|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 16:11:28 GMT -5
I would still argue that an extra level needs to be added. Most wouldn't let go of a 4M RFA that gets a 5.5M bid, they would eat the extra hit and move on. When we're talking about a 4M RFA that gets a 10M bid, that is where I have issue. The comp would still not be close to good enough to accept, and matching kills the team's cap.
What I'd like to see is people thinking twice before making a ridiculously high bid on an RFA. Yes, acquiring 3 1sts is difficult. But so was trading for some of these RFA players in many cases. In our history we've had a handful of max bids on RFAs. Off the top of my head I recall Redden back in the day, Datsyuk, and Sharp which was close to max. In none of those cases was the bid successful. All it did was deter the matching GM from being active in FA, and spike the players salary. At no point did anyone consider accepting comp. If we want these type of bids to mean something, and truly make it a tough decision for the team, make the highest comp level worth it. Otherwise we're still leaving the door open for sabotage bids.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 16:11:52 GMT -5
Id like to address something here. Ray, you say that youre not in favour of changing the system to provide more comp for top RFAs (or RFAs at all. You say this because in the 10 year history of our league, like 3 RFAs have switched teams. The reason why RFAs never move between teams is because a team would have to be an idiot not to match. Even if only for the purposes of trading him as soon as he is signed to another team. You have 2 1sts and a 2nd now. Three picks that will be outside the top 20. If you bid 10 mil on Getzlaf, do you think there is even a CHANCE that I wouldnt match it? There is literally a 0% chance. Thats because your comp sucks in comparison to the player you are bidding on. SO BASICALLY what you are doing when bidding on major RFAs under the current system is saying "I know I cant actually sign this player because the comp is so low you cant even consider taking it, but im going to bid anyway, just to raise your cap numbers". I have been arguing for salary based comp for literally 9 years. Its about time we did this. ANd yes, the players at the top (7.5 plus) need to have at least 3 1sts as comp, but thats only to create a chance that the team will accept it. In the new rules, youre still not going to pick up a superstar with three shit 1st round picks. You can't match it if you don't have the money, if you could match I wouldn't bother. Trust me.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 7, 2014 16:13:24 GMT -5
I totally agree with Shawn. I actually think higher free agent compensation might actually cause more RFA's to move. GMs might be tempted to take the compensation rather than match if it was at a level more consistent with the value of the player.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 16:14:02 GMT -5
Lets be real, unless the comp is absurd or the team simply cannot afford the player, nobody is going to ever accept compensation, ever.
Either its going to always be too high or too low, it'll either be so high nobody can bid…or so low nobody will take it, it doesn't much matter what we adjust it to be, it'll always end up one of those two extremes.
If we set 7m+ comp at three 1sts, then I can promise you nobody will ever bid 7m+ on an RFA. Having 3 first rounders in the first place is super unlikely, the team also accepting them is more unlikely. Should we raise the comp until we hit a point where the team would be stupid not to take it? 5m+ = 5 draft picks?? K, but nobody will bid, making the whole system pointless.
I'll say it again, compensation is NOT suppose to be a "fair trade", its what you get when you can't afford the match…thats all it is. If you can afford to match and do other things with that player, etc etc…fine, no problem. You say you won't take comp 100% of the time? Thats fine, if you can afford to do so, you probably shouldn't. However, if the compensation IS good enough to take, then its much more likely you won't be asked to take it in the first place, since nobody will be bidding.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 16:20:03 GMT -5
I would still argue that an extra level needs to be added. Most wouldn't let go of a 4M RFA that gets a 5.5M bid, they would eat the extra hit and move on. When we're talking about a 4M RFA that gets a 10M bid, that is where I have issue. The comp would still not be close to good enough to accept, and matching kills the team's cap. What I'd like to see is people thinking twice before making a ridiculously high bid on an RFA. Yes, acquiring 3 1sts is difficult. But so was trading for some of these RFA players in many cases. In our history we've had a handful of max bids on RFAs. Off the top of my head I recall Redden back in the day, Datsyuk, and Sharp which was close to max. In none of those cases was the bid successful. All it did was deter the matching GM from being active in FA, and spike the players salary. At no point did anyone consider accepting comp. If we want these type of bids to mean something, and truly make it a tough decision for the team, make the highest comp level worth it. Otherwise we're still leaving the door open for sabotage bids. Redden was actually accepted compensation, (I remember, I payed it) which was four 1st rounders at that time. I don't regret that now, as Redden was really good for me for all 4 years. Would I do something like that again? Never. Four 1sts was WAY too much, hence why we lowered it. Redden is one of the 3 (I think its 3) players to move from RFA. There won't be a choice, because there won't be any bids.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 16:21:48 GMT -5
Don't think it will always be too high or too low. There really is a middle ground here, and the extra level addresses that. As for the chance of someone having 3 1sts, it's possible especially if they're spread out over 3 years as Joe suggested. Not to say it would be a given, but there are a lot of players I would consider taking 3 1sts (regardless of draft position) comp for if the bid was too high.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 16:26:02 GMT -5
Soooo if 4 1sts was too high (agreed), and a lot seem to agree that 2 1sts is too low..... Then it seems like a no brainer to try out 3 1sts, but only for 7.5M-10M.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 16:28:56 GMT -5
So wait,
two first rounders at any position = automatic no three first rounders at any position = will consider.
