|
Post by CanucksGM on May 17, 2012 0:33:11 GMT -5
I agree with Harry... I already ran into a problem of having to pay Brown $2 million more than I planned for, because a couple of 80ov's last season got over $8 million. This is going to turn into a circus. Every league is different, I am glad it worked out in some other league, but I don't know how it will work here.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on May 17, 2012 3:42:32 GMT -5
I like the new rule it might make some teams develop some farm players And by the time those farm players are developed and on the roster, they're going to become free agents and you won't be able to retain them due to this rule. I understand the reason why this limitation in re-signing UFAs is being put in place, to create more excitement and make the UFA signing period more meaningful and competitive, however, the ridiculous offers that we're all going to compete with is going to create a lot of salary cap problems throughout the league. i disagree. first of all - cap space is not infinite - it will run out. i'm facing that reality now with my ass right up against it. those teams that have overpaid for contract in the past likely are also having similar problems keeping their cap numbers down....thus, they will have less money to spend in the future. the less teams have money to spend, the less money free agents will get in the future. teams like edmonton who have (likely, purposely) kept their cap numbers down, should not be punished. they have been patient, and should be rewarded for it when impatient people like us spending all our cap space can't sign any free agents. the key is to implement a system where teams cannot bury players in the minors after they sign them.. winnipeg signed jagr to an absolutely ridiculous contract not that long ago. if the system were implemented correctly, they'd have a 68 overall taking up 9 mil in cap space. if teams were faced with that, they'd be a HELL of alot more hesitant than they have been throwing around money. you didn't respond to my other post, but in our other leagues it worked perfectly. 1 guaranteed re-sign per team. it takes 30 players essentially off the UFA market. thats more than enough, but our free agencies back then were still very meaningful. nick - i think you should take these complaints with a grain of salt. GM's tend to look after the best interests of their teams and not the league as a whole when discussing rules like these. AKA: they're just more interested in how the rule change will effect their team. they don't really care about anything else. needless to say, the GM's complaining here have several key UFA's to re-sign, thus, don't like the change to the one-UFA rule. (NJ - Elias, Volchenkov, Jovo) Tampa (Nabokov, Paranteau, Ehrhoff, Bergenheim, Streit, Peverley, Clowe) Vancouver (Kesler, Hamhius, Sturm, Higgins) we've known for an entire season that this was coming, so we've had plenty of time to adapt. if you haven't, well, that's your fault and not Nick's. i really don't mean to single you guys out, but that's just the way i ran business when i was commish - and i think nick should too. i used to get called "hitler" because my GM's didn't think i was listening to their opinions. i was - but i think you have to look at it differently as a commish as you do a GM. the decision on this needs to be what is best for the league, not for certain GM's individual teams. i think one guaranteed re-sign is the way to go. this way, you all can make a decision on who you want to re-sign and deal with the aftermath of your decision. For example: if Vancouver wants to keep Kesler, they're essentially guaranteed he returns and can deal away Hamhius and Higgins etc. knowing that they'll be keeping their #1 C. Just my $0.02
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on May 17, 2012 7:39:35 GMT -5
I'd be willing to consider a one guarantee UFA signing as long as people realize they'd have to overpay a bit to keep their guy.
There's going to be a few changes on how FAs are done and I'm hoping to have the outline of the new system posted up in a week or so. It's going to limit the amount of offers each team can send in and implement some sort of system to try and keep teams from burying guys on the farm.
As for the escalating salaries, I've always felt that the responsibility is on the GMs. I'm not going to babysit and tell teams what they can and can't offer, but teams need to realize the consequences of paying 6.5 million per season to just good players. Stuff like that drives the market up on everyone.
