|
Post by Avs on Oct 4, 2012 20:11:21 GMT -5
But why would a player of his age, rating, and production agree to a deal that still keeps him restricted as a RFA? He's going to be restricted until hes 28 anyway, so why wouldn't he sign a guaranteed deal that takes him up to unrestricted free agency?
|
|
Harry
Full Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by Harry on Oct 4, 2012 20:47:03 GMT -5
But why would a player of his age, rating, and production agree to a deal that still keeps him restricted as a RFA? He's going to be restricted until hes 28 anyway, so why wouldn't he sign a guaranteed deal that takes him up to unrestricted free agency? That is something that also bewilders me.
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Oct 4, 2012 21:11:24 GMT -5
I emailed this to all, but I'll post it in here as well.
Drew Doughty signed a 4 year, $5,000,000 per season deal. Here's Why: 1) Doughty, while accomplished (2 time norris winner, cup champ) is still young (24) and this deal will take him right up to UFA status. It doesn't eat up any UFA years. 2) Compared to other norris caliber defenseman, Doughty is making money than Duncan Keith, Matt Carle, Brent Seabrooke and less than Kris Letang (who arguably had a better season than Doughty). 3) The Kings are the Stanley Cup Champions and that's being taken into consideration as well. If LA had lost in round one or if Doughty had played for a non-playoff team then his salary demands would have been higher.
I for one will not comment again on this thread. You want to fight and argue over the FA system, go ahead. Not one person said a peep when it was voted on, originally shown and then implemented. I've been fair each time, I've negotiated contracts fairly and to the best of my ability.
In a perfect world, I'd be able to evaluate each player perfectly and spend hours upon hours negotiating deals like in real life. Unfortunately I can't and how I choose to do FAs is using the chart and the factors I posted before.
Lastly, what NHL players received on their contracts is irrrelevant to our league.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 4, 2012 22:43:07 GMT -5
Alex, dont you have a Norris caliber defensemen? And whats his salary? Oh, you do. And his salary is less. So if anything, there are at LEAST two proven Norris nominees with similar ratings, similar production, but make LESS than Doughty. You preaching consistency is a false statement. Oh, if you want to play the comparison game (note to nick: i didn't start this, i know you're in a tough position, but your "deputy" commish want to play this game, i'm down.) Yandle was not rated as high as he is now when he signed the deal, and it was a 2 year deal, not a 4 year deal. i offered Backstrom a long term deal and Nick says I had to pay him $6-7 mil, which is laughable compared to what Doughty got; Doughty has been the much more productive player in this league, and plays a far more scarce position. Doughty should be the one asking for $7mil, not Backstrom.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 4, 2012 22:45:43 GMT -5
I emailed this to all, but I'll post it in here as well. Drew Doughty signed a 4 year, $5,000,000 per season deal. Here's Why: 3) The Kings are the Stanley Cup Champions and that's being taken into consideration as well. If LA had lost in round one or if Doughty had played for a non-playoff team then his salary demands would have been higher. i have a problem with this - because it's fantasy. all this does is create double standards that make it easier for contenders (like my team) to keep being competitive and makes it even harder for teams trying to build their teams up. i understand your reasoning and in real life, i agree it does happen. but this is a fantasy league and as commish, i think it's your duty to be fair to all 30 teams and rules like that are anything but. teams like LA and myself should be held to the same standards that shitty teams like Minnesota are.
