|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 15, 2017 14:26:34 GMT -5
What about the ability to sign out a player?
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Dec 16, 2017 14:42:59 GMT -5
Any changes would need to take place between seasons.
I would think that something we may want to consider is having the ability for early signings of drafted players before their ELC contract is up. This could allow you to in effect lock up one of these drafted players for up to 8 years (if the final 2 years of their ELC is forfeited. This would allow someone to sign one of the high end guys to a longer deal at 6M minimum when if you wait, they most likely would command 8 or 9 at the end of their ELC. Just food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 16, 2017 15:13:13 GMT -5
Elaborate please. The way I read this is that we would have the ability to sign extensions on drafted players. I'd be interested in discussing this if they still play out their ELC and then roll into the extension, as is done in the NHL but if by forfeiting the final two years of their ELC means paying them more when they should be making less, then definitely not. I don't understand what you mean by 8 years. The maximum we cam keep a player now before UFA is 9 but that's only for a top end player who is worth a 6 year deal after his ELC expires. This is a totally different discussion, however, being as we're posing the question of extensions on UFA's. There is currently no such thing as a franchise player in the GHL or for that matter, a way to simulate that a player simply wants to stay with a franchise. I'm not as worried about the latter but having franchise players is realistic and I'd like to see a method of keeping a cornerstone guy for the duration of his career, or at least through his prime.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Dec 18, 2017 12:32:28 GMT -5
My spit balling would have a player on his ELC for 1-3 years. An owner would have the right to sign him longer term after his first year is up which would allow the player to be retained for 8 more years. If he signed them after the players 2nd year then in it would be for 7 years additional. If after third year, like all are handled now, 6 years would be the max extension.
The above would give an owner the chance to lock his talent up at a lower cost potentially then waiting until the guys has a 105 card and be asking for 9M bucks. If you feel he is going to be "that guy" you could sign him earlier and cheaper. Now the down side is if you decide to part ways with him, the waive hit would be significantly higher.
Again, just spit balling ideas to spur discussion on how players (both RFA and UFA) can be modified.
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 18, 2017 14:08:55 GMT -5
Glenn, I was honestly confused at first as what you were talking about but after reading it a few times I think I completely understand where you are coming from. I think this could be a good deal. If I could have locked up Ekblad in a down card this year for cheap it would have likely saved me millions as his card next year is going to be much better.
That said I don’t think it solves the UFA retention issue as you point out so to build off of this, which I think is your objective here, I’ll add my crazy idea I came up with while I was out on a run and starved of oxygen:
What if we required that all FP be used at the end of the year (after The season but before next years FP were uploaded) and we had to ‘invest’ in our players we see as franchise caliber? Every year I could add 20 FP’s to Barkov and Werenski for example and this could be utilized to lower the price of an upcoming UFA. Maybe at a certain limit (200?) FP’s I could match any offer. Below that every 25 FP’s is .5M investment, with maybe 50% cash savings. You would be ineligible for Yearly contract adjustments that are normally dependent on length of contract however.
After let’s say 5 years Barkov is in UFA and I have 100FP invested. I could offer 5M + 2M(100FP) it would look like a 7M bid but thanks to the FP I save 1M a year and his cap hit is only 6M a year regardless of how long I sign him. These numbers are obviously up for debate but I picked somewhat round numbers for now.
Since FP’s could be and have to be invested annually each team really has to invest in its core, franchise players to see the benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 18, 2017 15:52:40 GMT -5
I don't think we want to get into situations where Ekblad (since he was used in the example above) gets signed to an 8 year extension at, say 2 million $, so how would these values be determined?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 18, 2017 17:03:54 GMT -5
Can we stick to the topic at hand... I don't think our RFA process is a problem. We need to talk about UFA retention.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 18, 2017 17:08:01 GMT -5
I agree to a point. I think the problem is with UFA retention. I'm not going to use a specific player but just a general scenario here. Currently, if we draft an 18 year old stud and sign him to max term, he becomes a UFA at 27. If this is a franchise player, it is not realistic that the team who drafted him and who he has played his career with stands to lose him to the highest bidder in the prime of his career.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 18, 2017 17:28:37 GMT -5
Age based Free agency would cure what ills
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 18, 2017 17:56:04 GMT -5
Age based Free agency would cure what ills NO
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 18, 2017 17:57:22 GMT -5
Age based Free agency would cure what ills NO Ya
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 18, 2017 18:00:05 GMT -5
Why not, Jon? Just curious as to why such an emphatic 'NO' to a rule which follows the NHL mode
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 18, 2017 18:02:11 GMT -5
I agree to a point. I think the problem is with UFA retention. I'm not going to use a specific player but just a general scenario here. Currently, if we draft an 18 year old stud and sign him to max term, he becomes a UFA at 27. If this is a franchise player, it is not realistic that the team who drafted him and who he has played his career with stands to lose him to the highest bidder in the prime of his career. That’s why I think my solution could at least provide a practical solution even if it’s not the exact numbers we use. I think it would more practically reflect the long term commitment a franchise has to have with a player to get this kind of deal done. The goodwill, the branding, and investment into a player especially a franchise style player. Maybe we could even expand upon it later to get hometown discount stuff figured in (it would definitely have to wait) but I think this might work. If not I’m still willing to hear out other ideas but I’m not even sure if this will ever get fleshed out due to all the dramatic differences in opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 18, 2017 18:18:24 GMT -5
Why not, Jon? Just curious as to why such an emphatic 'NO' to a rule which follows the NHL mode Wasn’t an emphatic no, just don’t like age based FA. I think it’s cause more problems then it would solve but to be honest I don’t know the specifics on it. Honestly I’d rather keep it as it is but this has been a weird issue with a bunch of different viewpoints and I thought I’d add a partially fleshed out idea that hopefully isn’t too complicated that most of us could agree on.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 18, 2017 18:22:29 GMT -5
Age would Give you a chance to let your kids mature and the ability to sign a contract to get the prime out of them
|
|