Open Discussion: Future Payouts

Eric_Isles · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Open Discussion: Future Payouts

Hawks_G · Guru

I think that we protect from guys making a run with the intention to quit. If a GM makes a run, giving up tons of assets, I think that a portion of his payout is kept back to discount it for the next GM, basically a franchise "sale" price.

If we want to be really detailed, we can have a franchise assessment committee to determine the value of the team and the "escrow" will be the difference.

Example. Team A makes run. Wins $38.00 for the season. Team is only dented. Evaluation committee determines it is fine and worth the $50. Payout is $38.00

Example. Team B makes serious run. Wins $101.00. Team is hurting for next season. Evaluation committee determines it is only worth $25.00. Payout is $76.00. Team is sold in offseason for $25 for first season.

That is one idea.

HOTLANTA · Guru

but if a person started this league only looking to kick in 150 bucks and stay for 3 seasons. built his team to seriously compete for only one year (season 3). i dont think their should be a rule put in saying he doesnt get paid full if sells out the longterm of his team (which he paid for, for 3 yrs) in season 3 for a cup attempt.. maybe he doesnt want to continue to put 50 dollars in for season 4, but his 150$ commitment to the first 3 years i think he should have shot at full payout..

like a possible example would be SJ right now.. (not saying this is happening or would just in theory) has great young core, will be able to add in UFA, great shot at cup... next year at deadline he trades horton-parise-seabrook-brewer-etc-etc all for older but rated better UFA's(giving him better chance at cup),, if he can fit it under cap i dont think their should be a fine or a lesser payout situation... i think were all smart enough to realize what we are talking about and its the minnesota wild/ tampa bay theory of this year..trading jokinen for ufa brindamour, sedin/sedin for ufa smyth and brunette.. aquiring ufa s.hill. or in tampa's case trading havlat-higgins for ufa rolston and ufa modin, vermette for aged brutal vet handzus, aquiring ufa p.kariya,,,,, sure this does hurt the league in some uncommon case's but its very few and far between,,but also could be their stragedy which after paying the fees i think is their own choice....

I think the dispersal draft will even out the bottom teams quickly, and the UFA age going down year by year, it will be alot easier to rebuild a team quickly..

in closing what im saying is i think putting in all these extreme situation rules are a little overblown... the cases will be few and far between, and with the cash a person has paid previously thinking they know what prize total will be (roughly) i dont think its right to possibly restrict that prize if a person has implimented a strict stragedy to take a shot at the prize..

PhoenixGM · Guru

HOTLANTA wrote:

but if a person started this league only looking to kick in 150 bucks and stay for 3 seasons. built his team to seriously compete for only one year (season 3). i dont think their should be a rule put in saying he doesnt get paid full if sells out the longterm of his team (which he paid for, for 3 yrs) in season 3 for a cup attempt.. maybe he doesnt want to continue to put 50 dollars in for season 4, but his 150$ commitment to the first 3 years i think he should have shot at full payout..

like a possible example would be SJ right now.. (not saying this is happening or would just in theory) has great young core, will be able to add in UFA, great shot at cup... next year at deadline he trades horton-parise-seabrook-brewer-etc-etc all for older but rated better UFA's(giving him better chance at cup),, if he can fit it under cap i dont think their should be a fine or a lesser payout situation... i think were all smart enough to realize what we are talking about and its the minnesota wild/ tampa bay theory of this year..trading jokinen for ufa brindamour, sedin/sedin for ufa smyth and brunette.. aquiring ufa s.hill. or in tampa's case trading havlat-higgins for ufa rolston and ufa modin, vermette for aged brutal vet handzus, aquiring ufa p.kariya,,,,, sure this does hurt the league in some uncommon case's but its very few and far between,,but also could be their stragedy which after paying the fees i think is their own choice....

I think the dispersal draft will even out the bottom teams quickly, and the UFA age going down year by year, it will be alot easier to rebuild a team quickly..

in closing what im saying is i think putting in all these extreme situation rules are a little overblown... the cases will be few and far between, and with the cash a person has paid previously thinking they know what prize total will be (roughly) i dont think its right to possibly restrict that prize if a person has implimented a strict stragedy to take a shot at the prize..

