|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 5, 2016 20:39:15 GMT -5
Recently there was a discussion in regards to possibly changing the bidding rules for free agency, link... jghl.proboards.com/thread/7326/potential-rule-changes-discuss-offseasonAs the discussion had GMs on both sides of the debate I wanted to get an overall opinion from the league as not everyone had joined in with their opinion. So please take a moment to read over the discussion in the thread and cast your vote in this poll. I have also included this link to an Excel sheet that Joe (Vancouver) created as an example of a system that could be put in place, it's pretty self explanatory... www.jghl.net/FABidCalculator.xlsx
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Aug 5, 2016 21:46:05 GMT -5
Okay, my mistake, got it open on my Mac What the off-set? Why does 4,666,668/1 year beat 3,333,334/3 years?
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 5, 2016 21:55:16 GMT -5
It's a compromise. We didn't want a system that was based strictly on yearly average, but we also didn't want a system that was based solely on total contract value. My original version favoured total contract value a little more heavily but after discussions with Jon we scaled it back a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Aug 5, 2016 21:58:18 GMT -5
Its not bad, I suppose it may add some flexibility, I just don't feel like we need it THAT badly, it just complicates things a lot more, without the calculator it would be nearly impossible to figure it out yourself, makes bidding quickly harder, makes bidding at all without the calculator very hard. For example, I don't have excel on my PC, just my Numbers on my Mac, so I can ONLY place bids from my mac if we adopt this system, thats really annoying. What about the people posting from a cell phone?
Looks like people like it though.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Aug 5, 2016 22:06:50 GMT -5
Let's please remember we have 4 new gm's, that have never done this before, and for the last week, have been trying to learn the system as it is. You guys that want to change it this year, should be detailed to keep an eye on the bidding from the new GM'S.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 5, 2016 22:17:59 GMT -5
Let's please remember we have 4 new gm's, that have never done this before, and for the last week, have been trying to learn the system as it is. You guys that want to change it this year, should be detailed to keep an eye on the bidding from the new GM'S. I agree, we have 4 new GMs who have never been through our FA before, guys who have been here for years still mess things up, rebuilding Pittsburgh just traded away franchise players for a 2-year rental because he didn't know the free agency age brackets and thought he would be able to re-sign Parise, do we really need to make things more complicated for guys who have never done this before?
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 5, 2016 22:51:41 GMT -5
Changed my vote to figure it out for next season
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Aug 5, 2016 22:58:37 GMT -5
I'm a little concerned that this would reduce the number of decent UFAs available as it would encourage longer contracts. I like that our FA usually has 5-10 real good players available!
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 6, 2016 12:03:30 GMT -5
^Fair enough Jake. Seeing the FA class this year, I tend to agree with the concerns you and Gavin have. Maybe you guys are finally swaying me to the "dark side" - haha. And maybe no need to fix what ain't really broken. If even there were 25-33% less FAs available this offseason, it would make for a pretty scant group. Definitely worthy of discussion and I see both sides of the FA fence, but as the one who brought this up in the first place, think I'm starting to lean towards the leave as is side...
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 6, 2016 12:20:51 GMT -5
Let's please remember we have 4 new gm's, that have never done this before, and for the last week, have been trying to learn the system as it is. You guys that want to change it this year, should be detailed to keep an eye on the bidding from the new GM'S. I agree, we have 4 new GMs who have never been through our FA before, guys who have been here for years still mess things up, rebuilding Pittsburgh just traded away franchise players for a 2-year rental because he didn't know the free agency age brackets and thought he would be able to re-sign Parise, do we really need to make things more complicated for guys who have never done this before? If that's the case are we upholding the trade?
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 6, 2016 12:46:28 GMT -5
I agree, we have 4 new GMs who have never been through our FA before, guys who have been here for years still mess things up, rebuilding Pittsburgh just traded away franchise players for a 2-year rental because he didn't know the free agency age brackets and thought he would be able to re-sign Parise, do we really need to make things more complicated for guys who have never done this before? If that's the case are we upholding the trade? For the record, I've had a trade (or trades) I've been involved in overturned in the past for somewhat similar circumstances...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2016 13:02:51 GMT -5
I agree, we have 4 new GMs who have never been through our FA before, guys who have been here for years still mess things up, rebuilding Pittsburgh just traded away franchise players for a 2-year rental because he didn't know the free agency age brackets and thought he would be able to re-sign Parise, do we really need to make things more complicated for guys who have never done this before? If that's the case are we upholding the trade? Even with Parise having only 2 years left the trade wasn't too bad since he got a 1st and another pick coming back. I made the same mistake on my first trade.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 6, 2016 13:47:39 GMT -5
I agree, we have 4 new GMs who have never been through our FA before, guys who have been here for years still mess things up, rebuilding Pittsburgh just traded away franchise players for a 2-year rental because he didn't know the free agency age brackets and thought he would be able to re-sign Parise, do we really need to make things more complicated for guys who have never done this before? If that's the case are we upholding the trade? Personally I thought it was a horrible trade, especially for a team on the rebuild it makes absolutely no sense. I actually think it sets his team back a few years. In 2 seasons from now the trade becomes Allen/Brodin for a mid-round 1st and a 3rd? That 1st likely won't touch the NHL for at least 3 years, who knows about the 3rd. Sure he could trade Parise but if Parise has a slow NHL start or bad season then his value is shot. Even if he trades Parise now I don't think he'll get his value back. If I were a new GM trying to rebuild my team and just traded away two young franchise players for a player I'm going to lose I would be pretty deflated and I know my interest level would definitely go down a few notches. But seeing as how there was only 1 no vote (mine) I guess others didn't agree or everyone is just getting programmed to keep voting yes (so other GMs don't get upset) without even looking at the deal. I personally would like to see the deal reversed but honestly that's between Mike and Joe, not a commish decision.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 6, 2016 14:04:24 GMT -5
I haven't heard any complaints from Mike. He made the offer to me. Personally I think it's a fair trade. Who says Mike wants to rebuild forever? He's got a really good starting goaltender, two elite defenseman and a decent group of forwards. He's probably a couple of pieces away from being a playoff contender, in my opinion.
To me the trade was voted on and approved with one No vote.
And btw, when did Jonas Brodin become a "franchise player"?
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Aug 6, 2016 14:23:33 GMT -5
One thing I have noticed is some of the returns some want on 5 mil older players is insane. Why would I give up good young players for older more expensive ones for a slight upgrade just before FA. I just chuckle and say no way to myself. lol
|
|