|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Aug 28, 2015 10:25:03 GMT -5
Thanks for jumping on the Del Boca Vista train gents!
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Aug 28, 2015 10:42:33 GMT -5
But Doug, as part of free agency, all GM's are able to step in and bid if a player is going for too low a price - ie, exactly what happens now. If Sydney Crosby's opening bid is 5 years at $15, how long do you think that will last?
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 28, 2015 10:44:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I see the pattern but if you see a good, young player you want to lock up for 5 years, the default is $24. It's a very high place to start. I would have though mid-teens is fine and then the market decide what he is worth from there. Melbourne - It's $24 to prevent exactly the scenario you want to use it for. If you value a young player, or any player, and want him on your team for five years - taking him off the market to the rest of us - then you have to pay a significant salary to do that. That significant salary is about 9% of the current salary cap so it essentially prevents you, or anyone else, from securing a large number of elite players. Stockholm is exactly right. That's by intent. The draft is the constructed best means to take a flyer on a young player for multiple years, in order to keep somewhat of a competitive balance through the league (as the worse teams are more likely to be drafting the higher quality players). And because the "prospect game" is very hit or miss, that's the reason why EL Players are able to be EL Released at no penalty (unlike TERM Players who must be bought out). The system is designed to keep fresh blood in the FA market every year. I (as the commissioner) WANT Free Agency to be big every year. I want there to always be major talent available (unlike the stagnant mess that the NHL's Free Agency mess has become). However, if you REALLY like a guy, the option's there to go big and sign him to 5y... but it's going to cost you, so you better be confident in his abilities in the long-term, because it's going to be a hard deal to get out of. tl;dr - System's designed to make sure Free Agency stays interesting year-in and year-out.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 28, 2015 10:47:13 GMT -5
But Doug, as part of free agency, all GM's are able to step in and bid if a player is going for too low a price - ie, exactly what happens now. If Sydney Crosby's opening bid is 5 years at $15, how long do you think that will last? Seeing how timid the bids have been to start out this year, I'd guess Crosby from $15/5y to $20/5y would take... 78 hours?
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 11:38:40 GMT -5
Stockholm is exactly right. You're going to be saying that a lot in the future so you may want to just copy that so you can paste it and save yourself some valuable time.
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Aug 28, 2015 13:04:07 GMT -5
Ok, not sure I fully buy it but no big deal. Agree on the keeping FA interesting aspect.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Sept 11, 2016 22:26:47 GMT -5
Revised rule j) to include the over-budget process.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Sept 20, 2017 13:11:09 GMT -5
Revised rule i) to cover Conditional EL RELEASE bids and a team's funds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 21:08:55 GMT -5
I disagree with the way rule "i" is being written/interpreted.
I think we should have to have the funds to make a bid. This makes for pretend/potential $.
It's generous for us as a league to allow people to bid on players while not having a roster spot. That's a big advantage and it's been helpful to many.
But I strongly believe that we shouldn't allow bidding to occur without a team having the actual funds. That takes things too far and it creates a whole series of crazy scenarios.
For example, I have a couple of expiring EL players at $12 each... rule "I" as is currently written should allow for me to bid up to my free salary cap space + $24 (releasing two players)... or it could involve releasing even more players for even more cap space.
I think that goes against the intention of the rule - which initially was to allow owners some flexibility with roster slots - not with salary cap space.
I think we should fix this to clear up future problems.
|
|