Contract Reform for Goalie Owners

1 free contract and a negative cap hit for goalies is a worse scenario than it is now with them being free...

Unless you mean 1 free contract in addition to the gm free contract? If that’s the case then we are saying the same thing just differently.

A goalie contract or a negative cap hit is essentially the same thing regardless.

How does the worth of current management factor in here? There are going to be good and not so good owners and teams. Someone has to come in last. Can you give an example of what you mean?

 

Owner Goalie- Negative Contract

Player Gm- Free Contract

If a team had a preset goalie contract of 2.25 like you proposed in addition to 2 free contracts (Owner,Gm) why wouldn't those 2 players just take a team together instead of overpaying for a goalie to do management stuff. It just doesn't make sense to handcuff yourself in that regard while also taking potential free contracts off the board and most likely high end goalies.

So if a team has 2 free contracts in theory that should be 8-12m in cap for your team. If you give the goalie gm/owner a minus contract to go with the free contract you are working with the same 8-12m that a player player management team gets.

As far as management worth that is to determine what should be a fair contract to give to a goalie manager. If you average goalie contract and put it against expected average player management contract you can find a number that will draw interest to being a goalie manager while also keeping a competitive playing field.

 

There's no such thing as a negative contract. The entire point of the 2.5(ish) contract for a goalie owner, is it is a suitable solution, that can be implemented now, with out any major changes to the website, or a team's total cap, or anything like that.

Again, I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but taking AGM and "pretending" to own is not a suitable solution the problem, for the various reasons stated in the responses above.

Also, you are not taking into consideration how many free contracts there are in the current format that want NOTHING to do with management. One of the primary drivers of this idea to begin with is to increase the quality of management across the LGHL. The 2.5(ish) suggestion is 100 times better than only having one contract to dish out.

Consider this:
The MOST a goalie will ever go for, is 2.5M, maybe. On average, the highest goalie contracts in the past few seasons have hovered around 2-2.5M

The MOST a forward or defender will ever go for in a given season, is upwards of 8-10M.

For those of you thinking, "well there are plenty of teams with 500K owners that make playoffs" that isn't the point. Nor is it helpful to argue "oh well how is this any different than a 2M skater owning a team".

The point is to have an even playing ground, and have an equal OPPORTUNITY to have a high-value management core to a team prior to the season starting.

In a perfect world, we will see less and less owners and free contracts that would be valued under 4-5M if they were in bidding. THAT is the goal. By doing so, it greatly increases the parity across the league, and there will be less "oh i'm not playing for that team because they have shitty 500K managers" throughout the season.

Before any further feedback is given, certain questions need to considered for the feedback to be valid:

1) does the idea help the league improve, if yes proceed.
2) does the idea hurt the league in any way by implementing this, if yes throw it away
3) can the idea be implemented now, with no added work or reworking of the league, if yes proceed

At the end of the day, this entire thread is in an effort to improve the league as a whole. I don't see how this affects ANYONE that has voted against this negatively in any way, which makes anyone wonder the validity of those votes to begin with.

If anyone can find a single way that this HURTS the league by implementing this, I'm all ears. We have roughly 10-12 teams that will need new owners next season. Why anyone would argue this is beyond my understanding.

 

I think what you're missing in this is why would a management team handcuff themselves on adding an overpriced unmovable goalie just so they dont have to do mgmt things and be a free contract. @kpy86 suggested giving a goalie owner a negative cap hit which would actually give goalie managment a balanced playing field and not necessarily an unfait advantage or screwing yourself by overpaying a goalie to run a team

 

Here is the thing. By having a gm and an agm free, it means the agm must be locked and cannot be moved. So you need to add a note to the currect rules. while just making a contract negative (if there is a possibility of it) makes it so no rules need to be changed and all it is, is a simple change in the contract value

 

Bring back paid AGM.

 

hmmm

 

The negative goalie contract is the easiest fix... figure out how to and we’re in business... -2.25 mil sounds fair.

 

why not just have a Owner GM and AGM for each teams but each team must have a goalie in there management team it mandatory all 3 players are free contract and cant be traded. PROBLEM SOLVE.

 

@DirtyJerrz

I support this.

Goalie owners are an untapped resource in a league that needs more good owners.

 

Just make goalie owners/GMS a -3M cap hit, problem solved.

 

Why don’t we extend the same offer to skaters then? I’ve only gone for more than 1.5 mil once. This could make it more enticing for Owners like Poopie to grab a pair of free management contracts.

 

Goalie owner should be equal to the highest contract of previous season or any set amount the league sets, but should have his AGM selected prior to bidding. After bidding he would be allowed to assign a temporary free contract to whomever he wants, but that player would still be allowed to ask for a trade (if he has trade request) or be traded and would retain his cap hit he had after bidding. Then the free contract could be reapplied to whoever the Goalie owner wants. The player given the free contract would also be absolved of any management duties.

 

Because if you're going to go that route, you may as well just start assigning cap hits for management and that leads to a whole other slew of issues.

 

Id pay 6mil for you

 

I wasn’t as focused on actually proposing this as I was primarily arguing the logic of @DirtyJerrz who said in the OP

“goalie owners would not be hampered by getting only (roughly) a maximum of 2M of value out of their primary free contract.”

 

I see a few different suggestions thrown around in this thread, but I don't see any of them actually being successful in giving everyone an "even playing field."

The OPs suggestion appears to be the most logical, but I'm not sold on how much giving a goalie manager a pre-determined contract value, and two free contracts will actually help out the goalie owner. Plus determining the value of the goalies contract in order to make things "fair" would be an impossible task to find a perfect number. (i.e. Giving the goalie owner too high of a contract could do more harm than good or giving him too low of a contract could be an advantage over other teams).

Someone suggested simply giving the goalie owner a negative contract value (I assume in this scenario the goalie owner would just be given one free GM?). This falls in the same category as the OPs suggestion in that coming up with a fair number will be difficult. Also not sure how much of a fan the Bogs would be for giving out a negative contract.

The last suggestion that everyone looked over was Pattelite's suggestion (no surprise there because it's Pattelite lol), but his suggestion would be the best at making everything "fair" for all managers. His idea of just giving every team three free contracts (one of which has to be a goalie) would give everyone an even playing field, but has plenty of other negatives. People would likely just take manager spots for free contracts without doing any actual manager work, and all 31 teams (soon to be 32) would start off with a 6 game a week goalie and at most their would be 31-32 backup goalies to be won in bidding.

Maybe one of these suggestions would be worth giving a try next season or in the Summer season. Imo I'd keep things the same next season and try something new in the Summer season if need be. @DirtyJerrz (or any other goalie for that matter) is more than capable of fielding a competitive team under the current rules. Jerz got screwed over by two things last season in picking the wrong GM, and spending too much cap on defense rather than on offense on this crappy game.

(sorry for channeling my inner Sweet Lou here)

 

Goalie owners can play 9 games a week. If you're a goalie and willing to own, you're crazy enough to want to play all LG games anyway.

Adds value without throwing off the salary systems, but is forced to use an ECU if they cant play because they would only be allowed 1 G on the NHL roster, saving them the salary of a second G of comparable skill.

 

This is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a long time.

 

A better idea than the OP, imo.