BRHL2 Future (Important)

Eric_Isles · BRHL2 Co-Commish

BRHL2 Future (Important)

BluesGM · Guru

Eric_Isles wrote:
Bryce and I are definitely open to ideas, but do keep in mind that there is sometimes a method to our madness. :)

Fire Kirk? biggrin

Anaheim GM · Guru

Eric_Isles wrote:

THEE MOST IMPORTANT THING I will bring up here is regarding Tags. Next off-season, when the calender reads 2011, after Season 5, before Season 6, it will be the LAST time the current tagging system (Lemieux, Lowe, Semenko) will be applicable. We're doing this to cut down on the amount of re-signings, and deepen the Free Agent pool. Possibly it will cut down on overspending of BRHL2 UFA's. But it will bring more players to Free Agency. There is a chance that we could still use a system where we only offer one tag per team, but that's merely just a thought. My personal guess from talking to GMs is that most people want them gone completely. We're giving teams who have accounted for the continued use of them, two more off-seasons to use them. Which we feel is fair.

Smart decision and the timing is appropriate.

Sabres_Luke · Guru

One idea that George brought up was in place of tags, would be to consider increasing the "home team" discount. As trading is far more prevalent (and I think good for activity), I would suggest a steep scale.

My proposal for pending UFAs who are testing the market would be the following discounts:
-1 year with the club: 5%
-2 years with the club: 10%
-3 years with the club: 15%
-4 years with the club: 20%
-5 Years or more: 25%

Let's say Lidstrom is with Detroit for 5 years heading in to UFA and he was offered 10 million per year. That means Detroit would have an option to go 7.5 per year to retain him.

I believe this system is completely realistic and players who are loyal to their team and have been in a city for many years, develop relationships, have kids who go to school, are apart of local charities, have friends and neighbors, they are willing to take a significiant discount.

There are countless examples of pending UFAs who have been with their club for over 5 years that take HUGE discounts. Lidstrom is one example in the NHL where he signed for 6.2 whereas he could have easily received 7.5-8.5 on the open market a few years ago. Alfredsson earns 4.75 with Ottawa where he signed in 2008 before making it to the UFA market where he could have fetched between 6.5-7.5.

My last point is that Kirk would be totally screwed as he never holds on to a player longer than 1 year lol jk.

That's my opinion but I'm sure people have differing views.

RWCordell · Senior Member

As this is my first year in this league and just kind of trying to feel my way around, I hope no-one views this as a guy trying to step in and change everything! I like the idea Sabres GM proposed about a "home team" discount, but perhaps this could be taken a step further. In another sim league I am in, we are allowed to re-sign UFA's based on a scale. If you have between 1-3 UFA's you are permitted to re-sign 1 UFA for a reasonable contract (4-6 UFA's = 2 re-signings etc.) thus making the bulk of free agents available while allowing a GM the opportunity to retain at least some of his team. This also allows GM's the chance to move UFA rights prior to free agency opening. If another team wants UFA( eg.Spezza) and does not wish to take a chance in free agency, they trade for him prior to free agency opening and uses their UFA signing on him, making their own free agents available. This actually stimulates the trade market as GM's scramble to get something for guys they would otherwise lose for nothing. I'll adapt to whatever is put out there, but just some food for thought.

Anaheim GM · Guru

Sabres_Luke wrote:

One idea that George brought up was in place of tags, would be to consider increasing the "home team" discount. As trading is far more prevalent (and I think good for activity), I would suggest a steep scale.

My proposal for pending UFAs who are testing the market would be the following discounts:
-1 year with the club: 5%
-2 years with the club: 10%
-3 years with the club: 15%
-4 years with the club: 20%
-5 Years or more: 25%

Let's say Lidstrom is with Detroit for 5 years heading in to UFA and he was offered 10 million per year. That means Detroit would have an option to go 7.5 per year to retain him.

I believe this system is completely realistic and players who are loyal to their team and have been in a city for many years, develop relationships, have kids who go to school, are apart of local charities, have friends and neighbors, they are willing to take a significiant discount.

There are countless examples of pending UFAs who have been with their club for over 5 years that take HUGE discounts. Lidstrom is one example in the NHL where he signed for 6.2 whereas he could have easily received 7.5-8.5 on the open market a few years ago. Alfredsson earns 4.75 with Ottawa where he signed in 2008 before making it to the UFA market where he could have fetched between 6.5-7.5.

My last point is that Kirk would be totally screwed as he never holds on to a player longer than 1 year lol jk.

That's my opinion but I'm sure people have differing views.

Sorry, but I don't think that this is feasible as it would involve tracking the number of years each player plays with a team. As well, while we want to make the league as realistic as possible, I don't think that this really helps. I mean, what is next? Are we going to allow teams that have a better chance at winning a cup to sign guys who haven't won a cup and are late into their carrer to have a discount?

