|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 20, 2017 19:15:59 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. Is this addressed to me Scott?
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 20, 2017 19:18:28 GMT -5
Investing in a guy over a course of years does not help sign a guy you just traded for... Agreed. What it does is curtail any trend toward hyper-inflated prices, and that in turn makes re-signing a recent acquisition more equitable.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Dec 20, 2017 19:22:33 GMT -5
Investing in a guy over a course of years does not help sign a guy you just traded for... Agreed. What it does is curtail any trend toward hyper-inflated prices, and that in turn makes re-signing a recent acquisition more equitable. Ya but we trying see if we can come up with a way to EXTEND UFAs. Like the NHL does when they have the rights of a player....
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 20, 2017 19:30:08 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. Is this addressed to me Scott? At your post right above it, yes
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 20, 2017 20:30:13 GMT -5
Investing in a guy over a course of years does not help sign a guy you just traded for... Agreed. What it does is curtail any trend toward hyper-inflated prices, and that in turn makes re-signing a recent acquisition more equitable. I did not intend my solution to pertain to UFAs you trade for, it is meant to keep a franchise asset. Also to answer Syracuse I think I added in a provision to be able to match any offer given a large investment of FP thus giving GMs a chance to match rather then just losing the blind bid. I think this is better than the RFA calculator as then we see real market value prices.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 20, 2017 22:14:34 GMT -5
Is this addressed to me Scott? At your post right above it, yesSorry, Scott...I wasn't aware unaddressed posts are always answered in perfect sequence. Anyway, seeing as this is a simulation in which the asset(s) (Marleau/Thornton) is/are unable to express any sort of preference, I think we would have to conclude that any decision would have to be driven solely by league process. Being able to re-sign prior to UFA kicking in wherein the manager is required to expend FP for a 'branding' purposes, as Jon suggests, makes it less desirable to sign and flip for picks or prospects . By disqualifying any trade for the re-signed asset that requires the receiving club to pay more than 50% of the FP also closes another loophole. The debate regarding the usefulness of FP isn't a new one. I recall NJ Scott telling Finally, attaching expense/obligation above and beyond cap space for high-ticket players signed long-term is a means of cost-controlling hyper-inflated AAV's. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Dec 21, 2017 7:21:39 GMT -5
Can we please stop referring to 'fair market value'. Yes, I understand that even if a player gets overbid, we have to say it was fair market because someone was willing to overpay but this system is quite simply a complete disaster. Because we have a system which protects RFA's (as it should) but offers no protection to UFA's, all we have is inflated market value. When you guys start losing your 27 year old studs, I guarantee you'll be calling for change. Jon, Ekblad and Barkov will both be 27 when they hit the open overbidding process, just so you're aware.
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 21, 2017 13:39:10 GMT -5
Can we please stop referring to 'fair market value'. Yes, I understand that even if a player gets overbid, we have to say it was fair market because someone was willing to overpay but this system is quite simply a complete disaster. Because we have a system which protects RFA's (as it should) but offers no protection to UFA's, all we have is inflated market value. When you guys start losing your 27 year old studs, I guarantee you'll be calling for change. Jon, Ekblad and Barkov will both be 27 when they hit the open overbidding process, just so you're aware. I fully understand that they’ll only be 27. They’ll also have 9 years of accrued play for Ottawa/Seattle and in the NHL they would get the opportunity to dip into FA. I could obviously offer them a deal beforehand but who’s to say they would take it? I wish I could have them locked down until they retired and isn’t that what we’re discussing now? That said if we all just kept our UFAs and didn’t pay them market value then certain teams would be absolutely stacked (Halifax comes to mind, good work over there) there would be no players in the UFA pool and it would definitely be a case of the rich get richer and nothing would matter except for the draft. I hate UFA because you’re right the prices are astronomical but why is that? Because there haven’t been many players to hit the market until the last year or two. Everyone was locked up as a RFA or signed long term and we’re just getting to the point where we’re seeing these franchise players actually make franchise money. It’s not even anything wrong with the system it’s just the effect of finally seeing these guys hit the market, something y’all haven't seen since you guys started this league. It has to cost you something to keep these players. In my scenario since I have Barkov for 9 years and had him drafted at #1 overall I’d have started loading FPs into him from year one on. Even at just 25 FPs a year that’s 220 FPs. If someone makes a bid of 10M in UFA I could match and drop the price to just under 8M. I think that’s a seemingly decent number for a #1 center. Now if someone went all out at 14M they can have him and they can deal with the cap and 6 year contract for a guy who’ll be 33 at the end of it, I’ll save my money, focus on other assets and get over it as best I can. Hell you could even load up a newly acquired UFA with a boatload of FPs and do the same. You still get quite a bit of saving and can decide if the price is right. (Maybe add a clause that says no more than ~25% of the contract can be discounted) I’ve come up with a plan as have some other people that could definitely work. Take it or leave it I’m just one owner and honestly I’d rather keep the system the way it is, maybe get some value out of Ekblad and Barkov when the time comes and try and keep my team competitive via good drafting. Let the UFA chips fly where they may. If it changes so will my strategy but so far I think we’re still down to a very limited number of ideas that are being nit picked. Let’s get a poll up or something and decide if we want to incorporate one of these ideas, fine tune it or drop it all together. Unless someone has a better idea.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 22, 2017 0:26:38 GMT -5
My .02: ultimately, y'all are pushing on a rope here because the system is designed in such a way as to repopulate the free agent pool in a way that doesn't reflect the NHL's policies. I am sure Glenn has compelling reasons for wanting to see UFA's thrown back in the hopper, so I am not sure we can expect much of a shift here at all. UFA - and my lack of sophistication in this regard - certainly has much to do with how I am adjusting on the fly. I expected that legit NHL stars like McDonagh and Hank would have enormous trade value and factored that into my rebuild plans when I acquired them for what I called "extended tournament play" all last season. I was wrong, and ended up frustrating a number of managers with what they felt (rightfully, given the current structure) were unrealistic expectations in terms of a return .