Kirk you make a great case in support of reducing the payout. Your example and explanation are exactly what we are trying to avoid... even if a guy is around for 3 years, if he leaves his team in a shambles when he quits then he shouldn't get full payout. Period.

Hawks_G · Guru

I understand what Kirk is trying to say, which isn't totally unreasonable and a decent point. But, the problem with your point Kirk is that the decision to leave before the selling out of assets. If you are going to quit then quit and don't put the new GM in a bind.

We would like to avoid the change in the structure of a team based on the decision to leave. Don't screw it on the way out the door.

It is basically like driving the **** out of your 1997 Camaro because you are going to sell it in two weeks.

Sabres_Luke · Guru

I've gone over both arguments here's my two cents.

First off I think when dealing with money it's important to be objective. Whereas problems may occur with an evaluation committee. Lets face it, people are always going to rub people the wrong way. If one of those people happens to be on the committee it could influence their decision.

We also need to decipher between "selling it all for a cup" and being an incompetent GM.

I'm hearing things like we need to prevent another NYI from happening, but NYI never would have collected more than 30 dollars nor was he ever a contender- he was just simply awful. I don't think had we had this system implemented at the start would NYI's team turn out any different.

That being said, I do like some preventative measure on teams who sell their entire future for 1 year and then quit. Mainly because it's least realistic for the NHL. A GM may do things similar to that at the deadline but they'd never deal superstars with many years left on their contract for pending UFAs which we saw numerous times in Minnesota.

The most difficult thing is finding and objective process that is fair. I'll be thinking of some ideas in the meantime.

Hawks_G · Guru

Agreed on all counts Luke. There is a huge difference between firing an extremely poor GM and discounting payouts for GMs selling out before leaving.

If you want to take a committee out of it, then we could always identify criteria to use to determine sell out.

Quits without first round pick in next draft Minus $5.00
Quits without any 80 OV players signed past next season Minus $10.00

(Examples only folks.)

ColoradoGM · Senior Member

I agree with both Buff and Hawks and in a sense Kirk.
What Kirk is saying is that it is your money, you can do with what you want. I agree.
Buff and Hawks are saying, ' a gm in the NHL wouldn't do this, and lets keep it more realistic'. I also agree..

now, back to my great idea of putting values on teams.
If NYI are only worth 20.00 and a GM buys them, he can do with what he pleases. If he tries for 1 year and tanks and drops out of the league, the team is re-evaluated and put on the market for say 18.00 or 24.00 (if his team is marginally better)
A new GM can have a shot at a discount team.

Now, say he gets in the league and plays for 4 years and is making some progress. His team gets evaluated and it is now worth 100.00 and going up....So...His initial 20.00 investment , plus his league fees for the last four years (maybe an increase of 15% per year), is now worth 100.00...

I honestly would like the opportunity to build my team up, sell it for a good price (say max 500.00..ex. Buff and Chi) and buy a cheap team to work on...

I don't know if there is much interest from other GM's in FHL leagues, but if you put the word out, it may just work.

HOTLANTA · Guru

george are u sayin in your example's that if they "left with no first round pick" the person taking over the team next year gets 10$ off (example i know) if so i dont mind this scenario at all as long as it is for one season alone. then they are back up to having to pay normal fees with everyone else..

i just strongly disagree with maybe cutting a person's prize total if they win and quit.. i think everyone knows i will be in brhl2 till it quits, (never hopefully), and this wont be affecting me in any way.. but from a "gambling" angle if you are putting 50 bucks up with chance at say 1000 (won everything all year all awards everything).. i think u should be given the right to try and achieve that prize at all cost's because it is your money on the line.. like at a blackjack table i cant slap people who hit on 12-13 against a 4-5, because it is their money they can play however they want within the rules no matter if me and 4 others have 25X the interest in the hand (league)..

