deevo
Sophomore Slump
Posts: 7 
|
Post by deevo on Aug 10, 2015 14:06:15 GMT
Saw the email, I thought I can re-extend a RFA every year until he reaches the age of UFA? (Age 27). But it seems email says you can only extend RFA once regardless of contract length? I saw the same thing, that can't be right. I chose to build my team young because of the UFA age of 27. If I now lose my players before they even hit their prime... It just can't be like that. This is from the commish's email, please clarify if this was just an honest mistake: This is a serious fail if true. My team will be friggity frackkked. |
|
|
|
Post by Nashville GM on Aug 10, 2015 15:10:11 GMT
What happens when team misses salary cap base?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 19:08:10 GMT
Hello commish & BOG masterminds,
I would love to hear an explanation of why the RFA signing rule was changed mid-draft. It has huge implications on certain teams because it forces teams to give unproven young players 5 year contracts which will either become huge bargains or huge over-payment but very rarely do they represent true market value. I mean, how do you value a 23-year-old who has played 50 NHL games? Do you give him $4M per season, hoping he lives up to it at some point? Or are you able to sign him for $1M because he's unproven still? (No player in the NHL would agree to that if they have any potential beyond the 4th line.) There's no point in signing any RFA for shorter term because they become UFA immediately after any contract you give him, so that kills the entire idea of bridge deals.
Wouldn't it be better if we gave unproven young players a bridge deal of 1-2 years, and they would still be RFA after that if they're under the age of 27? So we would reserve those long-term extensions for special players, instead of making them the norm. This would also help with player valuation because NHL teams don't hand out 5 year contracts to just anyone, they also prefer using 1-2 year "show me" contracts when they're not sure about the player. That means we would have a much bigger pool of comparable players to choose from. Not a lot of 5 year contracts being signed right after ELC in the NHL...
The biggest issue I have is pushing this rule change through mid-draft. I would understand if all 30 managers voted for the new rule, or if there was a significant flaw in the old rule. But the only explanation I've heard so far is "Some managers wanted it this way". Just because a couple of teams want a rule to be changed doesn't mean a rule must be changed! There are lots of managers completely against rule changes mid-draft. Why don't we have any say in this? Of course some managers are going to want a rule change if it helps their own team. That's why rule changes should never happen mid-draft without proper reasoning.
So please explain the reasoning for the rule change. And don't just say "It's nothing significant, so whatever". Just because you might not understand the significance of that rule change, doesn't mean it's not significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastonct58 on Aug 10, 2015 19:19:19 GMT
Blues GM wanted me to note this on here as a potential issue at free agent time:
I think it will be important to make sure that we have a clear process for the measurement of the cap hits for RFAs. If we use the 5 year rule, and use their actual cap hit at the start of the five years, but they are on a one-year "show me" deal in the real NHL, there is the potential for bargains. On the other hand, if you sign them to a 1 year and they are on a five year based on potential, the opposite could happen.
If we are going to negotiate, someone will have to act as the agent, which I think is going to be super time consuming and also be a huge area for conflict.
Unfortunately, I don't have an easy solution with the rules the way they are now. But, we could continue the signing rules, but have a floating cap hit that is based on their actual cap hit. So if in our league we sign them to a five year deal, but in the NHL they are on one year deals, their cap hits will change from year to year even though they are under team control. This isnt a bad system other than we rely upon the managers to try and foresee the cap hit and manage it. Undoubtedly, some guys will get screwed, but for the most part it should work. And this ensures the player has a cap hit that is at least reasonable and based on something, and still allows us to keep the proposed 5 year and 1 year rules in place.
