Reminder - contracts with new agent are under review

[Goffie]

I understand the league wanting to step in and make sure that our new agents get a feel for what contracts should be worth. However I feel that this was never done before and their should be a lot more taken into consideration then the contract amount. Take for example a player like Tony Amonte who is making 5 times as much as what he should be, should he not be given a paycut cause he has a new agent? I think that there are certain situations that paycuts are totally warranted, not saying that all the offers that get sent in are fair cause I know some of my fellow GM's to well to be that naive.

However I feel that in Neils case that the inclusion of a NTC is a very good reason to consider a paycut. IMO it should be up to the agent to decide the value they place on a NTC for their client not the leagues, and this should not be any different in new agents and veteran agents as long as it is reasonable.(cause I would not be shocked if some people tried to get 10mill players reduced to 3mill) I think that 8mill NTC was a good offer for Foppa and should have at least got the discussion going of a new contract with a NTC.

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by Goffie

I understand the league wanting to step in and make sure that our new agents get a feel for what contracts should be worth. However I feel that this was never done before and their should be a lot more taken into consideration then the contract amount. Take for example a player like Tony Amonte who is making 5 times as much as what he should be, should he not be given a paycut cause he has a new agent? I think that there are certain situations that paycuts are totally warranted, not saying that all the offers that get sent in are fair cause I know some of my fellow GM's to well to be that naive.

However I feel that in Neils case that the inclusion of a NTC is a very good reason to consider a paycut. IMO it should be up to the agent to decide the value they place on a NTC for their client not the leagues, and this should not be any different in new agents and veteran agents as long as it is reasonable.(cause I would not be shocked if some people tried to get 10mill players reduced to 3mill) I think that 8mill NTC was a good offer for Foppa and should have at least got the discussion going of a new contract with a NTC.

Thanks Goffie. You are one smart mofo! Very much appreciated my friend!

[Antithesis]

Could I raise another issue that might underlie what is going on here? I'd like to add that I have a general idea of how the compensation system for agents works, but I don't have near the understanding of it that I would like to.

It would be really nice to know what value is placed on the things we negotiate with them ... contract value, length, AHL%, NTC and such ... then we as GMs could see if our requests to renegotiate have value to the agents or if they are pointless to them.

Is this a possibility? I understand that the commishes are busy but perhaps an agent could explain it to us, just another resource for GMs to use when talking contracts with our agents.

[Angelino]

I find absolutely nothing wrong with what Neil has done. If a player is going down in terms of production in the NHL you can almost be assured that his rating is going to go down in the CPHL. Taking that into consideration along with age and the NTC more than justifies a lower contract number.

Are there any checks to inflation in this league? Some of the contracts are absurd at this point as mentioned before regarding Amonte. Also how long does the league plan on monitoring GMs and Agents? When does a new Agent or GM finally become a "veteran" Agent or GM that no longer needs monitoring?

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by Angelino

I find absolutely nothing wrong with what Neil has done. If a player is going down in terms of production in the NHL you can almost be assured that his rating is going to go down in the CPHL. Taking that into consideration along with age and the NTC more than justifies a lower contract number.

Are there any checks to inflation in this league? Some of the contracts are absurd at this point as mentioned before regarding Amonte. Also how long does the league plan on monitoring GMs and Agents? When does a new Agent or GM finally become a "veteran" Agent or GM that no longer needs monitoring?

Thank you!

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Goffie

Take for example a player like Tony Amonte who is making 5 times as much as what he should be, should he not be given a paycut cause he has a new agent?

Why would Amonte tell his new agent that he wants less money? Makes no sense.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Angelino

Also how long does the league plan on monitoring GMs and Agents? When does a new Agent or GM finally become a "veteran" Agent or GM that no longer needs monitoring?

GMs usally go through a 2 week period where all deals are reviewed. People syaing an it should be up to the new agent how much a NTC is worth is ridiculous. How the hell would he know how much it should be worth? He has zero experience here. As with trades, vet GMs shouldnt be able to take advantage of someone just because they are new.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by MJK

The problem here is that this is the first time an agent has been watched and his contracts reviewed. I can't remember this happening before.

We need consistency or a set of guidlines to follow. As it stands right now, it is all over the place and unrealistic.

I believe most if not all the previous agents had experience in the league. And just because we may not have make a post about it before doesnt mean we dont review other deals from new agents.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by MJK

Well I ran into a problem a few months ago. Martin and I agreed on a contract for Doug Weight that took a month or more. The contract was based on certain stipulations that martin and I agreeed on. At that time there was no rule saying we couldn't do it yet the league veto's the deal and wouldn't let the new contract go through. I am pretty sure that was the first contract that was ever rejected. Since then and in only a few months we are seeing the league stepping in more and more.