Sabres_Luke · Guru

I definitely like Colorado's idea since team's are always changing value. It'd be nice if Eric always had the right to fire GMs (with due cause of course) but that team's ALSO have essentially bought their franchise from the league and if they leave on good terms then they have the right to sell it to a new GM. This way when people know they are going to leave they would try to leave the team in the best shape possible so as to sell it to a new GM for as much as they conceivably can get. This idea could fly.

NYRGM · Senior Member

I'm down with Luke's idea, I think this way would work best. It leaves more on the GM to not screw the league and the incoming gm. The one exception being the gm that is a complete doosh and bails on us without fair warning. I feel all of us are in tune enough with whats going on in the league that if we have a sniff of something like that going on that we'd bring it up and keep an eye on it.

Thanks boys, cant wait for all the offseason movements-Joe NYRGM

-- Edited by Eric_Isles at 20:17, 2008-06-13

Ianintheam · Senior Member

I think that arbitrairly assigning values to teams will only lead to problems, especially when a GM is being removed.

I can support the idea of a GM taking over a bad team having a discounted rate for one season, but not for multiple years, and not if there is also a dispersal draft.

Eric_Isles · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Would a scale of appraisal interest anyone?

For Example:

A GM leaves a team without (reason / percentage deduction)

Less than 10 players under contract next year 10%
No 1st round Draft Pick 7.5%
No 2nd round Draft Pick 5%
No 3rd round Draft Pick 3%
Less than 5 prospects (not counting Euro's / Retiree's) 10%
Less than $10,000,000 in Funds 5%

That is all speculative, and no hard numbers. But leaving a team with little assets would also reduce the quality of the dispersal draft as well. Having two teams vacated with little assets could affect a few rounds in the dispersal draft.

In doing something like this, the percentage taken away could then reduce the entry fee to the new GMs to something that would be appropriate to the pool they would have to pick from in the dispersal draft.

Thoughts?

HOTLANTA · Guru

so this is a scale (with loose #'s) to reduce someones payout if they leave the league? or a scale to have the person coming into the league have a reduced rate? just trying to clarify. or both?

again my view on limiting the prize total someone is told they can win, but then being reduced is stated above. i think it is wrong to tell someone to stay within a set of rules, then tell them if they do, but decide to leave if they have bad finacial situation/ have baby/ get new job/ get sick of kirk/ get sick of lucas.. that if they quit that they dont recieve a full payout if they dont meet a certain criteria that had never been talked about previously when u invested the $ u did in the league

again im never going to leave this league its just my opinion on this matter..

-- Edited by HOTLANTA at 22:43, 2008-06-17

Panthers · Senior Member

Eric_Isles wrote:

Would a scale of appraisal interest anyone?

For Example:

A GM leaves a team without (reason / percentage deduction)
Less than 10 players under contract next year 10%
No 1st round Draft Pick 7.5%
No 2nd round Draft Pick 5%
No 3rd round Draft Pick 3%
Less than 5 prospects (not counting Euro's / Retiree's) 10%
Less than $10,000,000 in Funds 5%

That is all speculative, and no hard numbers. But leaving a team with little assets would also reduce the quality of the dispersal draft as well. Having two teams vacated with little assets could affect a few rounds in the dispersal draft.

In doing something like this, the percentage taken away could then reduce the entry fee to the new GMs to something that would be appropriate to the pool they would have to pick from in the dispersal draft.

Thoughts?

I haven't commented on this thread yet because I am pretty torn as to whether this is a good idea or not. But I do have a couple of definate opinions about this:

1) I think any penalty should be maxed out at $50. IF a team wins the Cup, but leaves a team in shambles, they shouldn't be fined more than the cost of the franchise.
2) I think this method is a little too inflexible. You could lose 10% of your winnings for trading away your first and third pick, but still be leaving a team stacked with quality prospects and young players. For instance, San Jose doesn't have any picks and almost no prospects. Should they be penalized for leaving a team with Ovechkin, Parise, Staal, Horton, Semin, Seabrook etc.? Under the sample numbers above, they would owe over 20% (possibly 30% depending on how many of their prospects still count as such) of their winnings if they left, but would basically be supporting the first few rounds of a dispersal draft themselves.