|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 5, 2004 19:55:17 GMT -5
This is a feeler post for anybody who dislikes the current UFA system whereby everybody floods the commishes email with their bids and only the TOP THREE get to move on to the second round. This is an Elimination Format.
What I propose is an E-Bay Format. This format is currently used in the CNGHL to some success.
The reason I am proposing this is that I feel the current system promotes unneccessary salary inflation whereby a GM will offer over and above what a players worth is just to "make it over the hump to the next round".
The E-Bay system is familiar to Bryce Fountain (Washington) , Dylan Mckay (Islanders), Andy Saunders (Chicago), and myself.
It's as follows: - All the UFAs are compiled into one list - 'X' many Player Agents are hired to manage a portion of said list (Where 'X' depends on how many free agents are currently up for bidding). - A minimum bid is set for each player based on the players OV. This can be decided beforehand by the commish or commitee. - GMs will submit their bids to the player agents accordingly. - The Player Agents will either once, twice, or thrice times a day post "updates". - There will also be a rolling deadline meaning that after each update once a player receives a bid he has 48 hours to sign unless another GM ups the bid. - Upping a bid will also have rules regarding minimum bids which will change in increments when a player reaches a certain salary level. - There are NO Signing Bonuses or Incentives to consider
Here is an example: Players That Have Signed Players Pos. / Rating Length Base Bidding Team Erik Rasmussen C / 68 ov 4 years $270,000 <10%> Zebras
Players That Will Sign Tonight at 10pm (July 29) Players Pos. / Rating Length Base Bidding Team Next Increment Bid Closes Time Status Adam Oates C / 75 ov 4 years $2,200,000 Royals $2,300,000 July 29 10pm PST 9 hours Yannick Tremblay D / 73 ov 4 years $750,000 LosMuertos $800,000 July 29 10pm PST 9 hours Phil Housley D / 75 ov 4 years $650,000 Royals $700,000 July 29 10pm PST 9 hours Nolan Baugmartner D / 67 ov 4 years $275,000 Monkeys $300,000 July 29 10pm PST 9 hours - Cold Tony Hrkac C / 68 ov 3 years $252,000 Epidemic $277,000 July 29 10pm PST 9 hours - Cold Tom Poti (RFA) D / 77 ov 4 years $2,495,000 IceDogs $2,595,000 July 29 10pm PST 9 hours Brent Johnson (RFA) G / 77 ov 4 years $1,000,000 Royals $1,050,000 July 29 10pm PST 9 hours
Players That Will Sign in 24 hours Players Pos. / Rating Length Base Team Next Increment Bid Closes Time Status Pavel Bure RW / 81ov 4 years $4,300,000 Ducklings $4,450,000 July 30 10pm PST Sandis Ozolinsh D / 79 ov 4 years $3,250,000 Psychos $3,400,000 July 30 10pm PST Eric Lindros C / 79 ov 3 years $2,500,000 Ducklings $2,600,000 July 30 10pm PST Steve Sheilds G / 75 ov 4 years $950,000 Bunnies $1,000,000 July 30 10pm PST Jason Woolley D / 73 ov 3 years $775,000 Ducklings $825,000 July 30 10pm PST Claude Lemieux LW / 70 ov 4 years $600,000 Psychos $650,000 July 30 10pm PST Sylvain Lefebvre D / 68 ov 4 years $600,000 Bunnies $650,000 July 30 10pm PST Norm Milley RW / 61 ov 4 years $300,000 Bunnies $325,000 July 30 10pm PST Damian Rhodes G / 67 ov 2 years $250,000 Condors $275,000 July 30 10pm PST Martin Prusek (RFA) G / 73 ov 1 year $750,000 Bunnies $800,000 July 30 10pm PST
Players That Will Sign in 48 Hours Players Pos. / Rating Length Base Team Next Increment Bid Closes Time Status Jeremy Roenick C / 80 ov 4 years $4,000,000 Blondes $4,150,000 July 31 10pm PST Updated Teppo Numminen D / 76 ov 4 years $2,600,000 Bunnies $2,750,000 July 31 10pm PST Updated Marcus Ragnarsson D / 73 ov 4 years $1,600,000 Awhippers $1,650,000 July 31 10pm PST Updated - HOT! Martin Lapointe RW / 72 ov 4 years $1,200,000 Blondes $1,250,000 July 31 10pm PST Updated Mike Richter G / 73 ov 4 years $950,000 Bunnies $1,000,000 July 31 10pm PST Updated
Players That Have Not Receive Bids Players Pos. / Rating Opening Bid Mike Peca (RFA) C / 75 ov $2,475,000 Daniel Markov (RFA) D / 74 ov $1,226,500
The process generally takes longer, but the results are worth it as it keeps the salary structure sane. By having the bids public GMs are not forced to wing it and over offer. We also use this for RFAs that are available to be bid on. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Feb 5, 2004 19:59:52 GMT -5
I think an idea like this is plausible, if others like it we could seriously consider it, or something close to it.
