HOW DO YOU WANT TO "TAG" PLAYERS

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

HOW DO YOU WANT TO "TAG" PLAYERS

Philippe27 · Guru

RE: HOW DO YOU WANT TO "TAG" PLAYERS

VanIslander · Guru

Philippe27 wrote:

Negotiate 1 year extension because that's what is in the rules and rules shuld not be changed.

No.

The rules do not specify how new contracts would be determined.

In fact, by the way it's written it looks like LENGTH of contract is also negotiable, it only says that there's a 1-year no trade clause to the new contract, which makes sense, as signing a long term new deal then trading right away is against the spirit of negotiations. I say if we are going to haggle over salary then let's haggle over length of contract. Otherwise, a simple contract extension thank you.

Philippe27 · Guru

RE: HOW DO YOU WANT TO "TAG" PLAYERS

CBJackets · Guru

RE: HOW DO YOU WANT TO "TAG" PLAYERS

VanIslander · Guru

Philippe27 wrote:

It's a joke that smart GM's build their team using certain rules and they change a few weeks later. Yes I'm referring to being told I offered too high of a signing bonus to RFA's when the rules say maximum 50% and I offered about 40%.

That one pissed me off too. That's a case of the rules not being followed as specified! (What player would reject getting more money up front rather than later!!! the rules say 50% so let us offer that if we got the cash, it's not like we can afford to do that with every player!)

But the tag issue is about UNSPECIFIED rules, rules with various options of interpretation/application.

Philippe27 · Guru

VanIslander wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

It's a joke that smart GM's build their team using certain rules and they change a few weeks later. Yes I'm referring to being told I offered too high of a signing bonus to RFA's when the rules say maximum 50% and I offered about 40%.

That one pissed me off too. That's a case of the rules not being followed as specified! (What player would reject getting more money up front rather than later!!! the rules say 50% so let us offer that if we got the cash, it's not like we can afford to do that with every player!)

But the tag issue is about UNSPECIFIED rules, rules with various options of interpretation/application.

I understand it's unspecified but the word negotiation is in there so eventhough it's not clear the intent when they were written was clearly that we would negotiate salaries for tags. There was no mention of number of years but it was clarified by Eric about 2 months ago that it would be 1 year max and the following year the player because a UFA automatically.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

CBJackets wrote:

Yeah, he did get pretty screwed with the changing of that rule. It was pretty ridiculous that it was jokingly called the "Philippe" rule and it was changed because one guy had made so many good trades that without putting some kind of restriction on him he would have built, and still may yet build, a dynasty.

That's an entire other matter, and while I don't know what types of discussion went on with the BOD regarding the rule change, I think it's pretty laughable to actually think that the rule was changed because of what 1 team did. It was changed after many teams in the league put in their 2 cents, and had to do with the logic of the cap system. And I don't think that anybody except Philippe actually referred to it as the "tampa bay rule", that was just him feeling sorry for himself, calling it that. And let's also be realistic that to become a dynasty, you have to win the cup. That being said, anytime I've ever brought up a suggested rule change, I've said that it should happen the following year, not the current one.

In this case, I certainly don't think it's a rule "change". Arguements are being made regarding semantics and wording. It's simply not clear from the way it's written. This is why I asked for clarification on tags a long long time ago. Perhaps it was just mentioned on the board about the 1 year, and that's it. But I know that I was told it was just an automatic extension at the same salary for that one year, but that may have just been via ICQ or e-mail, I can't really remember.

Sure the rules as written say "negotiation"... well, hell, maybe all that means is that I when I choose to tag a player, I send in my desire to tag the guy, which in turns sends an offer to his agent, who in turns accepts the offer at the same salary for one more year. Again, otherwise, how can you have negotiations if someone is tagged? What if there's no agreement between the player and the team on a salary? The player sits out for the year? Well what's the point of the tag then?

Frankly I personally would have been happiest without tags period. They not only affect the team who's tagging them, but potentially others who might be planning for what they're going to do in the offseason and who they want to sign. If we don't really know who's going to be UFA, that affects teams.

Philippe27 · Guru

I think it's pretty laughable to actually think that the rule was changed because of what 1 team did.

I think it's pretty laughable not to acknowledge that.
I got 60 millions to spend by following the rules and a rule was made up to screw me over because I can dominate the league otherwise.

Anyways I'm done on this but for the record this league is turning into a joke.

VanIslander · Guru

Philippe27 wrote:

a rule was made up to screw me over because I can dominate the league otherwise

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Philippe27 wrote:

I got 60 millions to spend by following the rules and a rule was made up to screw me over because I can dominate the league otherwise.