BTW, I have no preference, as no matter which kind of assets you have at this point in the draft, because of the cap it should all even out pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluesgm on Aug 10, 2015 21:19:32 GMT
Blues GM wanted me to note this on here as a potential issue at free agent time: I think it will be important to make sure that we have a clear process for the measurement of the cap hits for RFAs. If we use the 5 year rule, and use their actual cap hit at the start of the five years, but they are on a one-year "show me" deal in the real NHL, there is the potential for bargains. On the other hand, if you sign them to a 1 year and they are on a five year based on potential, the opposite could happen. If we are going to negotiate, someone will have to act as the agent, which I think is going to be super time consuming and also be a huge area for conflict. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy solution with the rules the way they are now. But, we could continue the signing rules, but have a floating cap hit that is based on their actual cap hit. So if in our league we sign them to a five year deal, but in the NHL they are on one year deals, their cap hits will change from year to year even though they are under team control. This isnt a bad system other than we rely upon the managers to try and foresee the cap hit and manage it. Undoubtedly, some guys will get screwed, but for the most part it should work. And this ensures the player has a cap hit that is at least reasonable and based on something, and still allows us to keep the proposed 5 year and 1 year rules in place. BTW, I have no preference, as no matter which kind of assets you have at this point in the draft, because of the cap it should all even out pretty good. my goal is to actual have a pretty black and white metric for which to use in contract negotiations and it will be based on how the player is performing in our specific league rather than his actual nhl salary....this may prove to be impossible or unpopular in which case i agree with you and we have an issue to solve....but lets see if we can come up with a litmus test for salary talks first.... |
|
|
|
Post by bluesgm on Aug 10, 2015 21:23:23 GMT
Hello commish & BOG masterminds, I would love to hear an explanation of why the RFA signing rule was changed mid-draft. It has huge implications on certain teams because it forces teams to give unproven young players 5 year contracts which will either become huge bargains or huge over-payment but very rarely do they represent true market value. I mean, how do you value a 23-year-old who has played 50 NHL games? Do you give him $4M per season, hoping he lives up to it at some point? Or are you able to sign him for $1M because he's unproven still? (No player in the NHL would agree to that if they have any potential beyond the 4th line.) There's no point in signing any RFA for shorter term because they become UFA immediately after any contract you give him, so that kills the entire idea of bridge deals. Wouldn't it be better if we gave unproven young players a bridge deal of 1-2 years, and they would still be RFA after that if they're under the age of 27? So we would reserve those long-term extensions for special players, instead of making them the norm. This would also help with player valuation because NHL teams don't hand out 5 year contracts to just anyone, they also prefer using 1-2 year "show me" contracts when they're not sure about the player. That means we would have a much bigger pool of comparable players to choose from. Not a lot of 5 year contracts being signed right after ELC in the NHL... The biggest issue I have is pushing this rule change through mid-draft. I would understand if all 30 managers voted for the new rule, or if there was a significant flaw in the old rule. But the only explanation I've heard so far is "Some managers wanted it this way". Just because a couple of teams want a rule to be changed doesn't mean a rule must be changed! There are lots of managers completely against rule changes mid-draft. Why don't we have any say in this? Of course some managers are going to want a rule change if it helps their own team. That's why rule changes should never happen mid-draft without proper reasoning. So please explain the reasoning for the rule change. And don't just say "It's nothing significant, so whatever". Just because you might not understand the significance of that rule change, doesn't mean it's not significant. if this is the feeling of the masses then I agree completely to just keep the rule the same.....i take responsibility for the rule change as i thought it sounded great...as far as the reasoning for the change NJD it was honestly that we thought the league wanted the ability to retain more of their RFA's.....if what we put together last night actually makes the situation worse then I fully support negating that rule change.....but trust me we acted with good intentions..... |
|
|
|
Post by bluesgm on Aug 10, 2015 23:29:59 GMT
Please also remember as well NJD we get 1 free compliance buyout every year! So we don't have to be as conservative with our 5 yr offers.....there is also the fact that we will by nature be less conservative as it's NOT ACTUAL $ .......so a 50% buyout also means a lot less to us
|
|
|
|
Post by JEREMY (Commish) on Aug 11, 2015 0:23:58 GMT
I'll put up a poll on FANTRAX - on the different rule changes that people are on the fence about. And the POLL will decide the rule change or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 4:58:17 GMT
if this is the feeling of the masses then I agree completely to just keep the rule the same.....i take responsibility for the rule change as i thought it sounded great...as far as the reasoning for the change NJD it was honestly that we thought the league wanted the ability to retain more of their RFA's.....if what we put together last night actually makes the situation worse then I fully support negating that rule change.....but trust me we acted with good intentions..... Changing the rules mid-draft just because something sounds cool... That's definitely not what should be done in a 30 team dynasty league. And the new rule definitely doesn't allow you to retain more RFAs. It allows you to sign more RFAs long-term, sure, but it also creates lots of UFAs at the age of 24 and lots of bad contracts for young players, which is definitely not what should be the target. Young players are never worth their long-term contract in the first couple of years. The hope is that they are bargains at the end of it. But if we sign all young players to similar deals, that means the team is not ready to contend in the first few years. So that means rebuilding takes even more years than it otherwise would. Rebuilding teams can't even add veterans to their team because their young players are overpaid. So they have to wait a few more years to get production that matches their contracts. Please also remember as well NJD we get 1 free compliance buyout every year! So we don't have to be as conservative with our 5 yr offers.....there is also the fact that we will by nature be less conservative as it's NOT ACTUAL $ .......so a 50% buyout also means a lot less to us I don't want to buy out my young studs, I want to sign them to reasonable contracts until they prove themselves. You also can't bid on players you've bought out (I think for 10 years?). So do you want to buy out someone like Gaudreau just because he might not be worth his contract in the first couple of years? No, you suck it up until he bounces back or lives up to his contract. |
|