Lets hear yoru thoughts.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by Eric - Washington GM on Feb 5, 2004 20:20:41 GMT -5
I think its a good idea, and imo a tad better than the system we currently use. Both systems have their pluses. I like the System we use now because its based on Priority, It keeps from teams loading up 2-3 superstars in the UFA signing period. granted if a team can do that they should but I prefer the Priority in that situation. I've been involved with a situation like this before, Cal(SJ) and Chris(ST.L) have too(CSHL) and I think its a good method. I'd like to see Signing Bonuses and Incentives brought in, because then you can actually make use of the money your team has. If we use a system like this I'd like to see a rule implimented where only the top 5 teams move onto the 2nd round of bidding for that player. I feel that would make GM's make smarter decisions on who they should go after instead of them laying low on a guy for 2-4 days till the bidding reaches a peak and then they sneak in to get the player. I'm for a system like this, but Im also content with what we have. I'll treat this as a democracy and what everyone else wants, then thats fine with me. good idea Ken.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 5, 2004 21:27:55 GMT -5
Not really my "idea" I credit Bryce Fountain and Chris Johanssen of the CNGHL.
Teams cannot simply "sneak" in later as the bidding will will continually rise. This will benefit those teams who manage their money better and who have the finances.
There will be no retracted of bids so you must bid wisely. I hate the top # rule. It excludes those who are interested but are also interested in other players too. This way everybody can participate with all players and drop off where needs be.
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Feb 6, 2004 0:44:56 GMT -5
I dont like it, I think this, more than the current system will cause salary inflation. Ive seen it. Not time to go in depth, maybe I will later but I am not for it. I like the current system as it also takes a bit of brains and a bit of luck.
|
|
|
Post by bruinsgm on Feb 6, 2004 1:49:00 GMT -5
I don't follow as to how this will decrease salary inflation. As Cal said it will probably increase it. If people know what the current bid is they are more likely to bid again (at least I am). Not to mention if I see one of my closest competitions about to win a player you better darn well believe I will bid against him. I prefer the old system myself.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 2:44:14 GMT -5
It does not increase salary inflation. If you cannot afford to bid the next increment, --- don't bid. But at least you'd be in the hunt from the get go and can drop off at your pre-set stop point. Nobody FORCES you to bid more. Sure there are pre-set minimum bid increments, but that prevents GMs from bidding only $50 to up the bid. If you want to follow the NHL and pay GARTH SNOW $2.25M.... It's up to you.
In the Elimination method, you are forced to bid the maximum upmost bid you'd possible fathom for a player and also bring the insanities of fellow GMs (Stu Barnes anybody?) into the mix. THEN, once you'd already bid really high, you'd have to REBID again just in case one of the other 2 ups his bid or risk keeping yours the same... IF THAT IS NOT SALARY INFLATION I don't know what is. And it's kind of hard to say what he have works when the league is forced to suspend a whole bunch of superstars because their GMs cannot afford those zany contracts after all. (Jagr, Yashin, Yzerman, Leclair, Pronger).
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 2:49:04 GMT -5
I'd really like Bryce F. to chime in on this as he can explain the process better than I.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 4:08:16 GMT -5
I found Bryce's post here it is in his words:
The free agent procedure is going to be much like last year: an E-bay style format. Basically, players will go into an open bid in which any team may tender an offer at any point. There will, however, be minimum bid increments (a set amount that you must up the last bid by.) Every time a player is bid upon, that winning bid will be posted publicly, and GMs have 48 hours in which to up the bid themselves. If, within this 48 hour window, no more bids are placed on the player, then they will sign with the winning team at the amount of the winning bid.* Please note a bid can NOT be retracted. If you bid on a player, be prepared to pay that contract.
*The only case where a player will sign for less than the winning bid is an unrestricted free agent who re-signs with his former team. If a team currently holds a UFA's rights, any bid they place on that player will appear 10% higher when posted as a public bid. For example, if the Epidemic were to bid 3 million on Rucchin, it would appear in public bidding as 3.3 million. This is a loyalty clause, designed to emulate a free agents desire to stay with his former team. NOTE - There is no loyalty clause for a player you bought out. Only for players whose contracts have run out.
