Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2011 7:06:16 GMT -5
If I sign a prospect for $500k or more he is mine.
I can sign him to an extended contract.
When their contract is up they are an RFA.
If I sign a prospect for under $500k I have practically no long term ownership rights.
Accurate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 5, 2011 8:17:50 GMT -5
If I sign a prospect for $500k or more he is mine. I can sign him to an extended contract. When their contract is up they are an RFA. If I sign a prospect for under $500k I have practically no long term ownership rights. Accurate? That is correct. Unless the player you sign for more than 500k already had a prior contract in which case he would be a UFA after your extended contract expired. These would have had to been guys who were waived or they were on 1 year contracts that expired. Guys under 500k will be handled like this. Next year all of these players will automatically get raises of 150% of past years salary. You as an owner will have the decision to pay that or let them go (in which case they are UFA). Other owners can bid on these guys as well as part of the FA process. If they do, you have the option of matching (100% match) to retain or letting them go. If you let them go, there is no compensation coming you way. I will be posting the chart detailing yearly contract minimum amount needed to sign players for X number of years prior to the end of FA. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2011 8:26:06 GMT -5
Excellent detail. Gratitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 5, 2011 18:50:55 GMT -5
I would like to submit a proposal to the league that we be able to sign players up to 3 years regardless of price, or actually this could be done down to the 500k level, I am unsure of what you had in mind, Glenn, but I think it's fair that we be allowed to sign players we pick up in this 500k range to be retained for at least a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 5, 2011 18:54:13 GMT -5
500K and up, is already retainable for multi-year contracts...
Do you mean - allow multi-year signing for the 100K- 499K range ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 5, 2011 19:44:02 GMT -5
I would like to submit a proposal to the league that we be able to sign players up to 3 years regardless of price, or actually this could be done down to the 500k level, I am unsure of what you had in mind, Glenn, but I think it's fair that we be allowed to sign players we pick up in this 500k range to be retained for at least a few years. Scott, I need to flesh things out in detail but right now I am leaning towards 700-750k minimums for 2 year contracts and for 3 years around 1.1-1.2M per. Glenn |
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 5, 2011 21:06:16 GMT -5
^^ Overruled. 5 to 7 year signings for all Cornwall selections....
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 5, 2011 21:45:34 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the lines of letting us go 3 years on anyone 500k and up and then setting a minimum for 4 years or higher. My logic behind this is that ELC's for draft players are three years and their contracts all fall within this salary range. On the other end of the spectrum are players like Orr for example who I have signed at 500k but I can't sign him to a contract even though that was what the league valued him at (no free agency bids). I am just trying to put into perspective that some players around 500k may not be young prospect players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 6, 2011 8:02:18 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the lines of letting us go 3 years on anyone 500k and up and then setting a minimum for 4 years or higher. My logic behind this is that ELC's for draft players are three years and their contracts all fall within this salary range. On the other end of the spectrum are players like Orr for example who I have signed at 500k but I can't sign him to a contract even though that was what the league valued him at (no free agency bids). I am just trying to put into perspective that some players around 500k may not be young prospect players. The difference between the two is the fact that the guys who are coming in on an entry level contract are the prospects while these other players are for the most part UFAs. From what I am seeing and hearing about in the NHL, these guys that are getting these smaller contracts are for the most part 1 or 2 year deals. I think that in order to maintain league economic balance in regards to players worths, my general outline is the better solution. I would suggest that my tentative outline is used as a strawman for all to comment on and suggest modification on. <500k 1 year contract (150% raise due next year) 500k to 795k 2 year deal max 800k to 1.495M 3 year deal max 1.5M to 3.45M 4 year deal max 3.5M to 5.45M 5 year deal max 5.5 and higher 6 year deal max Owners have the right to add monies to a FA's winning bid price in order to sign them to a longer contract when contract length is decided. So, if someone won Colton Orr with a bid of 725k, they could bump his salary to 800k to sign him to a 3 year deal. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 6, 2011 10:04:37 GMT -5
This is probably fine for older players, my thoughts were concerning the prospects still available in free agency but I guess since they didn't go via draft, they are now fa's and should be treated as such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 10:17:27 GMT -5
Argh. A little late for such discussion.