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Oct 5, 2012 0:44:27 GMT -5
shitty teams like Minnesota
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Oct 5, 2012 4:06:51 GMT -5
I don't really have a problem with Doughty signing for 5mil, when you compare him amongst the rest of the D-men within the league its pretty fair! Do I think 5mil is kind of on the low side? Yeah probably but still don't really have a issue as a lot of the high end D-men are signed on what I would call the "low side". I have to say though Nick you have kind of created a rod for your own back, you have told us all to look at the RFA table, but when one of the best D-men in the league sign for 500k more than what is shown on the chart other GM's aren't and probably shouldn't have to offer any higher! For any RFA D-man between OV80 and 83 you are now basically saying they can sign between 4.5mi and 5mil.... hardly much scope there! Other D-men which have signed such contracts would include: Players signed at end of year 1 (when there were only 5 D-men over ov80)Duncan Keith, age 28 and OV82 signed for $4,500,000 for 4years Mike Green, age 26 and OV80 signed for $5,000,000 for 4years Ryan Suter, age 26 and OV76 signed for $4,250,000 for 4 years Joni Pitkanen, age 27 and OV76 signed for $4,750,000 for 4 years Player signed at end of year 2Krisopher Letang age 25 and OV81 signed for $5,250,000 for 4 years Tobias Enstrom, age 27 and OV79 signed for $4,250,000 for 4years Keith Yandle, age 26 and OV80 signed for $4,250,000 for 2 years Alexander Edler, age 26 and OV80 signed for $4,500,00 for 4 years Tyler Myers, age 22 and OV79 signed for $4,500,00 for 4years Luke Schenn age 23 and OV75 signed for $5,950,000 for 4 years Player signed at end of year 3Erik Karlsson, age 23 and OV81 at the end of year 3 signed for $4,650,000 for 4 years You as the commish have set the bench mark for signing such players... If you are happy with that then everything is fine but it quite clear now that not many GM's will offer more than 5mil for a top RFA D-man, and if their bids are rejected... it really isn't very fair! This has all steams back from when Keith signed at 4.5mil as an RFA at the age of 28 and OV82 and when the league only had 5 D-men over ov80... back then GM's did question it amongst themselves but never brought it to the board! I'm not having a go you or anything like that... I'm clearly putting forward the comments you have said and how I think it impacts the league and everyone else! Like I said before I don't really have a problem with Doughty signing for 5mil, but that will now be set as a benchmark! On a side note Vanek must be laughing, as he was an RFA and Stanley cup winner and signed for over 7mil - stupid 10% rule!
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Oct 5, 2012 8:20:55 GMT -5
I'm trying to make the system fair to all. It's the first season with the system and it's not going to be perfect. It's funny how people keep saying "I've set the benchmark", yet the only defenseman who's received an offer that was higher than Doughty and I rejected was Shea Weber and the reasons were A) He's on the cusp of FA status B) he's the highest rated defenseman in our league and C) he's on a non-playoff team. If anything I think I've been pretty consistent with how I've done contracts in the past and now.
Some of the ones who complained have sent offers for 74 ov. players, $500,000. That's not going to cut it. Just because you're stashing a guy on your farm, doesn't mean he'll resign for a small increase in salary to stay. Some guys are offering 78-79 overall players who are very close to UFA 2 million dollars for long term deals. That's not going to cut it either.
It's funny how comparing defense-to-defense, forwards-to-forwards, etc. wasn't cause for suspicion when Duncan Keith signed low two seasons ago. Now, Keith was also signed on the old system, but his contract can still be used as comparison. I'm trying to push forward, but compare apples to apples. Don't show me a 28 y.o defenseman who's on the cusp of UFA and say DOUGHTY GOT 5 MILL, my defenseman gets 1.25!!!! Doesn't work that way.
I also find the holier than though crap funny. Nobody really cares about any other teams but themselves. Look at the draft vote. I asked about changing the draft, it got voted in by an almost unanimous and then when one GM complained about it, a couple of teams who voted yes turned around and said, "Yea, that's not cool, I'd be mad too." Well, why did you vote it in then? Because it didn't have a direct negative affect to your team.
Lastly, the 10% RFA increase rule was adopted off the NHL because I liked it. It sucks that some bad contracts were grandfathered in when we started the league, but it is what it is. Comparing players who were affected by that has no bearing on any RFA offers.
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Oct 5, 2012 9:13:10 GMT -5
The RFA 10% bit was meant to be a joke
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Oct 5, 2012 9:38:00 GMT -5
The RFA 10% bit was meant to be a joke Fair enough . I'm just a bit grumpy, instead of doing the draft and RFAs, I spent my night having to argue over FAs
|
|