|
Post by Hawks on Jul 10, 2014 12:19:28 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 Umm, yeah…no Driving up a price is basically the only way to sign a player out of RFA, penalizing a team for bidding would DEFINITELY end all RFA bidding forever.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Jul 10, 2014 12:46:05 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 Umm, yeah…no Driving up a price is basically the only way to sign a player out of RFA, penalizing a team for bidding would DEFINITELY end all RFA bidding forever. I really don't care just felt like saying something today! LOL
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 10, 2014 13:32:47 GMT -5
Its likely the 1m cap increase will be permanent, since the changes to the pay scale would also be permanent. Thats not much of an argument lol! Im not even sure if you understand my logic. Basically, if we raise the cap its the same thing as lowering all current salaries, when what we are trying to do is make RFA salaries more fair. We should leave the cap as is, and either phase the salary change in next year, or just have a temporarilty higher cap to allow teams to adjust.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 10, 2014 13:37:07 GMT -5
Well, I wanted to raise the top end salaries a bit while also making them more in line with the new comp. The cap increase is something we were thinking about maybe doing anyway, this is just a good excuse to go ahead and do it. Its also suppose to help alleviate the higher salaries while also giving teams not against the cap a little extra spending room as well.
We could NOT raise the cap too, but from the backlash on it only being 1m, I doubt that would fly.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 10, 2014 13:44:21 GMT -5
Actually Gavin, if you and Jon think $1 million is enough, I'm happy with it. My quick analysis indicated that it could cause some cap crunches for some of the better teams and that maybe a little bigger raise would be appropriate. But I can work with what ever you decide.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 10, 2014 13:57:59 GMT -5
Hey, even the NHL has to pay its superstars 10m+ a season (Toews and Kane). Those teams should expect a bit more of a crunch, while the lesser teams will see more benefit. End result: Stronger competition.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 10, 2014 14:08:23 GMT -5
I think we've talked this to death...partly my fault...lol. I think we should put the chart you and Jon proposed to a vote with the $1 million cap increase and the elimination of the 90% matching option. Then we can move onto other issues. I would support your chart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 15:13:18 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 WHOA!... so you get penalized, even if you DON'T get the player.. .strictly for bidding on him?? Yeah.. that'll REALLY make everyone want to bid more on RFA's lol. I think we have to establish what the purpose of this is. I understand Jon's purpose for changing it to a Salary base... so it takes out the possibility of someone being robbed of proper compensation for a franchise type player. Gavin wants to see more player movement... so is that what we're going for? If it's more player movement.. then i guess increasing the cap permanently would be the way to go if you'd wanna see more RFA bids.. but i wouldnt be in favour of increasing the cap. Just gives a "bail out" to any GM who hasnt been responsible with their money. So in short, I'm in favour of moving to the salary base.. but no penalty on RFA bids.. and no raise on the cap. You dont need to raise the cap to spend more money, you just need to manage your money better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 15:14:00 GMT -5
And we only have 23 votes on a league wide issue. I think that alone is a Role Call in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 10, 2014 15:20:34 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 WHOA!... so you get penalized, even if you DON'T get the player.. .strictly for bidding on him?? Yeah.. that'll REALLY make everyone want to bid more on RFA's lol. I think we have to establish what the purpose of this is. I understand Jon's purpose for changing it to a Salary base... so it takes out the possibility of someone being robbed of proper compensation for a franchise type player. Gavin wants to see more player movement... so is that what we're going for? If it's more player movement.. then i guess increasing the cap permanently would be the way to go if you'd wanna see more RFA bids.. but i wouldnt be in favour of increasing the cap. Just gives a "bail out" to any GM who hasnt been responsible with their money. So in short, I'm in favour of moving to the salary base.. but no penalty on RFA bids.. and no raise on the cap. You dont need to raise the cap to spend more money, you just need to manage your money better. Remember, the cap increase is mostly about the pay scale change and no other reason.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 10, 2014 15:35:47 GMT -5
So just to recap where we're at with the proposed rule changes:
-change to salary based compensation -adjust RFA pay scale to match the proposed compensation structure -increase the cap by 1M -get rid of the automatic resign rule for a traded RFA -get rid of the 90% match rule
Is that it, or did I miss something?
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 10, 2014 15:45:16 GMT -5
So just to recap where we're at with the proposed rule changes: -change to salary based compensation -adjust RFA pay scale to match the proposed compensation structure -increase the cap by 1M -get rid of the automatic resign rule for a traded RFA -get rid of the 90% match rule Is that it, or did I miss something? Also teams 1 RFA re-sign down to 25% salary increase from 35%. I'm going to make an official post in a few with all the changes.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 10, 2014 19:07:09 GMT -5
Will the be a cap on the number of RFAs you can trade before free agency?
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 11, 2014 15:05:19 GMT -5
Will the be a cap on the number of RFAs you can trade before free agency? No
|
|