|
Post by Philly on Jul 7, 2014 17:09:43 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. And I disagree that it helps the league at all, only helps slackers. Tell me how 2 Ists and a 2nd for a 68 OV helps the league (comp for Anisimov under Jon's chart). Like I said I thought Jon's chart was close enough, and didn't have a problem with it, but I guess you didn't read all the posts, before you decided to try to make me look selfish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 18:12:37 GMT -5
What wasn't fair about my statement? You are in fact the only one saying that you disagree with certain changes soley because of handshake deals that you've already made, not because of league-wide implications. If you had a full roster, zero free agents and no cap room you would look at things from a completely different perspective. Even if there was a league vote and 25 GMs agreed with something, as long as it directly impacted your predetermined plan you would vote no, and that's not how it should be, but it is what you're representing.
And I never said that "2 1sts and a 2nd for a 68 OV helps the league" so I'm not really even sure how to repspond to that.
I've said my peace and so has everyone else. I think it should be voted on to change and then voted on again for sructure, majority wins.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 7, 2014 19:59:14 GMT -5
I think Shawn hit the nail on the head. The current set of rules only serve to increase RFA salaries, without actually increasing movement of RFAs between teams.
We should just put it to a vote. We all know each other. For some reason I have a doubt we will reach a decision by debating the issue... especially this one, which has been beaten to death over the years.
BTW, another rule change I'd like to see is permitting trading RFAs before free agency, without forcing the team to automatically resign that player with a 35% raise. Why can't we just trade unsigned RFAs?
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 20:17:26 GMT -5
If switching to a money based system is what the majority wants, we can switch. I warn however that we should expect people to bid to the bare limit in most cases, so whatever we set that barrier at is important, especially as it pertains to the highest level.
This is Jon's chart again: (sample) $500k - $1,499,999 = 3rd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $1,500,000 - $2,999,999 = 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $3,000,000 - $5,000,000 = 1st AND 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft $5,000,0001+ = Two 1st round picks AND one 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - ONE 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft
As I mentioned, 5m bids will likely be THE bid on this chart, the barrier line. This would encompass everyone 73 OV and below. 69 and below is a next level down. Starting salary. If anything, this chart is a major lowering of compensation. Before anything 71+ was a top tier, now it takes 74+.
To mirror what we currently use, it would need to be.... $0 = 3rd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $500k = 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 = 1st AND 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft $3,500,000+ = Two 1st round picks AND one 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - ONE 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft
That's a direct comparison, kinda silly actually, maybe we should have adjust the OV numbers or something
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 7, 2014 20:57:06 GMT -5
If switching to a money based system is what the majority wants, we can switch. I warn however that we should expect people to bid to the bare limit in most cases, so whatever we set that barrier at is important, especially as it pertains to the highest level. This is Jon's chart again: (sample) $500k - $1,499,999 = 3rd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $1,500,000 - $2,999,999 = 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $3,000,000 - $5,000,000 = 1st AND 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft $5,000,0001+ = Two 1st round picks AND one 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - ONE 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft As I mentioned, 5m bids will likely be THE bid on this chart, the barrier line. This would encompass everyone 73 OV and below. 69 and below is a next level down. Starting salary. If anything, this chart is a major lowering of compensation. Before anything 71+ was a top tier, now it takes 74+. To mirror what we currently use, it would need to be.... $0 = 3rd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $500k = 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 = 1st AND 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft $3,500,000+ = Two 1st round picks AND one 2nd Round Pick within the next 2 years (current entry draft or '14) - ONE 1st round pick MUST be in the upcoming entry draft That's a direct comparison, kinda silly actually, maybe we should have adjust the OV numbers or something Huh?
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 7, 2014 21:59:45 GMT -5
Whats complicated? That is the current RFA comp scale as applied to salary, using RFA entry salaries (what we use to set them come re-sign time) as a reference.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 8, 2014 0:20:13 GMT -5
Gavin cross referenced the current RFA pay scale for resigning RFAs with the existing RFA compensation chart to arrive at that (I think).
