Contract Reform for Goalie Owners

Discussion in 'Leaguegaming Hockey League (LGHL)' started by DirtyJerrz, Dec 27, 2018.

?

Should we implement this?

  1. Yes

  2. Yes, but it needs further tweaks

  3. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. DirtyJerrz

    DirtyJerrz Nashville Predators Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    135
    Discord:
    DirtyJerrz973#4960
    Trophy Points:
    491
    Location:
    New York, US
    Ratings:
    +319 / 11 / -28
    LG Family,

    I wanted to propose an idea (which I am well aware various versions of this have been proposed in the past) for the upcoming seasons of LGHL. Since we are all still technically on holiday, I figure there isn't a better time to start up this discussion for the league as a whole, after discussing it with countless league members 1 on 1. I've teased this post in the management discord, and there has already been a lot of discussion on this topic throughout the season amongst management. This is something that could be implemented as early as S32 if the BOGs and league agreed to implementing this (or something similar), and there is no technical blockers to prevent this from happening with the current site’s technology. As the only current goalie owner, I feel slightly obligated to speak on this topic. Please keep an open mind on the following below...

    As we all know and have experienced first-hand, the league struggles every season to find a full set of 31 (soon to be 32) QUALITY owners for the league. My proposition is relatively simple, and seemingly does NOT create any "technical" incompatibilities with regards to the current format of management contracts in the league. With a simple update to the league rules, this could be implemented effective immediately with the conclusion of S31, if determined in the best interest of the league.


    The proposition is as follows:

    Goalie owners are automatically assigned a 2.5M-3M “max” goalie contract (a fair max goalie contract value can be determined and decided by the BOGs). The last few seasons, no goalie has gone for more than this. The logic, is that by giving the owner a max contract for their position, they are not starting with an advantage of any kind. (This is no different than a 2.5 or 3M AGM in terms of current format). Goalie owners are then given two free contracts to use at their disposal, with a GM and AGM of their choosing to appoint (“GM” and “AGM” can still apply, for a proper delineation when it comes to trades, rules, etc).

    The logic behind this for those following along, is that goalie owners would not be hampered by getting only (roughly) a maximum of 2M of value out of their primary free contract. In contrast, with the current format, skater owners that have gone for 4-8M+, can also have GMs that would go for 4-8M+, ending up with a possible 8-16M in two free contracts. Sometimes even more. Goalie owners can never hope to come close to that with the current format unless they lock down a 6-8M+ guy, and even then, it's less than the top duos.

    From a technical standpoint, this would be relatively simple. A max contract is manually assigned to the goalie owner (this can be applied now, to any player at any time, with the current site features). A GM and AGM are agreed upon by the owner at their time of choosing (same as now). By accepting GM or AGM for a goalie owner, you are held to the same rules as a GM would for a regular skater owner - you now have a free contract and cannot be traded unless two teams agree to trade GMs, or a team without a GM accepts the GM in a trade that is mutually agreed upon (these situations are rare, but have happened historically). Bans and applicable rules for GMs would apply to both GM and AGM under goalie owners. GM and AGM contracts are manually wiped by site management (the same way as they are done now for GMs).

    From a league “fairness” standpoint, this should not pose any issues. If anything, the goalie owner is STILL at a slight disadvantage, because we currently have goalies that go for 500K – 1M with Venezia caliber seasons, and as a goalie owner you’re getting tacked on with a max contract (let’s say 2.5M for now) from the start. It is not a perfect system, but it is much more balanced than the system that is currently in place, where goalie owners can never make up for that 6-8M of potential free contract dollars being forfeited day 1 by owning as a goalie.


    -----------

    Alright - so that's it in a nutshell. Goalie owners get a max contract, and two free contracts for their managers. Please hold the “goalies don’t matter” or “stick to AGM” comments to yourselves… I’ve heard it all already. I initially took owner as a goalie this season because I’m passionate about hockey, I have a managerial background IRL, and I actually care about the league. I also took ownership this season (mind you, it was the last team that no one wanted) not just to control my own destiny, but also to prove a point. It’s near impossible to have success with a free goalie contract in the current bidding/contract landscape. We’re all here to have fun at the end of the day, but owning (or just managing in some cases) in this league is practically a second job if you want to have serious success at it. I personally know a handful of goalies (and I’m sure we all know at least one or two) that would make fantastic owners, but they understand the disadvantages of the current format, and don’t want to start with such an uphill climb. I don’t blame them for a second… because that's exactly what it is.

