watched every game of his career with perhaps the exception of a handful of games and I felt I was in position to make a call on his upside at this point. I just don't see him rising to the top the way that others might. Orlov was tougher as a 20 year old playing in the NHL, but it was a calculated risk for me.

I suppose that just underscores the importance for me of getting good assets back for highly rated players when I deal them. I don't aspire to be a prospect collector, but that is where I am in my development with this team. I can't deal highly rated players for assets that would do less for my team than keeping the player.

I think you know your players better than anyone else and no I am not picking on your team. I am just saying that rebuilding is a long and painful process and it is no fun at all. So when you have someone like Orlov and McBann it is better to package them together and acquire better NHL young player than prospects that may make NHL or may never be close to their potential and I don't think at least in my view that you have enough assets to take the risk like the one you did with Orlov and McBann.
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
But will there be any more significant movement? The few buyers out there have already loaded up with assets like Ryan and Kipprusoff... Who has cap room left? The Leafs? Anyone else?


We've already been busy filling up our cap space. With the addition of Selanne and Sturm we've added about 10.8mil. We still have quite a bit of space but at this time were really just looking for a rental dman.
Still its hard to find a good deal as a buyer, everyone keeps asking for top ten prospects for their 70 rated players with bad contracts :)
 

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
Did I mention that deadline day coverage should run from noon until 5, rather than from 8 until 4? :shakehead

Anyway, the HFNHL differs from the NHL in that we don't have owners and fanbases to answer to, so there's less incentive for teams to try and "compete" - it's pretty much contend or rebuild for most teams.

We also don't have to worry about player personalities, coaching styles or chemistry in the room (to a large degree), so we can make moves more or less purely on hockey value, with some dollar pressure coming from the cap. NHL GMs have to balance all of those considerations.

The end result is that we have more extreme swings season to season, and far more trade activity than the NHL (even discounting Alvaro's influence!). And for a Sim league with (by definition) limited ways to interact, I'm just fine with that.

I'm NOT in favour of introducing a salary floor, in large part because it's been such an abject failure for the NHL, driving almost a third of the league to incur massive debts by having to spend up to a floor rather than spending what their market can support.

Our sim effectively counters inflation by only permitting teams to generate so much revenue (dammit!) - a number well south of the cap in most seasons. So even if they wanted to most teams simply can't afford to spend to the cap year after year unless they get lucky enough to always have a long playoff run. We counter deflation in large part through contract matching with the NHL and through human nature, as we see on display each FA season.

So the only worry is ensuring a degree of parity. It's achieved at the top end by the cap, but a spending floor does not ensure parity, since teams can simply pay AHL scrubs NHL salaries and still be far from competitive. That's why the minimum OV mechanism was introduced - something we can do (and the NHL can't) because player values are clearly quantified.

Minimum OV has worked before; the reason it hasn't worked this season is simply because we forgot to adjust the floor for the new ratings set. It has to be reset each year. And we could probably afford to be a little more aggressive with a floor that still makes a team competitive. For example, this season it could be as high as 67 and only three teams would currently be below (and that's after their respective selloffs.)

The only alternative is to have no minimum at all, and simply allow teams to blow up as and when they choose, so long as they can defend their moves to the DoPP. That puts a lot of pressure on those guys, though, which is why the OV floor is more concrete and, I'd argue, fair.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
The SIM has a minimum revenue is at least $900K per game so $36M is feasible with AHL roster. The issue with minimum ov is that we only know our players ratings at the beginning of the season which may be too late for teams that are below and will force them to over pay. As for salary, we have auto sign in place so there is not much the agent do other than sqeeze teams who traded for UFA players after the season and before free agency.
 

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
The SIM has a minimum revenue is at least $900K per game so $36M is feasible with AHL roster. The issue with minimum ov is that we only know our players ratings at the beginning of the season which may be too late for teams that are below and will force them to over pay. As for salary, we have auto sign in place so there is not much the agent do other than sqeeze teams who traded for UFA players after the season and before free agency.

GMs should be able to ballpark most of their players' OVs within a reasonable range prior to the ratings being issued. They are given a warning when they are close, and can be given an opportunity to get over the floor, as we do when teams are over the cap and need to get under. This does not strike me as a significant issue at all.