Our UFA system isn't ideal In my opinion. But unless we have a consensus here that we need to amend, what's the purpose of throwing ideas around? The simple solution in my opinion, is that UFAs and their new contracts should be tied to previous performance over the last 2 years, no hometown discount, just first right of refusal. If your boy is a 35-goal scorer with 70-80 points a season for the previous 2 seasons, there should be a standard price range within 500K for such a player. If he's a 45-goal guy, you should be expected to pay top-end dollar, reasonable term commensurate with age, no discount, and an FP commitment to prevent signing and flipping, as well as an understanding that you can't unload him in the first year or two, depending on age. You either decide the price is worth it and budget around this or you trade that first right of refusal prior to the UFA signing period for picks prospects, whatever. That way, the owner has some modicum of control, and the opportunity to move UFAs around the league in exchange for futures remains part of our structure.
I hope someday soon enough the sim can be moved to a blockchain platform like Ethereum wherein smart contracts manage this stuff - term,and dollar figure, FP automatically.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jan 7, 2018 10:12:10 GMT -5
So much life to this
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Boston on Jan 10, 2018 13:30:14 GMT -5
Hear that? We've hit the quiet time of the GHL season on the forum. While things tend to slow down a bit, we are now given an opportunity to open the door towards discussing new ideas and thoughts surrounding league rules and processes. Doing so during the season will afford us the chance to hammer out any proposals before the craziness of next offseason begins. With all that in mind, I wanted to gauge the interest in amending a component in UFA retention. As it currently stands, in order to have the option of using franchise points on an expiring contract on your team, that player must be on your roster prior to the beginning of the season and remain there for its entirety. How about we switch that date to the trade deadline? Doing so would potentially increase the number of moves made, with the caveat being that a UFA may not just be a rental for a team looking to make a run at the Cup and could be someone who can be resigned at the end of the season. On the flip side, teams with a manageable cap situation may be more inclined to acquire a player that is putting up better numbers in the NHL compared to their current card, knowing that they will see an uptick in performance for next year. What do you guys think? It looks like this question morphed into a healthy discussion about how to possibly change how we can retain players, which is not a bad thing to consider. While that certainly may take more time and effort in hammering out a formidable policy change, can we revisit the thought on moving the UFA retention date from the start of the season to the trade deadline?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jan 10, 2018 15:39:02 GMT -5
This makes a lot of sense to me. It would boost the value of upcoming free agents at the deadline. I also think that now is the time to discuss this sort of thing, the off season is too busy with card creation, the draft and free agency periods.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jan 10, 2018 21:17:59 GMT -5
I am all for a healthy debate on the subject. I think we are all in agreement that we can't do this mid-stream by just changing the rules for this upcoming crop of UFAs.
The main thing I have against it is it allows the good teams to get better at the cost of the weaker teams. Good teams with thick wads of Fps can spend that to retain the better UFAs. Teams that trade for these assets during the season, and just before the trading deadline, are getting the benefit of bolstering their team for a playoff run. I don't think we should be giving these teams another bonus by having the ability to increase their chances of retaining them at a lower cost.
That being said, please feel free to change my mind.
*EDIT - UFA not RFA* *numb skull*
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jan 10, 2018 21:31:39 GMT -5
How about introducing some incarnation of this policy by next season's deadline?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jan 10, 2018 23:18:00 GMT -5
Now if their is a way to retain UFA I think the price that would be payed would increase. I also said something about resetting the FP if we change the rule and I got something back with drunken sailors in Philadelphia.
|
|