I like Scott's plan, and really thought that was more aligned to the case. My current cap and bids this round are based on something along those lines.
If someone with a bunch of free cap can jack my best $500k prospect in two years or my $100k prospect every year then we should reevaluate why were are bothering to do a 45 man roster full of prospects.
For the $500ks... I have them for 3 years, then they are RFAs.
For the $100ks... I have them for at least two years, and there needs to be something in place to give me considerations if someone jacks them at any point.
If a high bidder can jack my $500k prospect in 2 years then this phase of the bidding becomes a bit meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 6, 2011 10:42:35 GMT -5
Argh. A little late for such discussion. I like Scott's plan, and really thought that was more aligned to the case. My current cap and bids this round are based on something along those lines. If someone with a bunch of free cap can jack my best $500k prospect in two years or my $100k prospect every year then we should reevaluate why were are bothering to do a 45 man roster full of prospects. For the $500ks... I have them for 3 years, then they are RFAs. For the $100ks... I have them for at least two years, and there needs to be something in place to give me considerations if someone jacks them at any point. If a high bidder can jack my $500k prospect in 2 years then this phase of the bidding becomes a bit meaningless. When you say Jack you do know that you have the right to match to retain right? And after matching, you can determine that you want to lock the player up for a few years and increase his salary to meet the criteria listed above. To me it is a win/win. These players salaries will be driven by the what the collective league is willing to pay them and you do have the right to keep them if you want. You also have the ability to sign them for an extended period of time if you have the coin and inclination to do so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 11:03:34 GMT -5
Lets say I sign Joe Peckerevage for $500k.
Our stats lag NHL/AHL by one year.
Year one Joe is worthless on my books. He plays ok in the AHL.
Year two Joe is worthless on my books. He plays great in the AHL and does a lot of NHL time. He will obviously be a starter next year.
Now someone comes in and offers up $2m for Joe.
Please detail how my $1m risk/investment is protected. Cover the risk/reward, as two of my other $500k prospects never make it out of the AHL.
Why would I not do this instead:
- I sign nobody over $100k. I pick them at random as they are not protected.
- I wait until someone elses prospects flourish then jack them for whatever they are worth. Best case I get them. Worst case I jacked up someone elses cap by $1.5m and I move on to the next prospect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 6, 2011 11:07:34 GMT -5
Lets say I sign Joe Peckerevage for $500k. Our stats lag NHL/AHL by one year. Year one Joe is worthless on my books. He plays ok in the AHL. Year two Joe is worthless on my books. He plays great in the AHL and does a lot of NHL time. He will obviously be a starter next year. Now someone comes in and offers up $2m for Joe. Please detail how my $1m risk/investment is protected. Cover the risk/reward, as two of my other $500k prospects never make it out of the AHL. Why would I not do this instead: - I sign nobody over $100k. I pick them at random as they are not protected. - I wait until someone elses prospects flourish then jack them for whatever they are worth. Best case I get them. Worst case I jacked up someone elses cap by $1.5m and I move on to the next prospect. Because you signed him for 500k for 2 years, he is a RFA after the two years are up. That being the case, you can either match a percentage of the offer (this used to be 75% but it will be most likely increasing to 85-90% next year) or tell the GM who bid 2M on him, you can have him now give me my 2nd round draft pick. Everyone needs to keep these players we are talking about in perspective. These are your minor league/filler guys for the most part positions 31-50 on the depth chart. If you happen to mine a nugget in here you will have the option of reviewing their progress yearly and either providing them a FHL entry level contract (> 500K) or matching an offer an doing the same if one is made. The majority of your prospects will be found in the amateur draft and will automatically be on e a protected entry level contract. The bottom line is this, if you have a prospect, sign him for 500k for 2 years and you are afforded protection. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Aug 6, 2011 12:08:08 GMT -5
Whoa...
Are we saying, the "Players Signed during the 100K stage, will be UFA's after this season???
I would seriously vote against that proposition! Being as tho we all have the same oportunity to sign these guys, theres no advantage to any one team. I think, as Scott said, we should be able to sign these 100K guys to 3 yr max contracts as is done via ELC's in NHL. We could sign some to 1 yr, some 2 yrs, whatever we see fit to do making us real GM's and being accountable for the following yrs FA period.
Thoughts?
|
|