    I believe that we’re really limiting ourselves with the quality of management in the league in the current format, and there’s no true reason for it if the option above (or something similar) was taken into serious consideration.

    I’ve played with a lot of you in just a few short seasons, and leagues/communities like LG add so much value to playing competitively. I dealt with a lot of diversity taking ownership this season, put out fires every week, and managed to field a team going into the final game of the season after being eliminated. We had a legit shot at playoffs going into week 8, even after all the diversity we encountered, and I feel I can hang my hat on that. We constantly reviewed and made moves in attempts to improve the roster. Now, I’m taking time out of my day, in the off-season, to write this up, with the hopes that we can improve the league as a whole. We’re all here in the first place because we’re passionate enough to play in a virtual league to begin with, right? Can't we make the long seasons more enjoyable for everyone by implementing this slight tweak to the current format? We've all been stuck on bad teams, and it comes down to the quality of management, but it all starts with the owners.

    Before this gets shot down (or someone says “it’s already been suggested”), I’ve already talked to the majority of the current owners, many ex owners and managers, and multiple high contract players around the league that think this idea would be beneficial to the league as a whole. I have yet to speak to anyone that explicitly doesn’t agree that something like this could (and should) be put into place.

    Please submit a vote on this above. I appreciate you all taking the time to read this and appreciate any and all feedback – thanks and good luck to those of you still fighting for a cup in S31.


    Jerrz
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
    • Like Like x 11
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
    Offline
    Dirtyjerrz973
  2. Really Good Dad

    Really Good Dad Make The Devils Great Again

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    5,041
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +659 / 18 / -29
    Having a team with 3 set contracts just so a goalie can own a team seems kind of silly. I like the idea of balancing goalie owners with skater owners but i dont think that is the way to do it. I know you said you dont want to hear it but in terms or value most goalies can be had for less than the set price and can be a "do everything" agm while leaving the 2 free contracts to skaters. I wouldnt mind seeing a team with a goalie owner get maybe an extra 2mil in cap to balance but im not sure that works either. Im sure there is a way to somehow make the league more balanced for goalie owners but i think as a community we would need to go back to the drawing board to find a different way
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Offline
    ReallyGooodDad
  3. DirtyJerrz

    DirtyJerrz Nashville Predators Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    135
    Discord:
    DirtyJerrz973#4960
    Trophy Points:
    491
    Location:
    New York, US
    Ratings:
    +319 / 11 / -28
    Valid suggestion, but again - you're submitting yourself to AGM in that situation, where there's no guarantee of anything - no guarantee that you return to the team you built, no access to bidding or preseason unless on a resign, and no guarantee that you'll even be kept through the season. It's a valid suggestion, but it's a broken one for those reasons among others.
     
    Offline
    Dirtyjerrz973
  4. l Bossy l x 22

    l Bossy l x 22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Messages:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    3,781
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +1,673 / 108 / -113
    I feel like an idea like this has never been implemented simply because there really isn't any point in doing this... For arguments sake, say this rule was implemented. How many $6-8+ million players would agree to take a free GM/AGM contract only to waste $2.5-3 million of their cap on a Goalie Owner? Especially when they can simply just pick up that goalie in bidding for much less than that and give him paid AGM. This paid AGM can also be traded instead of being stuck with an untradable $2.5-3 million contract.

    There's really not much else that can be done. You could argue that you can allow Owners to give their GM/AGM more abilities to do things (i.e. Trade DPs, make AHL trades, etc.), but I'm not sure giving these abilities to someone who can be traded away makes much sense. I suppose you can chose to give a paid AGM these abilities, but if this is done you would have to forfeit your ability to trade the paid AGM.

    Giving a goalie owner more cap room to work with could definitely help out a goalie owner, but there would be a huge debate regarding how much extra cap the goalie owner should actually be given, and I'm not sure if we would ever come up with a "fair" number.

    I know you don't want to hear it, but the only logical option for goalies who want to go into management is to find an Owner and GM who really want/need their help from the paid AGM position. As I mentioned, if the team/league chooses they can give teams the option to allow their other managers to have the same abilities as the owner.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Get Good Get Good x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    No Streaming Account
  5. Redmile89

    Redmile89 S32 Calgary Flames Owner

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    1,771
    Location:
    Saint John, NB
    Ratings:
    +588 / 28 / -39
    It's plain and simple. 2.5-3m is still obscene unless it's 1 of the select few goalies and even then...

