|
Post by Hawks on Jun 30, 2012 21:48:48 GMT -5
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 agree with your definition of the issue. I think its more like: The 35% increase seems unreasonably high for something that may likely not be needed. Now the reduction in that increase helps that a bit, it not a major change, but might make the re-sign feel like something like "Well, #% isn't so bad, I might as well protect my player". Trying to come up with agreeable compensation standards is a massive undertaking. Balancing "Making RFAs able to be bid on" and "making RFAs secure enough to hold on to" is not easy
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 1, 2012 7:51:55 GMT -5
After the first season we made it harder to steal RFA's from their owners, basically because of the lack of the player - GM human element . How many RFA's in the NHL sign with other teams, not many, and if they do their owner gets comp, even with the human element there. Our comp was made better I thought cause, for example I can't call one of my RFA's in my office and talk to him on the pro's and con's of staying in Philly. Why is it important we bid on RFA's, I think things are set up to discourage it for a reason. I myself don't like tying up my funds with a bid on someones RFA that they are probably gonna match anyway. Last season if I recall, about 4 gm's bid on someone's RFA, and all four were matched, so if the comp is so great, how come more don't take it.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 1, 2012 20:42:08 GMT -5
I would like to see both rules changed as well.
Although I am ususaly all for raising compensation, i think if we lower the resign percentage AND compensation we will get a better result, I personally think taking the 2nd rounder off 69 OV players makes a pretty big difference.
I would like to see that, plus the resigned moved into the 120% range instead of the 135% range.
I am not for being able to use the resign once a sheet is made though.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 2, 2012 13:51:35 GMT -5
I think we really need to define what our goal is with this RFA rule change.
Do we want RFAs more susceptible to offers from other teams? - May improve parity. - Would increase RFA salarys.
Do we want RFAs easier to keep? - Would keep RFA salaries lower - Rewards teams that draft well.
Once we figure out what we want out of the RFA rule changes, it would be a lot easier to hash out the exact changes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 15:29:31 GMT -5
Do we want RFAs more susceptible to offers from other teams? - May improve parity. - Would increase RFA salarys. Yes! How can they be easier to keep when they are already basically uncontested? Last season I had Krejci, Pavelski and Edler in RFA and did not use the re-sign on any of them. Why? Because I knew nobody would bid. Not really sure how you can make it easier than that
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 2, 2012 18:23:43 GMT -5
To be honest, I agree with Adam here. It can't get any easier to keep RFAs than it is right now. I haven't seen an RFA bid on since Ovechkin and Sedin, and both were on the same team lol.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 2, 2012 23:08:57 GMT -5
To be honest, I agree with Adam here. It can't get any easier to keep RFAs than it is right now. I haven't seen an RFA bid on since Ovechkin and Sedin, and both were on the same team lol. I might be wrong, but I can only think of three instances where RFAs got 10 mil bids. They all just happened to be against me......
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 3, 2012 10:55:26 GMT -5
I actually think the current rule is fine as is.
The 35% premium causes teams to "roll the dice" and leave potential RFA's exposed to an offer sheet.
On the flip side, I do think if a team loses an RFA, especially one they might have drafted and developed, they should be well compensated, and I think the current compensation levels are appropriate. Not too high, but high enough that teams have to think seriously before making an offer to an RFA.
I think the lack of RFA offer sheets is more a reflection of the value clubs place on draft picks and less on anything being wrong with the current rule.
The current rule means RFA offer sheets are possible but are likely to be rarities, which is exactly how it is in real-life.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 3, 2012 18:18:43 GMT -5
Can someone list for me the number of players in the NHL that were signed via offer sheet as a RFA in the NHL over the last 5 years?
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 3, 2012 18:53:08 GMT -5
Can someone list for me the number of players in the NHL that were signed via offer sheet as a RFA in the NHL over the last 5 years? In the last 5 years there have been 5 players offered contracts by other teams (6 in the last 6). Only one of those players (Dustin Penner) did not get a matching offer from his original team. Instead the Ducks got a 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the same draft year from Edmonton.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 3, 2012 21:05:54 GMT -5
Can someone list for me the number of players in the NHL that were signed via offer sheet as a RFA in the NHL over the last 5 years? In the last 5 years there have been 5 players offered contracts by other teams (6 in the last 6). Only one of those players (Dustin Penner) did not get a matching offer from his original team. Instead the Ducks got a 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the same draft year from Edmonton. That sounds a lot like our last 5 years to me.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Jul 3, 2012 21:38:13 GMT -5
Can someone list for me the number of players in the NHL that were signed via offer sheet as a RFA in the NHL over the last 5 years? In the last 5 years there have been 5 players offered contracts by other teams (6 in the last 6). Only one of those players (Dustin Penner) did not get a matching offer from his original team. Instead the Ducks got a 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the same draft year from Edmonton. I didn't match Phaneuf's offer by Wild couple seasons back.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 4, 2012 3:13:07 GMT -5
That sounds a lot like our last 5 years to me. Well, then I guess there's no reason to change anything. If someone really wants to protect their player then they'll pay the extra 35%. And if someone really wants to sign another teams RFA then they'll pay the compensation.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Feb 7, 2013 19:54:09 GMT -5
So it occurred to me that maybe it might be a good idea to require a GM to maintain a minimum number of prospects. I have no number yet specified, but having little to no prospects as some teams in our league do seems unhealthy to the league.
GMs should be developing from within and that behavior encouraged, so if their team ever needs a replacement GM, that replacement has a starting point.
We require a minimum number of roster players, which are often filled in with junk.
Seems requiring a minimum number of prospects would improve depth and increase the value of draft picks as well.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Feb 7, 2013 21:23:56 GMT -5
So it occurred to me that maybe it might be a good idea to require a GM to maintain a minimum number of prospects. I have no number yet specified, but having little to no prospects as some teams in our league do seems unhealthy to the league. GMs should be developing from within and that behavior encouraged, so if their team ever needs a replacement GM, that replacement has a starting point. We require a minimum number of roster players, which are often filled in with junk. Seems requiring a minimum number of prospects would improve depth and increase the value of draft picks as well. So if you did that, you would force GM's to trade their best players to be in compliance. Picks are the hardest thing to trade in this league, everyone wants your best young players or some top 5 prospect. I guess i should trade guys like Staal , Pominville, Hanzal, Kessler, Michalek etc. to replenish my picks or prospects for a new GM, just in case. How is trading picks not building from within, in some cases if you get a good return it's a shortcut. I think we have other issues, like getting GM's to vote on trades, it gets worse every trade, hope it picks up for the trade deadline.
|
|