|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 9, 2014 16:52:54 GMT -5
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. I like most aspects of your other proposal Gavin, and not saying there isn't an argument for forced RFA resigns, but I don't get this bit of logic at all. If you trade assets for another asset, shouldn't you have the choice of how to manage it. No one is going to trade for a player, give away assets and doing nothing with it. Why would you bother trading for a player and not sign him? Is that a real risk?
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 9, 2014 17:08:36 GMT -5
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. I like most aspects of your other proposal Gavin, and not saying there isn't an argument for forced RFA resigns, but I don't get this bit of logic at all. If you trade assets for another asset, shouldn't you have the choice of how to manage it. No one is going to trade for a player, give away assets and doing nothing with it. Why would you bother trading for a player and not sign him? Is that a real risk? These have been added safe guards through the years, to protect teams from GM's that have done some real fucked up stuff. You wouldn't believe what guys do when they get pissed off. Also we don't want salary dumping of FA's during FA.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 9, 2014 17:28:57 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. Likewise, no one is going to accept a 3rd round pick for a franchise player like Spezza, or two 1st round picks for a franchise player. Right now, most RFA bids only serve to inflate salaries, because there is zero chance they will be accepted. You and Gavin are fighting really hard to keep rules that have resulted in the movement of, what, one RFA per year on average in league history? It could be even less. You guys say you want to encourage more RFA movement, yet you are not willing to change rules that seem to discourage it. I just don't get it. The proposed rule changes will increase the likelihood GMs will accept compensation. They will ensure players like Spezza qualify for appropriate amount of compensation. They will stop forced resigns which will keep RFAs on the market. They will give GMs the freedom to make trades at any time in the off season.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 9, 2014 19:09:13 GMT -5
It is interesting you bring up Anisimov when your RFA bid was not even successful! The GM decided the compensation was not enough. Anisimov is a perfect example where the GM may have let the player go if compensation was higher. You even eventually gave what pretty much was the equivalent of two 1sts and a 2nd, since you gave Dillon, a 1st, and a 2nd.... the same compensation you say now is completely unreasonable!
We will never agree on the compensation issue, but it doesn't matter. A vote has been made and the vast majority of the league sided with salary-based compensation. Although I am not in charge, I think it is safe to say that the league will be moving forward with salary-based compensation.
I'd like to focus on the RFA trading rules. They just don't make sense. Initially you and Gavin claimed they were to increase RFA movement, but there is currently no RFA movement between teams. Now you guys have sidestepped and are saying this rule somehow prevents new GMs from screwing up their teams. First, I don't see how the RFA trading rules do anything to mitigate that. Second, if you are concerned about new GMs how about applying this rule only to new GMs, and not to the rest of us who have been here for years! Furthermore, we have a trade voting system which is supposed to prevented lopsided deals. New GMs tend to have their trades more closely scrutinized.
Let GMs trade players whenever they want (outside of the trade deadline of course!). Ray, you said several times on the trade voting issue that league should not be able to tell teams what they can and cannot do. Well that is exactly what the RFA trading rules are doing.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 9, 2014 19:26:34 GMT -5
Actually it was successful, but I decided to give him a break. Maybe you'll remember Chris commenting about it. The Canes didn't want to be strapped all season and he had other RFA'S to sign, so I cut him some slack and made him an offer he couldn't refuse, and he cut me a break with the salary, instead of 5.5, I payed 4.5, sweet deal all the way around.
Anyway I would never have made the offer under the new format, i couldn't, I only had one 1st. There is nothing wrong if we both see it diferent. I think it will be interesting to see how it all goes. I hope it's all good, buddy. Lookin forward. I see both points of view. BTW I don't think I said anything about the league running my team except being told how many times i can use my goalie.Those things are usually up to the boss anyway. I don't remember saying that about trade voting. I think that was Ron, I like our system.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 21:16:49 GMT -5
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. Likewise, no one is going to accept a 3rd round pick for a franchise player like Spezza, or two 1st round picks for a franchise player. Right now, most RFA bids only serve to inflate salaries, because there is zero chance they will be accepted. You and Gavin are fighting really hard to keep rules that have resulted in the movement of, what, one RFA per year on average in league history? It could be even less. You guys say you want to encourage more RFA movement, yet you are not willing to change rules that seem to discourage it. I just don't get it. The proposed rule changes will increase the likelihood GMs will accept compensation. They will ensure players like Spezza qualify for appropriate amount of compensation. They will stop forced resigns which will keep RFAs on the market. They will give GMs the freedom to make trades at any time in the off season. I'm actually NOT fighting to keep the rules the same. However I don't think any of the new rules will actually increase RFA movement. This idea that because comp is now based on salary, all the sudden it'll be accepted is funny though. There will be less bids than before, unless people go out of there way to bid just to prove me wrong. There is less reason to bid than ever before. Requires more money, more picks, and has about the same chance to be matched, 99%. We've maybe increased the likelihood comp will be accepted...I don't think this is really true, but maybe. We have however made it harder to bid. Should probably just remove the re-sign rule completely, as its only use over the last couple years has been on trades, if we remove that, it'll never be used at all, so might as well get rid of it. Force ALL RFAs into FA.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 9, 2014 22:22:07 GMT -5
I would prefer fewer bids on RFAs, than more bids that have zero chance of being successful that just end up driving up prices. I honestly have no idea whether or not there will be more or less bids with the changes. I do think there will be more successful bids (key word there) with the changes. I'm fine with forcing all RFAs into FA... that is why I suggested getting rid of the 35% auto resign on traded RFAs. I just want to be able to trade for them or trade them away before hand if I want! I just don't see the point in forcing people to wait until after free agency to make trades for unsigned RFAs. Completely pointless restriction IMO. In the future Ray, if you are looking to trade a good young D like Dillon for a first round pick in order to make an RFA bid, send me a message
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 9, 2014 23:06:03 GMT -5
Okay, fuck it, lol.