    This is required in my opinion, as in order to fill out more quality management cores, there are goalies who could run teams etc... but the restriction with the contract right off the bat already cripples the team.

    Goalie owner's should be given extra cap to work with so implement the numbers. I haven't done any homework so @SweeT 9 LoU 84 can type out a novel, but something like this needs to be done ASAP. And not just a low ball, a fair price range, get the system set up properly.

    Goalie GM, for whatever reason.. still given additional cap room. Im not getting into numbers, but most of us would have a fair idea to work with anyways. Just a matter of meeting in the middle with BOGS and the SUPERIORS of the league.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    Redmile89
  6. TIN045

    TIN045 TNTINO

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,701
    Trophy Points:
    6,131
    Location:
    Montreal
    Ratings:
    +4,011 / 52 / -134
    An easier way would be to make a rule never to allow goalies to own, done deal, unplug your mic and play nets
     
    • Like Like x 10
    • Funny Funny x 6
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
    • Creative Creative x 1
  7. TabarNUCK

    TabarNUCK Certified Stud Muffin

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    302
    Discord:
    Canuckles#3684
    Trophy Points:
    691
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +948 / 4 / -8
    I do think there should be some system in place to make it so having a goalie owner or GM doesn't automatically put you at a disadvantage. I agree there is a shortage of decent players willing to take management, and I would much rather have NHL-quality goalies take ownership/management than some players who maybe don't have much NHL experience and/or aren't really good enough to hang in the big leagues. I wouldn't be completely against a set salary around $3M for a goalie owner/GM with a free AGM spot, only four AGMs in the league currently have a salary higher than $3.5M so it looks kind of balanced at first glance.

    I don't think it would be a bad idea to give it a try for a season and re-evaluate the system next off-season. Maybe start out a bit on the higher-end salary-wise (around $4M) to prevent/discourage any possible abuse of the system.

    However, you could argue that lower-end NHL skaters who take ownership/management should also get some compensation, but setting up a system for that would be nearly impossible.

    As a side note, I don't know how well this would work with the AHL or CHL. It might need to be tweaked for those leagues.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    No Streaming Account
  8. DirtyJerrz

    DirtyJerrz Nashville Predators Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    135
    Discord:
    DirtyJerrz973#4960
    Trophy Points:
    491
    Location:
    New York, US
    Ratings:
    +319 / 11 / -28
    I'll just copypasta same response I gave RGD:

    Valid suggestion, but again - you're submitting yourself to AGM in that situation, where there's no guarantee of anything - no guarantee that you return to the team you built, no access to bidding or preseason unless on a resign, and no guarantee that you'll even be kept through the season. It's a valid suggestion, but it's a broken one for those reasons among others.
     
    Offline
    Dirtyjerrz973
  9. l Bossy l x 22

    l Bossy l x 22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Messages:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    3,781
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +1,673 / 108 / -113
    No it's not... You potentially lose out on sticking with the same team for multiple seasons which is not a huge deal (there are maybe a half dozen owners currently who have stuck with the same organization/group for 3+ seasons). There's also no reason why you couldn't stick with the same group for multiple seasons as paid AGM if you're a part of one of the select few groups that stay together.

    Sure you won't have access to bidding, but plenty of paid AGMs have helped out their prospective teams during bidding without actually being able to place a bid. Also nobody in this league actually plays preseason games, but preseason happens once rosters are done, so that's not an issue either.

    Your biggest concerns seem to be that A.) You can be traded, and B.) You can't do everything that an owner can. My previous suggestion would fix both of those things if implemented.
     
    • Get Good Get Good x 1
    No Streaming Account
  10. DirtyJerrz

    DirtyJerrz Nashville Predators Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    135
    Discord:
    DirtyJerrz973#4960
    Trophy Points:
    491
    Location:
    New York, US
    Ratings:
    +319 / 11 / -28
    ...Preseason trades, not preseason games. Smh, you really think anyone cares about preseason games?

    And your "suggestion" is to not do anything, so you're not really helping fix the issue.

    I built the team I have with the intensions of being able to return to it and make the necessary changes. That includes my AHL roster which AGM has no authority over. Honestly, you're missing the big picture entirely.

    As AGM you also need to be re-signed every season, which wastes a resign, or there is no guarantee you end up on that team again. With goalies you only have a few bids before you're overpriced, and being in a bidding war isn't an option.

    It's not as simple of a solution as you're suggesting. My proposition solves a real problem in the league opposed to just finding another lazy work-around which doesn't actually fix anything.