So one additional first round pick within 3 years is enough to go from "NO WAY 0% CHANCE!" to "strongly consider"? Lets be real. Nobody is going to take 3 or 4 or 8 firsts for someone like say…Crosby, anyway. The only way they'll take comp is if they can't afford the player. Then we are just rewarding people who didn't budget well.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 16:31:48 GMT -5
Then we are just rewarding people who didn't budget well. Bingo!!
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 16:33:50 GMT -5
Would accept 8 1sts for any given player, even Gretzky in his prime. But you're right, we'd never come up with a comp high enough to accept for the Crosbies. But for the other 98% of RFAs who are not on that level but still attract plenty of interest from others, this would make it more enticing.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 16:42:46 GMT -5
Would accept 8 1sts for any given player, even Gretzky in his prime. But you're right, we'd never come up with a comp high enough to accept for the Crosbies. But for the other 98% of RFAs who are not on that level but still attract plenty of interest from others, this would make it more enticing. More enticing to the team holding the rights and a LOT less enticing to the team bidding. I see no reason to even look at a player who would be set to make 7m+, he's up that high because his ratings are super good…so he'll be matched, regardless of the comp (unless its stupid high). You'd have to bid 7m+ on a player who is making A LOT LESS, which means not nearly as good, which means….not worth the draft picks. So we have one super high category to cover the elite superstars…which is meaningless because they'll be matched regardless and now we have a "pay wall" for everyone else. Expect to see a LOT of 6,999,999 bids or whatever the cutoff ends up being.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 16:50:50 GMT -5
Even though I won't be around next season I'm still going to add my two cents.....
1. RFA compensation based on salary offered is a no-brainer. Let the bidding GM decide the worth of the player they are trying to obtain, not try and sign a player who slips through the cracks based on an injury. As far as the actual chart, that's a whole 'nother issue. I thought Jon's example was pretty fair as it doesn't change the compensation itself, just puts the determining factor in the hands of the bidding GM. However I slightly agree that there should be one more level.
I think the current compensation chart is pretty lenient and there aren't many RFA bids to other teams players in the first place. If you make the compensation even more strict than what it currently is then you are doing nothing to entice more bidding, if that is your objective, you're actually creating the opposite.
2. Ray, I know it's hard but you have to try and keep personal perspective out of it in regards to the compensation brackets. I don't think it's fair to say, well I only agree if it doesn't complicate my plans. It's about the greater good of the league and something that everyone would have to abide by, not just you. Like I said I know that's tough but you're the only one inputting personal impact into the discussion rather than what would be good or bad for the league.
3. Injuries should definitely be turned up for the season and playoffs. No boosting it just for the playoffs and no random injuries assigned.
4. The goalie max starts rule is a must!
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 7, 2014 16:58:30 GMT -5
Id like to address something here. Ray, you say that youre not in favour of changing the system to provide more comp for top RFAs (or RFAs at all. You say this because in the 10 year history of our league, like 3 RFAs have switched teams. The reason why RFAs never move between teams is because a team would have to be an idiot not to match. Even if only for the purposes of trading him as soon as he is signed to another team. You have 2 1sts and a 2nd now. Three picks that will be outside the top 20. If you bid 10 mil on Getzlaf, do you think there is even a CHANCE that I wouldnt match it? There is literally a 0% chance. Thats because your comp sucks in comparison to the player you are bidding on. SO BASICALLY what you are doing when bidding on major RFAs under the current system is saying "I know I cant actually sign this player because the comp is so low you cant even consider taking it, but im going to bid anyway, just to raise your cap numbers". I have been arguing for salary based comp for literally 9 years. Its about time we did this. ANd yes, the players at the top (7.5 plus) need to have at least 3 1sts as comp, but thats only to create a chance that the team will accept it. In the new rules, youre still not going to pick up a superstar with three shit 1st round picks. You can't match it if you don't have the money, if you could match I wouldn't bother. Trust me. I know you wouldnt do this if you didnt think you had a chance to sign the player. But i think you overestimate the chances of your bid ever being accepted, even for a team thats over the cap. A team has a week once you bid to organize a trade to clear either salary or that player. And because the comp is low that trade is going to be better than the comp. the current rfa bidding system is a no win. All the curresnt system encourages is cap killing bids without any players moving. I think we should vote rather than argue though. As for injuries, im good to experiment and see what an increase in injuries looks like.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 7, 2014 17:03:54 GMT -5
Yea let's just take a vote and see what everyone thinks. Let's start with 3 votes on salary based scale, min games for starting goalies, and fatigue factor increase. Based on the results we can take another vote on the salary scale and whether we should add another level or tweak it. Everyone has made their opinions clear by now, time to let democracy do the talking.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 17:07:12 GMT -5
Even though I won't be around next season I'm still going to add my two cents..... 2. Ray, I know it's hard but you have to try and keep personal perspective out of it in regards to the compensation brackets. I don't think it's fair to say, well I only agree if it doesn't complicate my plans. It's about the greater good of the league and something that everyone would have to abide by, not just you. Like I said I know that's tough but you're the only one inputting personal impact into the discussion rather than what would be good or bad for the league. I really don't think that was fair Adam.
|
|