But you have landed on a huge issue with the current sim, which is that teams earn between $900k and $1.1m per home game regardless of their talent or record. There is no financial incentive to be competitive. Does anyone know if there is a setting we should be using to generate a wider, more realistic range of revenues?
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
I'm not a fan of the salary floor... in hf it'll only lead to a dumping ground for bad contracts and therefore more bad contracts and less room in free agency. Also rebuilding is also about building cash up, not just draft picks. Problem isn't that we need a floor but a wider spread in game revenue... a bad team should not be raking in 900k per game while the best teams are making 1.1mil... and no, endorsements and playoffs don't offset. Endorsements are unpredictable and the barrier to entry in my opinion is too high for a lot of them. Playoffs are really only for round one which if you're lucky will net you 3-4mil. Still, I can't think of a better system and were already throwing a lot of cash around... didn't Ottawa just pick up ten mil? We can't unbalance the sim with too much cash either...
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
I'm not a fan of the salary floor... in hf it'll only lead to a dumping ground for bad contracts and therefore more bad contracts and less room in free agency. Also rebuilding is also about building cash up, not just draft picks. Problem isn't that we need a floor but a wider spread in game revenue... a bad team should not be raking in 900k per game while the best teams are making 1.1mil... and no, endorsements and playoffs don't offset. Endorsements are unpredictable and the barrier to entry in my opinion is too high for a lot of them. Playoffs are really only for round one which if you're lucky will net you 3-4mil. Still, I can't think of a better system and were already throwing a lot of cash around... didn't Ottawa just pick up ten mil? We can't unbalance the sim with too much cash either...

It is different when you build your cash with competitive team. However this sim pays you the same with AHL line up. There clearly are some issues with the way the sim is structured where AHL team can make in excess of $20M profit while teams like Calgary and Ottawa are struggling with breaking evenand being being competitive. Maybe, we need to restructure our endoresements based on HFNHL performance where teams get paid for their sucess in HFNHL and not by randomly minor league performance of a player who has nothing to do with the team and is not signed prospect and by the time endorsement comes up, some of these minor league players have already met the the target. The other suggestion I have is that each team should have minimum of 15 NHL players in their roster with at least 80 games minimum experience or combined 1200 NHL games. The games should be counted at the end of the season so rookie games are counted and factored in This way they can go cheap and find a way to be competitive.
 
Last edited:

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
It is different when you build your cash with competitive team. However this sim pays you the same with AHL line up. There clearly are some issues with the way the sim is structured where AHL team can make in excess of $20M profit while teams like Calgary and Ottawa are struggling with breaking even even and being competitive. Maybe, we need to restructure our endoresements based on HFNHL performance where teams get paid for their sucess in HFNHL and not by randomly minor league performance of a player who has nothing to do with the team and not signed prospect. The other suggestion I have is that easch team should have minimum of 15 NHL players in their roster with at least 80 games experience. This way they can go cheap and find a way to be competitive.

I agree the revenue system isn't
fairly balanced, but I'm cautioning against adding more money to the system.

I like the idea of changing the TV revenue to reflect team performance (ie distributed based on points) rather then a flat amount. If I barely make the playoffs with a 60mil team I should get more then an AHL team vying for first overall. But again since i am vying for that eighth spot my opinion is biased :)

I don't care how bad of a team a GM fields as long as they don't make money off of it while better teams struggle.
 

MatthewFlames

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
4,678
812
'Murica
I agree the revenue system isn't
fairly balanced, but I'm cautioning against adding more money to the system.

I like the idea of changing the TV revenue to reflect team performance (ie distributed based on points) rather then a flat amount. If I barely make the playoffs with a 60mil team I should get more then an AHL team vying for first overall. But again since i am vying for that eighth spot my opinion is biased :)

I don't care how bad of a team a GM fields as long as they don't make money off of it while better teams struggle.

I have to disagree with you. The ONLY way I can make money now is by fielding an AHL team and making profits. When I try to be competitive and the sim dictates that I don't make the playoffs I am instantly broke again, like this season.

