|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jan 11, 2018 0:05:04 GMT -5
@nj Scott: all the more reason to delay it until TDL'19...gives everyone a year to reset
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jan 11, 2018 9:11:31 GMT -5
Even if we did reset the FPs to zero for everyone (which we won't), better teams will still earn more FP and thus be in a better position to retain the good UFAs making their teams better and the bottom teams worse.
The key part of my last post was to change my mind that this wouldn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jan 11, 2018 9:39:33 GMT -5
Not for nothing but is that not the way in the NHL. Good players sign/resign most of the time with good teams...
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jan 11, 2018 10:14:28 GMT -5
Even if we did reset the FPs to zero for everyone (which we won't), better teams will still earn more FP and thus be in a better position to retain the good UFAs making their teams better and the bottom teams worse. The key part of my last post was to change my mind that this wouldn't happen. I dont view this as a stumbling block in any way. Small market (budget) NHL teams don't spend to the cap ceiling, because they don't have a local market which can sustain that kind of expenditure. If we are cognizant of an upcoming opportunity to use FP in a way that benefits our clubs down the road, now's the time to start preparing. Not suggesting a hard reset but rather an opportunity to accumulate FP organically over the next 13-14 months and prepare for TDL '19 if you want to re-sign a pending UFA at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jan 11, 2018 17:09:57 GMT -5
The problem with this is owner engagement, how many owner's habe been part of this discussion? I'm not sure, but I'll bet it's less than half. Same goes for the trade block, actively setting lines, etc. Owners who are less active would be at a serious disadvantage
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jan 11, 2018 18:41:09 GMT -5
The problem with this is owner engagement, how many owner's habe been part of this discussion? I'm not sure, but I'll bet it's less than half. Same goes for the trade block, actively setting lines, etc. Owners who are less active would be at a serious disadvantage You mean, sort of like actual life? you know, when you dont try, you dont get anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jan 11, 2018 18:51:46 GMT -5
Agreed, trust me, Glenn has accused me many times of being very medieval in my line of thinking, especially in disciplinary discussions. However, we have some owners who are not nearly as active as others and I know Glenn does not want them punished for being less involved as doing so would certainly not do us any favors in owner retention
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jan 12, 2018 2:00:23 GMT -5
Agreed, trust me, Glenn has accused me many times of being very medieval in my line of thinking, especially in disciplinary discussions. However, we have some owners who are not nearly as active as others and I know Glenn does not want them punished for being less involved as doing so would certainly not do us any favors in owner retention One could also argue that their lack of participation is punishing those who are more active.
|
|
|
Post by Justin-Cincinnati on Jan 12, 2018 9:00:17 GMT -5
How difficult is it to run these UFA players through the asking price generator? If this is something easily accomplished, maybe teams could have the ability to resign their UFA's at x% of asking price as well as FPs. I think the best way to do this is not offer home team discounts and make the FPs a large sum. This would limit the number of UFAs able to be resigned and would also changed the way FPs are valued so that they arent "spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave." A team, even with a large number of FPs wouldnt be able to resign everyone, still allowing good players to enter the UFA pool each offseason, but would also give teams the ability to lock up a player they really want.
Just spitballing here but say 125% of asking price and 50FPs. Wayne Simmonds 2018 UFA - asking price say $5M ---- Can be retained for 6.25M and 50 FPs
|
|
|
Post by Eric-Baltimore on Jan 12, 2018 9:14:50 GMT -5
How difficult is it to run these UFA players through the asking price generator? If this is something easily accomplished, maybe teams could have the ability to resign their UFA's at x% of asking price as well as FPs. I think the best way to do this is not offer home team discounts and make the FPs a large sum. This would limit the number of UFAs able to be resigned and would also changed the way FPs are valued so that they arent "spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave." A team, even with a large number of FPs wouldnt be able to resign everyone, still allowing good players to enter the UFA pool each offseason, but would also give teams the ability to lock up a player they really want. Just spitballing here but say 125% of asking price and 50FPs. Wayne Simmonds 2018 UFA - asking price say $5M ---- Can be retained for 6.25M and 50 FPs I like this idea. It also might normalize UFA spending a little.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jan 12, 2018 10:41:26 GMT -5
Meh, not exactly best idea in my opinion the asking price generator can be very kind to star players in a down year.
Mackinnon last year RFA asking price 4.6 million if that happened again in UFA and i got him for 5.75 million (125% of asking) signed long term a lot of people (Colorado) would be pissed.
If we went that way I would suggest putting the players best card in the past 3 years through the asking price generator and doing 125% of that if a team wanted to lock up their UFA before they go to market
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jan 12, 2018 10:47:54 GMT -5
I'm not for this being easy to sign a UFA, trust me this rule will prob benefit me greatly if I get to keep my young guys long term but don't think it's fair to other teams. I think the system we have in place with FPs to increase bid is great but just allow the retaining team to sign them long term.
Just take Simmonds for example. I bid 8 million on him and Cleveland bids 6 million plus x number of points to increase his bid to 8.5 million why shouldn't he be able to sign him 6 years at 8.05 million.
Solves three main things 1. Simple to do 2. Still gives market chance to determine value 3. Retaining star players more rare and expensive
|
|
|
Post by Justin-Cincinnati on Jan 12, 2018 11:40:35 GMT -5
I would suggest putting the players best card in the past 3 years through the asking price generator and doing 125% of that if a team wanted to lock up their UFA before they go to market I agree with this or an average of his previous contracted years cards
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jan 12, 2018 12:13:54 GMT -5
If a player has a down year because of low games played the card generated will use an average. This will raise the players card and therefore his asking price. It does not take the average into effect if the player just had a real shitty year.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jan 12, 2018 13:11:48 GMT -5
Yea what I was saying wouldn't be fair to lock up a player before UFA cheap like mackinnon because he had a bad year. If we used asking price would likely need to use best card or something else.
|
|