Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 16:23:14 GMT -5
Why even have RFA re-signs at all? In the history of the league I'm pretty sure there have been only two players signed away from their teams, Burrows and Phaneuf. I really don't see the point of even having this option.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 8, 2012 16:50:54 GMT -5
Why even have RFA re-signs at all? In the history of the league I'm pretty sure there have been only two players signed away from their teams, Burrows and Phaneuf. I really don't see the point of even having this option. Wade Redden was also picked up outta RFA. There might be a few more we are forgetting, there have also been a few bids on major players that were matched. Ovechkin I believe was one of them, hence his 9m contract. However, you are right, its almost totally un-needed, ALMOST. It does allow teams to protect major stars however without giving other teams the ability to drive their prices way up, thats always been the purpose of it. I'd be in favor of lowering the increase % to 20% however.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Mar 8, 2012 17:16:34 GMT -5
I picked up Visnovski in the 06 - 07 season during FA, he was Buff. RFA he cost me 10mil - 2- 1sts and a 2nd, I did get to the final that season. Cup year for Calg.. 06-07 Big Red Machine years.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Mar 8, 2012 17:18:29 GMT -5
Well, I can think of only 3 10 mil RF bids in the history of the JGHL. Redden, Ovechkin, and H. Sedin. What do these bids have in common? All were my players. I kept the good ones Im down for lowering the 20%, when you resign a star on a 2nd contract the 35% increase the salary 9 mil, pointless!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 17:31:56 GMT -5
The RFA re-sign can see a double increase. It's a 35% increase after the increase for the new OV rating, isn't it? For example, if I want to re-sign Tuukka Rask, let's assume he comes out as a 70 ov for the sake of argument. He has to be qualified at $4,000,000 and then I'd have to hike him to $5,400,000 if I wanted to use him as my re-sign. That's a tenfold increase in salary. I think the increase is enough to begin with. We should get one re-sign with no additional increase at all.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Mar 8, 2012 17:39:31 GMT -5
The RFA re-sign can see a double increase. It's a 35% increase after the increase for the new OV rating, isn't it? I think the increase is enough to begin with. Yeah but you're going under the assumption that every RFA is going to increase in ratings. Also there has to be some sort of "sacrifice" for being allowed to re-sign a player before FA opens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 17:59:32 GMT -5
The RFA re-sign can see a double increase. It's a 35% increase after the increase for the new OV rating, isn't it? I think the increase is enough to begin with. Yeah but you're going under the assumption that every RFA is going to increase in ratings. Also there has to be some sort of "sacrifice" for being allowed to re-sign a player before FA opens. It's a pretty valid assumption. The leap from those $500k contracts to your first big one can be substantial. And the decreases are minimal. Eriksson and Vermette might go down $500,000 this year and I'd get $250k savings. Why does there have to be a sacrifice for re-signing before FA opens?
