|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jan 12, 2018 13:13:33 GMT -5
Just how many games exactly is 'low games'?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jan 12, 2018 19:26:27 GMT -5
I second Justin's idea using a three year average, this will create fair asking prices for UFA's and is also restrictive enough to keep the free agent pool filled with talent. I would however recommend bumping the fp even a little higher than 50. Maybe 75 to restrict this even more and make owners really think about who they want to keep and who they let go.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jan 12, 2018 19:55:35 GMT -5
I second Justin's idea using a three year average, this will create fair asking prices for UFA's and is also restrictive enough to keep the free agent pool filled with talent. I would however recommend bumping the fp even a little higher than 50. Maybe 75 to restrict this even more and make owners really think about who they want to keep and who they let go. That's a little restrictive IMO. I can see it backfiring if the FP fees plus the contract AAV's are both intentionally exaggerated.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jan 12, 2018 20:00:05 GMT -5
Where do you see exaggeration? Actually, using a three year average could, not only push an asking price down, but will also keep teams from raping star players after a down year, which has always been an issue on the RFA side
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jan 12, 2018 20:09:13 GMT -5
Where do you see exaggeration? Actually, using a three year average could, not only push an asking price down, but will also keep teams from raping star players after a down year, which has always been an issue on the RFA side If I am to understand correctly, 125% of what the 'generator' suggests for the AAV was Justin's recommendation. a 50% increase of FP (50 to 75) is your's. Exaggerated, inflated, augmented; whatever descriptor you prefer, the result is the same, being that UFA retention is only marginally less prohibitive the the current model. that makes the entire exercise somewhat futile.
|
|
|
Post by Justin-Cincinnati on Feb 20, 2018 16:46:06 GMT -5
Is this dead?
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Feb 20, 2018 16:58:30 GMT -5
Tons of discussion, nothin firm from up high.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Feb 21, 2018 12:42:58 GMT -5
If someone has the inclination and could distill the 60 or so posts into 3 or 4 bullet points (or less) then they can be addressed.
I know I mentioned in here that the prime directive is not to tinker with this to allow the rich to get richer.
I was thinking of a hybrid model in the future that would allow you to use FPs to try to retain a UFA that you picked up before the trading deadline but didn't have all year to use points at 1/2 the normal value. Meaning if each point spent added 20k to your max bid , players in this situation would only have 10k applied to each FP spent. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Feb 21, 2018 17:04:41 GMT -5
If someone has the inclination and could distill the 60 or so posts into 3 or 4 bullet points (or less) then they can be addressed. I know I mentioned in here that the prime directive is not to tinker with this to allow the rich to get richer. I was thinking of a hybrid model in the future that would allow you to use FPs to try to retain a UFA that you picked up before the trading deadline but didn't have all year to use points at 1/2 the normal value. Meaning if each point spent added 20k to your max bid , players in this situation would only have 10k applied to each FP spent. Just a thought. That's not a bad thought. I'm assuming that any new rule wouldn't apply to this deadline/offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Feb 21, 2018 17:42:28 GMT -5
If someone has the inclination and could distill the 60 or so posts into 3 or 4 bullet points (or less) then they can be addressed. I know I mentioned in here that the prime directive is not to tinker with this to allow the rich to get richer. I was thinking of a hybrid model in the future that would allow you to use FPs to try to retain a UFA that you picked up before the trading deadline but didn't have all year to use points at 1/2 the normal value. Meaning if each point spent added 20k to your max bid , players in this situation would only have 10k applied to each FP spent. Just a thought. How would you possibly track this?
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Feb 21, 2018 17:51:05 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 Justin-Cincinnati on Feb 21, 2018 18:21:57 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 Chris-Suffolk on Feb 21, 2018 19:25:01 GMT -5
I don't have anything to add to any of these suggestions. They all seem to have some good piece of thread in order to put together something of sustenance.
The only issue, I have is, if and when this is instituted, are teams going to get re-supplied with FP's? Like I said, no issue with creating something to go forward with. But, there has never been a use for FP's other than to pay for Trades. Suddenly, they are more viable and valuable, not a something fair across the board.
|
|
|
Post by Justin-Cincinnati on Feb 21, 2018 19:38:34 GMT -5
I don't have anything to add to any of these suggestions. They all seem to have some good piece of thread in order to put together something of sustenance. The only issue, I have is, if and when this is instituted, are teams going to get re-supplied with FP's? Like I said, no issue with creating something to go forward with. But, there has never been a use for FP's other than to pay for Trades. Suddenly, they are more viable and valuable, not a something fair across the board. Glenn mentioned in the beginning, when he instituted FPs, that they would eventually have more value than only trades. We currently have the FP usage for upping a UFA bid. I personally have not went out and spent FP points willy nilly hoping they could be used for something other than trades. If an owner has chosen to spend all of their points already, then too bad. I don't think making it even across the board fair to managers that can budget.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Feb 21, 2018 19:43:10 GMT -5
I agree, Nnot to make it even across the board, I mean to say, it affects teams across the board, therefore to just implement a system whereas the FP's are now worth a heck of a lot more than previously, well that's something that I am not a fan of. But, whatever it is, it is.
But, to not have a timeline for it's implementation, and not having the "real" values ironed out...kind of makes me not want to move my current assets in case it is implemented for this upcoming off season.
|
|