|
Post by gmcanucks on Jun 30, 2012 6:07:12 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? I think it's a little unrealistic to think a player, after getting a $6.5 million offer sheet, would actually re-sign with his former club for $ 2 million less. I think the beauty of the re-sign rule is that club's have to decide if they are going to use it or risk their players getting an offer sheet. A rule like this would completely eliminate restricted free agency in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jun 30, 2012 7:56:29 GMT -5
I thought the reason for the extra time to meet roster requirments, is that the filling of rosters, can be a slow process, under current rules. Just because you can go for 5 players a day, doesn't mean you will get any of them. If you want it to go faster, then allow more then 5 picks a day per GM to fill rosters. Another thing we would be forcing GM'S to fill short rosters with inferior players as well, in order to beat the deadline. I find that unfair. What if we run out of pick-ups, which we have done by the way, in which case, some have had to make trades to pick up bodies, which again can take time. Before we change rules, we need to remember why certain rules are there in the first place. As far as Gavin's idea, it's not realistic, as Joe stated. JMO
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 30, 2012 10:21:55 GMT -5
lol, okay, well no more saying the re-sign rule is pointless if every time I try to make it more useful you guys don't wanna do it, haha. Only so many ways the rule can be modified. If you'd rather we keep it the same way it is and nobody use it (I certainly won't be using it), fine.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jun 30, 2012 10:42:48 GMT -5
lol, okay, well no more saying the re-sign rule is pointless if every time I try to make it more useful you guys don't wanna do it, haha. Only so many ways the rule can be modified. If you'd rather we keep it the same way it is and nobody use it (I certainly won't be using it), fine. One or 2 opinions on a rule, doesn't make it so, nor is it a wise way to base changes, since it also does not reflect the rest of the leagues thoughts. More use the re-sign, then not. I maybe using it on Michalek, depending on what kind of OV rating he gets. I don't want to pay 9 mil to match a 10 mil bid, if I don't have to. Alot of GM'S have the comp this season, but are they willing to pay 2 1st's and a 2nd for a 69+ OV
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jun 30, 2012 12:35:45 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the auto-resign rule's % increase in salary, decreased. Nobody really uses it anymore as the salary increase is usually not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 30, 2012 12:52:40 GMT -5
I disagree that it's used, it's only been used in trades as a requirement. Otherwise it's basically ignored And yes, more opinions welcome
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jun 30, 2012 13:10:08 GMT -5
I disagree that it's used, it's only been used in trades as a requirement. Otherwise it's basically ignored If that's the case then why not wait til the owner re-signs him and then make the trade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 13:55:10 GMT -5
I can't count how many times I've said this.....lower compensation! You might think it's pretty lenient, but obviously not enough to make people bid on other players. Lower compensation = more potential bids on RFAs = a reason to actually use the re-sign.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jun 30, 2012 15:35:52 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the auto-resign rule's % increase in salary, decreased. Nobody really uses it anymore as the salary increase is usually not worth it. This.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 30, 2012 18:34:35 GMT -5
I'd still like to see the auto-resign rule's % increase in salary, decreased. Nobody really uses it anymore as the salary increase is usually not worth it. This. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to this either. We keep putting it off, I think we need to just do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 18:57:13 GMT -5
As I've said before, I'm not opposed to this either. We keep putting it off, I think we need to just do it. If no teams bid on other RFAs then what does it matter if the % is decreased, there's still no point in using the re-sign! You guys are changing things just to change things, but there is no point to what you want to change, as you're not even addressing the real issue.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jun 30, 2012 19:23:16 GMT -5
Really no reason we can't both tweak the compensation and lower the %. Increases rfa bids and encourages usage of resigns. Two birds with one stone type of shit.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 30, 2012 19:29:27 GMT -5
Well, compensation is a much harder thing to get right. Its easily too high or too low. Honestly, whats less than two 1st's and a 2nd for a 69+ OV player? Just one 1st? That seems WAY too low. One 1st and one 2nd? Maybe, but still seems low. Just two 1sts? Maybe that as well, but thats barely different from the current. Compensation is really about as low as we can reasonably get it, and seem logical. Unless you want to make the point to lower it with the assumption that it'll nearly ALWAYS be too low to accept as reasonable and therefore force the original GM's hand in matching that big offer (at 90%). I don't think thats a good situation either. It certainly makes the re-sign useful, maybe even to the point of feeling required instead of pointless. Its suppose to be "player protection". This most recent idea of mine was allowing it to be used a that, just with more freedom. And I'm not trying to "change things for the sake of changing things", I'm just bringing up for discussion Adam
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 19:41:23 GMT -5
And I'm not trying to "change things for the sake of changing things", I'm just bringing up for discussion Adam What I meant is that what you're discussing to change doesn't solve anything, so what you want to change is being changed for no real reason. The Issue: Nobody bids on other RFAs so there is no point to use your re-sign. The Solution: Make it easier for teams to bid on other teams RFAs The current discussion: Decrease the re-sign % I don't see any correlation what so ever. And I agree with Joe in regards to Jon's earlier scenario about being able to use the re-sign AFTER a bid was made on a player. But none of that really matters anyhow since nobody bids on other RFAs anyhow lol
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jun 30, 2012 19:43:19 GMT -5
Maybe let's take away that extra 2nd for 69+? Two 1sts is a big enough price, especially being that one of them has to be in upcoming draft (takes like half the teams out of the equation). I still say in most cases the team with the RFA's rights will match any bid, unless they are shitty cap situation.
|
|