my plans for (U)FA

-im proposing that each team be allowed to only re-sign one of the UFAs on their roster at the end of the year. that player would be called an exclusive rights unrestricted free agent(ER-UFA) at first this may sound like madness, but as you look up and down each roster you see that many teams have only one even somewhat significant UFA as it is; for example, boston, lak, vancouver, carolina, chicago, nj and the list goes on. only a handful of teams like st. louis and detroit have more than one significant UFA currently on their roster. the habs have none! even teams that have more than one decent UFA are teams like the rangers who have rissmiller and kalinin. or colorado with sakic and stillman. any gm willing to do a little of the work expected of them should have no problem working this out during the current sim freeze. it should also be noted that no team will be able to trade the rights of a pending UFA at seasons end, which would otherwise serve as a loophole that would make this entire proposal irrelevant. as an aside, it should be noted that the number of ER-UFAs is subject to change based on the UFA pool of any given season. for example, if many teams have two or three quality UFAs we'll surely up the number of ER-UFAs.

along with this proposed rule change i am going back to the athletic rating as the guide for (re)signing all players. of course once a player hits FA he is likely to get more than his athletic rating would suggest, so it may very well be a moot point in that regard. with your ER-UFA the only negotiating will be over the number of years. if you are willing to meet his athletic rating price he will re-sign with you, period. im not concerned with what a sim player could get on the open market. this is a league about human GMs not sim players.

im assuming that after some initial opposition people will start to warm to the idea of having a meaningful FA period at the expense of the occasional 67ov type player. this rule change should increase both trade activity and the quality of FA every year. i hope thats the kind of league we all want.

also, to add to FA im going to allow any team to cut any number of players at the cost of $1M per player at seasons end.

please, lets hear your thoughts


joe
bruins gm/commish

i'd like to hear some feedback from the voters. especially the ones who voted 'no'. im kind gung ho about this idea and am likely to implement it unless someone can give me a good reason not to. 

I feel that this idea will limit trading in the league. No one will trade for impending UFAs at teh deadline if they know they will 100% lose them at the end of the season.

i understand where this is coming from but it doesn't neccesarily all make sense.

some sort of system where the agents would every now and then decide if a player will test the open market seems like it make sense. i dont know how it would work though

Garth Snow wrote:

I feel that this idea will limit trading in the league. No one will trade for impending UFAs at teh deadline if they know they will 100% lose them at the end of the season.

I agree with the above statement.

Between laziness and available FAs, it's likely that almost every year will have two or three decent players in the pool. I know the following things to be true:

• There will always be one or two GMs that will not meet the deadline and lose out on resigning their players
  
• There will always be one or two teams that are running too many FAs and have to let one or two go
  
• There will always be a cash strapped team (if the league is run properly) that can't afford to resign their players
  

The first season in any league is usually scarce for free agency. The trick is to find that magic number of resignings that allow a team to continue to shape its future while allowing activity during free agency.

Because GMs will often try and get guys signed for as long as possible, they usually back themselves into a corner by signing too many five year terms, or four year terms, or whatever.

Some suggestions from me...though ultimately Joe, you'll do whatever you want. lol

• Shorten the allowable term from five years to four. Perhaps as an offset, allow a team to sign an elite player (77+) to a six year term if they can afford it. Should they take that route, it will put a dent in their finances and leave them short for other signings.
  
• Only allow 3 or 4 pending UFAs to be resigned.
  
• Lower compensation to make RFAs more accessible (though I think it's fine the way it is)
  
• Don't allow an RFA to resign past his UFA age (unless it's just a really good offer), and raise the bar when dealing with first time UFAs. (Sure, Bouwmeester can get $6M from his team, but as a UFA...$10 is not out of the question)
  
• Having a deadline on the pending UFA isn't a bad idea. Maybe day one of the playoffs, or something, and have them become free agents as soon as the playoffs end. I personally like being able to trade UFA rights for a week afterwards, but that's me.
  

Once in free agency, UFAs should sign for as much as they can get. This will also cash strap some teams for future signings, because they'll get caught up in the bidding wars and sink far too much money into a player. (ie, Ribeiro in the SLHL signed a $10M cap hit + signing bonus, Drury in the CEHL signed a one year $16M contract)

Free agency takes care of itself, it really does. You just have to let it take its course. That's why we have the ability to offer on 22yr old prospects, found players and the like. If free agency is looking a little weak in any given season, maybe come up with something else that could keep a team active. Free Agency doesn't 'have' to be a big deal. Sure, it's fun when it's a good year for it, but it's not necessary. Maybe having a shortened offseason in the weak FA years would be the answer. That way, we're right back into a season again.

Skwids point is almost dead on.

Remember we're also dealing with a cap league, if you allow the cap to flow with the NHL Cap then things get very interesting. For one, next season it will go down and probably take a huge dive the season after.

Also keep in mind that everyone competing tends to put themselves right at the cap anyway. Come free Agency time, people will scramble to have to make room for signings. Teams who hit the playoffs will have a much harder time offering a superstar the money they want where a bottom feeder can clean up if they've used SB's and their prospect pool correctly.

