|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Aug 4, 2016 11:54:57 GMT -5
This isn't something that was implemented so GMs can to try to grab a player by massively underpayment him. This is meant to possibly be able to retain a player at a reasonable price when you would have lost him in the past I don’t understand how it would ever be an underpayment as the contract is determined by highest bid placed either by the owner or by another GM (if FP matched). The only thing I thought FP would do is assure the owner that they won’t be the highest bid just protecting them. Luongo and Phil for example say he would retain him for 6 mil but doesn’t want to spend that much ideally, under this scenario to try and keep Luongo for 6 he either A. Bids 6 million B. Bids 4.5 mil and FP to protect up to 6 mil C Bids 3 mil and FP to protect up to 6 mil If market highest bid was 4 mil he overpaid and wasted FP in scenario B and overpaid big time in scenario A. If someone bids 4.5 and he waits for option C he loses his goalie even though he would have used FP and matched if he could.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 4, 2016 12:09:41 GMT -5
For the same reason we use the cascading bidding. If we didn't use cascading bidding I could bit 1M on a very good player who no one else bid on in round 1 (Let's say like a Jaden Schwartz) and since no one else bid on him I get him for 1M. That doesn't make a lot of sense. That's why the bids cascade as they do.
Now with the FP spending lets say everyone has Alzner pegged at a 7.4M dollar guy so they will wait to round 2 (6M round). Alzners owner bids 3M and 100FP to arrive at a bid if 3M/8M (with FP Insurance) in round 1. Since no one else bids (because they feel he should be a mid 7M guy and be bid on in the 6M+ round, the current owner grabs him for 3M? That wouldn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Aug 4, 2016 12:13:34 GMT -5
For the same reason we use the cascading bidding. If we didn't use cascading bidding I could bit 1M on a very good player who no one else bid on in round 1 (Let's say like a Jaden Schwartz) and since no one else bid on him I get him for 1M. That doesn't make a lot of sense. That's why the bids cascade as they do. Now with the FP spending lets say everyone has Alzner pegged at a 7.4M dollar guy so they will wait to round 2 (6M round). Alzners owner bids 3M and 100FP to arrive at a bid if 3M/8M (with FP Insurance) in round 1. Since no one else bids (because they feel he should be a mid 7M guy and be bid on in the 6M+ round, the current owner grabs him for 3M? That wouldn't make a lot of sense. Never meant that the 3 mil bid would count until the 3 mil round, just the FP insurance. The 3 mil and FP would still be there in the background until the 3 mil round in case someone bids in the higher rounds then owner can still match
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 4, 2016 12:26:22 GMT -5
Each bidding round is handled as it's own entity. Bids get cleared out, and FPS will be spent moving forward, at the end of each round so it would require a complete reworking of the bidding in order for them to perpetuate across multiple rounds. Even if we did that, it would encourage guys getting less than what they deserve which is something we are tryng to move away from.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Aug 4, 2016 12:35:49 GMT -5
I don't think it's a realistic contract price! 3 mil for a 7 mil guy? Why wouldn't rfa's give a hometown discount then? I know the rfa's get up 25% for term length, but the UFA in your example is getting roughly 60 % discount.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Aug 4, 2016 12:48:48 GMT -5
We still on that one year signing for players that are FP bid?
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Aug 4, 2016 12:57:33 GMT -5
I don't think it's a realistic contract price! 3 mil for a 7 mil guy? Why wouldn't rfa's give a hometown discount then? I know the rfa's get up 25% for term length, but the UFA in your example is getting roughly 60 % discount. Nobody suggested 3 mil for a 7 mil guy
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Aug 4, 2016 13:07:02 GMT -5
Each bidding round is handled as it's own entity. Bids get cleared out, and FPS will be spent moving forward, at the end of each round so it would require a complete reworking of the bidding in order for them to perpetuate across multiple rounds. Even if we did that, it would encourage guys getting less than what they deserve which is something we are tryng to move away from. I don't see how it would encourage guys getting less than what they deserve. Owner either gets him at highest bid or his own bid he used the FP with. Again not sure why you would use FP then (especially if 1 year, is it?). You have a guy you think will is worth 4 mil but want to protect from some needy and cap heavy team bidding 6.5 you can either bid 6 mil and insure up to 6.5, bid 4.5 and I guess insure up to 6.5 or wait until the 3 mil round and insure up to 6.5. If highest market bid would have been the 4 the owner overpaid and wasted FP on 2 of those. The third I'm sure the owner would rather just bid 4.5 and keep him 5 years at 4.1. I just assumed FP would let you keep your player at the market rate and not have to outbid the market to make sure you keep him.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Aug 4, 2016 13:10:26 GMT -5
I get that we can't handle bids like this but it will be interesting to see how many if any owners who use FP fall into the category of outbidding the market.