Perhaps the RFA trade rule has outlived its purpose. We've progressed beyond the need for it. ABOLISH!
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 10, 2014 2:13:23 GMT -5
Just to clarify, I actually think adjusting the pay scale is a good idea, but if we make the adjustment, I think we need a larger salary cap increase than $ 1 million. If you're going to inflate 20-25% of the players' salaries, teams are going to need more cap room to accomodate that. With some salaries going up and some going down in regards to the new salary scale it really evens itself out for the most part. I picked your team since I'm replying to you and I know not everyone will be the same, but across the board I don't think it's as drastic as you think it is. Here are your FAs for this offseason..... Current Salary Scale/Proposed Salary Scale: Ryan O'Reilly (72OV) - 4mil/5mil Ryan Kesler (71OV) - 3.5mil/4mil Ben Lovejoy (68OV) - 2mil/1mil Josh Harding (76OV) - 1mil/500k Total: 10.5mil/10.5mil = Even + 1mil cap increase = +1mil in cap room
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 10, 2014 3:02:29 GMT -5
Just to clarify, I actually think adjusting the pay scale is a good idea, but if we make the adjustment, I think we need a larger salary cap increase than $ 1 million. If you're going to inflate 20-25% of the players' salaries, teams are going to need more cap room to accomodate that. With some salaries going up and some going down in regards to the new salary scale it really evens itself out for the most part. I picked your team since I'm replying to you and I know not everyone will be the same, but across the board I don't think it's as drastic as you think it is. Here are your FAs for this offseason..... Current Salary Scale/Proposed Salary Scale: Ryan O'Reilly (72OV) - 4mil/5mil Ryan Kesler (71OV) - 3.5mil/4mil Ben Lovejoy (68OV) - 2mil/1mil Josh Harding (76OV) - 1mil/500k Total: 10.5mil/10.5mil = Even + 1mil cap increase = +1mil in cap room I agree, Jon, that it's probably not a big problem for me, at this time. I'm a rebuilding team with a lack of players who have big ratings. I was more thinking about the Top 10 clubs, one of which I hope to be in the next couple of years. I bet if you did the same exercise with Calgary, Chicago, Edmonton or Montreal, you might get different results. And I'm not talking about increasing the cap by $10 million or anything. One thing I really like about our rules is the constant cap. It took me a while to feel that way, but I think if you keep all the other rules the same, the cap should remain unchanged. It creates an environment that makes players move and stops salaries from rising uncontrollably. But when you adjust the pay scale, you have to adjust the cap as well, IMO. So I'm thinking a $3 million dollar increase to $60 million and $ 65 million during the deadline/free agency period would be perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 10, 2014 5:07:00 GMT -5
In the future Ray, if you are looking to trade a good young D like Dillon for a first round pick in order to make an RFA bid, send me a message Only if Tavares is the RFA. Besides you seldom have any 1st's.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 10, 2014 9:21:45 GMT -5
You can do it with my roster all you like. I'll have something like 20+ million this off-season and only 2 or 3 RFA re-signs. So I'm not worried about the cap even a little bit. 3 million is a LOT. Thats another 70 OV player at least. I don't think the increase in pay scale is that significant. The old one was honestly way too low, trying to correct that and everyone freaks out cause might have 2 million more in salary against the cap with their 8 players who are rated 74
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 10, 2014 10:37:12 GMT -5
Just putting this out there, but if we are going to do both adjustments this year, and want to raise the cap to do it, I think the cap should shrink back to its old number next year.
The whole point of raising RFA salaries is so that they take up a bigger portion of the cap, so raising the cap in the long term doesnt help us. I do think that if we are changing the rules all at once a cap increase this year is needed, just to bridge the gap, but I would like to see it lowered right back down to 57 mil at the end of next season.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 10, 2014 11:00:13 GMT -5
Its likely the 1m cap increase will be permanent, since the changes to the pay scale would also be permanent.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Jul 10, 2014 12:10:45 GMT -5
Maybe we can put a rule in that if a GM bids on an RFA, whether it is to really get the player or drive up price of RFA, If GM does not get said player, there would be a penalty of 10 to 20 per cent of offer made that goes towards their Cap. For instance if I bid on Player A for 6 MIL and it is matched then I get a 10 to 20% of 6 Mil offer towards my Cap. so I would take a Cap hit of 600 K to 1.2 Mil.....This could stop GMs from driving up prices on overpaid players.
My 2 cents! LOL
|
|