    Thanks for your feedback though anyway
     
    Offline
    Dirtyjerrz973
  11. PieR Talent

    PieR Talent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    1,741
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +708 / 63 / -73
    Goalie owners should be treated the same as normal owners. Just because goalies are worth a lot less then every other position I don’t think they deserve a gm and an agm.

    If you feel like your worth 500k-1.5million your not worth a free contract.

    If a player that typically goes for 500k to 1.5mil on forward or D takes a free contract do you think they deserve a gm and agm? I don’t so why should goalies?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    No Streaming Account
  12. D4D USA

    D4D USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2015
    Messages:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,237 / 18 / -25
    If there are quality goalie owners willing to do the work then I think lg needs to implement something like this.

    It would benefit the league overall if we can add a handful of good owners.

    As far as taking gm or agm for an “overpaid goalie” - you bet your ass I would consider it to avoid having to do any bidding or any other work.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    No Streaming Account
  13. kpy86

    kpy86 Hi

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    671
    Trophy Points:
    1,561
    Location:
    .
    Ratings:
    +523 / 7 / -20
    I think it could be a possibility to make an owner goalies contract a -2M to give 2M more cap space.

    But I am with dan. if it means bringing more quality owner, there need to be something done.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Offline
    Mrkpy86
  14. D4D USA

    D4D USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2015
    Messages:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,237 / 18 / -25
    I discussed this with jerz and we thought paying a little higher premium for it would negate any thoughts of it being unfair. That’s why we went with -2.5 or -3m, it’s at least 250k - 750k more that any goalie in bidding. It just let’s the team skip having to get the goalie in bidding and letting them do the work that not many players in lg are willing to do.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    No Streaming Account
  15. StamToast

    StamToast JurJ Clooners

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    10,291
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    Ratings:
    +964 / 9 / -11
    What if we have a coach that gets paid nothing and doesn't play. Im down for that job
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    StamToast
  16. Really Good Dad

    Really Good Dad Make The Devils Great Again

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    5,041
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +659 / 18 / -29
    the problem is I just don't see anybody with a brain saying "We have 2 solid free contacts, lets overpay a goalie so we don't have to do any work"

    I do like what @kpy86 suggested giving a goalie a -2m contract just to bring in some potentially good owners who wont do it simply because how much it can handicap a good team. I think that is a pretty fair balance because a -2m for a G is probably in that 2m-4m range which still is overpaying for most goalies but does give a goalie owner a more even playing field
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Offline
    ReallyGooodDad
  17. D4D USA

    D4D USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2015
    Messages:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,237 / 18 / -25
    It was just a number we came up with assuming that would be discussed. Another option we said was to make it the highest paid goalies salary from the prior season. For example, I think shut was 2.25, so it would be a -$2.25m hit
     
    No Streaming Account
  18. Really Good Dad

    Really Good Dad Make The Devils Great Again

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    5,041
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +659 / 18 / -29
    What number are we looking at for owner contracts. I think the general consensus is that owners should be in that 6m+ range but realistically how many owners are really worth 6+. Im all for doing whatever it takes to add quality mgmt but we need to figure out a way to narrow down the average owner price which I am guessing is closer to the 3m-4m range and then we can find a fair number to deduct from a goalie owner.
     
    Offline
    ReallyGooodDad
  19. D4D USA

    D4D USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2015
    Messages:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,237 / 18 / -25
    The thought process was that we didn’t want to have people abusing it. If you make it $2m you could end up with a bunch of teams using a goalie as an owner, one that they know would hit the $2m mark and then have two free contracts.

    It would give top goalies control of where they want to go potentially and work counter to the intention.

    For example, taco knows he would hit $2m and has no intention of being an owner, but it is an opportunity to pick the team he goes to. He could take owner and do nothing, which defeats the purpose of getting more quality owners. This would also water down the goalie bidding pool and cause goalies that aren’t worth $2m to potentially hit higher salaries.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    No Streaming Account
  20. Really Good Dad

    Really Good Dad Make The Devils Great Again

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    5,041
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +659 / 18 / -29
    Im against the 2 free contracts and a set price for goalie. I think the better option would be 1 free contract and a -X salary for goalie so it balances it out. There isn't many goalies worth 2m+ but what I am saying is we need to find an average worth of owners and dictate a goalie discount from there just at a quick glance I see 10 maybe 11 owners worth more than 6m but around 20gms worth that 6m price tag.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Offline
    ReallyGooodDad