|
Post by WHALERS_GM_AL on Jul 3, 2016 17:53:46 GMT -5
I also feel that it could use a bit of a change...
But what about the team that is on the bubble to be a playoff contender for a few years, and is looking for that top player to sign to a multiple year???
For example, team A has been on the bubble for the past few season of being a legitimate playoff/cup contender, and is missing that one player to solidify his position; That player becomes available as a UFAs, so team A makes a bid of a multiple season as a high enough salary, making team A the leader for getting said player... But then, team B comes along and offers a 1 year/10 mil contract, which make the player sign with team B, because team A cannot top that...
There goes the chance for team of getting the player they want because there will be that 1 yr/10 mil contract that has to potential of surface...
Making some changes will help teams land that missing piece and for multiple years at well..
Just my thought....
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Jul 3, 2016 19:41:24 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? Id say that's extreme examples though. If a GM is going to give a player 1 yr @ 10 mil, I'm willing to bet there's another GM who'd do, say 2 yrs @ 8mil or more. *** If there's no appetite to change, I'm fine with that. But the argument above is not sound. Just as a player wouldn't take a 4yr/5.1mil per offer over a 2yr/10mil per year offer, that same player would take 2 yrs @ 9 mil per yr over 1yr @ 10 mil... *** I know, not an easy solution to this one. Just thought it would make for some good discussion. I really think the total contract value would balance things (and bids) out, but maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 3, 2016 19:53:30 GMT -5
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? Just as a player would take a 4yr/5.1mil per offer over a 2yr/10mil per year offer, that same player would take 2 yrs @ 9 mil per yr over 1yr @ 10 mil... What I was trying to say is that I don't feel that a player would take 4yrs @ 5.1mil per over 2yrs @ 10mil per even though the first contract has a higher total value.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Jul 3, 2016 23:19:22 GMT -5
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? Just as a player would take a 4yr/5.1mil per offer over a 2yr/10mil per year offer, that same player would take 2 yrs @ 9 mil per yr over 1yr @ 10 mil... What I was trying to say is that I don't feel that a player would take 4yrs @ 5.1mil per over 2yrs @ 10mil per even though the first contract has a higher total value. I agree Jon - I edited my post - I meant "wouldn't" [Obviously clouding my own stance with confusing posts!...lol..]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 23:47:39 GMT -5
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? Just as a player would take a 4yr/5.1mil per offer over a 2yr/10mil per year offer, that same player would take 2 yrs @ 9 mil per yr over 1yr @ 10 mil... What I was trying to say is that I don't feel that a player would take 4yrs @ 5.1mil per over 2yrs @ 10mil per even though the first contract has a higher total value. I think if there was going to be a rule like this there should be a percentage rule. Lets say 25% for this scenario as an example. If Team A bids 1y@10M and team B offers more over 2 years it should be within 25% of the yearly salary. So if team B wants to lure the FA away he would have to bid multiple years inside 25% of offered salary (7.5M per year). So team B would bid 2y@7.5M. This also means that if team C comes in and wants to make another bid they have to beat team B and be within 25% of team A (the highest bid), so they could offer 2y@8M or 3y@7.75. This could be used for any contract but it might help the people snagging one year deals with 10M. If it were a real player he wouldnt sell himself for half the money per term that someone else (team A) thinks he's worth for an extra year, but maybe if it was close enough (25%) he might go.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Jul 4, 2016 10:12:44 GMT -5
What I was trying to say is that I don't feel that a player would take 4yrs @ 5.1mil per over 2yrs @ 10mil per even though the first contract has a higher total value. I think if there was going to be a rule like this there should be a percentage rule. Lets say 25% for this scenario as an example. If Team A bids 1y@10M and team B offers more over 2 years it should be within 25% of the yearly salary. So if team B wants to lure the FA away he would have to bid multiple years inside 25% of offered salary (7.5M per year). So team B would bid 2y@7.5M. This also means that if team C comes in and wants to make another bid they have to beat team B and be within 25% of team A (the highest bid), so they could offer 2y@8M or 3y@7.75. This could be used for any contract but it might help the people snagging one year deals with 10M. If it were a real player he wouldnt sell himself for half the money per term that someone else (team A) thinks he's worth for an extra year, but maybe if it was close enough (25%) he might go. Good idea. Probably too much effort to regulate/enforce. Total value for entire contract, I feel, would see this happen anyhow. If one GM feels a player deserving of 1 yr $10 mil contract, surely at least one other GM will value the same guy at least 2 (or more) yrs @ 7.5 mil per. So, I think things would ultimately balance out and the percentage value would naturally occur. Is this vote worthy? or does Jon & Gavin & others feel strongly we should simply keep things as is. (I've been waiting for >10 yrs for this one, so can wait longer...lol...would live to see it tried one yr as a trial though at some point...)
