|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 11:35:07 GMT -5
What it does is protect the team with a franchise player RFA. That's what the re-sign is for.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 11:37:10 GMT -5
I didn't trade guys like Pominville and Hanzal to go after lower end RFA's. Super good point. Why does ANYONE care about lower end RFAs? There are likely 10+ players of equal ratings available in UFA and you don't have to give up draft picks to sign those guys. Why? Because they could be 10 years younger than the comparable UFAs, and have untapped potential that could make them franchise players later. When I say lower end, I still mean top 6 guys. There are probably a hell of a lot more top 6 RFAs than franchise RFAs. Ray, you went after Anisimov last year. Those are the guys I'm talking about when I say lower end RFAs. Look, you guys are clearly on the same page when it comes to this, and I'm clearly not on it and probably never will be. All I'm going to say is if you're looking to turn RFA bidding into UFA bidding, then we'll ALL be in for a world of cap pain down the road. We already have RIDICULOUS contracts given out to past UFAs that some teams are now stuck with and not able to move unless they pay up on top of it. Think Ryder at 6.5, Lecavalier at 7.5, Erat at 4.5, Doan at 5.1, Fisher at 5.5, Orpik at 5.1, Morrow at 6.5, Briere at 7.5. Some of these are down right silly. RFAs get a significant enough bump in salary (assuming they maintain good ratings) as is, now we want to inflate them even further with bids? I can only speak for myself here, but the current compensation for 71OV+ players is NOT enough to even consider. I would be down for expanding it and bringing in more ranges if we stay with OV based scale. Maybe adding another level and saying 71OV-73OV is three 1sts, and 74-76 three 1sts and a 2nd. Bottom line is with the current structure I will never accept compensation for the simple reason that I'd rather match and shop the player to get fair value back. Even if the bid puts my back against the wall, I'm matching. And I will go out on a limb to say that 90% of the league shares that opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 7, 2014 12:14:17 GMT -5
I agree completely with both of Jon's suggestions. Lets make RFA compensation salary based and increase the fatigue settings for goalies. I'd also support increasing the frequency of injuries for all players.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 12:14:23 GMT -5
I'm honestly not that concerned with if a team accepts comp or not, I expect them to not accept it unless they must…thats kinda the point, again its not a "trade", you aren't suppose to get back "fair value" all the time.
Anisimov is not a lower end RFA, his a middle road to top end player who would end up getting 4-6m in bidding (at least), which would become multiple picks…which means he'll get no bids. No "top 6 guy" is going to see bids less than 5m, which means on your chart…3 picks, including a 1st.
Exactly how much untapped potential do you expected a sub-65 OV 4th liner to have? Some players MIGHT make the jump out of no-where, but by 25 years old their potential is mostly known, they've shown their skill set and aren't likely to make any big jumps anytime soon. A UFA is much less risky. A bad contract for 1-3 years is frequently less negative then that same contract on a player who you also had to give up picks for as well.
If you'd rather match and shop the player via trade…you can do that, nothing is stopping you, however you now have less money to spend on other bids and could hurt yourself in the end (for example, I thought you matching on Sharp awhile back wasn't the best move, but I didn't mind much, I used that salary elsewhere in the end), but your decision to match basically hurt your chances to make another cup run that year…you made that choice. You could have accepted comp, used that money to pick up another player (or two) instead and had the potential to make the finals again, you opted for another route, thats fine, but your choices are your choices, I don't think comp is so bad that its automatic.
I'm much more in favor of supporting the bidding team than the team wanting to hold a player. Its already incredibly easy to hold a player for extended periods of time (free re-sign, age requirements, 90% matching and comp), I don't want to make that even worse.
