|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Oct 30, 2019 16:24:13 GMT -5
An easy fix would be to take away the max salary rule. Sure, we may see some horrible contracts, but you do in the NHL too. Not sure I wanna live in a world where Brad Richardson is making 15 mil a year Now that ya mention, I kinda do! ; ) But only if Johnny "Oh" BOYchuk and Ron "Don't Call Me Heinie" Hainsey can snag 13 mil apiece.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Oct 30, 2019 16:25:05 GMT -5
An easy fix would be to take away the max salary rule. Sure, we may see some horrible contracts, but you do in the NHL too. Not sure I wanna live in a world where Brad Richardson is making 15 mil a year Plus, he has "RICH" built into his name. He was born to "get paid"!
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 30, 2019 18:03:11 GMT -5
Hyperbole doesn't help your point. Trust the GMs to make their own decisions. I think Anaheim's idea would just have GMs waiting for the minute FA starts to put in their 10 million dollar bids. It wouldn't work. Trust has nothing to do with it. Taking away the bid ceiling will automatically increase all UFA salaries. I went to a charity auction and won a $50 hockey stick for $120 and felt like I got a great deal because all other items were going for thousands. That's kind of what it would be like with no max bid. Not about trust, just human nature. We need to protect us from ourselves lol The NHL is a capped league but doesn’t have a maximum salary. GMs screw up all the time and end up paying for it. Why can’t that system work in our league? It’s just dumb to give the worst team in the league first dibs on the best free agents, that isn’t realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 30, 2019 18:41:45 GMT -5
Easiest way to resolve this is to just not allow "sign and trades" on new players until after the FA period has ended.
I'm thinking after Unassigned has concluded, your team is compliant on players and under the cap. THEN you can trade a freshly signed player.
This makes it much harder to exploit without removing the "worst team wins" rule, which I think needs to remain in place. Also, I have no desire to remove the 10m limit either.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 30, 2019 19:03:42 GMT -5
Easiest way to resolve this is to just not allow "sign and trades" on new players until after the FA period has ended. I'm thinking after Unassigned has concluded, your team is compliant on players and under the cap. THEN you can trade a freshly signed player. This makes it much harder to exploit without removing the "worst team wins" rule, which I think needs to remain in place. Also, I have no desire to remove the 10m limit either. I guess I am just unclear as to the point of this rule? What is wrong with sign and trades exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 30, 2019 19:12:16 GMT -5
Easiest way to resolve this is to just not allow "sign and trades" on new players until after the FA period has ended. I'm thinking after Unassigned has concluded, your team is compliant on players and under the cap. THEN you can trade a freshly signed player. This makes it much harder to exploit without removing the "worst team wins" rule, which I think needs to remain in place. Also, I have no desire to remove the 10m limit either. I guess I am just unclear as to the point of this rule? What is wrong with sign and trades exactly? Nothing is wrong with them, they aren't being stopped, just delayed to make it harder to exploit and require more consideration before the bottom team can toss around that 10m trump card. If (in this case) Florida had to wait until every team in the league had 35 players and was cap compliant with the farm open, that makes it much harder to trade them away, especially for a bucket of garbage. As such, he would have to think a bit harder on if it was worth it in the first place. The reason we have to have the "worst team wins" rule is because we need a tie-breaker. If not that, then what? First team to 10m? Keep going until someone bids 30m and quits the league out of spite? No thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 30, 2019 19:28:11 GMT -5
I guess I am just unclear as to the point of this rule? What is wrong with sign and trades exactly? Nothing is wrong with them, they aren't being stopped, just delayed to make it harder to exploit and require more consideration before the bottom team can toss around that 10m trump card. If (in this case) Florida had to wait until every team in the league had 35 players and was cap compliant with the farm open, that makes it much harder to trade them away, especially for a bucket of garbage. As such, he would have to think a bit harder on if it was worth it in the first place. The reason we have to have the "worst team wins" rule is because we need a tie-breaker. If not that, then what? First team to 10m? Keep going until someone bids 30m and quits the league out of spite? No thanks. I don’t see the point in just making teams wait. It doesn’t change the market value of a $10 million UFA. It’s just another hoop to jump through. If there is nothing wrong with them, why make teams wait? I understand that we need a tie breaker if we keep the player salary cap. I just think we currently have a dumb ass tie breaker that rewards teams for doing poorly. As I said previously I think first person to $10 million is a non-starter. Get rid of the player cap and let the salary cap / market make GMs accountable for poor cap management. We have a solid group of GMs. We don’t need excessive safe guards and hoops to prevent us from mismanaging our teams.