|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 18, 2017 18:35:41 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 Honestly it’s mostly just a personal thing, I like the system as is. After two contracts (max 9-10 years if a prospect) a guy is gunna wanna get paid and they’ll likely be in the middle of their prime. Let them hit FA and get paid by a team who has the money and likely needs their services moreso than a team that is completely stacked. The obvious implication being that poor teams will find the most cap space.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 18, 2017 22:34:24 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. T he 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. Jon, I think youre possibly onto something. Permit me to take this concept in another direction for a second...I am thinking we should require teams acquiring high value assets to commit a specific number of FP for the purpose of 'branding' within the franchise, as a means of demonstrating good faith. The irony of me suggesting such a measure is not lost on me, either...I can hear MTL Mike snickering from here...that said, should a team elect to offer a UFA what is deemed 'top-end' terms (cash, length of agreement), perhaps an FP commitment earmarked for 'branding' (ie; personalized merch) should be exacted, specifically for players under 35. Should the player be traded, the FP expended for this 'branding' initiative would not be transferrable, and no FP arrangement other than 50-50 would be entertained. What this does is ensures managers signing such players do so in good faith, fully cognizant of the expense required, above and beyond cap space. With the exception of Jumbo, I signed my big-ticket pieces with the express purpose of making them cornerstone pieces, as I rebuild my team. I'd like to hear from other managers on this subject. I think we need to strike a balance between repopulating the free agency pool and allowing teams to remain competitive while re-signing their best soon-to-be FA talent.
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Dec 18, 2017 22:54:22 GMT -5
I like that we’re talking about it, but we don’t need to put a man on the moon here.
I think the ‘solution’ to extending a teams key UFAs is much simpler.
Using the RFA asking price generator we already have, a team pays a certain amount of FP to generate an asking price on the pending UFA. This asking price should be an inflated asking price; no hometown discount, pay up to keep your players. The team can then either meet the demand and sign the player for another full length contract or the player walks.
Player can’t be bought out or traded for half the contract, rounded up on a 3/5/7 year deal.
Limit one, maybe two per offseason—thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 19, 2017 7:06:54 GMT -5
Owen, I won't say your idea wouldn't work but one major issue I see is that a lot of UFA's don't command these types of commitment. When making a rule, we have to consider all players, not just high end UFA's but your 4th line and role players as well
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 19, 2017 7:45:57 GMT -5
I like that we’re talking about it, but we don’t need to put a man on the moon here. I think the ‘solution’ to extending a teams key UFAs is much simpler. Using the RFA asking price generator we already have, a team pays a certain amount of FP to generate an asking price on the pending UFA. This asking price should be an inflated asking price; no hometown discount, pay up to keep your players. The team can then either meet the demand and sign the player for another full length contract or the player walks. Player can’t be bought out or traded for half the contract, rounded up on a 3/5/7 year deal. Limit one, maybe two per offseason—thoughts? Not sure how much more the price has to be inflated. Think the asking prices now are pretty much inflated as is... simple is better. X amount of FP says the player wants to sign with team and Bing Bang Boom asking price take it or leave it... cap and amount of pts will still let players hit the market.
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 19, 2017 12:47:15 GMT -5
Ok so as of now these are the ideas.
RFA: Earlier extension at year 2. Player hits UFA at normal time (as if he played his ELC +6 years) - Glenn
UFA: Invest FP on a yearly basis to be used in players UFA bid - Jon Require more FP for player trades and potentially have owners mandatorily invest FP into premium players (please correct me if I’m misreading) - Owen Use RFA calculator (X FP’s) to calculate an early bid price to keep player out of UFA - Matt/Colorado
Others: Age based
No bias just laying out what we’ve got so far.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 19, 2017 13:15:39 GMT -5
Can't take away a player's ELC. Even if a player is extended, he still plays out his ELC...check out McDavid's extension, even though he signed an extension before his ELC was up, he still has to play out his ELC....
Again, RFA discussion is off topic, if we are interested in discussing RFA, we should start a new thread...
