HOW DO YOU WANT TO "TAG" PLAYERS

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

RE: HOW DO YOU WANT TO "TAG" PLAYERS

Philippe27 · Guru

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

Cuz that would be throwing at least 1000 bucks over the next 3 years down the toilet.

CBJackets · Guru

BryceBruins wrote:

CBJackets wrote:

A bunch of RFA contracts had been negotiated with big signing bonuses and things seemed to be going just fine and dandy.

Please which contracts were signed with big signing bonuses.

Also where does it state that players would accept up to 50% for teh SB? That is for UFA when players sign strictly based on total $$$

In 6 years of negoting salaries in the BRHL, no team has ever signed a RFA with a max signing bonus, and if it were ever over 10-15% it was usually passed back to the team that he wanted a higher base. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of a CAP system. Which is what we operate. When we find a perceived flaw (or something that needs restricted) we will fix it, I offer NO apologies for that.

Umm, there was NO distinction between UFA and RFA bonuses. It was 50%.

Otherwise how did these deals get signed?...

Chris Higgins -                                        Patrice Bergeron -
*3 years - $2,750,000                           *3 years - $1,850,000
Signing Bonus $1,800,000*                       Signing Bonus $4,000,000*

I'm not saying I disagree with the decision, but it WAS made because of one team, and there was pretty much no notice given, it was okay no more big signing bonuses from right now on, after TB had made a bunch of moves to get cash just so he could sign those players.

philly · Guru

lol, at least you still have your humour.....

and i am sorry to be the one to point this out, but i am now 100% sure because i checked finances last night, but columbus played todays game over the salary cap and thus burnaby joe will be joining jagr watching the season from their sofa's.

CBJackets · Guru

I guess you haven't been paying attention, even to your own team, apparently, but you and other teams have played games over the cap.

There are always extenuating factors, I've managed the cap closely for 50 odd games, why would I suddenly go over?

Salvador trade, never processed, Hordichuk, placed on waivers, never sent down.

So I wouldn't worry too much, because if we played it like that, Naslund would have been off your team about a month ago.

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

CBJackets wrote:

Chris Higgins -                                        Patrice Bergeron -
*3 years - $2,750,000                           *3 years - $1,850,000
Signing Bonus $1,800,000*                       Signing Bonus $4,000,000*

Higgings deal is a SB of 600k per year...Bergeron's doesnt even match up, that signing bonus is more than 50% so it must be a typo

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Bergerons deal was 3 years @ 2.75 million with a 2 million SB, so that'd be a typo if thats what is up

Philippe27 · Guru

lol, at least you still have your humour.....

lol yaap I always did and still do

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

BryceBruins wrote:

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???

Given that Tags are just a made up thing, I personally think that the simpler it is, the better it's going to be all around. If we're going to say that it's an automatic extension, make it an automatic extension (same salary).

Introduce negotiations, and then what happens if a deal can't be negotiated? Is the player just going to agree to the previous salary anyway? If so, why wouldn't everyone do it, in which case everyone WILL do it. Can he walk away and then the tag is wasted, or does it mean that the tag can then be used on someone else? In either case, it's no longer an automatic extension.

I see the two aspects of a tag (being both an automatic extension, and any negotiation) as being opposing ideas. Anything that can be negotiated has the potential to see no agreement reached. Which means there's no automatic extension by a year...

Plus then it's not only a matter of the agent having power, but there's a huge matter of subjectivity. I really really foresee huge complaints the first time a player refuses a team's "tag offer". As a GM, I'm going to see that I'm supposed to have an automatic extension by a year, but the player's refusing to sign with me... And then if the player ALWAYS signs during "negotiations" does that mean that as a GM I can just make low offers because it's my right to have him for a year extension?

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

CBJackets wrote:

BryceBruins wrote:

I'm not saying I disagree with the decision, but it WAS made because of one team, and there was pretty much no notice given, it was okay no more big signing bonuses from right now on, after TB had made a bunch of moves to get cash just so he could sign those players.

Sweet Sassy Molassy, does Tampa own the rights to the columbus GM for all the sucking up going on?