I know a lot more GM's agree with me when I say the league should really let the agents do what they want becuase they need to play the game too!

That deal was beyond the current scope of the League. Just because there arent rules against certain things doesnt mean they are acceptable at this point. For example, if a GM tried to put through a tiered contract it would be rejected.

None of us have the time or wherewithal to sit down and draft a complete CBA so people that participate in this League will have to accept that some decisions are made after a certain issue comes up.

We are not limiting how much the Agents can play the game.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

But if NT clause's can't be brought into a contract to ensure the player stays with the team for their remaining contract (and in turn bring the contract down by a little), what's the point of having them in the first place?

I'm not sure if I missed it but I cant find a quote from a Commish saying that an NTC cant be brought into a contract.

[Beerfund]

Originally Posted by Goffie

I understand the league wanting to step in and make sure that our new agents get a feel for what contracts should be worth. However I feel that this was never done before and their should be a lot more taken into consideration then the contract amount. Take for example a player like Tony Amonte who is making 5 times as much as what he should be, should he not be given a paycut cause he has a new agent? I think that there are certain situations that paycuts are totally warranted, not saying that all the offers that get sent in are fair cause I know some of my fellow GM's to well to be that naive.

We have options when a player is overpaid due to a poor negotiating strategy. We can buy them out, let them become free agents and then bid for them at a fair price. I dislike any renegotiations that see a player get a lower salary. This past summer there were some unbelievable offers out there. In a couple cases I pulled out of the bidding and congratulated the agent for getting more than fair value for a player. To see those GMs get a 'reduced rate' now that its obvious how overvalued a player is, is frustrating. The value of a player is driven by the market, supply and demand. To evaluate a contract under todays conditions is unfair. The market fluctuates, part of the challenge of this game is to make sound judgements based on those market fluctuations.
To use your example of Amonte, he was given the contract when his ratings were higher. That's the risk we, as GMs, take when signing older players declining in their career. The GM has two choices - keep the player or buy him out. If his contract is so overvalued, then it would make sense to buy him out. If Amonte is making 5 times more than he is worth, then this could happen:
Buy out contract : $7.31M x 50% = $3.655M
Resign Amonte: $1.42M (determined by 7.31/5)
Total cap savings : 7.31 - (3.655 + 1.42) = 2.235M
Thus, the GM could buy out Amonte and resign him and save money (asuming he is overpaid by 5 times). If the GM misinterpretes Amonte's value, other GMs could outbid for Amonte thus netting more cash for Amonte and his agent.

In addition, every season there is a window pre-July1st when we can buy out a player and then negotiate in good faith for a more market value type deal.

[Goffie]

Originally Posted by Beerfund

We have options when a player is overpaid due to a poor negotiating strategy. We can buy them out, let them become free agents and then bid for them at a fair price. I dislike any renegotiations that see a player get a lower salary. This past summer there were some unbelievable offers out there. In a couple cases I pulled out of the bidding and congratulated the agent for getting more than fair value for a player. To see those GMs get a 'reduced rate' now that its obvious how overvalued a player is, is frustrating. The value of a player is driven by the market, supply and demand. To evaluate a contract under todays conditions is unfair. The market fluctuates, part of the challenge of this game is to make sound judgements based on those market fluctuations.
To use your example of Amonte, he was given the contract when his ratings were higher. That's the risk we, as GMs, take when signing older players declining in their career. The GM has two choices - keep the player or buy him out. If his contract is so overvalued, then it would make sense to buy him out. If Amonte is making 5 times more than he is worth, then this could happen:
Buy out contract : $7.31M x 50% = $3.655M
Resign Amonte: $1.42M (determined by 7.31/5)
Total cap savings : 7.31 - (3.655 + 1.42) = 2.235M
Thus, the GM could buy out Amonte and resign him and save money (asuming he is overpaid by 5 times). If the GM misinterpretes Amonte's value, other GMs could outbid Amonte thus netting more cash for Amonte and his agent.

In addition, every season there is a window pre-July1st when we can buy out a player and then negotiate in good faith for a more market value type deal.