Then again, if the idea is to make it so you NEVER lose a player under the age of 31 to free agency, we should just remove RFAs from FA entirely. Nobody is going to trade for four (or three) 1st round picks to bid with when they can still just be matched. Right now its nearly impossible to pull a player out of RFA anyway…raising the cost of entry doesn't make that any easier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 12:20:39 GMT -5
I like the idea of building a young core and being able to keep it together, not have it easy for them to be signed away at 25 or whatever it would be. Most times you have to trade some of those guys away before they get expensive anyway. Players move around a lot in this league. Of the 21 guys on my pro roster, I drafted I think six of them(three in the original draft I think). I think that would be among one of the higher numbers and it's lower than the NHL average I'd guess. If I wanted players moving around all the time instead of building a core, I'd just join a re-draft league. I like the RFA as it is. Restricted. Players can still move, just not easily, and that's how I think it should be. As for assigning injuries, I'm not a fan of it. I have no problem seeing more through the regular season, but assigning them to the playoffs just to see some upsets is not good. Why not just have you alternate goalies in the playoffs to have more upsets? Why are there upsets in the NHL? Because the difference between an 8 and a 1 isn't very big. In our league there is a discrepancy. If the playoffs are a crapshoot, I'm not strengthening my team at the deadline and trading away young studs on the chance that the coin flip means I lose Bergeron or Letang for the playoffs. There will be movement between the teams 6-10 in each conference, but if I have a spot locked up, I'm not risking shit. Take the chance that I'll be the 1 team out of 16 that gets lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 12:39:51 GMT -5
I like the idea of building a young core and being able to keep it together, not have it easy for them to be signed away at 25 or whatever it would be. Most times you have to trade some of those guys away before they get expensive anyway. Players move around a lot in this league. Of the 21 guys on my pro roster, I drafted I think six of them(three in the original draft I think). I think that would be among one of the higher numbers and it's lower than the NHL average I'd guess. If I wanted players moving around all the time instead of building a core, I'd just join a re-draft league. I like the RFA as it is. Restricted. Players can still move, just not easily, and that's how I think it should be. As for assigning injuries, I'm not a fan of it. I have no problem seeing more through the regular season, but assigning them to the playoffs just to see some upsets is not good. Why not just have you alternate goalies in the playoffs to have more upsets? Why are there upsets in the NHL? Because the difference between an 8 and a 1 isn't very big. In our league there is a discrepancy. If the playoffs are a crapshoot, I'm not strengthening my team at the deadline and trading away young studs on the chance that the coin flip means I lose Bergeron or Letang for the playoffs. There will be movement between the teams 6-10 in each conference, but if I have a spot locked up, I'm not risking shit. Take the chance that I'll be the 1 team out of 16 that gets lucky. Its already super easy to build and hold a team together, the only issue most teams have now is the automatically increasing salaries. Jake has had Tavares and Stamkos together for like 3+ years now and he won't be losing them anytime soon. Having a "core" of 3-6 players is one thing, having your "core" be 18 people is something else entirely. I've lost track over the years, but can anyone name a top name RFA that was actually moved during FA? I can't think of one….so it seems the ability to keep together a "core" is alive and well. Raising comp just makes it even easier. The only players that move in this league are traded players (which happens more here than the NHL, again cause they aren't real people) and UFA. RFA doesn't move around players. There are upsets in the NHL because teams are not comprised of players with specific ratings attached to them. The NHL (I feel dumb explaining the obvious here) is much more about random bounces and chance plays…there are obviously different levels of talent in the NHL, but you can't look at two lines or numbers and say one player is better then another, especially if they are both all-stars. In our league, its all just numbers. The team with the best numbers WINS. Go look at our last 11 cup winners, they had the best team on paper heading into the playoffs among the rest of the league each year (in most cases, they won the Presidents Trophy as well). We don't have upsets because…well, the number 80 will always be higher than number 79, as long as 80 is higher than 79, 80 will win and 79 will lose. Every sim we've used for 11 years says that is the case, the higher rated team WILL win. Really injuries are the ONLY thing we have available to "stir the pot" a bit and make our playoffs INTERESTING. Wouldn't it be nice to be that 8th seed team that struggled during the season but made a few trades and barely squeaked out a playoff appearance to have a little bit more than a 0% chance to win the cup? Honestly, if I don't feel my team is top 4, I don't see much reason to even attempt to make the playoffs…I know I won't win, everyone below the top 4 teams know they aren't going to win, so why even have those teams in the playoffs? Right now its simply a formality, a pat on the back. "Good job, you made the playoffs, but don't bother participating because you aren't going anywhere". I think that is frankly, boring.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 12:51:54 GMT -5
Gavin you're 100% correct in saying I made a choice to match the Sharp bid knowing I will not be competing last year. But more importantly, the compensation you would be giving up is probably half of what I'd be asking on the trade market so why gift someone a high end player? And you're right, by matching I killed my chances of filling up a good roster. So essentially you're damned if you match and damned if you take comp because then you're stuck with overpaying for a viable UFA replacement.
