Could you please look into the contract issues? Once we you get 5 to 7 years into Franchise, all of a sudden your Low Elite Potential, 3rd line Forwards, who are getting 3rd Line Minutes are asking for 12 to 14 million, while Med Franchise Players, are asking for 10 million, and they've been getting Line 1 Minutes and have 93 overall ratings.
Just revamp the logic please?
@johum2886Yes none of it makes any sense.. they always say they fix it but they never actually do..
the contracts are so ludicrous and out of the world with what they ask.. haven’t seen any realistic
Community Admin@johum2886
Thank you. Passed that along to a Franchise dev.
Community Admin
@johum2886 wrote:
@EA_Blueberry as previously mentioned in this thread, Kirby Dach at 87 overall high top 6 potential asking for over 13 million no matter how long the contract after a 72 point season, Barrett Hayton asking for 2.5 million on a contract less than 3 years, 4 or more thereafter. Hayton played half the season in the minors as he broke his leg and recorded 0 points in 3 NHL games when recalled aftere injury. Vitali Kravtsov wanted minimum 4 million after a 22 point, 65ish game campaign which included 22 points in 12 AHL games. Both Hayton and Kravtsov were around 80 overall, I believe 80 and 81 respectivally. These were all in the first year of a Kansas City Franchise after relocating Arizona before starting.
In year 2 of the same KC Franchise, Timo Meier wanted nearly 11 million after a 74 point campaign, Roope Hintz asked for over 8 million after 2 55 point seasons - both of these players were 87 overall. Vince Dunn and Jack Rathbone asking for over 5.8 million each after 50 total points in 159 combined games, both are offensive defencemen with mediocre at best defensive stats. Travis Dermott played 7 games and asked for 3 million.
In a test Franchise, contracts seemed to be acceptable for player overalls and most likely performance (did not look at all season statistics) in the year 4 offseason.
Perhaps broken is the wrong word to describe it, but it certainly does still need to be looked at for the early years, I have yet to go past year 4.
Got some word back on why those specific players are asking for more money (Dach, Hayton, Kravtsov etc.). It's because they have potential and know that, so they are going to grow and will ask for more money.
Team got word of the feedback here and this thread. They don't consider what you mentioned above a "bug" but took note this is what you all would like to see for future improvements in Franchise. I want to set expectations right here from the get-go. I do not anticipate in changes around this in the current title due to their existing workload, but if anything changes we will let you know right away. Please continue to post examples in this thread you would like to see changes around so we can keep tabs on this forum and continue to ping the team throughout the year.
@EA_Blueberry it still isn't fixed. I have a 76 elite goalie I. AHL wanting 6 million a year for extension with a new franchise I started 2 days ago. This is still 1st season so no great previous season that would push him to ask for that much
Thanks for the update @EA_Blueberry , even if it’s not what we wanted here I really appreciate the honest update.
Although I haven’t come across these demands myself yet in 22, I find it pretty strange that it’s not considered a bug as this is from the deep dive in NHL 20.
OTHER CHANGES
So, it sounds like it used to be a problem and was fixed to avoid having contract demands like this, so why would they change it back to what it was before??
It also mentions trading players in order to have money to sign RFA’s which I have not seen happen for the last couple of years, some of the AI team's best players still sit out the entire year due to not having sufficient cap space to sign them.
@Beauts90 wrote:
- Teams will now put bad contracts on the trade block to free up cap space if an RFA (Restricted Free Agent) player wants a contract extension and they don't have cap space.
It also mentions trading players in order to have money to sign RFA’s which I have not seen happen for the last couple of years, some of the AI team's best players still sit out the entire year due to not having sufficient cap space to sign them.
I think that’s an issue because no team still wants to make those trades for bad contracts. IMO the best way around that would be to make the trade value for bad contract players a negative value. Then we can finally use our cap space to help with rebuilding by getting a second or third round pick for agreeing to take someone like Matt Murray.
Negative value is something we definitely need to see as it would improve that issue a ton. I’ve also suggested in previous years to allow teams to set cap space as a surplus or want (assuming those matter) as a way to try and help get rid of contracts.
I’m wondering how often you guys see the cpu hand out bad contracts? As bad as AI GM’s are, they seem to be programmed to know exactly how much a player is worth. This makes trading for bad contracts in later years impossible as a team will have 10 NHL defenceman and no goalie, but all the d are on good contracts so they have decent value and I have to give up assets to try and help that team if they do need to sign someone.