I say leave it as is with but a few minor tweaks like the ones Skwid suggested, it'll save you some peace of mind now and possibly save the league later.

Every league I've seen do FA like we do here is in their 8-12th season... DHL being the lone exception and you see how well their free agency works...

Minnesota Wild wrote:

i understand where this is coming from but it doesn't neccesarily all make sense.

some sort of system where the agents would every now and then decide if a player will test the open market seems like it make sense. i dont know how it would work though

ok, but here is the problem: lets say we try that system and i, or some agent decide that nobody wants to re-sign in minnesota, but everybody wants to re-sign in calgary and most other cities. how is that going to sit with you? how do we decide who stays and who goes? the problem is that there doesnt seem to be a 'fair' way to do it. 

Garth Snow wrote:

I feel that this idea will limit trading in the league. No one will trade for impending UFAs at teh deadline if they know they will 100% lose them at the end of the season.

how do you know 100% that you'll lose a UFA? all you lose is the right to exclusively negotiate with him. you're not precluded from the FA bidding process on any of your former players. i also feel and hope that this rule will have the exact opposite effect that you think it will. now teams who are not contending are likely to 'dump' guys they're not going to re-sign for relatively cheap, so that they can get value. the contenders who acquire them will view them as rentals and certainly worth paying 2nd and 3rd round picks for. the non contending teams will thus dump aging vets with their bloated salaries in order to stockpile things like draft picks, young players, prospects and cash. 

[quote="bure_HOF"]

Garth Snow wrote:

I the contenders who acquire them will view them as rentals and certainly worth paying 2nd and 3rd round picks for. the non contending teams will thus dump aging vets with their bloated salaries in order to stockpile things like draft picks, young players, prospects and cash.

I feel that already happens, i mean look at all the dead weight I got rid of this season in terms of veteran rental palyers.
Teams are more willing to trade for rental plaeyrs if they know they will have a chance to retain tehm if they wish, they might not feel it's worth trading picks/prospects for 20 games.

[quote="Garth Snow"]

bure_HOF wrote:

Garth Snow wrote:

I the contenders who acquire them will view them as rentals and certainly worth paying 2nd and 3rd round picks for. the non contending teams will thus dump aging vets with their bloated salaries in order to stockpile things like draft picks, young players, prospects and cash.

I feel that already happens, i mean look at all the dead weight I got rid of this season in terms of veteran rental palyers.
Teams are more willing to trade for rental plaeyrs if they know they will have a chance to retain tehm if they wish, they might not feel it's worth trading picks/prospects for 20 games.

happens on all the time in the nhl. if teams really want to compete for the cup then i think you'll find that they will be willing to part with some future value for a guy with lots of leadership and experience who can help make that dream a realization. not to mention they can always acquire an upgrade as their ER-UFA. take my team for example; i have pj axelsson as my only upcoming UFA. lets say i acquire keith tkachuk who is also a UFA. well, i probably re-sign tkachuk and let axelsson, a very good 3rd line/PK guy fall into the FA pool. seems like a win for st. louis as they get something for their aging vet. a win for me as i get a good piece to help me make a run at the cup this year. and a win for the FA pool as a quality player is added. 

I dont' want to argue this with you.
I simply don't agree, for the reasons stated. And it seems to me the previous two commisioners feel that way too.

It just seems to me that a team will be less likely to trade futures if they know the player they are aquiring has no shot of being re-signed (or it will cost one of tehiir current players).
Teams at the top may still aquire the impending UFAs, but what about the teams in the middle, teams fighting for the playoffs. In the normal FA market, teh 9th place team may trade futures for a vet to help them get into the playoffs. In your scenerio they might be less likely to do so because it will cost their team's progress in the summer.

Garth Snow wrote:

I dont' want to argue this with you.
I simply don't agree, for the reasons stated. And it seems to me the previous two commisioners feel that way too.

It just seems to me that a team will be less likely to trade futures if they know the player they are aquiring has no shot of being re-signed (or it will cost one of tehiir current players).
Teams at the top may still aquire the impending UFAs, but what about the teams in the middle, teams fighting for the playoffs. In the normal FA market, teh 9th place team may trade futures for a vet to help them get into the playoffs. In your scenerio they might be less likely to do so because it will cost their team's progress in the summer.

this is the 2nd time you've claimed that a team acquiring a pending UFA knows they're going to lose him. i refuted that point in my last response. not 'tagging' one of your UFAs as your ER-UFA does not preclude you from bidding on him in FA. the fact that dev disagrees with my proposal is basically a given as the current rules we've been operating under up until i took over were his rules. 

I personally am fine with how things are, and I agree wit Skwid on his take. Very few tweaks are needed in this aspect of the SDHL

ok, so we've had mixed results on this proposal, but im going to go ahead and make this official. this is something i want to implement as commish. if this idea turns out to be a boner we'll change it before the following FA period commences.so teams, start working on moving your extra UFAs!