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Mar 8, 2012 18:07:29 GMT -5
Why does there have to be a sacrifice for re-signing before FA opens? Because it is a give and take scenario. You are taking the luxury of removing one of your better players from free agency so that no other team can touch them. If you want that luxury then you have to give something up for it, more salary. If you don't want to raise your players salary any further then you don't HAVE to use the re-sign. You can't always have the best of both worlds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 18:14:56 GMT -5
Why does there have to be a sacrifice for re-signing before FA opens? Because it is a give and take scenario. You are taking the luxury of removing one of your better players from free agency so that no other team can touch them. If you want that luxury then you have to give something up for it, more salary. If you don't want to raise your players salary any further then you don't HAVE to use the re-sign. You can't always have the best of both worlds. You can always have the best of both worlds. As per Hannah Montana: Oh yea Come on You get the limo out front Hottest styles, every shoe, every color Yea when your famous it can be kinda fun It's really you but no one ever discovers In some ways you're just like all your friends But on stage you're a star You get the best of both worlds Chillin' out, take it slow Then you rock out the show You get the best of both worlds Mix it all together and you know that It's the best of both worlds The best of both worlds You go the movie premiers (Is that Orlando Bloom?) Hear your songs on the radio Livin' two lives is a little weird But school's cool cuz nobody knows Yea you get to be a small town girl But big time when you play your guitar You get the best of both worlds Chillin' out take it slow Then you rock out the show You get the best of both worlds Mix it all together and you know that It's the best of both You know the best of both worlds Pictures and autographs You get your face in all the magazines The best part's that You get to be who ever you wanna be Yea best of both You get the best of both Come on, best of both Who would of thought that a girl like me Would double as a superstar? You get the best of both worlds Chillin' out, take it slow Then you rock out the show You get the best of both worlds Mix it all together and you know that It's the best You get the best of both worlds Without the shades and the hair You can go anywhere You get the best of both girls Mix it all together Oh yea It's so much better cuz you know You've got the best of both worlds
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Mar 8, 2012 18:50:15 GMT -5
Why even have RFA re-signs at all? In the history of the league I'm pretty sure there have been only two players signed away from their teams, Burrows and Phaneuf. I really don't see the point of even having this option. We probably would have seen more if we didn't have the free resign rule with a 35% increase. For example, I used it one time on Parise who may have attracted some bids. I'm sure other people have used it on other big name RFAs. I don't think it was a pointless rule, but with the recent new rules that have increased salaries, mainly the OV-salary chart for prospects/RFAs, it really limits how much we can use it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 19:11:37 GMT -5
Sounds good to me on all accounts! Glad to see an OV set on the farm - Cough St.louis - Cough!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 20:47:08 GMT -5
I would like to see the following "rule" removed actually.....
"Two weeks in all roster requirements must be met"
The whole offseason/free agency/unassigned claims process gives teams more than enough time to get their rosters in order. I don't see why we should give another two weeks after the season starts to meet the min or max player requirements, when they had all that time in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 29, 2012 16:20:51 GMT -5
I have an interesting suggestion: What if we allowed the RFA re-sign to be used in the event of a bid attempt? So if someone attempts to bid on your RFA player, and you don't want to mess with that salary increase from that bid, you can in response, if you haven't already used it (by either declaring it used, or using it from a trade acquisition) declare that player as re-signed.
Same 35% increase for the use, but instead of having to use it BEFORE open bidding opens (when its possible it wouldn't have even been needed), you can use it as a response and MAYBE save yourself a few million dollars, as well as the hassle of having to "match".
I think thats fair. Anyone else in favor?
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jun 29, 2012 16:39:50 GMT -5
I would like to see the following "rule" removed actually..... "Two weeks in all roster requirements must be met"The whole offseason/free agency/unassigned claims process gives teams more than enough time to get their rosters in order. I don't see why we should give another two weeks after the season starts to meet the min or max player requirements, when they had all that time in the first place. I would have no problem with that. Taking into consideration the length of time for FA and everything else before the first game of the season is played, I don't see why teams couldn't have their roster in order by then. I have an interesting suggestion: What if we allowed the RFA re-sign to be used in the event of a bid attempt? So if someone attempts to bid on your RFA player, and you don't want to mess with that salary increase from that bid, you can in response, if you haven't already used it (by either declaring it used, or using it from a trade acquisition) declare that player as re-signed. Same 35% increase for the use, but instead of having to use it BEFORE open bidding opens (when its possible it wouldn't have even been needed), you can use it as a response and MAYBE save yourself a few million dollars, as well as the hassle of having to "match". I think thats fair. Anyone else in favor? So let's say Dan Hamhuis is set to make $3,000,000 (based on his new rating) and I decide to offer him 4 years @ $6,500,000 per year, then you can just step in and sign him for $2,500,000 less ($4,050,000)??
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 29, 2012 16:50:06 GMT -5
Pretty much, yes, exactly. Note that even if I match your offer, I'm only paying 5,850,000 to match under the current rules, so its really only saving 1,800,000.
It makes the "re-sign" more valuable, instead of generally ignored, with the stipulation that most people are willing to "risk it".
|
|