|
Post by djmyte on Dec 2, 2007 19:29:43 GMT -5
I wasnt suggesting changing it... we are where we are... Just stating things would be even more realistic with a lower hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 2, 2007 19:30:35 GMT -5
I wasnt suggesting changing it... we are where we are... Just stating things would be even more realistic with a lower hard cap. Idk. Anything lower then 90 would be too low IMO.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Dec 2, 2007 19:47:50 GMT -5
I wasnt suggesting changing it... we are where we are... Just stating things would be even more realistic with a lower hard cap. Idk. Anything lower then 90 would be too low IMO. Well... Two max players = 26mil 1 very good starter = 9mil 1 solid starter = 4-6mil 1 solid starter = 4-6mil 47 mil for a starting 5... then you have rookies and depth players... 10-15mil... so, in total... 60-70mil(with 2 max contracts) The difference would be that we would have fewer max offers and more mid range offers(6-10mil)... GM's would have to choose more carefully who to build around and couldnt just throw around max deals to any player they like. Would also help to eliminate those 1 year max contracts that mediocre to above avg veterans keep getting.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Dec 2, 2007 19:50:30 GMT -5
Idk. Anything lower then 90 would be too low IMO. Well... Two max players = 26mil 1 very good starter = 9mil 1 solid starter = 4-6mil 1 solid starter = 4-6mil 47 mil for a starting 5... then you have rookies and depth players... 10-15mil... so, in total... 60-70mil(with 2 max contracts) The difference would be that we would have fewer max offers and more mid range offers(6-10mil)... GM's would have to choose more carefully who to build around and couldnt just throw around max deals to any player they like. Would also help to eliminate those 1 year max contracts that mediocre to above avg veterans keep getting. That would be a really mediocre team though. Also, two max players aren't 13 mil apiece. In their first years, they're 13.6 apiece. A better estimate would be 36 million. Likewise, a "solid" starter ain't 9 million. Look at the market. Maybe you get lucky, but if you want more than a 40 win team, you better pay more than 70 million. The type of player you get for 4-6 mil isn't usually a starter, and definitely isn't a starter on a contender. The exceptions are rare. If you want to win, you have to pay or get lucky with resignings and FA.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Dec 2, 2007 19:59:46 GMT -5
Well... Two max players = 26mil 1 very good starter = 9mil 1 solid starter = 4-6mil 1 solid starter = 4-6mil 47 mil for a starting 5... then you have rookies and depth players... 10-15mil... so, in total... 60-70mil(with 2 max contracts) The difference would be that we would have fewer max offers and more mid range offers(6-10mil)... GM's would have to choose more carefully who to build around and couldnt just throw around max deals to any player they like. Would also help to eliminate those 1 year max contracts that mediocre to above avg veterans keep getting. That would be a really mediocre team though. Also, two max players aren't 13 mil apiece. In their first years, they're 13.6 apiece. A better estimate would be 36 million. Likewise, a "solid" starter ain't 9 million. Look at the market. Maybe you get lucky, but if you want more than a 40 win team, you better pay more than 70 million. The type of player you get for 4-6 mil isn't usually a starter, and definitely isn't a starter on a contender. The exceptions are rare. If you want to win, you have to pay or get lucky with resignings and FA. This team may be "mediocre" in the current format... but not with a lower hard cap. The reason a solid starter "aint 9 million" is because of the 90+mil hard cap. Lower the hard cap, and those solid starters would be getting paid more realistically. That's the thing... teams should have at least 1 starter that gets paid 4-6 mil... but they dont, because the salaries are jacked up as a direct result of a 90 mil hard cap. Look at NBA teams... they generally have two large salaries... 3-4 medium salaries(1 8-9 mil salary... 2 or 3 5-7mil salaries).. then the rest of the roster if filled out with rookie contracts and salaries under the MLE.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Dec 2, 2007 20:01:30 GMT -5
Boston's team salary is 74 mil... and they have 3 max contracts...
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Dec 2, 2007 20:02:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 2, 2007 20:22:19 GMT -5
Keep HC at $93 mill!
|
|
|
Post by Bluedevils on Dec 2, 2007 20:42:47 GMT -5
There'd have to be some transition period so teams could get under that 85 mill (or whatever it is) threshold before the HC could be lowered. It seems like too much of a hassle.
|
|