Player Contracts / Negotiations

[AlexanderTheGood]

I've always thought that the absence of agents in EHM was a falacious and unrealistic omission. GMs rarely, if ever, negotiate directly with players.

The addition of agents would, in my opinion, add a necessary layer of complexity to the issue of player contracts / negotiations.

[laskey 16]

It'd probably be impossible to put in the game but it would be cool if players could sign those short term try out contracts you sometimes see with injury hit teams. Example: When Edmonton was running low on goalies they signed Aaron Sorochan to back them up for a match, but it wasn't a season long contract (http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=430163)
Like I said probably a nightmare to implement.

[YZG]

This one goes beyond the scope of contract negociation, but it would have a big impact on it nevertheless:

I'd love that the agreement between the NHL and the European nations for player transfers be a feature in the game. We'd have no effect over it, but on a set number of years you'd start getting in your news items messages regarding the current state of the negociations. In real life, there is a growing trend from European federations to protest against the poachery the NHL is doing and have increasingly high demands, and I'd like the game to reflect this, making NHL-based games a tad more difficult as the Euro leagues start asking increasingly high fees or even decide to put an embargo on transfers because they get fed up that the NHL keeps proposing ridiculous fees

It's not a feature for the first version obviously, but I think it wouldn't be that difficult to add. I think that factors such as league reputations and some national variable determining overall player talent from a given country would be the key elements - as euro leagues reps and national skills increase, the propency of Europe to require bigger compensation fees would also increase. Adding national federations and the IIHF as entities in the game, controlled by staff with different personality ratings (or maybe for a start as static entities), and giving them reputations would add to it. Depending on the average reps of the Euro federations for instance, the negociations would be tougher and the final agreement if one is reached would be reflected in a modifier that'd increase (or decrease) the current fees by a certain percentage, or by a second that blocks all transfers until x condition is met in the game.

Just my two cents

-YZG

[dabo]

I know you can have a no-trade clause on and off during a contract, see Tomas Kaberle, but can you for example have any of these scenarios:

1. A player signs a 4 year contract where the first two years are two-way. In other words, are two-way contracts an all or nothing thing?

2. A player signs a 4 year two-way contract, the first two years he will get only 15% if he plays in the AHL and the latter two he will get 20%. Is the two-way percentage constant throughout a contract or not?

[23qwerty]

I'm fairly certain that you can't do that. At least... I've never seen it done.

[YZG]

I'm fairly certain that you can't do that. At least... I've never seen it done.

Neither have I. Two-way contracts tend to be short-length contracts anyway, I've never seen any two-way contract of more than three years, three not being that common either.

By the way, you can also have three-way contracts (NHL-AHL-ECHL). I don't think they're very common occurance, either - the case of George Davis is the only one I found while googling for that (http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/6 ... hing_news/).

- YZG

[CeeBee]

It would be useful to be able to negotiate with a player on a NTC..... say offer a sum of money for them to waive the NTC and/or give them a choice of team(s) where they would accept a trade to. The way it's done now is you have to piddle a player off bigtime so they request a trade and that's not really a very realistic way of doing it.

[Panfork]

I know you can have a no-trade clause on and off during a contract, see Tomas Kaberle, but can you for example have any of these scenarios:

1. A player signs a 4 year contract where the first two years are two-way. In other words, are two-way contracts an all or nothing thing?

2. A player signs a 4 year two-way contract, the first two years he will get only 15% if he plays in the AHL and the latter two he will get 20%. Is the two-way percentage constant throughout a contract or not?

I'm almost positive 1 is no. 2 sounds like something that might be allowed, but I doubt it's common.

I'm really happy to see you're putting in a fine amount of work to make contracts and contract negotiation a much more realistic, in-depth thing than EHM. Contracts is where EHM really skipped out on a lot of factors, like Limited-NTCs, NMCs entirely, and creative wage structures. (pretty much any time you offer a player a contract that's front-loaded, he will decline)

[dave1927p]

This one goes beyond the scope of contract negociation, but it would have a big impact on it nevertheless:

I'd love that the agreement between the NHL and the European nations for player transfers be a feature in the game. We'd have no effect over it, but on a set number of years you'd start getting in your news items messages regarding the current state of the negociations. In real life, there is a growing trend from European federations to protest against the poachery the NHL is doing and have increasingly high demands, and I'd like the game to reflect this, making NHL-based games a tad more difficult as the Euro leagues start asking increasingly high fees or even decide to put an embargo on transfers because they get fed up that the NHL keeps proposing ridiculous fees

It's not a feature for the first version obviously, but I think it wouldn't be that difficult to add. I think that factors such as league reputations and some national variable determining overall player talent from a given country would be the key elements - as euro leagues reps and national skills increase, the propency of Europe to require bigger compensation fees would also increase. Adding national federations and the IIHF as entities in the game, controlled by staff with different personality ratings (or maybe for a start as static entities), and giving them reputations would add to it. Depending on the average reps of the Euro federations for instance, the negociations would be tougher and the final agreement if one is reached would be reflected in a modifier that'd increase (or decrease) the current fees by a certain percentage, or by a second that blocks all transfers until x condition is met in the game.