-- Edited by Anaheim GM on Sunday 4th of July 2010 07:00:50 PM

Sabres_Luke · Guru

STHS has a transactions page that keeps record of all trades- so it is actually quite feasible.

You know you can disagree with my suggestion without trying to belittle me. I believe tags are originally in place to try and emulate the league in that regard- it was just a suggestion from George that I thought to be a pretty good idea.

BluesGM · Guru

Sabres_Luke wrote:
You know you can disagree with my suggestion without trying to belittle me.

I didn't see where he tried to belittle you....

Anyways, I would rather just see a loyalty discount, though I think that it should be a percentage rather than a set amount.... higher for lower paid players and lower for higher paid players.... a 10% discount doesn't mean much for a 500k contract but it does quite a bit to a $5 million contract....

Perhaps having a loyalty discount of 20% to anyone who receives an offer from you less than a million
15% between $1-3 million
10% between $3-5 million
5% anything above

Hummers · Veteran Member

RWCordell wrote:

As this is my first year in this league and just kind of trying to feel my way around, I hope no-one views this as a guy trying to step in and change everything! I like the idea Sabres GM proposed about a "home team" discount, but perhaps this could be taken a step further. In another sim league I am in, we are allowed to re-sign UFA's based on a scale. If you have between 1-3 UFA's you are permitted to re-sign 1 UFA for a reasonable contract (4-6 UFA's = 2 re-signings etc.) thus making the bulk of free agents available while allowing a GM the opportunity to retain at least some of his team. This also allows GM's the chance to move UFA rights prior to free agency opening. If another team wants UFA( eg.Spezza) and does not wish to take a chance in free agency, they trade for him prior to free agency opening and uses their UFA signing on him, making their own free agents available. This actually stimulates the trade market as GM's scramble to get something for guys they would otherwise lose for nothing. I'll adapt to whatever is put out there, but just some food for thought.

I've seen this type of system before. It was just randomnly tabulated which guys would talk to the team before hitting UFA.. that is the biggest downfall of it though and why I don't like it. It leaves some subjectivity and there really isn't room for that an a sim league, especially with money on the line. It needs to be black and white.

HOTLANTA · Guru

no home town discount or tagging system is needed,, the ufa should go to the top bidder..

this will allow teams with alot of cap space to add peices every year.. not letting the powerhouse teams get hometown discounts..

anyone think its weird atl-buf been in the last 3 finals from the east and it looks like itll be that way for awhile with their respected teams.... being able to get hometown discounts on their players would just keep them out of UFA or make their UFA price very high..

Rumpy · Senior Member

I am really against getting rid of the salary cap floor. As a GM that has struggled to stay above the floor the last couple yrs and given out those bloated contracts I think having to stay above and work around the floor in any deals has kept me more active as opposed to just mailing it in.

I think the tag system is kind of dumb but I also do like some loyalty how about giving each team a UFA re-sign every 3 yrs? Will still put lots of players into the UFA pool and allow GM's to keep there favorite or best player.

Georges idea although hard to follow kind of works but still benifits guys like Luke and George who have Stamkos Crosby Doughty Green etc as they will be able to retain them 25% cheaper than anybody else. It's a decent idea I just think the tag above makes GM's pick their man and spreads out the talent more if one team has lots of good players.

My main problem with UFA in the past has been that the best 1 yr deal gets a free agent which is total ****. If I'm not making this up right now I think the signing bonus really really really helps teams who only make 1 yr offers as the SB cuts down the overall salary per yr or something??? I could be in left field right now with that idea.

My idea to try change things a bit is this:
I think allowing free agents to sign long term big money deals is a good idea. With that in mind I say we create a program with all the free agents each year and put them into a pool of signing a 1 2 3 or 4 yr deal totally randomly and then GM's bid on those players and highest bidder gets them for the term. If that makes sense? Teams trying to tank can put the big money 1 yr deals in and other guys I'm sure will over spend on 3 or 4 yr deals and be stuck with that albatross for more than 1 yr which is usually the case now. There are very few Giguere Yelle Parrish or Boucher contracts out there in this league.

I also think any guy under the age of 25 making less than 2 M can't be put on the farm ???? That player should have to be bought out for the full amount put back into free agency and still have 1/2 cap hit count against his team for the duration of his term? This last part would take some work but it would cut down on the 4 year 4 million dollar offers and then just putting Stephan Yelle on the farm deals?

Lots of ideas and ramblings but hopefully it makes enough sense and there is a idea or two in there that might help?

Good Night

Sabres_Luke · Guru

Like Garreth, my biggest concern with UFA is the anonymity. I feel that however it's done, it should be a closed bid system.

