|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 17, 2015 17:01:54 GMT -5
That is not the way I understood it in talking to Glenn the other evening
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 17, 2015 18:11:12 GMT -5
I think the crux of the issue is how to handle players who are drafted and spend a few years in the minors. Especially with d men many times these guys are not ready to be signed to teir second contract because their performance doesn't warrant a long term deal. Not for this year but perhaps starting next maybe we allow drafted players (drafted in 2016) and later to have 3 contracts before they are RFAs. The second contract would have to be a bridge deal of 1-3 years. Depending on he deal you selected it would impact how long and how much their third contract would cost you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 17, 2015 18:14:57 GMT -5
Maybe the 3rd contact could only be 6- bridge contract years long. This way guys couldn't hold into these players longer than 6 years after the dlc runs out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 17, 2015 18:30:21 GMT -5
Kinda defeats the purpose
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 17, 2015 19:08:08 GMT -5
Kinda defeats the purpose How so? It exactly takes care of the issue where you have ayoung yet unproven player who might be a star in a few years. Currently you sign him for 2 years after his ELC expires and then he is a UFA. You lose. You sign him for 6 years and he is a bust. You lose. This allows a drafted player (who is younger by nature) time to develop before a long term decision is made on him Scotty-NY and Phil can back me up on this. I think they both had players in similar straights last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 17, 2015 19:24:13 GMT -5
But if you sign him to a 2 year contract than you only get the chance to keep him for 4 years after that. You giveth and you take it away. Why not let us give him a contract that we want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 17, 2015 20:22:32 GMT -5
My biggest issue with what you guys are discussing is this situation. If you draft the next big superstar at 18, he's going to be 27 (max) when he's a UFA and currently we have absolutely no way to keep him. In real life, his team can negotiate with these players prior to them becoming a UFA, we have no way to simulate that. He's thrown in the pool and the team that drafted him has to bid on him just like everyone else.
Now, in the cases Glenn described, the NHL uses an age based formula which makes bridge deals possible, however, after the player plays out his bridge deal and shows he is the next big thing, he's still a RFA and his agent can negotiate that big $ long term contract. If we are not able to use age as a determinate as to when these guys become UFA's then I would like to see us put into place a system as Glenn described but with our current signing structure in place making it possible to sign these guys long term. We could combine this system with FP so that teams couldn't do this with every player and only players drafted by that organization would be eligible...
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 17, 2015 20:23:49 GMT -5
Now, players that go to Europe??? How is their contract status affected by us retaining them each year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 17, 2015 20:30:55 GMT -5
But if you sign him to a 2 year contract than you only get the chance to keep him for 4 years after that. You giveth and you take it away. Why not let us give him a contract that we want. Sorry don't mean to agree with Glenn again but how is that not advantageous to the current situation. Currently if he's on the cusp of being good/great (Brock Nelson for example) to keep him six years I'd need to pay him 5.25 mil after savings for 6 years. I really don't know if he will be worth that but with a bridge I can sign him for asking price say it was 2 mil so I'd sign him 4 for 1.8ish then if he was a star I'd resign him at new price for 2 years way better than giving him that contract for 6 years |
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 17, 2015 20:34:13 GMT -5
I also agree with NY there should be a way to retain UFA but it should be expensive RFAs will rarely leave the way it is should be easier to pry away a UFA maybe pay 30 FP to resign at a 10 percent discount of highest bid
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 18, 2015 7:20:59 GMT -5
But if you sign him to a 2 year contract than you only get the chance to keep him for 4 years after that. You giveth and you take it away. Why not let us give him a contract that we want. Correct. You still get to keep him as your property for a max of 9 years (3 ELC + 6 [bridge+remainder of bridge]) but you are not trying to make a call on a guy who might be 20 years of age and still spending most of his time in the minors. This allows flexibility in making a call on these drafted guys while giving them some time to develop so their future potential can be more accurately determined. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 18, 2015 8:38:28 GMT -5
9 years and you could still be losing a superstar in his prime... As I already pointed out, 18 + 9 = 27. Do we want our Stamkos's, Seguin's, etc walking out the door at 27? To me, that decreases draft value, hell, I'll just wait till he's in his prime and take him off somebody else's roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 18, 2015 8:43:05 GMT -5
Now, if we figure out a way to at least have a chance at retaining them as UFA's, that makes it a solid idea but I'm not talking about extending a guy for a year either, I'm talking about giving him a contract when he's a UFA. And I don't like the idea of waiting until he's bid on, bidding in UFA is for winning a player, why would I want to bid on someone as a UFA that I might not win because his team will retain him. In the NHL, July 1 is the cut off for negotiating with UFA's so this should roll into part of our process with RFA's.
In my opinion, 4 years is not a bridge deal as in Dane's example, that's a contract. 2 years is a bridge deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 18, 2015 9:10:33 GMT -5
I would be happy to entertain the idea of allowing drafted players 3 contracts (starting next year) but would want to get input from anyone who shares an opinion on the matter first. In real life there is some talk that Stamkos might not sign an extension this year and test the UFA market next. What was that that Phil said, "If it's in the game..."  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 18, 2015 9:14:56 GMT -5
Absolutely agree, that's why it would cost a good amount of FP to negotiate with a UFA, I don't want them to sign for free, I don't want to make it easy, I want to make it possible as it is in the NHL. And don't start with this 'if it's in the game' unless you're going to tell me that this conversation is completely pointless because we're going to an age based free agent system.  |
|