The league revenue system has major flaws. Two of them are: 1 the caps and budgets have grown but revenue from tickets remains the same 2 endorsements help teams that are already making the playoff revenue. So if you have money you can field a competitive team and make the playoff revenue and endorsments. The rich stay rich. The poor have no way out.

I tried to get out of poverty scraping by and forcing the league to change some rules and arguing the only way was to be a regular playoff team. But it was a risky way to do it and it all fell apart this season when I stopped winning (which also meant the sim kept lowering my attendance and I had to drop ticket prices to make that endorsement and so I average 150k per game less revenue than the average.) So I'm getting killed doubly. It is why I ran out of money ( in addition to the extra 10 mil I spent on upgrades when I was losing badly, like Gomez etc.)

So the only way to make money for me is to ice a sub 40 million dollar roster for the coming seasons and that is now what I'm doing (Backstrom is available!) Don't take that option away from me or there will be no choices for me. If that happened I would honestly walk away from the Flames to give a new GM ten million and wait for another franchise. And I wouldn't take one that didn't have 25 million in the bank.

Changing the revenue stream from TV revenue to make it so only winning teams make money only takes money out of my pocket and further prolongs my time with an AHL sub 40 million dollar roster. So far that it might be a permanent sub 40 roster.

If anything does change I think it should be that we raise the base level of money in the league from what it was in 1999 (35 million per team, which was then about the average payroll) to something closer to 45 or 50 mil per team which is about the average NHL budget now. That wouldn't be a huge change - from 2 million to 5 or 6 per team I guesstimate. So enough for me to ice a 45 million budget team (so break even on ticket and TV revenue and make 5-7 in endorsements and nothing from playoffs (given the AHL roster) or it would let me ice a 40 mil team for 3 years instead of 5.

Otherwise, as effed up as it may seem in a competitive league you either fix the revenue problems (which have been voted down for ten years straight) or let me suck and make some damned money.

EDIT: As a capitalist there is just something inherently wrong with failin intentionally because there is no other way to make money. Better not let my American neighbors know I'm doing this. I might find the NRA on my doorstep.
 
Last edited:

MatthewFlames

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
4,678
812
'Murica
Ohio jones said:
But you have landed on a huge issue with the current sim, which is that teams earn between $900k and $1.1m per home game regardless of their talent or record. There is no financial incentive to be competitive. Does anyone know if there is a setting we should be using to generate a wider, more realistic range of revenues?

No such mechanism exists. You can't even change the average per and revenue etc.
 

MatthewFlames

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
4,678
812
'Murica
As an aside from the 12th ANNUAL GREAT FINANCIAL DEBATE, and back to the original topic, a few Flames were traded in the biggest deals of the day. Z Kassian to the Canucks (and yes, Robb was texting less than a minute after the deal was tweeted), Gaustad for a first (and yes, that offer would land him in the HFNHL too people) and Connolly from the Sharks to Avs in the Galiardi/Winnick deal.

Not bad. Happy that Kassian was moved to the Canucks. I can see him flurishing there - listened to Gillis say that he will get more ice time in Van than he was getting in Buffalo.

Now if I can just get the Sabres to trade Sekera from that sad sack excuse of a franchise.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
No such mechanism exists. You can't even change the average per and revenue etc.

Maybe we should scrap the SIM revenue altogether and calculate manually with each point bring in $500K. A 100 point season will be cool $50M plus playoffs and endorsements.
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
I have to disagree with you. The ONLY way I can make money now is by fielding an AHL team and making profits. When I try to be competitive and the sim dictates that I don't make the playoffs I am instantly broke again, like this season.

It's your case in point that makes me feel the sim is broken... revenue spread isn't wide enough. I know if we change the rules now it'll screw you over, but we have to make some changes, this sim is even worse then the last sim! BTW, the only way Abbas and I were able to get out of financial debt (leafs wern't in a 20M plus surplus 6 years ago) was to spend our way out like you did. We lucked out with some nice playoff runs which is when the gamble pays off. Again though that was when the SIM actually had some decent spread between crappy performance and good performance.

The league revenue system has major flaws. Two of them are: 1 the caps and budgets have grown but revenue from tickets remains the same 2 endorsements help teams that are already making the playoff revenue.