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 5, 2016 3:21:33 GMT -5
I think if there was going to be a rule like this there should be a percentage rule. Lets say 25% for this scenario as an example. If Team A bids 1y@10M and team B offers more over 2 years it should be within 25% of the yearly salary. So if team B wants to lure the FA away he would have to bid multiple years inside 25% of offered salary (7.5M per year). So team B would bid 2y@7.5M. This also means that if team C comes in and wants to make another bid they have to beat team B and be within 25% of team A (the highest bid), so they could offer 2y@8M or 3y@7.75. This could be used for any contract but it might help the people snagging one year deals with 10M. If it were a real player he wouldnt sell himself for half the money per term that someone else (team A) thinks he's worth for an extra year, but maybe if it was close enough (25%) he might go. Good idea. Probably too much effort to regulate/enforce. Total value for entire contract, I feel, would see this happen anyhow. If one GM feels a player deserving of 1 yr $10 mil contract, surely at least one other GM will value the same guy at least 2 (or more) yrs @ 7.5 mil per. So, I think things would ultimately balance out and the percentage value would naturally occur. Is this vote worthy? or does Jon & Gavin & others feel strongly we should simply keep things as is. (I've been waiting for >10 yrs for this one, so can wait longer...lol...would live to see it tried one yr as a trial though at some point...) Isles: It's an interesting concept but we already have a hard enough time keeping GMs from bidding with money they don't have and keeping within the bidding guidelines. I could see something like that becoming a huge mess and creating a cascade effect with invalid bids that would just create havoc. Flames: Total value for the contract just doesn't work. 1 year @ 9mil (9mil total value) Vs. 4 years @ 2.5mil (10mil total value) doesn't make sense why the player would choose the 4-year deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 10:17:47 GMT -5
I agree with Chris in the OP but I can see how it could end up being a nightmare trying to manage what contract is better or the percentage of money issues. It would be nice to have some sort of system in place to try and make some decisions more realistic but I just don't see how that works. Like Eug I was in a league that tried Agents and I found that to be very ineffective. However I do agree with Edm that TB should be given an advantage in FA and that my bids should be allowed to be 20% of other teams bids and be considered better! It's unrealistic, but so is a player choosing Edmonton over Tampa. There's no state income tax in Florida.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Jul 5, 2016 11:07:05 GMT -5
I would be all for balancing out the rules, but i think we got to this state by having exactly this discussion.
The two simplest ways to police this are AAV and Total contract value. Between the two extremes IMO AAV is more realistic, though both lead to some absurd conclusions (3 years at 3.35 mil beating 1 year 10 mil or 10 mil 1 year beating 3 years 9 mil).