Also if they bid 4 and insure up to 6 and highest bid is 4.1 they're stuck with him for 1 year at 4.1 right instead of just bidding 4.5 and getting the ability to sign long term.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 4, 2016 13:12:02 GMT -5
Correct. They would only be able to sign him for one year given that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 4, 2016 13:31:38 GMT -5
Some possible clarifications: 1. Franchise points are ONLY able to be used by that player's LAST team he played for. Other teams cannot use franchise points to help bid on a UFA 2. Franchise points are 'Free Money' to be used to add to a bid on a UFA as in #1 above. Who DOESN'T like Free Money I don't see how ANY team would NOT use F' points to keep as many UFA's as they can. 'Extra Money' is pretty much a no brainer. You always get more f' points 1/2 way thru the year anyway and OTHER teams can easily be talked into paying for trades on their end. NOW what may happen this year with the augmented bidding by f' points is that we MAY see a spike in overbidding from NON f' point spending teams. AND if we see a overbidding, we shall certainly see 'buyers remorse'.
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 4, 2016 13:33:35 GMT -5
Glad to heck to have the 'Matthew rule'...
6 million and above must be signed for 2 years or more.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Aug 4, 2016 13:44:16 GMT -5
Some possible clarifications: 1. Franchise points are ONLY able to be used by that player's LAST team he played for. Other teams cannot use franchise points to help bid on a UFA 2. Franchise points are 'Free Money' to be used to add to a bid on a UFA as in #1 above. Who DOESN'T like Free Money I don't see how ANY team would NOT use F' points to keep as many UFA's as they can. 'Extra Money' is pretty much a no brainer. You always get more f' points 1/2 way thru the year anyway and OTHER teams can easily be talked into paying for trades on their end. NOW what may happen this year with the augmented bidding by f' points is that we MAY see a spike in overbidding from NON f' point spending teams. AND if we see a overbidding, we shall certainly see 'buyers remorse'. I don't know if you're getting what I am saying, it's extra money yes but you need to meet the round minimum to make that bid. 1. You and luongo if you want to protect him from a 7 mil bid. You have to bid 6 mil and use FP to protect him if nobody bid on him congrats you signed him to 6 mil and outbid the market. Or you decide to wait until the 4.5 mil round and still protect him up to 7 mil, I bid 6 mil in the 6 mil round and you lost him. 2. Even on cheaper guys. You bid 1.7 on Farnham and use the "free money" to protect him up to 2.7. I bid 2.2 mil, congrats you keep him at 2.2 mil but only 1 year whereas if you just bid 2.5 you could have won and signed him out 4 years at a cap hit of 2.3 I personally only see this being useful for the best of the best FA that you can not possibly part with even if it means signing them continuously to 1 year contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 4, 2016 13:47:47 GMT -5
It's not free money. It buys insurance that you need to cover with real money when needed. Also these points are spent and gone whenever you use them. That means if they are needed or not. Lastly, 6M and over requiring a minimum of 2 years does not occur here when FP are used and needed to require an owner to sign for 2 years. 1 year if FP are needed. Oh, one last clarification, the player had to be on your team all of last year to qualify.
|
|
|
Post by Justin-Cincinnati on Aug 4, 2016 13:58:30 GMT -5
I have to say, I disagree with the 1 year limit. This isnt a home team discount at all. Players still need to be bid on in the round that is market value or what their asking price would be. This assures that players are getting paid what they deserve, regardless of the team that wins him. FP are used as insurance to help retain the UFAs by the home team. They may receive a small discount with this, but not much if any. Therefore teams should be able to sign them for whatever contract they would like, and not be limited to a year. If only a year extension is allowed, why have this as an option? I dont see anyway in which it is beneficial
|
|