No rule was made up to "screw" you over, we never once said that RFA's will sign for significantly cheaper because of a huge signing bonus. Unfortunately their are elements of real life that we can not incorprate into FHL, one of them being players needing money for retirement, houses, cars, prostitutes etc....So in the minds of the players and in the interests of the league a HUGE signing bonus for RFA's WILL NOT be a key part to an RFA negotiation. If you were unclear about that from the beginning then you shoudl have clarified that.

As pertaining to the extension, yes it is a 1 year extension, which was clarified from the beginning. While negotiation is not clear, and thats painfully obvious now, We thought we would open it up to the league to decide. Personally I don't care one way or the other, and thus far it seems the majority have voted for the same salary. unfortunately, it seems those on the other side are the squeeky wheel people.

So squeeky wheels, please point out which players this is effectively "screwing you over" on and what salary you were hoping to sign them to their 1 year extension at.

CBJackets · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

That's an entire other matter, and while I don't know what types of discussion went on with the BOD regarding the rule change, I think it's pretty laughable to actually think that the rule was changed because of what 1 team did. It was changed after many teams in the league put in their 2 cents, and had to do with the logic of the cap system. And I don't think that anybody except Philippe actually referred to it as the "tampa bay rule", that was just him feeling sorry for himself, calling it that. And let's also be realistic that to become a dynasty, you have to win the cup. That being said, anytime I've ever brought up a suggested rule change, I've said that it should happen the following year, not the current one.

The rule actually was pretty much changed because of a single team. A bunch of RFA contracts had been negotiated with big signing bonuses and things seemed to be going just fine and dandy. Tampa Bay made a couple more shrewd deals, acquired some very good RFAs and a buttload of cash, and then proceeded, within the rules, to attempt to lock them up to contracts with big signing bonuses and low cap hits so he could keep them all. It was at that point in time that the discussion about limiting RFA signing bonuses resurfaced. It was, basically, because of one team. I'm not disputing whether the decision was right or wrong but that's what happened, you can ask the commissioners if you like. Tbay apparently "exposed" a flaw in the rules that needed to be patched up.

The silly thing was he didn't even get to sign the rest of his players that were RFAs this year based on the signing bonus structure that was in the rules, the signing bonus structure that he'd been keeping in mind while trading.

It just rewards mediocrity. Really, to be able to 1)have a bunch of very good young RFAs that need to be signed to big money deals and to 2)Acquire THAT MUCH money through shrewed management, was and is very, very difficult. I mean how many teams could right now offer up a 25 million/5 year deal with a 10 million dollar signing bonus...very very few could afford that, and that was just for one player, (Turco).

The fact is it was changed because of one team, and what sucks is that he wasn't even given the opportunity to sign the rest of his upcoming RFAs based on this season's bonus structure, because, well, he had a lot of very good RFAs this season, so the rule just had to be put in place at that time, by some, IMO jealous members of the BOD.

CBJackets · Guru

BryceBruins wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

I got 60 millions to spend by following the rules and a rule was made up to screw me over because I can dominate the league otherwise.

No rule was made up to "screw" you over, we never once said that RFA's will sign for significantly cheaper because of a huge signing bonus. Unfortunately their are elements of real life that we can not incorprate into FHL, one of them being players needing money for retirement, houses, cars, prostitutes etc....So in the minds of the players and in the interests of the league a HUGE signing bonus for RFA's WILL NOT be a key part to an RFA negotiation. If you were unclear about that from the beginning then you shoudl have clarified that.

Sorry but what are you talking about. The rule was 40% of the total contract. And any player would take cash straight up unless they are Darren Mccarty or something.

What was unclear was the rule, well, in fact, it was pretty clear, 40% of the contract, if I have that number right.

Interests of the league, that pretty much sums it up.

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

An interesting idea came up from John in San Jose in our ICQ discussion, what about having the option up front. Your original offer is either

a) I would like to extend JOE BLOW using the XXXX Tag for 1 year at his current salary

OR

b) I would like to attempt to negotaite to extend JOE BLOW for 1 year using the XXX tag. Here is my offer.

Should you open with option B then their is no going back to the original offer, and essentially you are giving the agent all the power, but have a chance to negotiate a smaller salary.

Thoughts???

philly · Guru

hey columbus chill out, i never realized you had such an interest in seeing TB succeed. Is there something the rest of us should know about?

and phillippe you have been pretty much straight complaining about how the league has been screwing you, so for everyone else's convenience, feel free to leave us high and dry after the season