|
Post by flapanthersgm on Aug 28, 2011 12:04:56 GMT -5
No, but you cannot put a strangle hold on how teams build, what about teams that are in the middle that need 1 or 2 more solid players to fill their needs in the off-season but can't because the FA market is a complete waste and joke. The system needs to be fair to all; maybe a fair way of bidding is having multiple rounds with each team able to see other teams bids that way we don't blindly throw-out money just so that we know we will overbid. For example it would be like this - I just threw out Crosby's name for the hell of it as an example
Round 1 Florida bids for Sidney Crosby: 4 Years, 2.5 Million a year Edmonton bids for Sidney Crosby: 4 years, 2.65 Million a year Nashville bids for Sidney Crosby: 4 years, 1.8 Million a year
After Round 1, I can see that I need to out-bid Edmonton but not by 5 or 6 million, I can up it by 1 to 1.5 million and I am not blindly throwing money out there to litter the market with high priced contracts.
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Aug 28, 2011 12:32:31 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. Not speaking for the other teams but I'm rebuilding,I'm going with youth and rebuilding through the draft.When the time comes I'll be in free agency and sign a few players but I won't overpay just to get him.If there is a cap floor yeah maybe I throw out a jagr type deal to get to the floor but not planning on it
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Aug 28, 2011 12:57:50 GMT -5
Actually I just had an interesting idea. Total cash aside, what if we use the revenue each team generates that year as a guideline for how much that team can spend in Free Agency? That way, GMs fielding competitive teams get rewarded for competing and teams that prefer to rebuild for a couple years will have to go through a few years of Free Agency and drafting to become competitive. You never see teams in the NHL rebuild one year and then all of a sudden sign 5 or 6 quality free agents and make the playoffs. Teams that rebuild in the NHL typically have lower attendance and less cash available to them. The way it is now, a team with low payroll can scoop up several FA's and a team that is close to making a cup run that is maybe a player or two shy wont have a chance to compete for that player in free agency. I guess my point is, I'm trying to level the playing field for GMs who are fielding competitive teams with less cap space versus those with $40 mil in cap space.
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Aug 28, 2011 13:25:00 GMT -5
To be honest, I wasn't really looking at ways to change the rule. I just wanted feedback on how we should handle how many UFAs you can resign this year since people were told different things.
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Aug 28, 2011 13:44:44 GMT -5
yeah the rules are totally fine! as for the number of UFAs I think it's your call as the Commish!
Going by what has been said on this thread I think 1 UFA would be the best option otherwise there will hardly be a FA period! but ultamatly I think it's down to you Nick!
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Aug 28, 2011 14:04:43 GMT -5
we really just need a firm ruling on how many from this point forward and not a suggestion to table discussions until the offseason period where they can be changed because gms such as myself and others have some decisions to make regarding our players and depending on how the ruling goes it can increase or decrease our bargaining power with certain players. I'll live with just one if that's how you want to do it or I'll be perfectly content with the current set of rules. I think we just need to know from this point forward is all.
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Aug 28, 2011 14:11:23 GMT -5
When is the trade deadline anyway?
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Aug 28, 2011 14:16:29 GMT -5
look on the schedule and do the math Mr. Wizard
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Aug 28, 2011 14:19:30 GMT -5
smite
|
|
|
Post by leafs on Aug 28, 2011 14:36:29 GMT -5
If we only get ONE OFFER then I don't care what the offer is, that player needs to re-sign or everyone might as well be rebuilding.
Rebuilding teams, it was your choice to rebuild and go after youth. You can't all honestly tell me that your plan was to be shitty for one season and then spend mad money on FA and become competitve the next, that to me is more unrealistic than anything. In the NHL how long has Edmonton been rebuilding, the Islanders? How bout the Hawks and Penguins before they won the cup? Every team needs to rebuild for a minimum of 3 seasons and that number is usually only that low if you get a franchise guy in the draft, Towes, Crosby, Kane etc.
I like the idea of there being parity but if you strip your team down to the bone then you shouldn't be able to just retool the next offseason or like I said everyone will start to rebuild because at least you'll be able to keep your players.
I'm not dead set against having only 1 UFA resigning but then you need to have a system in place which allows teams to keep somewhat of a core together. Whether that's PJs systems of having a certain amount of years to give out in contracts to UFAs or being able to bank UFA re-signs if there was a year when you didn't want to re sign anyone.
|
|