Lets just keep it simple and use the chart proposed by Eug/Jon.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 8, 2014 0:54:18 GMT -5
Yeah, not saying I want it like that or anything....but if you do a direct translation, thats what it comes out to be.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 8, 2014 1:14:09 GMT -5
Yeah, not saying I want it like that or anything....but if you do a direct translation, thats what it comes out to be. If you think about it, the translated scale shows the problem. The brackets are not reflective of value and therefore make it nearly impossible to allow RFAs to switch teams. While a move to comp based on salary rather than OV has been a long time coming, and really I dont think that anyone here would fight to keep it as OV. The real issue here is whether people think it makes more sense to raise or lower compensation to get the desired effect. IMO all a low(er) standard does is encourage price enforcing with the knowledge that your bid will be matched.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 8, 2014 4:17:55 GMT -5
Whats complicated? That is the current RFA comp scale as applied to salary, using RFA entry salaries (what we use to set them come re-sign time) as a reference. Ok, I wasn't sure what you were doing. I was wondering how the hell you sign a player for $0
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 8, 2014 6:56:04 GMT -5
Let's get the vote goin or make a decision, hard to make any deals with this pending, this is really an important issue.
I like the old way or Jon's table, I'm cool with either of those. I don't think we have to change anything else to use the salary table.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 8, 2014 10:26:31 GMT -5
Whats complicated? That is the current RFA comp scale as applied to salary, using RFA entry salaries (what we use to set them come re-sign time) as a reference. Ok, I wasn't sure what you were doing. I was wondering how the hell you sign a player for $0 Well, you can't, obviously. That level doesn't actually exist, hence the 0. It was an experiment to show how they match up, but its not really reflective of the current system…since the current system says anything 71+ is top tier, well when it comes to money, those players are only being paid 3.5 million. This likely explains the "price raising" situation, as 3.5m million is chump change, so simply raising the player is easier and seems more justified. Under Jon's system a 71+ OV player is by default down 1 tier. I think we should probably adjust BOTH scales right now, comp (based on salary) and RFA pay scale as well, so that we can match up both things properly. Basically, a 71+ OV needs to be starting higher than 3.5m, it needs to probably be more like 5m. Current: 65 OV or less - 500,000 66 OV - 1 mil 67 OV - 1.5 mil 68 OV - 2 mil 69 OV - 2.5 mil 70 OV - 3 mil 71 OV - 3.5 mil 72 OV - 4 mil 73 OV - 4.5 mil 74 OV - 5 mil 75 + OV - 6 mil Suggested Change: 66 OV or less - 500,000 67 OV - 1 mil 68 OV - 2 mil 69 OV - 3 mil 70 OV - 4 mil 71 OV - 5 mil 72 OV - 6 mil 73 OV - 7 mil 74+ OV - 7.5 mil That would make Jon's sample comp chart fall more in line with the current comp scale as it puts the 71+ back at the top tier (where they belong) instead of it needing to 74+ to start. This also increases RFA salary a bit at the desirable end, but also lowers salary slightly for the lower end. From here we and mess around with the comp chart numbers to arrive at a happy medium. Along with this adjustment in pay scale, we may raise the league salary cap slightly, probably like 1m.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 8, 2014 14:17:09 GMT -5
Ok, I put up the vote. Once that is settled we can start working on the other part of it, depending how the vote goes.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 14, 2014 13:16:52 GMT -5
One rule change I'd like to see is something similar to the rule the NHL has when it comes to entry level contracts. If a player plays less than 10 games, you should have the option of not having him rated and waiting until the following season to start his entry level deal. He would not be placed on your roster and stay in your prospects list.
For instance, this season I have three players who I consider top prospects who played 2, 3 and 5 games respectively last season. As a result I have to burn a year of their entry level contract even though they are no use to me this season. I'm sure most teams have young players in similar positions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 13:31:47 GMT -5
One rule change I'd like to see is something similar to the rule the NHL has when it comes to entry level contracts. If a player plays less than 10 games, you should have the option of not having him rated and waiting until the following season to start his entry level deal. He would not be placed on your roster and stay in your prospects list. For instance, this season I have three players who I consider top prospects who played 2, 3 and 5 games respectively last season. As a result I have to burn a year of their entry level contract even though they are no use to me this season. I'm sure most teams have young players in similar positions. I think this is a great idea
|
|