Quote:
Originally Posted by geisterhome
For example Erik Karlsson signed 6 years 10,9 mio coming of a career best, Norris winning campaign. He is predicted to get 8 years 11 Million in real life.
Jeff Skinner signed for 3 years 4,6 mio. Scoring less than irl this year, but still recording a career high in points. Some say Buffalo will offer him 8x8 mio.
Bobrovsky got 6 years, 7,8 mio. He was way better than he is irl this year. Still it seems likely somebody will give him 8 years with a higher salary.
Auston Matthews resgined for 4 years, 5mio. Irl he singed 11mio/5years.
Artemi Panarin resigned for 5years/6,7 mio, after a 40goal/90 point season. Without checking my sources, such player would get way more irl.
The list goes on, generally I feel the free agents demand too little in money and especially term. What you think?
|
I think it works pretty well. Some players end up being a bargain, others demand way too much - I had a LW with 40 point seasons ask for $8M a year on a renewal and had to ship him out.
Also remember you can't directly compare real-life contracts with the game because there's no inflation in the game. In real-life, teams can offer larger contracts than normal because the assumption (which so far has been validated) is that the back-end of a long contract will be a smaller percentage of a larger cap (ie someone who signs for $10M a year for 7 years might take up around 12.5% of the cap now, but only 10% of the cap in year 7).
To account for that difference I increased the cap in my universe to $85M, but it's not necessary. I do enjoy the need to make decisions and have a wide variety of players and the need to infuse rookie talent to balance the books.