|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Jul 2, 2016 12:39:06 GMT -5
One I'd like to revist (may have brought this up a time or six in the past...lol).
For FA bids, I still like the idea of total dollar value winning the bid rather than highest salary for whatever term.
For instance,
4 yrs at 7 mil per (28 mil total) bid beats 2 yrs at 10 mil per or 3 yrs at 9 mil per
Think it helps: - create more strategic bidding - help prevent the trend of giving UFAs 1 yr, 10 mil $ contracts (i.e. less realistic)
I know others feel different about this, but wanted to get the lay of the land again...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 13:11:37 GMT -5
I love the one year $10 million contract. Puts the player back in the UFA pool the following year. Rewards teams for building with cheap young players and just putting the last couple pieces in place. Lots of ways to build a team, and eliminating this strategy I think would create some stagnation. I'd rather have Martin St. Louis for 1 year and $10 million than two years and $5.25 per. I don't want him on my team this year at $5.25. And if someone does that, it hinders them the following year with $5.25 tied up for someone shitty. I think it should still be higher value for the year. It's unrealistic, but so is a player choosing Edmonton over Tampa. There's no state income tax in Florida. And maybe it's not so unrealistic. If you had one year and $10 million in hand, why would you take 4 years at $3 million per? Or two years and $5.25 per? You'd be a UFA again in a year and can cash in. There, I talked myself into keeping it dollars per season. Happy Canada Day
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 2, 2016 13:34:21 GMT -5
I agree with Chris. I definitely don't think a player is turning down 3 years @ $8 or $9 million contract for a 1-year $10 million dollar offer.
My idea has been to allow teams to offer 10% less for each additional year offered and still be considered a better bid. For instance.
A 2 years @ $9 million, would be better than 1 year @ $10 million. Or 3 years @ $8 million or 4 years @ $7 million.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 2, 2016 13:41:10 GMT -5
I agree with Chris. I definitely don't think a player is turning down 3 years @ $8 or $9 million contract for a 1-year $10 million dollar offer. My idea has been to allow teams to offer 10% less for each additional year offered and still be considered a better bid. For instance. A 2 years @ $9 million, would be better than 1 year @ $10 million. Or 3 years @ $8 million or 4 years @ $7 million. Are you volunteering to police bids to make sure they add up? Seems like a lot of work lol
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 2, 2016 13:49:07 GMT -5
It's really all opinion what each GM thinks a player would rather take. Me personally, I'd rather have a 2 year/10mil per contract than 4 years/5.1mil per. The way we have it setup now eliminates "what would a player do" and just makes things "simple" so to speak.
But yes, I would rather have a 3 year/9mil per deal rather than a 1 year/10mil deal. But who is going to make these decisions for a "fictional" player? That's why it's just easier to have one rule across the board.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 2, 2016 13:51:36 GMT -5
I would volunteer, but I don't think it would that difficult to police. I think any easy to follow chart could be developed. Plus I'm relatively confident that most of us are capable of simple mathematical calculations.
My point was Chris has a valid point, and I was just suggesting one possible way we could re-work the rule. Someone else might have a better idea.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 2, 2016 21:28:01 GMT -5
Plus I'm relatively confident that most of us are capable of simple mathematical calculations. . I don't know about that... we regularly have GMs making bids with money they don't have! I agree that the 1 year/ 10 million contract has become a major loop hole in the league that every smart GM has been taking advantage of. If there was a simple solution that is easily implemented I would be in favour too.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Jul 3, 2016 15:18:04 GMT -5
Agree with Jon here, without having "player agents" there's really no easy way to make a subjective decision for a free agent. A league I was in before the J, long long time ago in a galaxy far away, had some GMs acting as player agents, I recall it becoming a big, biased mess.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 3, 2016 15:24:25 GMT -5
Agree with Jon here, without having "player agents" there's really no easy way to make a subjective decision for a free agent. A league I was in before the J, long long time ago in a galaxy far away, had some GMs acting as player agents, I recall it becoming a big, biased mess. I'm not asking anyone to make subjective decisions about the quality of offers. Just some common sense guidelines to make things a little more realistic. No player in any universe is taking a 1-year, $10 million dollar contract over a 3-year, $24 million dollar deal. Why are we rewarding GMs who don't want to make a long-term commitment to a player over a team that is willing to do that?
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Jul 3, 2016 15:54:23 GMT -5
I think using total value of the contract offered takes subjectiveness out of it.
I really think that the $$ per yr will still be close for multi-yr contracts as compared to the 1 yr, $10 mil (or close) contracts.
No need for the 'player agent' perspective.
Some GMs may like the 1 yr-$10 mil contracts, and maybe does recycle FAs, but not very realistic...
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 3, 2016 16:27:27 GMT -5
I agree there are some scenarios where a player would take less money per year on a multi-year contract for a higher total money amount, but not every scenario is cut and dry.
In my world I would take 1yr/10mil over 3yrs/3.4mil per year even though obviously I get more total money over 3-years.
You have to remember that just because a GM offers 1yr/10mil doesn't mean you can't offer 2 years, it's up to you if you want to make that commitment or not.
It doesn't really make sense to say to use the total value of the contract. Why would a player take a 4yr/5.1mil per offer over a 2yr/10mil per year offer?
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 3, 2016 16:33:18 GMT -5
I agree there are some scenarios where a player would take less money per year on a multi-year contract for a higher total money amount, but not every scenario is cut and dry. In my world I would take 1yr/10mil over 3yrs/3.4mil per year even though obviously I get more total money over 3-years. You have to remember that just because a GM offers 1yr/10mil doesn't mean you can't offer 2 years, it's up to you if you want to make that commitment or not. It doesn't really make sense to say to use the total value of the contract. Why would a player take a 4yr/5.1mil per offer over a 2yr/10mil per year offer? I agree with you, Jon. I wouldn't want a 4-year $5.1 million deal to beat a 2-year, $10 million dollar deal either. But I do think a 4-year, $34 million dollar deal should probably be accepted over a 2-year, $20 million dollar deal
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 3, 2016 17:09:20 GMT -5
I agree with you, Jon. I wouldn't want a 4-year $5.1 million deal to beat a 2-year, $10 million dollar deal either. But I do think a 4-year, $34 million dollar deal should probably be accepted over a 2-year, $20 million dollar deal I agree, I would take 4yrs/8.5mil per over 2yrs/10mil per, but then the questions become.....1. How would you and who would police that? and 2. How do you create that tipping point where priority of acceptance by the fictional player is established?
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 3, 2016 17:18:53 GMT -5
We'll have a few new guys to keep an eye on during FA this season til they get the hang of it, so let's not make it to complicated this season. Chances are if you have a really good team, you can't afford 10 million dollar bids, 10 mil bids have declined the last few seasons, it can really hurt your cap space and tie your hands , also that doesn't make sense for a none playoff contender.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 3, 2016 17:52:50 GMT -5
We really don't have enough contract issues like this to validate the reason for the change. Usually 1-year 10 million is re-raised by 2 years then 3 years, etc. I don't recall right now but have we had ANY contract issues like this in the last few years? I don't personally recall any discussion about a bad signing that didn't make much sense, so it seems like a unnecessary change the just complicates things.
|
|