|
Post by leafs on Oct 4, 2012 19:20:22 GMT -5
what a baby
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Oct 4, 2012 19:22:52 GMT -5
Need more Alex's in the league. most would disagree.
|
|
Harry
Full Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by Harry on Oct 5, 2012 13:41:47 GMT -5
Since I'm on a roll with the complaints of late, I wanted to take issue with a gripe I had on the RFA signing chart/scale that you've set. Now I don't recall this being consulted with others, but I feel that the chart is rather limiting and a bit off in terms of what players of a certain rating range should be earning.
Type Of Player Overall Salary Requests Fringe 70 and under $500,000 and up Regular 71 to 79 $1,000,000 and up Star 80 and up $4,500,000 and up
If you observe most players on the fourth lines in this league, a majority of them range between 72-74. Paying $1M and up for a fourth line player seems a bit much. For teams who are pushing the limit to the cap, it is going to force them to use guys who are 70 or below on their fourth lines.
There are going to be lots of players in the minors who are going to be making millions as a result of this chart that you've set. It's befuddling how a guy who is 70 is considered "fringe" and a guy who is a 71 or 72 is a regular. You have to take into account a number of factors, such as the role and placement on the depth chart of the player whose contract is being negotiated.
Are we to pay a guy who is say, the 5th or 6th LW on the depth chart a million or more because he's rated a 71 or 72? That makes no sense to me. It's poor budget and cap management to pay guys who are low on the depth chart anything above $1M.
|
|
|
Post by LosAngelesGM on Oct 5, 2012 13:48:56 GMT -5
This was already discussed prior to being put in place. There were threads and emails. Raising an issue now is futile.
|
|
Harry
Full Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by Harry on Oct 5, 2012 14:14:07 GMT -5
I guess seeing it in execution is different than seeing it in the planning stages.
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Oct 5, 2012 16:01:04 GMT -5
ecfhlhockey.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=league&action=display&thread=872That's the link to the original FA system discussion. Right smack dab in the middle is the chart. What did you guys think the chart meant? I mean seriously? Not one team had any gripes or complaints about it. The only discussions that took place were about the farm cap. I've shown, numerous times, that if things need to be tweeked or fixed, I'm willing to do that. If after this season or the next it looks like 73-74 players are becoming more and more obsolete because ratings are going up and up then it will be adressed. Another point I'd like to emphasis I've had variations of this in the rules before and I'm trying to emphasis it again. If you just send in offers like this: Player A, 5 years, $500,000 Then chances are you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt if your offer is teatering on the line. I'm going to post one of Alex's offers because even though I don't always agree with him, he's probably one of the more thorough guys when it comes to explaining bids: Erik Karlsson - 4 years - 4.65 mil. Much like Backstrom, Karlsson is an 81 overall, but ratings dont always equal production. Despite playing on the first line for most of the year with Crosby, Malkin, Iginla and Yandle, Karlsson struggled badly all season to the point where our coach Lindy Ruff was forced to play him on the third pairing during the playoffs. His stats of 36 points and a + 6 do not even come close to comparing to his D-partners (Yandle) 50 points and a +25. Despite the poor performance, this contract would pay him more than back-to-back Norris winner Duncan Keith as well as other elite defensmen such as Drew Doughty, Ryan Suter, Shea Weber and Norris runner-up Brent Seabrook. The point I'm trying to make with FAs is that you need to do a little work when sending in offers. The better you sell your offers, the more willing I am to lax the chart one way or another.
|
|
Harry
Full Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by Harry on Oct 5, 2012 16:14:38 GMT -5
That's a good example for submitting offers to guys who you can make a case for. But what type of argument or case can anyone put up for players who have not appeared in a single game in the ECHL and have been stored in the minors and are up for a re-signing?
I'd rather just let them sit as unsigned RFAs knowing that nobody is going to waste their time or bother offer sheeting guys in the low 70s who command $1M or more.
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Oct 5, 2012 16:25:08 GMT -5
That's a good example for submitting offers to guys who you can make a case for. But what type of argument or case can anyone put up for players who have not appeared in a single game in the ECHL and have been stored in the minors and are up for a re-signing? Cases can still be made for them, not as thorough agreed, but cases. Are these 70ov players on the higher or lower end of RFA age? what are there other stats like. How deep is your team? Stuff like that. A lot of teams who sent in offers that were low for the farm guys were rejected because they were long term for low money. If guys are 73-74 and 27-28, they're going to want their freedom eventually. All I'm asking is a little effort and understanding. I've been very fair with the others this offseason and done them all the same. It's not like I've rejected some 73ov offers that were low and accepted others. I've tried to be the exact same way across the board. ADDED: Another point I'd like to make and I've said this to a key GMs this season and in the past. When I'm doing contract offers, I also look at what your offers are to the other FAs if you offer two guys the same contract, but one is better than the other, the better player is going to want more money than the other.
|
|
|
Post by carolinagm on Oct 5, 2012 17:51:54 GMT -5
You can make a 'case' or explanation for any player. These were my 3 offers I sent in:
Ryan Reaves (76 OV, 26 years old, current salary was $530,000) My offer: 2 years at an annual salary of $1,250,000 -> Compared to some other 76 OV players around the league, and around the same age, this seems like a fair offer. Not like he even had an 'amazing season'. Troy Brodie (73 OV, 28 years old, current salary was $475,000) My offer: 1 year at a salary of $700,000 -> Didn't play in the pros at all this year, but want to keep him around to perhaps make the team next year (maybe as a 4th liner). Brett Sutter (73 OV, 26 years old, current salary was $560,000) My offer: 1 year at a salary of $1,000,000 -> Had a good year by his standards. Depth addition to our team that I would like to keep around in the same role next year.
All 3 were signed...
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Oct 6, 2012 5:57:50 GMT -5
i had to let two mid 70's RGFA's go to FA but as Saint Nick told me when my offers were declined. It'll make FA more robust certainly. mid 70's guys aren't hard to come by anymore either since there are boatloads of them floating around out there as the league has allowed progression for several seasons now. Perhaps there will come a time where a mid 70's FA won't cost you 6 million a year because there will be enough to go around for a change.
|
|