|
Post by BluesGM on Aug 28, 2011 2:44:02 GMT -5
in my old league - i only used to let teams re-sign one UFA per year....even just 1 per team takes 30 potential unrestricted free agents off the market. that is alot, probably too much, in my opinion as is. if you go through the list of UFA's, take the top-30 names off and you have a pretty awful list of free agents staring you in the face. how are the bottom dwellers supposed to improve their teams? if you allow 2 per team (potential of 60 players being re-signed before FA) or even more - what's even the point of having a free agency period really?
it makes things more challenging to not be able to re-sign all our players and allows teams to better themselves through different avenues. i think 1 per team is enough, thats just my $0.02 though.
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Aug 28, 2011 9:15:32 GMT -5
I’ll bullet point my opinions:-
1. As was one of the GM’s Nick said it would be limited to one UFA per team, so I was under the impression this was the case.
2. Most of the GM’s who want the opportunity to sign all their UFA, also have a lot of UFA’s on their team, so naturally they would want that to be the rule (I’m not faulting them for that at all).
3. In my personal opinion anything more than being able to bid upon more than one UFA would completely water down the FA period and would almost make it completely pointless.
4. I understand GM’s made trades for UFA’s thinking they had a decent chance of being able to retain them, but similarly team’s like myself, Flordia and Edmonton may have kept their payroll low in order to be active come the FA period.
5. In almost every FHL league I have been in (and that’s well over 20 leagues) I would say pretty much all of them only allowed one UFA to retain with a team (although that it was guaranteed that they would stay with the team, once a suitable contract was agreed), therefore that would seem a good rule to me?
6. Finally if we go by what is written in black and white as suggested by Colorado, then I would want that applied to everything!
So to sum up... I would vote to being able to retain one UFA that is guaranteed as long as the contract offered is suitable! That way the FA period will not be watered down but similarly GM’s with UFA’s on their team will not be to disheartened as they know they will be able to retain one of their UFA guaranteed!
Also if you need a Player Rep/Agent I am happy to take on that role...As I have done it for many leagues in the past!
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Aug 28, 2011 9:35:45 GMT -5
In his defense, I'm pretty sure he asked me and I told him it was 1, hence this thread. you sir, are a true king amongst men for owning up to it =) /EXALT
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Aug 28, 2011 9:47:44 GMT -5
I guess my biggest fear is that we're going to have 20 more Jagr style contracts floating around the league because teams like EDM, OTT, FLA have SO much cap space that they might feel inclined to throw extra money at a guy or two. After a couple seasons of this, the talent pool for trading will start to dwindle because 75ov players will be making 5-6 million making them unobtainable in a cap style system. This is one of the reasons that a cap floor should have been installed, so that teams wont have $40 million in cap space to soak up several overpriced free agents.
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Aug 28, 2011 9:50:54 GMT -5
I guess my biggest fear is that we're going to have 20 more Jagr style contracts floating around the league because teams like EDM, OTT, FLA have SO much cap space that they might feel inclined to throw extra money at a guy or two. After a couple seasons of this, the talent pool for trading will start to dwindle because 75ov players will be making 5-6 million making them unobtainable in a cap style system. This is one of the reasons that a cap floor should have been installed, so that teams wont have $40 million in cap space to soak up several overpriced free agents. If Jagr grew his hair back the contract would be more than fair.
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Aug 28, 2011 10:22:52 GMT -5
Av's if there was a cap floor... I would be FORCED to make such offers... lol so that doesn't make any sense!
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Aug 28, 2011 10:28:42 GMT -5
Av's if there was a cap floor... I would be FORCED to make such offers... lol so that doesn't make any sense! No, your current roster would have to be in compliance BEFORE free agency. So you would have players already under contract on your roster limiting your available cap space.
|
|
|
Post by bostonbruins on Aug 28, 2011 11:05:39 GMT -5
I preferate to dont protect any ufa . i would rather a commity who will be taking the offer and decide for the player what can be the best for him . i will be more realistic . Some fact will influence the decision : if the team is good , if he play a lot of game in ur team , teammates etc ..
|
|
|
Post by flapanthersgm on Aug 28, 2011 11:41:21 GMT -5
So your going to penalize the four or so teams that strategically planted themselves with lots of cap space for the sole purpose of bidding on good FA's in the off-season? It's not our fault that's how we re-structured our teams for the future.
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Aug 28, 2011 11:57:36 GMT -5
So your going to penalize the four or so teams that strategically planted themselves with lots of cap space for the sole purpose of bidding on good FA's in the off-season? It's not our fault that's how we re-structured our teams for the future. So littering the league with overpriced FA's "just because you can" is a good idea?
|
|