Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2012 17:48:01 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! I like your idea about player agents.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 17:50:26 GMT -5
Post by Hawks on Sept 14, 2012 17:50:26 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! 31-35 you mean? I always thought of "Prime" as late 20's myself. Anyway, I don't see why we need to make the contracts all 3 years. I wouldn't have even bid on Vrbata (for example) if I would have been required to bid 3 years, since the likelihood he'll have another 35 goal season is pretty slim, however paying him for his ratings THIS year makes perfect sense. So you'd end up with more "bad" contracts via bidding wars, less overall control of your team, and worse salary situations. It might lower UFA salaries a bit, but UFAs are really suppose to be where the teams with money fill their holes (heh heh heh), so it makes sense for the teams with money to spend it on those players, they have no where else to spend it. I'd rather GMs have the ability to put shorter contract on players who are more "question marks" and keep going on salary as the main factor (aka; how it is now) then change the system for realism sake.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 17:55:07 GMT -5
Post by AvsGM on Sept 14, 2012 17:55:07 GMT -5
So you'd end up with more "bad" contracts via bidding wars, less overall control of your team, and worse salary situations. Perfectly said.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 18:00:30 GMT -5
Post by Sharky on Sept 14, 2012 18:00:30 GMT -5
I agree with Gavin that we should keep it simple, but I don't think it makes sense for everyone to be offering 1 year contracts to UFAs all the time, which is what the current set of rules encourages.
I suggest a hybrid between the current rule, and Chris's suggestion of the total value being more important.
If the total value of the contract exceeds 2x the value of the 1 year offer, then the longer contract wins.
E.g.
$7 million for 1 year = $7 million or $5 million per for 3 years = $15 million
The 2nd offer wins, in my opinion.
A good example of this is Radim Vrbata, who I think most people would agree will not repeat his last season, which is why I assume Gavin wisely decided on a 1 year contract. I think realistically, Radim Vrbata would prefer the longer, much higher value contract.
It would be simple to implement. Just make GMs state the total contract value, in addition to the per year value we currently list.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 18:07:18 GMT -5
Post by Hawks on Sept 14, 2012 18:07:18 GMT -5
I agree with Gavin that we should keep it simple, but I don't think it makes sense for everyone to be offering 1 year contracts to UFAs all the time, which is what the current set of rules encourages. I suggest a hybrid between the current rule, and Chris's suggestion of the total value being more important. If the total value of the contract exceeds 2x the value of the 1 year offer, then the longer contract wins. E.g. $7 million for 1 year = $7 million or $5 million per for 3 years = $15 million The 2nd offer wins, in my opinion. A good example of this is Radim Vrbata, who I think most people would agree will not repeat his last season, which is why I assume Gavin wisely decided on a 1 year contract. I think realistically, Radim Vrbata would prefer the longer, much higher value contract. It would be simple to implement. Just make GMs state the total contract value, in addition to the per year value we currently list. I dunno if its really "encouraged", it really depends on the player. There was no way Hossa for example was going to get anything less than 3 years, because he is a superstar. As well, how many 1 year contracts have been signed this year to UFAs? Just Vrbata? There were a couple 1 year signings, but a lot of those were RFAs who were nearing the 31 year mark. The "2x rule" is not a terrible idea however, and probably the best way to handle it if people are overwhelmingly in support of a change, kinda nips the whole "silly bids" problem I was talking about earlier in the butt. Getting people to post it properly might be an issue however
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 18:13:52 GMT -5
Post by AvsGM on Sept 14, 2012 18:13:52 GMT -5
I agree with Gavin that we should keep it simple, but I don't think it makes sense for everyone to be offering 1 year contracts to UFAs all the time, which is what the current set of rules encourages. I suggest a hybrid between the current rule, and Chris's suggestion of the total value being more important. If the total value of the contract exceeds 2x the value of the 1 year offer, then the longer contract wins. E.g. $7 million for 1 year = $7 million or $5 million per for 3 years = $15 million The 2nd offer wins, in my opinion. A good example of this is Radim Vrbata, who I think most people would agree will not repeat his last season, which is why I assume Gavin wisely decided on a 1 year contract. I think realistically, Radim Vrbata would prefer the longer, much higher value contract. It would be simple to implement. Just make GMs state the total contract value, in addition to the per year value we currently list. While I will definitely give your suggestion some thought, I'm not really sure how the current system "encourages" one year bids. If someone offers 1yr/5mil you then have choices of offering 1yr at more money or more years at more money. maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I see the issue Gavin signed Vrbata @ 1yr/7.5mil. If someone really wanted him then why not offer 1 yr/7.6mil or 2 yrs/7.6mil? Me personally, if someone offered me 10mil for 1 year of work or 21mil for 3 years work, I'm taking the 10mil and saying thank you very much!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 18:16:57 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2012 18:16:57 GMT -5
I think the system is fine as it is..... i couldnt have said it better than Gavin said before... for those UFAs 31-35 who are mediocore......there's no way in hell I'm offering a guy like that a contract for three years if i think he's only going to be a top 6 forward of a top 4 dman for a year..... or MAYBE two.