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 30, 2019 19:37:45 GMT -5
Nothing is wrong with them, they aren't being stopped, just delayed to make it harder to exploit and require more consideration before the bottom team can toss around that 10m trump card. If (in this case) Florida had to wait until every team in the league had 35 players and was cap compliant with the farm open, that makes it much harder to trade them away, especially for a bucket of garbage. As such, he would have to think a bit harder on if it was worth it in the first place. The reason we have to have the "worst team wins" rule is because we need a tie-breaker. If not that, then what? First team to 10m? Keep going until someone bids 30m and quits the league out of spite? No thanks. I don’t see the point in just making teams wait. It doesn’t change the market value of a $10 million UFA. It’s just another hoop to jump through. If there is nothing wrong with them, why make teams wait? I understand that we need a tie breaker if we keep the player salary cap. I just think we currently have a dumb ass tie breaker that rewards teams for doing poorly. As I said previously I think first person to $10 million is a non-starter. Get rid of the player cap and let the salary cap / market make GMs accountable for poor cap management. We have a solid group of GMs. We don’t need excessive safe guards and hoops to prevent us from mismanaging our teams. Is this several pages of discussion not about how to prevent this "exploit" in the future? As I said, it would hopefully make teams take more into consideration before making that 10m trump card bid, because they can't just trade them immediately and free up the 10m for another player. Otherwise, whats really to stop me from tanking on purpose, making a secret under the table deal with Jon to make sure he gets the best player for 10m at exactly zero risk or consequence to me? I don't even have to ask for much in return, because we can just use all the excuses in the book to justify the deal to everyone else. The 10m tie breaker is there in good faith that you actually WANT that player and intend to use them, not just buy up everyone and trade them for whatever you can get for them instantly, while also ruining FA for the teams playing legit and trying to get those players for less than 10m. If you actually want the player, nothing changes. If you are signing them for no other reason than to trade them, then you should have to wait to remove the instant benefit from it. Personally, I think its a great compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 30, 2019 19:51:22 GMT -5
I don’t see the point in just making teams wait. It doesn’t change the market value of a $10 million UFA. It’s just another hoop to jump through. If there is nothing wrong with them, why make teams wait? I understand that we need a tie breaker if we keep the player salary cap. I just think we currently have a dumb ass tie breaker that rewards teams for doing poorly. As I said previously I think first person to $10 million is a non-starter. Get rid of the player cap and let the salary cap / market make GMs accountable for poor cap management. We have a solid group of GMs. We don’t need excessive safe guards and hoops to prevent us from mismanaging our teams. Is this several pages of discussion not about how to prevent this "exploit" in the future? As I said, it would hopefully make teams take more into consideration before making that 10m trump card bid, because they can't just trade them immediately and free up the 10m for another player. Otherwise, whats really to stop me from tanking on purpose, making a secret under the table deal with Jon to make sure he gets the best player for 10m at exactly zero risk or consequence to me? I don't even have to ask for much in return, because we can just use all the excuses in the book to justify the deal to everyone else. The 10m tie breaker is there in good faith that you actually WANT that player and intend to use them, not just buy up everyone and trade them for whatever you can get for them instantly, while also ruining FA for the teams playing legit and trying to get those players for less than 10m. If you actually want the player, nothing changes. If you are signing them for no other reason than to trade them, then you should have to wait to remove the instant benefit from it. Personally, I think its a great compromise. I could continue to go arguing point by point with you, but I have long since learned that is pointless. And on that note, I still think there is no point in instituting the idea you suggested. If it actually gets seriously considered, i’ll argue it then. The only “compromise” I can see is Jon’s idea of making the tie breaker like the waiver system.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 30, 2019 19:56:04 GMT -5
