|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 12:02:06 GMT -5
Post by MontyBurns on Sept 14, 2012 12:02:06 GMT -5
I think we should start making a min contract length for younger UFAs. Maybe 2 or 3 years. Seems odd to have a guy who bids 7.5 mil for 1 year beat out a guy who bids 7.25 for 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Sept 14, 2012 13:10:43 GMT -5
^agreed!
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 13:16:29 GMT -5
Post by gmcanucks on Sept 14, 2012 13:16:29 GMT -5
In real life, a 3 year, 18 million dollar contract is probably worth more than a one-year, $ 7.5 million dollar deal. Not sure how we could address that without making the system overly complicated.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 13:25:36 GMT -5
Post by Hawks on Sept 14, 2012 13:25:36 GMT -5
We decided long time ago that money was the most important factor with signing FAs, mainly because they are not real people.
There would have to be a lot of changes, like to the max contracts of players over 36 for example, to allow a change like this.
Should a 4 year, 1,000,000 a year contract really beat out a 1 year 3.9m contract? Technically its more money, its its pretty silly, I don't think any NHL player would agree to play for 4 years for 1m each year rather than 1 year for 3.9m.
I think the system we have now works just fine.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 13:47:23 GMT -5
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Sept 14, 2012 13:47:23 GMT -5
I think we should start making a min contract length for younger UFAs. Maybe 2 or 3 years. Seems odd to have a guy who bids 7.5 mil for 1 year beat out a guy who bids 7.25 for 3 years. I'm sure I've brought this up in the past - totally agree. Should be totally value of the contract = winning bid
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 13:47:53 GMT -5
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Sept 14, 2012 13:47:53 GMT -5
GMs are landing all these vets by giving 1 yr contracts only in a lot of circumstances.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 13:54:17 GMT -5
Post by Philly on Sept 14, 2012 13:54:17 GMT -5
Not sure there is anything to resolve here, it's not the same type loophole that was used during the unassigned picks, because it is not a blind bid, I agree with Gavin, it's good the way it is.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 13:55:18 GMT -5
Post by AvsGM on Sept 14, 2012 13:55:18 GMT -5
Should be totally value of the contract = winning bid Team A bids 1 year 5mil Team B bids 2 year/2.5mil per season Who wins?
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 14:02:15 GMT -5
Post by MontyBurns on Sept 14, 2012 14:02:15 GMT -5
I know there are a ton of situations that could make a contract value system very complicated or annoying.
I never suggested anything like that.
All I said is make all bids on 31-35 year old UFAs 3 years.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 14:04:35 GMT -5
Post by Hawks on Sept 14, 2012 14:04:35 GMT -5
I beat them both with a silly bid of 4 years - 1,250,001 per year. lol
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 15:19:18 GMT -5
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Sept 14, 2012 15:19:18 GMT -5
Should be totally value of the contract = winning bid Team A bids 1 year 5mil Team B bids 2 year/2.5mil per season Who wins? Fair enough, but TEAM A 1 yr 5 mil per yr Team B 3 yrs @ 4.5 mil per yr Who wins?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 15:22:21 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2012 15:22:21 GMT -5
Any player in his right mind would take the 1 year so that they could re-test the market again...
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 17:07:07 GMT -5
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Sept 14, 2012 17:07:07 GMT -5
Any player in his right mind would take the 1 year so that they could re-test the market again... What about the player that thinks about 13.5 million in guaranteed money versus 5 million - doesn't have to worry about injuries or other unexpected events. What about security of being in place for at least 3 yrs versus likely having to uproot in 1 year. Not as easy as you guys would make it out to be.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 17:40:54 GMT -5
Post by MontyBurns on Sept 14, 2012 17:40:54 GMT -5
I think everyone is getting sidetracked here. I have seen other league with player agents and stuff, and that shit is useless. Just biased horseshit.
Can we please comment on my original comment, which has nothing to do with determining FA bids on the total value. I just wanted to see whether anyone thought it would make FA far more strategic (and better) to have to give UFAs 3 year contracts in their prime years (31-25).
Thats it!
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 17:41:46 GMT -5
Post by AvsGM on Sept 14, 2012 17:41:46 GMT -5
Any player in his right mind would take the 1 year so that they could re-test the market again... What about the player that thinks about 13.5 million in guaranteed money versus 5 million - doesn't have to worry about injuries or other unexpected events. What about security of being in place for at least 3 yrs versus likely having to uproot in 1 year. Not as easy as you guys would make it out to be. But that's the thing, these aren't real people. So there has to be some set of guidlines to eliminate the "process of contemplation" which doesn't exist. The easiest way (as we've been doing for 9 offseasons now) is monetary value per season.
|
|