Regarding UFA discussion, regarding the commissioner's statement that rule changes are an off season venue, I could not disagree more. There is already too much on the calendar during the off season. The regular season is the time for us to have owner meetings and discuss changes, now is the time, even if the changes don't go into affect until the following season. If we were to make a change during this season and have it become rule starting in the 2019-20 season if we're not comfortable starting the change next year
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 19, 2017 20:08:07 GMT -5
Owen, I won't say your idea wouldn't work but one major issue I see is that a lot of UFA's don't command these types of commitment. When making a rule, we have to consider all players, not just high end UFA's but your 4th line and rile players as well Scott, I am referring to 'top-end' UFA talent, not garden-variety players and curtailing the potential for quick sign and trades at top dollar, thus disrupting league economics as some have contended I have done by leveraging free cap to solidify my roster's core pieces (Josi, Alzner) . If nothing else, it dissuades managers from circumventing the spirit of free agency by artificially inflating contract values with no real commitment to training them for the majority of their contracted term.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 19, 2017 20:13:31 GMT -5
Ok so as of now these are the ideas. RFA: Earlier extension at year 2. Player hits UFA at normal time (as if he played his ELC +6 years) - Glenn UFA: Invest FP on a yearly basis to be used in players UFA bid - Jon Require more FP for player trades and potentially have owners mandatorily invest FP into premium players (please correct me if I’m misreading) - OwenUse RFA calculator (X FP’s) to calculate an early bid price to keep player out of UFA - Matt/Colorado Others: Age based No bias just laying out what we’ve got so far. I'm suggesting no FP deal on high ticket UFA's signed and quickly flipped, along with an added FP commitment for players exceeding 'consensus' values. Under such a scheme, Josi, Alzner and Jumbo would be expensive for me to move.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 19, 2017 21:25:22 GMT -5
How does that address teams looking to re-sign their UFA's? We need ideas on how a franchise can keep a Crosby/McDavid type player through their prime or to lure Thornton/Marleau to stick around and show a little loyalty.
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 19, 2017 22:41:23 GMT -5
How does that address teams looking to re-sign their UFA's? We need ideas on how a franchise can keep a Crosby/McDavid type player through their prime or to lure Thornton/Marleau to stick around and show a little loyalty. That kind of where I'm at with this proposal. I'm not sure it addresses the issue and is quite complicated. Age based free agency is also likely out, the only thing I can find on it is that players up to the age of 27 in the NHL (or 7 accrued seasons) are to be considered RFA's until released or not resigned. I think with the way we have things now we already have guys signed long term thanks to ELC, bridge deals and RFA (up to 9-10 years) and I would argue that this would just complicate matters further without getting to the real matter at hand. This would just result in fringe players constantly getting short term RFA deals that don't really help anyone. I do like that instead of a calculator figuring out the price its more based on market value and matching contracts with a dash of draft pick compensation but again I think our current format is much better for what we have.We're talking about franchise caliber players who would normally receive a strong offer from a team before the last year of their contract is up. We need to make sure these occasions don't water down free agency but allow teams to keep great long term players rather than a stopgap. I think we're down to investing FP's on a long term basis or recycle the RFA calculator with a one time FP cost. Honestly I think these are some good options and while I'm partial to my proposal I could see either of these being decent options.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 20, 2017 6:23:56 GMT -5
Investing in a guy over a course of years does not help sign a guy you just traded for...
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 20, 2017 7:32:54 GMT -5
We're not trying to make this an easy thing to do, it should be restrictive so that we still see plenty of players hitting the market while also giving teams a little edge over others when it cones time to sign a guy a franchise really wants to keep. Similar to the NHL teams having exclusive rights to be able to talk to their UFA's before July 1st. For example, I have 4 quality UFA's this year. If we keep this restrictive, I might be able to sign one of these guys back, leaving 3 going to open market. If we use franchise points somehow, it will definitely increase the value of those. I already hear the rich get richer whining but realism kicks in. Good players want to be on good teams. It would make owners accountable in the trade market (stop throwing away your first round picks). With that said, I don't like the league knowing who I want to keep because some asshole will just drive up the price. I don't even want to hear fair market value arguments anymore. Just look at any team in the league to know we don't have fair market value. Alaska - Palat is the highest paid player on a team that's roster includes Ovechkin, Backstrom and Suter. Yup, it seems to be working just fine (laced with heavy sarcasm). I used Alaska in example only. I could have used any roster in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Syracuse on Dec 20, 2017 10:47:39 GMT -5
You have to make changes that better league as soon as practicable. Let's man up and not whine about it. We've known something was going to be done, so let's do it.
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Syracuse on Dec 20, 2017 10:50:46 GMT -5
We don't have fair market value because we don't have any ability to negotiate against each other (counter-offer). ONe blind bid isn't going to replicate the GM-Agent-PLayer dynamic so vital to realism. Also the RFA value determination is a really tough nut to crack mathematically.
|
|