Discussion: Minimum Salary (Increase from $0.2m)

[PsychoticPondGoons]

I don't know if I'm too big on increasing the minimum base.  If we do decide to do it though maybe its best to just use 500k increments for contracts with the minimum being 500k.

I am ok with 500K, I like that it's an easy number.

I'd like to see the minimum increased. 0.5m is a good number!  :thumbsup:

About what Izaman3 said it's true that we go with a 30 man rosters but we cannot move players up and down the minors so it helps with playability (is that a word) to allow for an extra 7 players.

But that 0.2m min salary is too low in a dynasty league where teams can sit on rosters and make few moves because they don't have much cap pressure knowing they can sign FA's on the cheap for 0.2m. Increasing the min salary would force teams to make a few more moves and make things in the league more interesting during the season.

[snugerud]

I wont be here next season but my 2 cents ,, basically robbing peter to pay paul....increase lower tier contracts and it will drive down cost of your mid tier players. I also agree with Izaman that it devalues teams prospects.  I predict that instead of seeing a range of contracts from 200k to 1.5 million,  you will see a bunch of contracts at 500k. 

 the change to players min salary is unnecessary since market has and will always dictate player values.  It's not a bad idea, but its also not a good idea.  Changes in league rules should only be done with the idea of directly addressing a flaw in the original rule set.  I would run the metrics through and through before considering a change like this and ask a few questions like is this really improving the league or just changing how things are done.  With this turning to a paid league I would think any changes that could affect strategies should only be done if absolutely necessary. 

[jackdaniels]

Either way is fine really. Not every team stocks prospects on their regular roster so how many teams will an increase to the min salary impact the whole league in terms of devaluing prospects? Like maybe 10 to a max of 25%? Increasing the minimum a little to .5 like what more teams agree is acceptable will make all teams manage cap a little better. That's good for the league imo and think twice before over signing players on spec too often without getting stuck with a minor cap hit after a buyout if the player ends up being a bust.

[PigsRule]

I've seen the metrics at a macro level Snugerud... my take...

if a free agent gets signed to a league min. contract for 0.2m over 2yrs, the immediate buyout cost to the team is almost zero... = 0.4m x 66.66% = 0.26664m rounded down = 0.2m

A team can take that and split over 2yrs which is a 0.1m cap hit... very little impact.

AT 0.5m league minimum contract value
Teams will have to think twice about churning their FA signees and do more calculating.
0.5 over 2yrs
a buyout = 1.0m X 66.66% = 0.6666m or rounded down 0.6m over 1yr or 0.3m over each of the remaining 2yrs left on the deal.

That residual cap hit hurts when you add up a few of those random FA signings that don't pan out.
It basically creates a residual penalty for random free agency churn signings.

that's why i'd be in favour of increasing the league minimum from 0.2m to 0.5m.

[snugerud]

I still dont see how this makes the league better.  I understand the math and your reasoning ,  I just don't agree with it.

My team for example, I have a total of 6 players at the league min of .2 million.  of those 6,  only 4 are playing regular nhl mins.  Of those 4, I had to sit on 2 of them for an entire year for them to start playing.  Of those 6 there are several that i had originally had to bid higher to get them, and just re-upped lower because they didnt play last year.  For every player I have on my team at .2 I probably bought out another player. 

The teams you are going to hurt with this rule are the teams attempting to rebuild a very poorly managed franchise or some of the teams that really do a lot of homework to try and find hidden gems.  My opinion is really who cares if they churn a few players trying to find that diamond in the rough.

With the increase to MiLR spots, those players will be even fewer. Really, how often do we see a player go for the min salary in this league?  I just see this as a non-issue for a league that has already had more changes in the last 2 seasons than a teenage girl turning into a woman. 

[PigsRule]

I still dont see how this makes the league better.  I understand the math and your reasoning ,  I just don't agree with it.