The issue with all the middle routes is that they are very hard to police, and would take up a shitload of someones time. If theres an appetite to go from one extreme to the other, I think that would make for a good league wide vote, but unless theres someone willing to police bids for the full 2 weeks of FA, I think the middle ground is kind of off limits. I know im not willing to do it, and it just doesnt seem fair to ask Jon to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Jul 5, 2016 11:19:25 GMT -5
Good idea. Probably too much effort to regulate/enforce. Total value for entire contract, I feel, would see this happen anyhow. If one GM feels a player deserving of 1 yr $10 mil contract, surely at least one other GM will value the same guy at least 2 (or more) yrs @ 7.5 mil per. So, I think things would ultimately balance out and the percentage value would naturally occur. Is this vote worthy? or does Jon & Gavin & others feel strongly we should simply keep things as is. (I've been waiting for >10 yrs for this one, so can wait longer...lol...would live to see it tried one yr as a trial though at some point...) Isles: It's an interesting concept but we already have a hard enough time keeping GMs from bidding with money they don't have and keeping within the bidding guidelines. I could see something like that becoming a huge mess and creating a cascade effect with invalid bids that would just create havoc. Flames: Total value for the contract just doesn't work. 1 year @ 9mil (9mil total value) Vs. 4 years @ 2.5mil (10mil total value) doesn't make sense why the player would choose the 4-year deal. No worries. Can just leave it I guess. I thought it would approximate want GMs currently go through in consideration of offering contracts. The term can handcuff just as much or more than the yearly dollar value. I do feel you're using extreme examples to argue your point. I think any player who gets a big of 1 yr @ $9 mil would see a much more substantial offer from other GMs and there would be no worry whatsoever that a player settles for 4 yrs @ $2.5 mil. I'd be willing to bet that player would get 3-4 yrs @ 7.5 mil in the least as alternate bids, maybe more. I'll leave it to rest now. No big deal either way. (I just saw this done in another league I was in years ago that did it by total contract and it worked quite well, with interesting strategy in the bidding process. I don't recall any winning bids even close to the example Jon notes.)
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 5, 2016 12:37:15 GMT -5
No worries. Can just leave it I guess. I thought it would approximate want GMs currently go through in consideration of offering contracts. The term can handcuff just as much or more than the yearly dollar value. I do feel you're using extreme examples to argue your point. I think any player who gets a big of 1 yr @ $9 mil would see a much more substantial offer from other GMs and there would be no worry whatsoever that a player settles for 4 yrs @ $2.5 mil. I'd be willing to bet that player would get 3-4 yrs @ 7.5 mil in the least as alternate bids, maybe more. I'll leave it to rest now. No big deal either way. (I just saw this done in another league I was in years ago that did it by total contract and it worked quite well, with interesting strategy in the bidding process. I don't recall any winning bids even close to the example Jon notes.) Yes it is an extreme example but it's also not unrealistic. During FA GMs love to nickel and dime bids, so if on day 1 someone drops a 1yr/10mil bid then why would I increase the years when I can just bid 3yrs/3.34mil and have the high bid? I now have 6mil less tied up for bidding than the original bidder and in addition I have the high bid, and in reality no player would turn down 1yr/10mil for 3yrs/3.34mil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 15:01:37 GMT -5
I don't mind the way it is being able to throw a lot of money at a UFA for one year. One downside of having to compete with that rule would be that there would be more UFAs getting slightly less money but having longer contracts. That can burn a team a year or 2 down the road if they are stuck with a UFA on the decline.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 5, 2016 15:25:24 GMT -5
I do think overall shorter more expensive contracts are better for the UFA market in general. I know everyone wants to sign all their players forever, but we need some sorta rotating market or it'll become barren and then really bad players will start getting bid higher than they really deserve, which compounds the issue even more.
Another issue is one Jon alluded too earlier, which is 1y/10m vs 3y/3.34m and how we tally those salaries on the team, since salaries are tallied on a year to year basis, it would always make sense to go long and nickel and dime from there than ever start high and short. Its also way harder to track bids when a player goes from 3y/3m to 2y/5.1m to 3y/3.5m. (at this point, nobody could offer a 1 year contract, as 1/10m is already outbid which I don't think is good at all), then 2y/5.3m....etc etc. Thats really hard to track and really complicates things, in reality it would be pretty dumb to do those 2 year style bids as you lose out on more bidding cash, so it would just start and stop at max year contracts. So really we'd just have 3y/3m, then 3y/3.1m, then 3y/3.2m. Since the "total" doesn't really matter to the league finances, since again thats done year by year, so it makes the most sense to ALWAYS bid this way if we changed it as suggested. This really limits us to the kinda contracts we can sign and doesn't allow a team "on the cusp" to spend their spare 10m on a good player without having to make it a max year deal and possibly screw him over for at least 2 years after he wanted the player in the first place.
So, all in all, I think its a bad move to change it.
You will see all players with 3 year contracts, and 100k raises from there on EVERY UFA player. Its the only thing that makes sense given the proposed change.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 5, 2016 22:39:39 GMT -5
Anyone want to talk about using morale this season? :::::diversion tactic:::::
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 5, 2016 22:44:32 GMT -5
I'm ready to try morale.
|
|