|
Post by Philly on Jul 8, 2014 22:54:26 GMT -5
Well all of them. What are these rules supposed to accomplish? 1) Only allowed to trade one RFA. 2) Other team must use their free re-sign on them. These are the only two rules I am aware of on the subject. I know their was a purpose when we put those in, it's hard to remember everything lol..... Gavin?? That rule has been in for a while now. I think I can help here some. We are only allowed to trade 1 FA - RFA, because we decided at the beginning, non contract rfa's could not be traded til they were signed by their owners. So then we decided we would be allowed to trade one of them, under the condition that the new owner used it for their one and only re-sign. It explains it in the rules under - Free Agency The rule for UFA players, is any 62 ov + player without a contract, goes to the ufa board to give us more players to open bid on. There will still be FA's under 30 on the unassigned list, for silent bidding with OV's in all ranges based on their season.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 8, 2014 23:15:03 GMT -5
I have no issue with the silent bid rule, just wanted to clarify.
Regarding the RFA rules, I'd like to see more flexibility there... I think we should be able to trade as many RFAs as they want before FA without worrying about giving them a 35% raise. Right now the rule just makes GMs wait to process deals until after the RFAs are signed, to avoid the 35% increase.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 1:46:18 GMT -5
We did not want too many RFAs to avoid ever being placed on the RFA boards as an available player. So we make it harder to trade RFA players to teams that don't have any to sign, thus skipping the RFA boards completely. We limit it to one and we force the re-sign as a "salary penalty" for taking that player off the market. We also force the re-sign so that you have to make the choice to use it on that player and not potentially another of your own.
Team A has 2 players to re-sign, so he can only protect one of them with a re-sign. At least one (probably both) of his players will be listed. Team B has no players to use his re-sign on. Trades for one of Team A's. Player never gets listed.
Now if this happened 5-6 times per FA, thats a lot of players that never make it to the boards. We don't have many RFA bids anyway, so it probably doesn't matter, but the point was to keep the board from being "skimpy" on players and maybe helping to put a big name on the list.
There is also the "fuck up factor", I trade all my players for RFA contracts, I don't sign those contracts...team has no players. Some built in protection against a potential sabotage GM during the time of year we are usually seeking replacement GMs seems like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 1:52:09 GMT -5
Right now the rule just makes GMs wait to process deals until after the RFAs are signed, to avoid the 35% increase. That's exactly what its suppose to do, because that means that player was listed on the boards for any team to give an offer sheet.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 9, 2014 3:01:19 GMT -5
There will also be a 1,000,000 salary cap increase to both the pre and post 5-million increase rates. 58m and 63m. As I said before, overall Gavin and Jon's proposal looks good, but when you consider that any player who is rated over 70 will have a base salary increase of $1 million on average maybe a $1 million increase in the salary cap isn't sufficient. There were 114 players with OV ratings over 70 (or goalies with OV ratings over 80) an average of over 4 players a team (Montreal had 15 of them!!). So that means on average the base salary of a team will go up, over time, by $ 3-4 million dollars. To me if we are going to adjust the RFA pay scale significantly like this, we should seriously consider a salary cap adjustment in the $ 3-4 million dollar range. As usual, if any one can poke holes in my logic, I'm willing to listen.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 9:17:51 GMT -5
The increase isn't suppose to make up the entire difference, its a balancing act. Also, players 69 and lower are getting a salary reduction which should help cover things.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 9, 2014 9:29:28 GMT -5
I didn't really realize it before, but we have some rules that go to some pretty crazy lengths just to make sure we have an RFA switching teams every couple seasons!
The rule forces teams to resign RFAs they just traded for. It takes RFAs off the market! I think it has the opposite effect you intended.
My suggestion is to abolish both the limitation on trading RFAs and the automatic re-sign requirement. I really think this rule has virtually no effect on the availability of RFAs.
By allowing people to trade RFAs without forcing an automatic re-sign, the number of RFAs on the market does not change.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 9, 2014 9:48:48 GMT -5
I get why the rule of only being able to trade 1 RFA in the off season is in place. It's contract management, and puts the onus on the GM with a bunch of RFA players. Otherwise nothing is stopping him from trading all of them and making FA a breeze.
The automatic resign for a traded RFA rule, I agree with Jake here and it serves little purpose other than spike salary. If we got rid of it the GM that trades for an RFA would still be exposed to a salary spike via offer sheets. But then at least he will have the possibility to retain the player for less, and for an extra year ("Re-signed RFAs may recieve a MAXIMUM contract of 3 years"). Optional resigns aren't very attractive, which would explain why very little people actually use them.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 9, 2014 9:52:26 GMT -5
Simple don't trade for them til the owner signs them. We want FA's out there not free re-signed, so if you want to protect 1 RFA or protect one you traded for, there is a penalty to pay, to discourage it, Gavin explained it. Now if you want to get the restriction lifted there will be less rfa's out there not more.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 9, 2014 9:58:56 GMT -5
The 1 re-sign we are allowed was mainly designed to protect a franchise player, like Crosby, which I'm sure the Isles will use his re-sign on this FA.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 9, 2014 9:59:15 GMT -5
If we end up keeping the optional (and automatic if traded for) resign in place, I would suggest dropping it from 35%, to 25%.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 10:45:37 GMT -5
If we end up keeping the optional (and automatic if traded for) resign in place, I would suggest dropping it from 35%, to 25%. I've been open to a price reduction before, I'm still open to one now. 35% has been a bit steep over the years, especially once we introduced the pay scale. I think the rule itself is important though.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 9, 2014 10:57:29 GMT -5
There will also be a 1,000,000 salary cap increase to both the pre and post 5-million increase rates. 58m and 63m. As I said before, overall Gavin and Jon's proposal looks good, but when you consider that any player who is rated over 70 will have a base salary increase of $1 million on average maybe a $1 million increase in the salary cap isn't sufficient. There were 114 players with OV ratings over 70 (or goalies with OV ratings over 80) an average of over 4 players a team (Montreal had 15 of them!!). So that means on average the base salary of a team will go up, over time, by $ 3-4 million dollars. To me if we are going to adjust the RFA pay scale significantly like this, we should seriously consider a salary cap adjustment in the $ 3-4 million dollar range. As usual, if any one can poke holes in my logic, I'm willing to listen. Yeah, so ill put it out there that changing the RFA payscale right now without warning is going to add between 5-8 million in random (aka i couldnt have known about it beforehand) cap holds to my team. As always, the good of the league at large is more important than one team, but it makes sense to give a little consideration to teams that couldnt prepare for this, whether in the structure of the new rules or in the form of a phase in so a team isnt blindsided by the change). I would also say that im not sure the payscale should be so high. In the NHL you just dont see young stars (with only 2-3 exceptions) making the money that their veteran counterparts do.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 11:05:33 GMT -5
If we wait on the pay scale change we have to wait on the compensation change.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 9, 2014 11:08:45 GMT -5
If we wait on the pay scale change we have to wait on the compensation change. How come? The change from salary to OV had nothing to do with payscale? (not that i really care if I have to wait ANOTHER year for salary RFA comp to avoid destroying value on my team in a way I couldnt have forseen)
|
|