You've only had one third of the league vote on the matter so far...

everyone is asked to participate. i cant control how many of them actually vote. also, i should add that as long as their wasnt an overwhelming outcry against it i had always planned to go with it. the straw poll says its a coin flip, so its better to make the call now and let teams know which direction to go. 

Joe had me convinced on this for a little while, but something still isn't sitting right. I know you aren't "guaranteed" to lose all but one of your impending UFAs, but you'll probably have to get involved in some bidding wars. I still like the idea of making the magic number three, or perhaps just lowering the cap a bit.

bure_HOF wrote:

im kind gung ho about this idea and am likely to implement it unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

Well, I think that a few people have given you a few good reasons not to, yet...

Joe wrote:

ok, so we've had mixed results on this proposal, but im going to go ahead and make this official.

And with the vote being 7-5 AGAINST, and not even half the league voting...it would appear the vote was merely a time-killer. I realize you're the new Commish, Joe, and I know you want to put your own personal 'stamp' on this league, but you shouldn't do so at the cost of GM trust. The whole purpose of a vote is to get the opinions of others and act accordingly.

"58% of the public voted for Obama, while 42% voted for Hillary, but hell, we're going to go ahead and put the ol' hag in office anyway!"

It just doesn't work like that, and it shouldn't. If people don't feel their vote matters, why vote? There's just no point if you're going to go ahead and do whatever you want anyway. Not so much a democracy as it is a dictatorship, and when your league is made or broken by the simple fact you need GMs that enjoy the league they're in, that's a dangerous game to play.

I like this league. I know I'm not one of the more active guys within it, but it's a good league with a bunch of potential. If more of the league had voted the other way, this wouldn't even be an issue, but it's the blatant brush-off that seems to irk me a bit.

I'm not trying to stir up crap, but I feel if I'm going to be a part of it, I may as well like the way it's run. Otherwise, why bother?

If we end up implementing this rule, we're going to see just about every team go into a sudden rebuild, because after all, why keep players that you'll be eventually forced to trade when you can have young players that you can keep as long as they're under the age of 27?

burnsie,

Quote :

Well, I think that a few people have given you a few good reasons not to, yet...

i guess your opinion of a "good reason" differs from mine.

Quote :

And with the vote being 7-5 AGAINST, and not even half the league voting...it would appear the vote was merely a time-killer.

wrong. i wanted to make sure there wasnt overwhelming opposition against. something like 15-1. i expected that 'no' would win due to the general nature of human beings to be opposed to change. i also decided after there were something like 100 views of the thread and only 12 votes to just 'call it'. are the same 12 people looking 8-9 times?

Quote :

I realize you're the new Commish, Joe, and I know you want to put your own personal 'stamp' on this league, but you shouldn't do so at the cost of GM trust. The whole purpose of a vote is to get the opinions of others and act accordingly.

burnsie, while i appreciate your input you're simply making arbitrary statements here. i never said that i was holding a democratic vote on this issue. so i in no way violated anyones trust.

Quote :

It just doesn't work like that, and it shouldn't. If people don't feel their vote matters, why vote? There's just no point if you're going to go ahead and do whatever you want anyway. Not so much a democracy as it is a dictatorship, and when your league is made or broken by the simple fact you need GMs that enjoy the league they're in, that's a dangerous game to play.

in this entire paragraph you're arguing whats called a strawman argument. something that is a common logical fallacy. you tear down an argument of 'mine' that i never made. on his decision i asked for feedback and input, not 29 co-commishes.

Quote :

If we end up implementing this rule, we're going to see just about every team go into a sudden rebuild, because after all, why keep players that you'll be eventually forced to trade when you can have young players that you can keep as long as they're under the age of 27?

i think you should give a look to the email i sent out as well as some of the other points ive made in these (U)FA threads.

and, again, i'd like to stress that this rule change is not necessarily permanent. i just want a decent FA period this offseason. why anyone is for having the likes of andrei zyuzin at the head of the FA class is completely beyond me.

I'm pretty sure that Detroit would rather keep Hossa than worry about who the best FA is.

Let's see...sign the two pending FAs I have, or sign ONE and have to compete with 29 other GMs for another player. Tough call, Bob, but I think I'm going to go with door #1.

My thinking is this. If we are and NHL rerate based league we should try to operate like the NHL.  Also I would like you to take notice that every year in the NHL there are new players..KHL etc. and loads of FA's.  The reason being is that some teams feel that they no longer have needs for 1 player. For example there is talk in Vancouver that Ohlund will be a FA.  Just don't feel that he gives them that extra for what he is worth.  It's the same here.For somebody to get exclusive rights for Sundin who I may or may not sign, they have to trade with me for him.  I may get a couple picks. a prospect who knows but it increases trading before the draft.But you are the commish and you have the decision to make.

10 gms against it
5 For

And the other gms just havent logged in or have been booted.

Quote :

i also decided after there were something like 100 views of the thread and only 12 votes to just 'call it'. are the same 12 people looking 8-9 times?

Actually, everytime someone posts in the thread, it goes back to the message and that counts as a 'view'. Other people who have posted are going back and reading the replies, so yeah, it's more than fair to say that the same people are looking at the topic over and over again.