When has a player ever been bought out and then renegotiate a contract for cheaper with the same team? NEVER....A GM doesn't really have this option cause they would probably lose the player for nothing and have another team pick up their player at a reduced rate.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Beerfund

We have options when a player is overpaid due to a poor negotiating strategy. We can buy them out, let them become free agents and then bid for them at a fair price. I dislike any renegotiations that see a player get a lower salary. This past summer there were some unbelievable offers out there. In a couple cases I pulled out of the bidding and congratulated the agent for getting more than fair value for a player. To see those GMs get a 'reduced rate' now that its obvious how overvalued a player is, is frustrating. The value of a player is driven by the market, supply and demand. To evaluate a contract under todays conditions is unfair. The market fluctuates, part of the challenge of this game is to make sound judgements based on those market fluctuations.
To use your example of Amonte, he was given the contract when his ratings were higher. That's the risk we, as GMs, take when signing older players declining in their career. The GM has two choices - keep the player or buy him out. If his contract is so overvalued, then it would make sense to buy him out. If Amonte is making 5 times more than he is worth, then this could happen:
Buy out contract : $7.31M x 50% = $3.655M
Resign Amonte: $1.42M (determined by 7.31/5)
Total cap savings : 7.31 - (3.655 + 1.42) = 2.235M
Thus, the GM could buy out Amonte and resign him and save money (asuming he is overpaid by 5 times). If the GM misinterpretes Amonte's value, other GMs could outbid for Amonte thus netting more cash for Amonte and his agent.

In addition, every season there is a window pre-July1st when we can buy out a player and then negotiate in good faith for a more market value type deal.

You're dreaming man. This never EVER happens. I can't believe you just tried to use that as an example.

[Beerfund]

Originally Posted by Goffie

When has a player ever been bought out and then renegotiate a contract for cheaper with the same team? NEVER....A GM doesn't really have this option cause they would probably lose the player for nothing and have another team pick up their player at a reduced rate.

Then the GM can trade the player, pay part of the salary, and get something in return. Either way, I stand pat in terms of not allowing GMs to escape their poor decissions. The option to buy out a player IS there, IF the original team is the highest bidder the player/agent would resign. While I admit its not likely mostly because players are NOT paid 5 times their value.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Why would Amonte tell his new agent that he wants less money? Makes no sense.

Amonte would realize he sucks and in order for him to be on a team he would need to take a pay cut rather than be an UFA. In terms of a current contract he wouldnt say a word but anyone who looks at that contract and his performance in the CPHL and NHL has to be a bit sickened.

[Beerfund]

Originally Posted by MJK

You're dreaming man. This never EVER happens. I can't believe you just tried to use that as an example.

Logic has never been you strong point. I was using an extreme example - for an extreme situation. Very few players are so overpaid to make this work. I was going off the "5x overpaid" example provided.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by Beerfund

We have options when a player is overpaid due to a poor negotiating strategy. We can buy them out, let them become free agents and then bid for them at a fair price. I dislike any renegotiations that see a player get a lower salary. This past summer there were some unbelievable offers out there. In a couple cases I pulled out of the bidding and congratulated the agent for getting more than fair value for a player. To see those GMs get a 'reduced rate' now that its obvious how overvalued a player is, is frustrating. The value of a player is driven by the market, supply and demand. To evaluate a contract under todays conditions is unfair. The market fluctuates, part of the challenge of this game is to make sound judgements based on those market fluctuations.
To use your example of Amonte, he was given the contract when his ratings were higher. That's the risk we, as GMs, take when signing older players declining in their career. The GM has two choices - keep the player or buy him out. If his contract is so overvalued, then it would make sense to buy him out. If Amonte is making 5 times more than he is worth, then this could happen:
Buy out contract : $7.31M x 50% = $3.655M
Resign Amonte: $1.42M (determined by 7.31/5)
Total cap savings : 7.31 - (3.655 + 1.42) = 2.235M
Thus, the GM could buy out Amonte and resign him and save money (asuming he is overpaid by 5 times). If the GM misinterpretes Amonte's value, other GMs could outbid for Amonte thus netting more cash for Amonte and his agent.

In addition, every season there is a window pre-July1st when we can buy out a player and then negotiate in good faith for a more market value type deal.

This example is laughable. Realistically after buying out Amonte somebody else would scoop him up and the original GM would be out 3.655M.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Beerfund

Logic has never been you strong point. I was using an extreme example - for an extreme situation. Very few players are so overpaid to make this work. I was going off the "5x overpaid" example provided.

Staying awake has never been your strong point either.

I think most GM's here would like to hear from the Commish crew on this issue rather than a GM/Commish wannabe. They are the ones running the show and who ultimately make the final decisions. Now that logical!

I appreciate what KG has had to say as it has already been very helpful. Thanks.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by MJK

I think most GM's here would like to hear from the Commish crew on this issue rather than a GM/Commish wannabe.

Zing!

[Preds GM - CPHL]

I have a question for all of you?


















Will Nash score a hat trick for me this week?

thanks