|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 14:40:26 GMT -5
I don't think the changes are major enough that it really requires a year buffer.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 9, 2014 14:43:00 GMT -5
Second, with those trades you made i fully expected you to make some RFA bids, whats the big deal? You say I was your target. Did I ask for the rules to be changed? You just said you been askin for that change for 5yrs. So the ansewer is yes you did.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 9, 2014 14:47:08 GMT -5
Shawn I agree with you that big changes should start the following season That is what we're doing. I don't even have new rosters/ratings up on the website yet, the season ended 6 days ago! It's not just before FA, hell we're weeks away from that. The fact that you decided to make deals literally a day or two after the season ended is irrelevant, the season ended and now we're discussing rule changes for the next season, that's how it works.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 9, 2014 14:55:59 GMT -5
I said I didn't have a problem with it. Shawn is whining about salary not me, why do i get singled out. You said, "Shawn I agree with you that big changes should start the following season, not just before FA.", and that is what we're doing, so what's the issue?
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 9, 2014 15:14:45 GMT -5
How bout we just change the RFA comp rule now, and leave the RFA payscale for next off season, leaving the cap as it is. One really has nothing to do with the other, so instead of creating a whole new mess with raising the payscale let's give everyone next season to adjust for the change going into 15-16.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 9, 2014 15:25:52 GMT -5
How bout we just change the RFA comp rule now, and leave the RFA payscale for next off season, leaving the cap as it is. One really has nothing to do with the other, so instead of creating a whole new mess with raising the payscale let's give everyone next season to adjust for the change going into 15-16. Personally I would like to see it happen all at once. Even if we made this decision last season for the upcoming season I really don't think teams would have done anything differently. Shawn would have still tried his best to trade for players that were going to try and help him win and it's not like teams would have been dumping players off left and right. Even if we put these rules in now it will still be a while before we get to FA so teams will have more than enough time to prepare.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 9, 2014 15:49:36 GMT -5
I kind of agree that it should all happen at once, but I think a re-examination of the salary cap should be a part of the process. As Jon says, there is still lots of time for GMs to adjust to any changes.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 9, 2014 16:03:44 GMT -5
So in short, the rule keeps RFAs off the market by forcing GMs to sign them.... that just doesn't make sense.
Right now all this rule does is force GMs to wait until after FA to make trades. It is an unnecessary restriction. It has no impact on the availability of RFAs in this league. For every RFA is frees up because a GM can't afford them, several more are taken off the market by the forced resign.
And why all of the sudden is it bad for a GM to make trades to ensure their team can afford to keep key players?? That is called doing your job!
Maybe I should just be happy with compensation finally getting changed to salary based, but I do think the no trading RFA/forced re-sign rule is another one we will re-visit in 5 years and ask ourselves "why did we do that?".
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 9, 2014 16:05:09 GMT -5
And I agree it should happen all at once. It is not a major change, despite the amount of discussion it is getting.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 16:14:02 GMT -5
So in short, the rule keeps RFAs off the market by forcing GMs to sign them.... that just doesn't make sense. Right now all this rule does is force GMs to wait until after FA to make trades. It is an unnecessary restriction. It has no impact on the availability of RFAs in this league. For every RFA is frees up because a GM can't afford them, several more are taken off the market by the forced resign. And why all of the sudden is it bad for a GM to make trades to ensure their team can afford to keep key players?? That is called doing your job! Maybe I should just be happy with compensation finally getting changed to salary based, but I do think the no trading RFA/forced re-sign rule is another one we will re-visit in 5 years and ask ourselves "why did we do that?". The only players being kept off the market are those players that are traded or players GMs choose to "franchise" by using the re-sign on them. There is a penalty for re-signing and keeping the player off the market. It does force GMs to wait until after FA…that is again, part of the point. You shouldn't have to trade away an RFA to keep key players, simply do not sign that player in question.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 9, 2014 16:16:56 GMT -5
I agree with Jake, about the ability to trade more than one RFA. I know there are or were (probably) good reasons for the rule, but I hate anything that restricts my ability to do my job as a GM. I also don't think a team acquiring an RFA should have to automatically use their resign to sign him. You are acquiring an asset, and if you want to expose that asset to a potential offer sheet, I think that should be your choice as a Manager.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 16:22:57 GMT -5