Unfortunately I do feel that unless there is some sort of subjectivity it would be impossible to do as Tyler says and make a longer contract more valuable. I can't really think of a way to objectively say that one offer holds more value than another unless it comes down to being the same amount. In which case you could give it to the longer term.

I can't see Bryce and Eric making anything subjective as this is a pay league. For this reason I will purpose my best version of how I think UFA should work. This is how I feel it can be most similar to the NHL.

1) The entire UFA pool is split into 4 groups alphabetically.
2) There is a 24 hour bidding period for each group in 4 consecutive days. IE. Monday from 12pm-11:59 PM Tuesday is Group 1. Tuesday 12pm-11:59pm Wednesday ect..
3) Simply, the highest bid for a player by any team in that 24 hour period is selected (objective).

Strengths:
-Realistic: This mirrors the NHL in that teams are forced to head into UFA with a strategy and wish list. I understand that in the NHL there is more room for negotiation and to get a feel for a player, which is why this is 4 days instead of one.
- Quicker: Less hassle for Eric and Bryce. While it is a bit more focused during that 4 day period. It will be over within a few days. In fact the group could be split into 2 or 3 to make it shorter.
-Anonymous: I believe that having a UFA system where everyone knows who's bidding and what is bid couldn't be further from how things operate. Sure, there are rumors of who may be interested in a player but never are financial terms disclosed until a deal has been struck.
-No second chances: In the previous system, if you missed out on the guy you wanted, you could just forget it and still have chance to bid on the second best. Then the second best would go to high and you'd go to the 3rd best. This is completely unrealistic as in the NHL you target players and make an offer. The player feels wanted by a few teams and makes a decision.
-Gets rid of the tire kickers: In the previous system there would be a few days of people making offers for players they aren't even interested in. Sometimes it would be over 10 days until a winning bid is in the ballpark. In this system the crappy offers aren't even looked at and the bidding is done in a 24 hour period.
Bargains& overpayment are possible: Just like the real UFA, there will be more bargains and more overpayments. The reason for this is that if a GM targets a less sought after player while the other teams focus on different players, it's possible to get a bargain. Meanwhile, if teams are unable to get their #1 target on the first 3 days, then a few clubs will be desperate for "the last sniper, or #1 Dmen" on day 4. This is very similar to the NHL.

Weaknesses:
-Very concentrated for a short period of time much like the draft.
-GMs on Vacation or with an inability to make it online for one of the 24 hour periods could be at a disadvantage. However, this is much like the draft.

Regardless of how it's done, I think it should be closed, and a group of players should have a period of time when the bidding is OVER- none of this "wait 24/48 hours until there is not a higher bid". Make it known when these certain players are closed and let the chips fall where they may.

That's my two cents.
Luke

BluesGM · Guru

Sabres_Luke wrote:
Like Gareth, my biggest concern with UFA is the anonymity. I feel that however it's done, it should be a closed bid system.

*Thumbs up* I agree 100%.... I thought one free agency (I was going to steal a UFA at a low price) but was outbid by a rival with a few minutes left.... after that, he never bid on him again and that player ended up going elsewhere for 2 million more....

I'm definitely behind any idea that protects the bidder's identity...

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

OK, I've seen 2 ideas that I think could legitimately work

1. Having set terms that each UFA will sign for, break it down beforehand than player X wants a 2 year deal, Player Y a 4 year deal etc... To be randomly assigned, or even determined by a designated person.

2. Creating groupings (number of groupings to be determined). Where you submit one bid, and one bid only. It's a good idea, one we've tossed around before, and I am not opposed to. It would allow us to determine each teams cap level prior to that days bidding, and GMs could not exceed that level.

I'm interested to hear some more feedback.

Sens · Guru

BryceBruins wrote:

OK, I've seen 2 ideas that I think could legitimately work

1. Having set terms that each UFA will sign for, break it down beforehand than player X wants a 2 year deal, Player Y a 4 year deal etc... To be randomly assigned, or even determined by a designated person.

2. Creating groupings (number of groupings to be determined). Where you submit one bid, and one bid only. It's a good idea, one we've tossed around before, and I am not opposed to. It would allow us to determine each teams cap level prior to that days bidding, and GMs could not exceed that level.

I'm interested to hear some more feedback.

I think option 1 hurts rebuilding teams, it is obvious I will have to sign a bunch of crap goons to stay above the floor which is fine by me I decided to take my team in this direction, BUT I don't want to be commited to those crap goons for a 4 yr deal! I could see it working for the high end to middle of the road talent but really does anyone want to commit 4yrs to Jason Strudwick (or which ever goon/boardline NHL player you want to list)