For me the endorsement system is like gambling... hard to really plan your team's financial whims on the randomness of the SIM. Your star player gets injured, no endorsement.. your star player slumps, no endorsement... you start the year with ****** moral... no endorsement. Everyone pretty much picks the same safe endorsements each year and to be honest with you, the revenue is pretty fixed anyways. I think the better teams maybe walk out with 5M on average.

So if you have money you can field a competitive team and make the playoff revenue and endorsments. The rich stay rich. The poor have no way out.

This i don't know how to fix... as far as I can tell there are rich teams out there who have more money then they could possibly spend in 10 years in this league. Still, that's capitalism for you...

If you don't do anything in this league you'll make 37M right now, plus 3M in mountain due and then TV revenue of 10M. that means a team who does nothing will walk away with 50M in revenue with no incentive to field a team worth more then 35M. Now, I'm not saying a team shouldn't be able to tank, but when a team fields an AHL squad it skews the standings terribly. I don't think teams should be incentivised to do this.

Meanwhile a GM who field a competitive team will make around 45M plus maybe 5M in endorsements and 10M in TV revenue. That puts you in the 60M revenue mark assuming you hit all targets. With a 60M salary cap that's a tight rope to walk. Still you can make money if you make the playoffs and you hit your endorsements.

The league revenue system has major flaws. I tried to get out of poverty scraping by and forcing the league to change some rules and arguing the only way was to be a regular playoff team. But it was a risky way to do it and it all fell apart this season when I stopped winning (which also meant the sim kept lowering my attendance and I had to drop ticket prices to make that endorsement and so I average 150k per game less revenue than the average.) So I'm getting killed doubly. It is why I ran out of money ( in addition to the extra 10 mil I spent on upgrades when I was losing badly, like Gomez etc.)

So the only way to make money for me is to ice a sub 40 million dollar roster for the coming seasons and that is now what I'm doing (Backstrom is available!) Don't take that option away from me or there will be no choices for me. If that happened I would honestly walk away from the Flames to give a new GM ten million and wait for another franchise. And I wouldn't take one that didn't have 25 million in the bank.

Changing the revenue stream from TV revenue to make it so only winning teams make money only takes money out of my pocket and further prolongs my time with an AHL sub 40 million dollar roster. So far that it might be a permanent sub 40 roster.

If anything does change I think it should be that we raise the base level of money in the league from what it was in 1999 (35 million per team, which was then about the average payroll) to something closer to 45 or 50 mil per team which is about the average NHL budget now. That wouldn't be a huge change - from 2 million to 5 or 6 per team I guesstimate. So enough for me to ice a 45 million budget team (so break even on ticket and TV revenue and make 5-7 in endorsements and nothing from playoffs (given the AHL roster) or it would let me ice a 40 mil team for 3 years instead of 5.

Otherwise, as effed up as it may seem in a competitive league you either fix the revenue problems (which have been voted down for ten years straight) or let me suck and make some damned money.

EDIT: As a capitalist there is just something inherently wrong with failin intentionally because there is no other way to make money. Better not let my American neighbors know I'm doing this. I might find the NRA on my doorstep.
[/QUOTE]

I can see your point that maybe we should consider increasing the cash available within the league... the number could be tied to the salary cap, not to an arbitrary number like 30M. That being said, with the cap inplace there's no way for big teams to "over spend" and bring cash back into the system. Once you put money in there it'll just make the rich teams richer and the poor teams will still burn it away within a year or two. If you don't have a 20M surplus, it's very hard to stay rich since you can't afford the ups and downs of the season. You're forced to take higher risk endorsements, you're force to make bad trades to make the playoffs, etc...

I'm not fooling myself in thinking we're going to make any significant changes here, I mean we debate this every year and we end up making very small changes (BTW, I'm scared too of making large changes, you don't want to mess with the balance of this league). If we want to avoid punishing GM's who have tried to compete for the last few years we could always take the last 3 years of league results and use that to distribute TV revenue plus any added cash. I just thinking increasing the spread would bring the distribution of revenue closer to what it was a couple of years ago in the older sim... lots of teams still tanked then and made money.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
nice discussion .... if anyone can tell me why i am bleeding despite adding millions in cash from trades and dumping millions in salary, i would be appreciative!

i am pretty sure i made round 2 of the playoffs last season and the day this season started, I was projected to lose 17m, before even 1 game was played.
 

