It seems i've been piping in my opinion on things as of late but here we go again. I feel strongly we need to reanalyze the "New 2009 RFA Calculator". It had been said that the new system would try and echo the NHL salaries as much as possible.
No matter what senario you put, salaries are inflated considerably unless you sign a player to a 1 or 2 year deal who is under 24.
We insist on having HUGELY inflated nearing UFA numbers and yet if they are 27 heading into UFA they have already been given inflated number by the NHL (either extension or actual UFA signing).
The primary purpose of the inflation nearing UFA was to protect against signing players with PRE ufa type contracts. For example if Jason Blake had a 1 year left when he was 25 at $2,000,000- You couldn't just use that salary and sign him for 5 years 3 of which are in UFA.
So now what we're doing with the 27 year old RFA's is letting them get their HUGE contracts and then Inflating them by as much as another 150%.
I'll use my glaring example because I don't want someone else trying to call me out on it like, "Oh you just want Zets cheaper." Zetterberg signs for 6,083,000 in the NHL heading into UFA (exact same senario as me in BRHL); however, for some reason I need to pay close to 8 million per season to keep him on my roster? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I felt the exact same way about Datsyuk last year. Bryce ends up having to trade on of the filthiest players in the league because his contract is up near 8 million after it had already been inflated to 6,700,000 by Detroit.
There had only been one year of precedence in this issue; however I think the league is in grave danger of over pricing players in RFA. If we keep this model, I promise you in 3 years of this and over 20 contracts over the 7 million mark, there will be major problems- especially if we continue to follow the NHL's Cap, which from my understanding is a primary goal.
If you don't think this issue effects you now and thus don't have an opinion, believe me it will eventually when your only 80+ player ends up costing you near 10 million after they've already received their UFA type contract in the NHL.
__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
While I don't know much about this issue, based on the numbers you are bringing up it seems this is something we may want to consider. Just a little tweaking to keep things in line with the NHL is all thats needed - especially since we're expecting a drop in the cap in a few years.
The thing you are missingis that guys in the NHL scenario taht are star younger guys, the Zetterbergs, Vinnys, Richards, DiPietro's of the league, are signing 10 year deals in the NHL, for an average cap hit less than they would get on the open market.
The inflating of deals is done to reflect more what they would get as a UFA if you're buying UFA years, as it should. Because we are not allowing 10 year deals, there will be examples of guys going for high. But if you don't think Zetterberg would get 8 million as a free agent, either let him test RFA, or just look at the UFA market.
Allowing teams to buy UFA years of the RFA's is done to reflect the NHL, but as such, you need to pay to do so. I ran multiple tests to analyze the numbers and really was pretty happy with all of them.
So in BRHL we follow the exact same cap, yet were not allowed to sign to long term deals?
A) We don't get the value of holding a player in a contact over 5 years. B) We have to pay them more and we get them for shorter time.
You're main point is that their deals are longer and thus they have a lesser average cap hit than on the open market. I would be fine with giving Zetterberg a longer deal for less just like Detroit. I see what you're saying in that we are paying them shorter term so it should be cheaper:
AKA Manny looking for 45 million for 2 years when he was looking for 6 years and 240 million.
It makes sense, but from a sheer value perspective I'd way rather pay a player over 10 years and 6 million than 5 years and 8 million for 2 reasons: 1 it's cheaper vs the cap and 2 I get the player for longer!
What you're saying is: 1 You get them for very inflated and 2 you get them for shorter. Seems like a fair consolation would be getting them for market value at a shorter term.
I guarantee you if the NHL has the same policy for only 5 year maximum deals, owners wouldn't be able to afford the cap hits.
__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
I also garantee Lidstrom would take a 4 year 10 M dollar offer over a 1 year 12 M dollar offer in real life. That isn't what happens in UFA either and once a player becomes a UFA in this league he is a UFA year after year after year. You have to continuously re-build and stay on top of things which you are really good at to succeed Luke.