I agree with Jake, about the ability to trade more than one RFA. I know there are or were (probably) good reasons for the rule, but I hate anything that restricts my ability to do my job as a GM. I also don't think a team acquiring an RFA should have to automatically use their resign to sign him. You are acquiring an asset, and if you want to expose that asset to a potential offer sheet, I think that should be your choice as a Manager. Also, again…part of this rule is related to new GMs entering the league. Every year (this year is no different) we have new GMs…new GMs which can fuck up their new team with great skill if they wanted. I'd personally rather wait till FA anyway to do any trading, so I know who I have signed….but thats me. Seriously people, should we just remove RFA from the message board completely? Just forget compensation and everything entirely and just have no contracts until 32 years old? Seems like everyone wants to change the rules so no RFAs will ever have even a CHANCE to switch teams, its going to make shit really boring. You want higher comp…okay, we'll have higher comp…nobody is going to bid this year anyway. Now you want to make it so less RFAs are even listed in the first place. Higher comp + less RFAs = No bids.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 9, 2014 16:27:17 GMT -5
Also, again…part of this rule is related to new GMs entering the league. Every year (this year is no different) we have new GMs…new GMs which can fuck up their new team with great skill if they wanted. I'd personally rather wait till FA anyway to do any trading, so I know who I have signed….but thats me. Seriously people, should we just remove RFA from the message board completely? Just forget compensation and everything entirely and just have no contracts until 32 years old? Seems like everyone wants to change the rules so no RFAs will ever have even a CHANCE to switch teams, its going to make shit really boring. Gavin, I don't see how these new rule proposals make it any less likely that offer sheets will be made. We have very few under the current rules. I think by not forcing GMs to use their resigns on guys they trade for puts more potential RFA's in play. And I definitely think that improved compensation will cause GMs to think twice before matching huge offer sheets. So I'm thinking the number of RFA's who move or could potentially move might increase.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 9, 2014 16:33:06 GMT -5
Also, again…part of this rule is related to new GMs entering the league. Every year (this year is no different) we have new GMs…new GMs which can fuck up their new team with great skill if they wanted. I'd personally rather wait till FA anyway to do any trading, so I know who I have signed….but thats me. Seriously people, should we just remove RFA from the message board completely? Just forget compensation and everything entirely and just have no contracts until 32 years old? Seems like everyone wants to change the rules so no RFAs will ever have even a CHANCE to switch teams, its going to make shit really boring. Gavin, I don't see how these new rule proposals make it any less likely that offer sheets will be made. We have very few under the current rules. I think by not forcing GMs to use their resigns on guys they trade for puts more potential RFA's in play. And I definitely think that improved compensation will cause GMs to think twice before matching huge offer sheets. So I'm thinking the number of RFA's who move or could potentially move might increase. Joe, no one is going to give up 3- Ist Rd picks and a 2nd to make a 6.5 bid. Which imo would be an average bid, low bids are a waste of time, they will always be matched for a decent player. You want to make a bid that can't be matched by a GM, or why bother.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 16:44:12 GMT -5
Gavin, I don't see how these new rule proposals make it any less likely that offer sheets will be made. We have very few under the current rules. I think by not forcing GMs to use their resigns on guys they trade for puts more potential RFA's in play. And I definitely think that improved compensation will cause GMs to think twice before matching huge offer sheets. So I'm thinking the number of RFA's who move or could potentially move might increase. Joe, no one is going to give up 3- Ist Rd picks and a 2nd to make a 6.5 bid. Which imo would be an average bid, low bids are a waste of time, they will always be matched for a decent player. You want to make a bid that can't be matched by a GM, or why bother. Thats pretty much my feeling on the matter. We could set the highest tier a little higher, but unless your bid is 7-10m there is basically 0% chance that player won't just be automatically re-signed by its owning team. If I have a 70 OV player in RFA who is set to make 3m. If someone bids 4.5, why would I not just match that? If its a 10m bid, I have some thinking to do…but with just a minor price raise? I'd be dumb to not just match. So basically any and every player in RFA now has probably a three 1st round pick asking price and thats a LOT. I know myself, personally, with maybe the odd 69-67 OV player being bid on to simply raise their salary and maybe get a prospect for a 3rd round pick, I have no intention of even looking at the names listed on RFA (minus my own guys, who I won't be using my re-sign on). Nobody is going anywhere. We don't want a lot of RFAs moving around prior to FA, thats why there is a restriction. We force the re-sign because it basically handcuffs you to that player you traded for. We don't want people trading RFAs then just NOT signing them, you want that player so badly you MUST trade for him before FA starts? Pay a penalty.
|
|