|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 3, 2019 16:43:43 GMT -5
But last year you were for it with Hellebuyck
This is all besides the point the rule book has multiple instances stating 90% or 75% if RFA I. It’s much more likely on that 1 sentence someone forgot to add or 75% if RFA I. Especially since that’s how we’ve been handling drafted RFA for the last 3-5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 3, 2019 16:55:31 GMT -5
Actually, I brought it up last year as well, of course the teams will take the discount, I'm just once again pointing out what's in the rule book and how little sense it actually makes to give these guys HUGE discounts but all it brought to your mind was how you could work around the rules, as usual
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 3, 2019 16:59:37 GMT -5
I know you brought it up last year, I quoted you saying 75% discount looks right to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 3, 2019 17:19:26 GMT -5
Yes, that's how it's been done, I believe, all along. I've also argued that if we're going to use NHL contracts, we should get NHL salary benefits but we only get 2.5m above the NHL cap to flesh out our rosters, which are 22+ more players than what hits NHL caps. My point here isn't about any of that, however, it's about what is stated in the rule book. I personally don't care if your players get 25% discounts or if they get 10%. What I want, and what I've always wanted, is realism and for us to follow the rules as they are written or correct them so that when we are trying to attract new managers, they have a clear outline of how everything works. How is that possible if we're not even getting it right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 3, 2019 17:57:51 GMT -5
I have a better question, why do we give the discounts at all? We get discounts when we sign to term. If an RFA is asking 8m, for example. Using 25% and 6 year term, he ends up being contracted at 5.25. At 90%, his contract is 6.3. What player and his agent are going to sign for 1.7 less than his asking or worse yet, 2.75. That's just not happening. In an RFA situation it is happening if nobody else steps up to claim the player. If no other team claims him and he doesn't sign the offer from his club by Dec 1, the player doesn't play for the whole season. Most players can't afford to pull a JD Drew (because I can't think of a hockey example of it, if anyone knows one it could be useful). Let's also remember, an asking price is a starting point of negotiations, not a hard line, same as when buying cars/houses. There's an expectation of back and forth that adjusts the final amount; I've always interpreted the long term discounts and matching percentages as being somewhat representative of that nature of the business side of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 3, 2019 18:03:50 GMT -5
I completely understand that point, however, it's just not happening at that much of a discount. Any player asking $8m, even an RFA isn't signing at $5.25m. I get that he might not get the $8m per year but he's not coming down $16.5m over 6 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 3, 2019 20:45:22 GMT -5
I completely understand that point, however, it's just not happening at that much of a discount. Any player asking $8m, even an RFA isn't signing at $5.25m. I get that he might not get the $8m per year but he's not coming down $16.5m over 6 years. Perhaps, but we're also talking about a scenario based on something that (at least to me) appears to operate more as an apparatus to help determine potential value and risk factor for teams that would bid on an RFA rather than a mimick of a real-life NHL process (I leave myself open to being corrected by the masses if I am mistaken). The NHL team hands the player the initial price when they make the qualifying offer, the reverse of how our system currently operates. Whereas the NHL RFA can't do so, our mechanism sets the market ahead of the expected qualifying offer, fulfilling a more important role as far as keeping the number of RFA bids to what seems to be a realistic level. A lower, more shall we say, realistic asking price would lend itself to a spike in offer sheets as the benefit of securing a known entity at that rate might override the loss of draft picks to a club, so the discounts exist as a counter balance to that, proctecting the club who has at this point "developed" the player. Whether is was intended this way or not, I see the an 8M "asking price" as an asking price to other teams for prying the player away from the team that drafted and nurtured his development, not an asking price to his original team. Man, I have missed the offseason debating. I swear the offseason is about as good as playing the game itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 4, 2019 4:26:12 GMT -5
The off-season is better than the regular season
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 4, 2019 7:30:40 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure we've done all drafted RFAs get 25%. We have, in error. The rule book states differently. As per my previous post in this thread gtgfhl.proboards.com/post/46678/threadI think in practice we have been using 25% for all RFA I players. I hope to review the code today to see what discount we have been applying in the past. The main reason I think it is 25% is that players who are bridged are the ones that only get a 10% discount for both parts of the bridge deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 4, 2019 12:38:07 GMT -5
19-20 Schedules have been loaded.
League will begin play on 10/1 in Cleveland as Cornwall comes into town to watch the Barons hang another championship banner.
I plan on getting the 2020 draft picks loaded later today as they are likely going to be needed for deals made around the draft. These will be loaded but unavailable to all but Cleveland right now as he is the only one paid up for next year (based on his championship win).
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 4, 2019 14:33:33 GMT -5
We have, in error. The rule book states differently. As per my previous post in this thread gtgfhl.proboards.com/post/46678/threadI think in practice we have been using 25% for all RFA I players. I hope to review the code today to see what discount we have been applying in the past. The main reason I think it is 25% is that players who are bridged are the ones that only get a 10% discount for both parts of the bridge deal. I know we have been using the 25%, my point is that we either have been doing so in error or the rule book is incorrect. In regards to bridge, we use the 25% on the original bridge but only 10% when the bridge expires. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 4, 2019 15:05:39 GMT -5
2020 draft picks are loaded but something went wrong. Instead of showing the teams actual picks owned, it's showing a mirror of the 2019 picks. I'll happily take 3 2nd round picks again next year but I only currently own 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by John-Michigan on Jul 4, 2019 15:47:02 GMT -5
why are my 2020 draft picks showing with picks missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 4, 2019 16:32:32 GMT -5
2020 draft picks are loaded but something went wrong. Instead of showing the teams actual picks owned, it's showing a mirror of the 2019 picks. I'll happily take 3 2nd round picks again next year but I only currently own 1. Thanks, I will have a look. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 4, 2019 16:42:51 GMT -5
This has been fixed.
|
|