Is this several pages of discussion not about how to prevent this "exploit" in the future? As I said, it would hopefully make teams take more into consideration before making that 10m trump card bid, because they can't just trade them immediately and free up the 10m for another player. Otherwise, whats really to stop me from tanking on purpose, making a secret under the table deal with Jon to make sure he gets the best player for 10m at exactly zero risk or consequence to me? I don't even have to ask for much in return, because we can just use all the excuses in the book to justify the deal to everyone else. The 10m tie breaker is there in good faith that you actually WANT that player and intend to use them, not just buy up everyone and trade them for whatever you can get for them instantly, while also ruining FA for the teams playing legit and trying to get those players for less than 10m. If you actually want the player, nothing changes. If you are signing them for no other reason than to trade them, then you should have to wait to remove the instant benefit from it. Personally, I think its a great compromise. I could continue to go arguing point by point with you, but I have long since learned that is pointless. And on that note, I still think there is no point in instituting the idea you suggested. If it actually gets seriously considered, i’ll argue it then. The only “compromise” I can see is Jon’s idea of making the tie breaker like the waiver system. Since your arguments always come down to "what best for me", I don't really care what you think Jake. If you can't see the point, thats on you, I've made it clear several times now.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 30, 2019 20:04:48 GMT -5
I think currently what is best for me is to stop wasting time on you.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 30, 2019 20:11:33 GMT -5
I think currently what is best for me is to stop wasting time on you. Please do.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 30, 2019 20:16:13 GMT -5
Wish you guys would just leave things the way they are. I don't see any reason to change anything. Things are going just fine. To long of an off season, makes you guys get crazy.There is enough to think about, let's not over think it. If it an't broke let's not fix it. My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Calgary GM- Scott on Oct 30, 2019 20:29:21 GMT -5
Holy smokes you miss a day, you miss a lot.
I know I missed a year and maybe things have changed or maybe I just don't understand them (which is most likely) but isn't the trade vote supposed to stop terrible deals that risk making teams uncompetitive and having a GM bail because of it leaving the team undesirable? That's how I always treated it. So while I can appreciate that Eug doesn't like the deal I think we should be able to make deals that others don't like as long as it doesn't hurt the team long term. I don't think this does.
Now I imagine Eug would say it hurts the overall value of guys which could hurt the league but I think that most people see this is a fairly unique deal and doubt that most (at least the guys moving top end guys) will use it as a new benchmark.
Finally, I think that you should always comment on a trade if you have an opinion, and in fact think you should have to comment if you reject it so at least the GMs understand what the issue is. I think we are all adults here with strong hockey opinions so nobody should be majorly swayed by one persons opinion and if they are because you brought something up they didn't think of then that is a good thing.
tl;dr (or whatever it is the kids say):
I'll make things easy and take Bergeron on my team at a cut rate of $3 million per year, 8 year deal. Then everyone can be happy!
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 30, 2019 20:49:58 GMT -5
Wow, i would say it was good reading but I feel asleep reading it. Guess it was. I voted yes at first then looked at it and was not sure but then decided if Sharks wants 10 mil guy, good for him and if Florida wants to move him to get parts that can help him rebuild, good for him. This is not ripoff here and I think Florida does not need him and using him to get other pieces. My only concern is if a deal is talked about when lower level bids to trade as a set up deal but not sure we can change anything to fix that. But I did pass it because i felt like it!
|
|