|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Jun 29, 2016 14:39:26 GMT -5
We need beers and a round table discussion.
I don't think any of us are against any change, that is obvious. I don't mind Glenn's proposal, but I don't think I will be using F-Pts to keep a UFA. Granted, I don't have an Alex Pietrangelo, or a Cindy Crosby.
I do agree, in sorts, with Matt and Phil, in that I do think trading will be impacted by F-Pts usage to retain. Maybe it's best we wait until we begin the F-Pt retention implementation process? Iron it out a bit, but not prolong the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jun 29, 2016 15:01:14 GMT -5
This rule would be a step in that right direction if you got rid of the 1 year part. Do we really need more FP? It just makes us think befor we make trades or sign for 1 YEAR. Like Phil said it is unrealistic for a star player in his prime to sign 1 YEAR for any team. No agent will agree to that. We need rules that bring us close to reality.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jun 29, 2016 15:05:59 GMT -5
Case in point do you think Stamkos will sign a 1 YEAR deal
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jun 29, 2016 15:34:08 GMT -5
Oo look he did an 8 YEAR deal.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jun 29, 2016 20:43:19 GMT -5
Goligoski 5 years
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 30, 2016 11:51:17 GMT -5
This rule is being implemented in order to give the owners who aren't the most active on the trades (perhaps they enjoy building their teams from within) an opportunity to spend some FPs in a way that can assist in retaining some of their talent.
No guns are being held to any owners head to use FPs as insurance. If you like the old way, don't use FPs for insurance (as some have said they won't do) and open up that team check book. Phil had suggested being able to up your FPs spent to match. Well if you are able to match how's that any different than how RFAs are handled. Teams have no, zero, zippo, nada contractual sway over the UFAs. They did as RFAs but that term has expired and you are left to deal with your UFAs based on your decisions in regards to their contracts (determining signing lengths, trading for these players whose lengths were determined by another GM or inheriting a prior GM's decisions).
As I mentioned earlier in the thread I do not want FPs to equate to dollars that successful teams (as they earn more of them year in and year out) can use to further distance themselves from the field. That is why the insurance only allows them to extend for one year if it is required. I think the league is best when there is some measure of parity. That is why we have a cap and why the newer guys are looked after so as not to get raped in a trade.
Again, if you want to extend for 6 years then just bid big dollars. If you want a fall back and some insurance to at least maybe hold onto them for one year then add some insurance to it. And once again even though the FPs are gone whenever they are used in this scenario, the 1 year extension is only applied if you needed to use some of your insurance to retain a player.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Jun 30, 2016 13:12:02 GMT -5
I'm good with all that.
Q: Are we allowed to trade FP's for Players? Straight up?
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 30, 2016 14:19:22 GMT -5
Nope. FP are not a commodity that can be traded. Teams can choose to split the FP other than evenly with one team paying all for a transaction but they can't be traded.
|
|