We can always take a vote and see where everyone sides with this. I'm all for protecting core players, which is what you see in NHL. Take the NBA for example where they made it extremely easy for young superstars to be moved or lured elsewhere earlier. Not sure how much you guys follow the NBA but parity is all but dead there now. Hell I got 4 1sts and 2 2nds in this draft, right now I'd be one of the only ppl who can bid on two 71OV+ RFAs, and I still want to make it tougher.
Let's just take a vote on this and whatever the result is we'll go with it. I'm for salary based compensation (I like the scale Joe suggested but open to tweaking it), against random injuries in playoffs, and ok with the goalie max games played at 65-70.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 13:03:25 GMT -5
What is the point of changing the RFA Comp, how many GM's actually lost 1 of their RFA's over the last 10 years. I agree with Darren and Gavin, not to change it, or there will be no offer sheets at all, what a drag it will be, no one will waste their time, might as well just let us all sign our RFA's and keep them out of FA.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 13:11:32 GMT -5
Gavin you're 100% correct in saying I made a choice to match the Sharp bid knowing I will not be competing last year. But more importantly, the compensation you would be giving up is probably half of what I'd be asking on the trade market so why gift someone a high end player? And you're right, by matching I killed my chances of filling up a good roster. So essentially you're damned if you match and damned if you take comp because then you're stuck with overpaying for a viable UFA replacement. We can always take a vote and see where everyone sides with this. I'm all for protecting core players, which is what you see in NHL. Take the NBA for example where they made it extremely easy for young superstars to be moved or lured elsewhere earlier. Not sure how much you guys follow the NBA but parity is all but dead there now. Hell I got 4 1sts and 2 2nds in this draft, right now I'd be one of the only ppl who can bid on two 71OV+ RFAs, and I still want to make it tougher. Let's just take a vote on this and whatever the result is we'll go with it. I'm for salary based compensation (I like the scale Joe suggested but open to tweaking it), against random injuries in playoffs, and ok with the goalie max games played at 65-70. To specify, when you say "Random injuries" are you talking about "assigning" (which I've basically dropped as an idea already) or against just turning injuries up higher in the playoffs, which is what we're talking about now? The overpriced UFA isn't on your payroll for by 3 years at max, often its less than that. That same year you matched Sharp, I signed Thornton to a 7m contract (which was a bargain), he helped me get to the finals that year, helped me get another banner this year before I sent him to you for Richards/Methot. I'd say I got a lot of value out of that "overpriced UFA contract". Even still, 1-3 years on a bad contract (the last year you could even drop him if the contract gets really bad and get most of your money back) is a speed bump. Its so easy to protect core right now as we have it, if its harder, I don't see the point in even listing the RFAs on the message board, would certainly save Jon a lot of time.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 13:17:35 GMT -5
Im not against increasing fatigue factor, but against any random freak injuries in the playoffs or reg season. My bad if it wasn't clear enough.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 13:25:33 GMT -5
Im not against increasing fatigue factor, but against any random freak injuries in the playoffs or reg season. My bad if it wasn't clear enough. We are just shootin for normal injuries Eug, a few days, maybe a week or 2, if you don't over use your players you won't have to worry about it much. Unless you have Coburn and have him suspended for 3 of your 1st games against the best team in the league.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 13:47:47 GMT -5
Im not against increasing fatigue factor, but against any random freak injuries in the playoffs or reg season. My bad if it wasn't clear enough. We are just shootin for normal injuries Eug, a few days, maybe a week or 2, if you don't over use your players you won't have to worry about it much. Unless you have Coburn and have him suspended for 3 of your 1st games against the best team in the league. If that's the case then there's no objections from me. If all we're trying to do is increasing the "likelihood" of an injury to an overused player or a player with low DU/EN, and across the board at all times then that's fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 13:56:25 GMT -5