and with respect to the '2x rule' my math sucks since i got out of engineering... so you're always going to have to correct my bids. but i must admit....it's not a bad suggestion.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 18:25:52 GMT -5
Post by Sharky on Sept 14, 2012 18:25:52 GMT -5
Me personally, if someone offered me 10mil for 1 year of work or 21mil for 3 years work, I'm taking the 10mil and saying thank you very much! In my case, where I will never make anything even remotely close to that, there is really no question. I'd take the 21 million! There is no way I could make 11 million in those next two years. In Radim Vrbata's case, where is it actually possible he can make more if he keeps signing one year contacts, then it is more debatable. I'm happy with the system staying the way it is. But I think this is still an interesting conversation haha.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 18:27:12 GMT -5
Post by AvsGM on Sept 14, 2012 18:27:12 GMT -5
Why not just allow years to be bumped instead of salary? Woudln't that solve the complaint?
Team A Offers: 1yr/7mil Team B Can Offer: 2 yrs/7mil per
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 19:47:06 GMT -5
Post by AvsGM on Sept 14, 2012 19:47:06 GMT -5
Me personally, if someone offered me 10mil for 1 year of work or 21mil for 3 years work, I'm taking the 10mil and saying thank you very much! In my case, where I will never make anything even remotely close to that, there is really no question. I'd take the 21 million! There is no way I could make 11 million in those next two years. And that's my point, that everyone sees it differently. Which is why it's easiest to use monetary value per season, since our players can't make decisions.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 23:30:39 GMT -5
Post by Hawks on Sept 14, 2012 23:30:39 GMT -5
I sure am happy with my signings this FA. Was able to sign basically an entire first line, shore up my D and hopefully improve my backup goalie situation a little. Went from nothing to a team that should be able to keep up with most other teams in the league
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FA Chat
Sept 14, 2012 23:45:13 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2012 23:45:13 GMT -5
I sure am happy with my signings this FA. Was able to sign basically an entire first line, shore up my D and hopefully improve my backup goalie situation a little. Went from nothing to a team that should be able to keep up with most other teams in the league hip hip hooray.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 15, 2012 0:37:26 GMT -5
Post by Hawks on Sept 15, 2012 0:37:26 GMT -5
I sure am happy with my signings this FA. Was able to sign basically an entire first line, shore up my D and hopefully improve my backup goalie situation a little. Went from nothing to a team that should be able to keep up with most other teams in the league hip hip hooray.
|
|
|
FA Chat
Sept 15, 2012 2:10:03 GMT -5
Post by Sharky on Sept 15, 2012 2:10:03 GMT -5
Good deal on Thornton... maybe I'm crazy, but I'd rather have both Thornton and St. Louis over Hossa, who is a bit of a wild card IMO, most GMs here obviously disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FA Chat
Sept 15, 2012 9:49:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2012 9:49:08 GMT -5
Really thought I had Hartnell there, nice match by Boston last minute.
|
|