Just my two cents

-YZG

I like the idea of a dynamic CBA but not having no control over it. If it were up to me i'd give the ability for the player to change it manually then adding the ability for it to change based on event/leagues and negotiations over and over again. But i think that it would be essental for it to be customizable to the user first and formost.

[YZG]

This one goes beyond the scope of contract negociation, but it would have a big impact on it nevertheless:

I'd love that the agreement between the NHL and the European nations for player transfers be a feature in the game. We'd have no effect over it, but on a set number of years you'd start getting in your news items messages regarding the current state of the negociations. In real life, there is a growing trend from European federations to protest against the poachery the NHL is doing and have increasingly high demands, and I'd like the game to reflect this, making NHL-based games a tad more difficult as the Euro leagues start asking increasingly high fees or even decide to put an embargo on transfers because they get fed up that the NHL keeps proposing ridiculous fees

It's not a feature for the first version obviously, but I think it wouldn't be that difficult to add. I think that factors such as league reputations and some national variable determining overall player talent from a given country would be the key elements - as euro leagues reps and national skills increase, the propency of Europe to require bigger compensation fees would also increase. Adding national federations and the IIHF as entities in the game, controlled by staff with different personality ratings (or maybe for a start as static entities), and giving them reputations would add to it. Depending on the average reps of the Euro federations for instance, the negociations would be tougher and the final agreement if one is reached would be reflected in a modifier that'd increase (or decrease) the current fees by a certain percentage, or by a second that blocks all transfers until x condition is met in the game.

Just my two cents

-YZG

I like the idea of a dynamic CBA but not having no control over it. If it were up to me i'd give the ability for the player to change it manually then adding the ability for it to change based on event/leagues and negotiations over and over again. But i think that it would be essental for it to be customizable to the user first and formost.

Yes, agreed. But I especially meant no control over it in-game (as in "no player lifting an embargo by moving a slider in year 2020 to draft and sign a Swedish generational player", as I feel it kills the game). For realism sake, maybe make dynamic CBA the default option, with a range of options to adjust it in pre-game settings to the player's liking. But I wouldn't like if it was still customizable in-game though. In OOTP, I loved the commish mode because I could easily rename players with dubious names or simulate team relocations and kit changes, but beyond that, I knew the game would lose all of its appeal if I started messing with anything else. But I reckon my playing tastes are not universal.

- YZG

[dabo]

I'm really happy to see you're putting in a fine amount of work to make contracts and contract negotiation a much more realistic, in-depth thing than EHM. Contracts is where EHM really skipped out on a lot of factors, like Limited-NTCs, NMCs entirely, and creative wage structures. (pretty much any time you offer a player a contract that's front-loaded, he will decline)

What is the difference between an NTC and an NMC?

[rottamies]

I'm really happy to see you're putting in a fine amount of work to make contracts and contract negotiation a much more realistic, in-depth thing than EHM. Contracts is where EHM really skipped out on a lot of factors, like Limited-NTCs, NMCs entirely, and creative wage structures. (pretty much any time you offer a player a contract that's front-loaded, he will decline)

What is the difference between an NTC and an NMC?

With a NTC the player can't be traded without the player approving the trade.

NMC:s don't allow the player to be moved anywhere (waivers, trades, minors) without the players approval.
Basically the club can't get rid of a player with a NMC-contract without buying him out.
If bought out, the player may elect to go through waivers.

[dabo]

So is it possible for an NMC to for example be active one season and then the next it is not? or is it always on or off throughout a contract? Also, you never have both an NTC and an NMC right? if I understand you correctly an NMC is an NTC plus a little more.

[bruins72]

The NTC/NMCs seems to have gotten more and more creative each year. I know some players (Kaberle for example) have a window where the team can trade them in they want, but after a certain date, they stay put. Then there are other clauses based on team performance. If the team tanks, they can trade the player, otherwise they can't. I'm not sure if I've seen NTCs in effect for say, the first three years of a 5 year deal, and then be open for the final two years. It wouldn't surprise me though.

[laskey 16]

The NTC/NMCs seems to have gotten more and more creative each year. I know some players (Kaberle for example) have a window where the team can trade them in they want, but after a certain date, they stay put. Then there are other clauses based on team performance. If the team tanks, they can trade the player, otherwise they can't. I'm not sure if I've seen NTCs in effect for say, the first three years of a 5 year deal, and then be open for the final two years. It wouldn't surprise me though.