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on May 17, 2012 8:18:32 GMT -5
I have to agree with Alex's point... we all knew that this season you would only be allowed to sign one UFA and you had plenty of warning, so that is how things should stay. I am saying this for the best of the league, I am, actually a team that doesn't benefit for this rule as I have plenty of UFA's but I think it is for the bets of the league and at the end of the day WE ALL had plenty of warning. Nick my suggestion would be that we all are allowed to sign one UFA a season... but he would be treated like an RFA (can be given 3 offers). That way UFA's can still demand a higher salary but the GM also has some negotiating room and should still be able to sign their UFA. That's my input
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on May 17, 2012 8:41:58 GMT -5
WE ALL had plenty of warning. I think this is the key point for me. It's been known since midway through season one. I know I've planned for it and it's affected my decisions on trades so far this season.
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on May 17, 2012 10:10:15 GMT -5
Im in this other league that allows 1 ufa resign and also allows you to trade it if you don't want it,just a different option.I also agree we need changes to the farm so you cant burry players,maybe having a farm cap or changing waivers maybe making a age and salary limit or a overall limit lots of different scenarios
|
|
|
Post by NJDevils on May 17, 2012 10:27:03 GMT -5
WE ALL had plenty of warning. I think this is the key point for me. It's been known since midway through season one. I know I've planned for it and it's affected my decisions on trades so far this season. And I 100% agree with this point, don't get me wrong. I just think it adds a bit more strategy to the league by how you would have to use your tag. But at the same time, teams should not be broken apart just because they have multiple pending UFAs. In my case, I already know what I'm going to do with my guys, regardless of the rule change or not. But using TB and VAN as examples since they were brought up previously and it's an easy point to make - why force them to lose so much talent? Adding in a franchise tag doesn't change all that much. Lets say TB resigns Nabokov and franchises Erhoff for 4 years. Streit and Clowe will still hit the market, and for the next 4 years only 1 guy will be taken off the potential UFA board. There would still be a large increase in talent in the FA pool. This doesn't change that. The new UFA rule also effectively kills the trade value of "rental" players as you know there is no way they are coming back at all. Lets say I try to trade for Dan Hamhuis - I'm not going to want to give up much because I know he's not sticking around. So now VAN is handcuffed by not getting back fair value for their player AND either losing him in the market or paying so much to keep him it effects what other players they keep. You'll see a run on younger players as well. I've also said before that I am all for a cap floor and all for a farm salary cap (though for the record, Jagr is currently on Winnipeg's pro team). I really fail to see how allowing a team to keep one extra player under this tag hurts. Make it so that it's a full NTC if so desired - all it does is add strategy to the thing. This just helps you build and maintain a competitive team while adding strategy. I'm not advocating for adding another guaranteed resign every year, because unless you use it for a 1 year deal every season you're going to have to give up UFAs.
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on May 17, 2012 11:43:26 GMT -5
I like the franchise tag idea, but if we went with a franchise tag, it would count as your guarantee UFA resign. You'd only get one bid on one other UFA.
|
|
Harry
Full Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by Harry on May 17, 2012 12:14:03 GMT -5
I like the suggestion of the "franchise" tag as being the guaranteed UFA re-sign with a separate single bid offer to one other UFA on the roster.
One problem area that I've noticed during UFA signing periods is that teams submit a bunch of offers to sign players because they don't know who they are going to get. This happened with Vancouver for example when he signed both Connolly and Penner and then got rid of Connolly for a couple of draft picks. I'm not faulting Vancouver for that, it's more of a fault in the system.
I even don't know how I feel about this idea, but what if we limited the amount of offers that can be submitted or set a cap as to how much can be spent on UFAs? Say "Team X" signs "Player A" to a contract worth $7M per year, he then has X amount of dollars or X amount of opportunities to sign another UFA. Maybe break the UFA period down into a weekly/bi-weekly process in which we are limited in the amount of offers and dollars that can be submitted?
Like I said, even I'm not sure about the idea, but I'm trying to figure out a solution to a problem I've noticed when we enter the UFA signing period.
|
|
|
Post by NJDevils on May 17, 2012 12:43:02 GMT -5
I like the franchise tag idea, but if we went with a franchise tag, it would count as your guarantee UFA resign. You'd only get one bid on one other UFA. Maybe I wrote it wrong, but this is exactly what I meant the entire time.
|
|