MatthewFlames

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
4,678
812
'Murica
BTW, the only way Abbas and I were able to get out of financial debt (leafs wern't in a 20M plus surplus 6 years ago) was to spend our way out like you did.

This was my preferred method. On paper before the season started I should have been a playoff team. Some predicted a top 2 or4 finish in the conference. When I added Dion, Gomez, Ott and Brouwer without taking away from my top 9 or top 4 D, I still couldn't get above 12th place. So... I took the risk and it failed. When I went into the red I started dumping per the rules.

For me the endorsement system is like gambling... hard to really plan your team's financial whims on the randomness of the SIM. Your star player gets injured, no endorsement.. your star player slumps, no endorsement... you start the year with ****** moral... no endorsement.

I agree. Its' gambling. But, one of the teams that had money but now doesn't is the Penguins. Why? Because he doesn't do endorsements because of the gambling element. So every year his peers were making 5 - 15 million and he wasn't. Its the system we have in place and so far haven't come up with a better one. The changes we made a few seasons ago have helped.


This i don't know how to fix... as far as I can tell there are rich teams out there who have more money then they could possibly spend in 10 years in this league. Still, that's capitalism for you...

And I don't have a problem with that. I think the system is fine for rich teams. Even middling teams. Its just if you end up in a financial quandary your options are limited.

If you don't do anything in this league you'll make 37M right now, plus 3M in mountain due and then TV revenue of 10M.

Actually - that's not quite correct for me. Its' 36 million ticket revenue. ZERO TV revenue (this season) or TWO million (last season). I will make one endorsement since my team sucked. It's worth 5 million. Thats a total of 41 million dollars TO BREAK EVEN. Most teams with a payroll of 41 million won't make the playoffs. No team is making 50 million and has a sub 40 million dollar budget. That's a dream I'd like to come to fruition for me.

Meanwhile a GM who field a competitive team will make around 45M plus maybe 5M in endorsements and 10M in TV revenue. That puts you in the 60M revenue mark assuming you hit all targets. With a 60M salary cap that's a tight rope to walk. Still you can make money if you make the playoffs and you hit your endorsements.

If a team spends at 5 mil below the cap (54 mil) and makes the playoffs (lets say one round) and makes 8 million in endorsements (about the average last year) then they will have made (45 tickets, 4 home playoffs, 8 mil in endorsements, zero tv) 58 million. They will break even or make a couple million. If they go to the cap, they will lose a few million. If they win some other stuff (all stars) and go deep and get 12-15 endorsements, then they can make money. Its' the only way.


I can see your point that maybe we should consider increasing the cash available within the lead
e... the number could be tied to the salary cap, not to an arbitrary number like 30M.

Not the cap. The average spend of each team, which is quite a bit lower. The cap is too high.

That being said, with the cap inplace there's no way for big teams to "over spend" and bring cash back into the system. Once you put money in there it'll just make the rich teams richer and the poor teams will still burn it away within a year or two. If you don't have a 20M surplus, it's very hard to stay rich since you can't afford the ups and downs of the season.

SOME poor teams. If I'd have had enough in the bank to ride out this one bad season I would be fine as you suggest. My problem has more to do with MO or whatever makes the sim so unrealistic rather than the approach I took to make money (see your earlier comment about how the Leafs got into the good financial position)....

You're forced to take higher risk endorsements, you're force to make bad trades to make the playoffs, etc...

This is one of the problems with the system if you're a poor team. Its either that risk or the sub 40 million dollar roster that you propose doing away with. I took the risk. It didn't work. I'm trying the other way now, as hard as it is to give up like that.
 

MatthewFlames

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
4,678
812
'Murica
nice discussion .... if anyone can tell me why i am bleeding despite adding millions in cash from trades and dumping millions in salary, i would be appreciative!

i am pretty sure i made round 2 of the playoffs last season and the day this season started, I was projected to lose 17m, before even 1 game was played.

Your revenue was projected to be about 37 million. You were spending close to the cap. You needed to have 17 million in the bank to start the season just to survive.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->