There are definitely contracts with NTCs in only specific years, can't remember who of course (darn my brain) but they definitely exist, albeit only occasionally.

[Ogilthorpe]

List of No Trade / No Movement Clauses NHL
Last updated March 2, 2009

http://www.nhlscap.com/no_trade.htm#list

[rottamies]

So is it possible for an NMC to for example be active one season and then the next it is not? or is it always on or off throughout a contract? Also, you never have both an NTC and an NMC right? if I understand you correctly an NMC is an NTC plus a little more.

If i understand the CBA correctly (which i propably don't), that is the case exactly, the No-trade or No-movevement clause status can change throughout the players contract based on either a predefined contract year or the teams performance. From the link Ogilthorpe gave i think the contract of Mike Fisher and Tomas Kaberle are pretty good examples:
"Mike Fisher, OTT - NMC [NMC for 2008-09 to 2010-11, limited NTC for 2011-12 and 2012-13]"
"Tomas Kaberle, TOR - NTC [can name 10 teams that he will accept a trade to; if the Leafs miss the playoffs in 2008-09 or 2009-10, he can be traded without restriction from that Entry Draft until August 15]"
A player can't have both at the same time.

Of course all the clauses may only be implemented on the contracts at a point thet the player would have become (or is) a group 3 free agent. At this point i believe the player must be either 27 years old at the end of the year (june 30) or to have accrued 7 seasons in the league. The thing is, i don't know exactly one accrues a season, but i believe the player must have played atleast 40 games. For example Jason Spezzas No-trade clause kicked in on july 1, since he turned 27 on june 13, even though he has only accrued 6 seasons in the league (to my understanding).

The cba can be found here:
http://www.nhlpa.com/About-Us/CBA/

If the this whole post is wrong, please disregard it entirely.

[CeeBee]

I've got an interesting situation in my game. Alexander Edler is 41, the season is over and his skills are declining. He's a future hall of famer and only played for the Canucks. I try to offer him a new contract and he doesn't want to negotiate. I've also tried to give him an assistant coach position and the same result. There is no way to know if he is planning to retire, wants to play one more year, wants to go home or what. I'd love to see more interaction with people in the game. Like I could maybe ask him what his plans are. If he's unsure I could offer him either a job playing or a job scouting or coaching but I could let him know that I want to keep him in the organization if he wants to stay. To me it's all part of the feeling of negotiating with real people instead of a game AI and would add a lot to a game.

[Alessandro]

I also think that it's too easy to attract talent from Europe. Or better, it's too easy to cheat on them to lure them to North America. This is due to the archaic logic of "key player", "core player", etc.
We can take an excellent Russian player (for example) promising him to be a "key player" and sink him in the minors forever without him raising an eyebrow.
We need something better. We need a "no AHL clause" or smth like that.

[Hossmann]

I also think that it's too easy to attract talent from Europe. Or better, it's too easy to cheat on them to lure them to North America. This is due to the archaic logic of "key player", "core player", etc.
We can take an excellent Russian player (for example) promising him to be a "key player" and sink him in the minors forever without him raising an eyebrow.
We need something better. We need a "no AHL clause" or smth like that.

I think they actually now have a clause that allows a foreign-born player to return to his old team if he doesn't make the NHL (I know Libor Pivko for the Pens returned to Europe once he didn't make the NHL, Magnus Kahnberg was another one that left, Igor Makarov made a big deal about it, although he's playing in the AHL right no).

[Alessandro]

I also think that it's too easy to attract talent from Europe. Or better, it's too easy to cheat on them to lure them to North America. This is due to the archaic logic of "key player", "core player", etc.
We can take an excellent Russian player (for example) promising him to be a "key player" and sink him in the minors forever without him raising an eyebrow.
We need something better. We need a "no AHL clause" or smth like that.

I think they actually now have a clause that allows a foreign-born player to return to his old team if he doesn't make the NHL (I know Libor Pivko for the Pens returned to Europe once he didn't make the NHL, Magnus Kahnberg was another one that left, Igor Makarov made a big deal about it, although he's playing in the AHL right no).

This is what i mean with "no AHL clause".
Also, give us the chance to send players to Europe. An item in the menu like "send to juniors" would be great.

[dabo]

Yeah I miss that in NHL:EHM.

[jbsnadb]

What is needed is better signing AI in general. I've had players refuse to extend contracts for big money who end up signing back with me as a free agent of less money than I offered them when they were with me in the first place.

Also, I agree with those before who think the AI needs to do a better job resigning their own players. Far too many stars who should show loyalty to their current club jump ship simply because an offer wasn't made to them in the first place.

[mcgsports]

Also allow offer Contract if rejects it becomes a Type A or B or so on.

[macdman]

Id like to see the AI sign players durring the year, not just a day before July 1. like real life.