We are just shootin for normal injuries Eug, a few days, maybe a week or 2, if you don't over use your players you won't have to worry about it much. Unless you have Coburn and have him suspended for 3 of your 1st games against the best team in the league. If that's the case then there's no objections from me. If all we're trying to do is increasing the "likelihood" of an injury to an overused player or a player with low DU/EN, and across the board at all times then that's fair. Agreed. I thought we were talking about making sure each team had injuries in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 7, 2014 14:13:46 GMT -5
My suggestion of changing RFA compensation based on the salary bid was not to make it "harder" to go after RFAs but to match the "value" or "projected value" of the player being bid on. Last years Spezza ordeal opened my eyes to this. Just because a star player has an injury the previous year shouldn't devalue his worth. If Crosby didn't play at all last season because of an injury and going in to RFA status was rated a 60OV, you really think the compensation for him should only be a 3rd round pick? That's absolutely ridiculous. By basing RFA compensation on the salary bid you are putting the value of the player on the bidding team, regardless of ratings. So I'm not really saying to tweak to compensation scale, but make the value of compensation based on the value of the bid, which is the value the bidding GM places on the player he's trying to sign.
As for goalie starts, I actually agree with Joe. I was going to suggest a 67 games started max. It is up to GMs to make sure that their backups get 15 starts during the season. This would have to be manually monitored, but it's really not that hard. If 67 games into the season your starter has played all 67 games, guess what, he's sitting the last 15. If you're an active GM and actually paying attention then you'll be able to follow the rules/guidelines. NHL teams sit their goalies for a reason, I'm pretty sure that 80 games into the season a head coach would never say "Oh shit, I totally forgot to rest my goalie all year, how could this possibly slip my mind?!". If you run your team the way it should be in conjunction with the rules, then there wouldn't be any issues.
As for assigning random injuries, I'm not in favor of this at all. I would suggest we either up the injuries for the season through the playoffs, or slightly for the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 14:18:56 GMT -5
My suggestion of changing RFA compensation based on the salary bid was not to make it "harder" to go after RFAs but to match the "value" or "projected value" of the player being bid on. Last years Spezza ordeal opened my eyes to this. Just because a star player has an injury the previous year shouldn't devalue his worth. If Crosby didn't play at all last season because of an injury and going in to RFA status was rated a 60OV, you really think the compensation for him should only be a 3rd round pick? That's absolutely ridiculous. By basing RFA compensation on the salary bid you are putting the value of the player on the bidding team, regardless of ratings. So I'm not really saying to tweak to compensation scale, but make the value of compensation based on the value of the bid, which is the value the bidding GM places on the player he's trying to sign. As for goalie starts, I actually agree with Joe. I was going to suggest a 67 games started max. It is up to GMs to make sure that their backups get 15 starts during the season. This would have to be manually monitored, but it's really not that hard. If 67 games into the season your starter has played all 67 games, guess what, he's sitting the last 15. If you're an active GM and actually paying attention then you'll be able to follow the rules/guidelines. NHL teams sit their goalies for a reason, I'm pretty sure that 80 games into the season a head coach would never say "Oh shit, I totally forgot to rest my goalie all year, how could this possibly slip my mind?!". If you run your team the way it should be in conjunction with the rules, then there wouldn't be any issues. As for assigning random injuries, I'm not in favor of this at all. I would suggest we either up the injuries for the season through the playoffs, or slightly for the playoffs. This X 1000. All of it.
|
|