My team for example, I have a total of 6 players at the league min of .2 million.  of those 6,  only 4 are playing regular nhl mins.  Of those 4, I had to sit on 2 of them for an entire year for them to start playing.  Of those 6 there are several that i had originally had to bid higher to get them, and just re-upped lower because they didnt play last year.  For every player I have on my team at .2 I probably bought out another player. 

The teams you are going to hurt with this rule are the teams attempting to rebuild a very poorly managed franchise or some of the teams that really do a lot of homework to try and find hidden gems.  My opinion is really who cares if they churn a few players trying to find that diamond in the rough.

With the increase to MiLR spots, those players will be even fewer. Really, how often do we see a player go for the min salary in this league?  I just see this as a non-issue for a league that has already had more changes in the last 2 seasons than a teenage girl turning into a woman. 

about the changes in FNHL... if it were simply for the sake of doing something I'd disagree as well.

however the changes in the past 2yrs were to help stabilize the league and level the playing field because it was getting serious polarized + new teams could not enter the league to rebuild a crippled franchise without toiling for at least 1 full season - no one had that kinda focus in a free league.

increasing the min. is a deterrent to FA & roster churn, or cycling a bunch of players through a team's roster... from an admin standpoint it's a pain to process a bunch of micro contracts as buyouts only to process another batch of new Free agent micro contracts signed. As much as owners want to shoot the idea down, the minute you ask someone to run a league, how many ppl raise their hands. Snug, you should know that! Case in point, I had lined up a guy to run another league and when it came time to act, the guy couldn't pull it together and bailed on all 42 owners just before the draft. he couldn't or didn't want to figure out the setup, put in the time to process transactions, etc.

Besides, the benefits to the league overall... teams have to plan better, budget better and actually have a strategy for roster and cap management.

is that bad, not in my books.

[snugerud]

i agree with the changes that have been made but doesnt change the fact there have been a lot.

I can be on board from the admin side because I can see this is a labour intensive league although I have had no problems in my league since it was designed and the rules were written to be easier to administer.  (everything is done on Fantrax, no second league page, most is automated) and I have 3 co-commishes setup to process transactions.  (thats more just so that player adds are always done after the 48hours finishes. I have a couple guys that churn their rosters, so I can understand the displeasure of the roster churning)

So from admin side  :iatp:   From league play there are some benefits but also draw backs so I will call that a break even. (I actually have a 750k league min setup on my league, so I completely understand the reasoning behind having a higher min.)

[jackdaniels]

Dead in the water idea or still open for discussion? Just wondering for next yr.

[PigsRule]

Dead in the water idea or still open for discussion? Just wondering for next yr.

definitely still open for discussion.
i believe this is a good thing for the league.

personally, i hate the 0.2m contracts - too easy to get them and they make for silly admin work especially when those same guys gte bought out. not like i get paid to process transactions so i will likely push to raise the minimum salary since it's a pain in the backside to punch those in only to undo them without much impact to a team's cap. i'm guilty of doing that too especially for FNHL owned teams.

watch for that as a Fall 2014 change.

[LIVE DynastySports]

I'm against increasing the minimum salary. I'm against it for a couple main reasons. We have a 30 man roster instead of 23 man roster, yet we have the same cap as the NHL with 7 more roster spots to fill. Some teams have trouble adhering to the cap and they have less spaces to fill. Also our minor league setup is causing me not to like this idea. They are players that reach 40 games and are yet to be full-time NHL players, but once they reach 40 games its sign them or lose them. To raise the minimum contract cost would increase the cost of working/waiting on project players.

If players are getting signed to a mimimum contract during FA, then it means 29 other teams are letting a player go for such a low cost, so you can bid to win the player or just to increase the cost of the contract. If a GM is able to sign a surprise gem at a league minimum 0.2m, kudos to them. They get a valuable asset at a cheap cost, and it helps speed up rebuilds for dedicated GMs in my opinion. These low cost signings can be used to trade to a team that needs to shed cap.

All still valid points, but at least there were talks before, open discussion amongst men without all the extra BS.

Whatever happened to those days.