As the guy that continuously brought UP the fact that signing bonuses should be part of the cap, and that it made no sense not to be, I CAN say that whatever Tampa Bay did or did not do, had absolutely nothing to do with me raising that as an issue. Hell, I don't pay attention to what someone else is doing with their team, I look at my team. I obviously am not part of the BOD, and thus I can't speak to why any DECISION was made, but I guarantee you that the issue wasn't raised because of Tampa Bay in the least.

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Like I said, should you choose to negotiate, you could not go back to his original salary. Once the agent sets a minimum salary if the team wont accept that they can negotiate with someone else. Essentially you would transfer a ton of power to the agent, who would want top dollar to forgo a year of UFA, so it's often easiest and safest to just extend. But in a case like Khabibulin in San Jose, if he thinks he could sign Khabby to a cheaper extension, he could take that risk. However, then it does bring subjectivity into it, which is a risk teams would run.

Any other thoughts? I think this is implementable. But I'd like to hear feedback.

Philippe27 · Guru

BryceBruins wrote:

Like I said, should you choose to negotiate, you could not go back to his original salary. Once the agent sets a minimum salary if the team wont accept that they can negotiate with someone else. Essentially you would transfer a ton of power to the agent, who would want top dollar to forgo a year of UFA, so it's often easiest and safest to just extend. But in a case like Khabibulin in San Jose, if he thinks he could sign Khabby to a cheaper extension, he could take that risk. However, then it does bring subjectivity into it, which is a risk teams would run.

Any other thoughts? I think this is implementable. But I'd like to hear feedback.

I think it just makes it more complicated for no reason and a bigger change than what you are already talking about doing.
I liked it with all 1 yr negotiations because some would go up some would stay the same and some would go down and that's what common sense would dictate from the rulebook.
With one year extensions everyone would stay the same.
With this suggestion 95% of the guys would stay the same or go down, very few would go up so I think it makes it worse.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

BryceBruins wrote:

Like I said, should you choose to negotiate, you could not go back to his original salary. Once the agent sets a minimum salary if the team wont accept that they can negotiate with someone else. Essentially you would transfer a ton of power to the agent, who would want top dollar to forgo a year of UFA, so it's often easiest and safest to just extend. But in a case like Khabibulin in San Jose, if he thinks he could sign Khabby to a cheaper extension, he could take that risk. However, then it does bring subjectivity into it, which is a risk teams would run.

Any other thoughts? I think this is implementable. But I'd like to hear feedback.

So then the Tag can be worthless... or does the team get another shot to use the Tag on someone else...

Subjectivity... bad.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

CBJackets wrote:

I guess you haven't been paying attention, even to your own team, apparently, but you and other teams have played games over the cap.

There are always extenuating factors, I've managed the cap closely for 50 odd games, why would I suddenly go over?

Salvador trade, never processed, Hordichuk, placed on waivers, never sent down.

Sure looks like the Salvador trade was processed, and it doesn't look like Hordichuk was placed on waivers either... by that I mean he's not showing on the waiver list, so are you sure you sent in the right lines for that to happen...

CBJackets · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

CBJackets wrote:

I guess you haven't been paying attention, even to your own team, apparently, but you and other teams have played games over the cap.

There are always extenuating factors, I've managed the cap closely for 50 odd games, why would I suddenly go over?

Salvador trade, never processed, Hordichuk, placed on waivers, never sent down.

Sure looks like the Salvador trade was processed, and it doesn't look like Hordichuk was placed on waivers either... by that I mean he's not showing on the waiver list, so are you sure you sent in the right lines for that to happen...

Yup, I did send in lines for Hordichuk to be sent down. And the Salvador trade I'm talking about is a trade which sends Salvador to Toronto for Grant Marshall.

Neither, were processed. I'm not blaming anyone, but I'll be happy to show my lines to Eric and Toronto has a copy of the trade being confirmed.

Just like the Desjardins waiver claim, and just like when Philly was over the cap this year because a player had been automatically called up to his team due to an injury, sometimes things don't get processed and sometimes there are glitches in the sim.