MINIMUM BID REQUIREMENTS
The minimum bid increments are as follows. Any bid that does not meet these requirements will be ignored by the agent.
OPENING BIDS
UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENTS RATED 76 OV OR GREATER- Any UFA with a rating of 76 or greater in our current ratings must recieve an opening bid of atleast the league average: 2 milliion dollars.
UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENTS RATED 72 OV - 75 OV OR LESS- Any UFA with a rating of 72 - 75 OV or lower in our current ratings must recieve an opening bid of atleast the 650,000 dollars.
UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENTS RATED LESS THAN 72 OV Any UFA with less than a 72 OV must recieve a bid of atleast 250k.
RESTRICTED FREE AGENTS- Any restricted free agent must recieve an opening bid that is atleast a 10% raise over his qualifying offer. For example, Tomas Vokoun is qualified at 900,000 a year, therefore his opening bid must be atleast 990,000 dollars a year. The amounts that RFAs were qualified at is identical to their last contract. So, just look in the finances for the player and see what their last contract was.
BID INCREMENTS- Once bidding has started on a player, you must top the previous bid by a certain amount in order for your bid to qualify. The minimum bid increemnts are as follows:
IF THE WINNING BID IS CURRENTLY 500,000 DOLLARS OR LOWER- You must top the previous bid by a minimum of 25,000 dollars in yearly salary.
IF THE WINNING BID IS CURRENTLY 500,0001 DOLLARS TO 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS- You must top the previous bid by a minimum of 50,000 dollars in yearly salary.
IF THE WINNING BID IS CURRENTLY 1,500,0001 DOLLARS TO 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS- You must top the previous bid by a minimum of 100,000 dollars in yearly salary.
IF THE WINNING BID IS CURRENTLY 2,500,001 DOLLARS TO 3.5 MILLION DOLLARS- You must top the previous bid by a minimum of 150,000 dollars in yearly salary.
IF THE WINNING BID IS CURRENTLY 3,500,001 DOLLARS TO 4.5 MILLION DOLLARS- You must top the previous bid by a minimum of 250,000 dollars in yearly salary.
IF THE WINNING BID IS CURRENTLY 4,500,001 DOLLARS OR HIGHER- You must top the previous bid by a minimum of 300,000 dollars in yearly salary.
Should there be a tie on a leading bid, the agent will give preference to the bid that was recieved first. However, I imagine this will not occur very often.
HOW BID VALUE WILL BE ASSESSED- Any player aged under 31 years of age will solely look at yearly contract value. IE- a bid of 1.1 million dollars per year will beat a bid of 1 milloin dollars a years. Any player aged 31 years of age or older will look at total contract value. IE 5 years at 850,000 will beat 4 years at 850,000. However, the same yearly salary bid increments apply to UFAs as do RFAs, so you won't be able to lowball a UFA with a 5 year offer to beat out that GM who offered a higher salary for only 2 years (IE- you can not bid a lower amount than the leading bid at a longer term.)
Please note - Buyouts will now cost half of the players total contract, so maybe offering that 35 year old UFA a juicy 5 year deal is not the best option. It will cost you lots of money to buy out if/when he starts sucking.
STANDARDIZED FORMAT IN WHICH AGENTS WILL POST BID UPDATES
All agents handling player bidding must follow this format for Bid Update Announcements. Each of you will create a thread in this forum titled with your name. For example, Andy will create a thread called Andy's Current Bid Status. Each time you post an update, reply to your thread. There is no specific time that you have to post this bid update, but you must post it atleast every 24 hours.
Your post will consist of three sections. You will keep GMs posted on what the minimum amount is to bid on a player, so please keep the above minimum bid increment information handy.
Once a player recieves a bid, they will progress through the list. If the bid is not topped in 48 hours, they will go onto the PLAYERS WHO HAVE SIGNED list. Once a player signs, they will remain on your PLAYERS WHO HAVE SIGNED list until the free agency period has ended.
Title your message (NAME)'S BID UPDATE: DATE
PLAYERS WHO HAVE YET TO RECIEVE BIDS- Player name: minimum bid.
PLAYERS WHO WILL SIGN IN 48 HOURS IF NO MORE BIDS ARE RECIEVED- Player name, current bid: minimum bid to top current offer.
PLAYERS WHO WILL SIGN IN 24 HOURS IF NO MORE BIDS ARE RECIEVED- Player name, current bid: minimum bid to top current offer.
PLAYERS WHO HAVE SIGNED- Player name, winning bid.
Please, if you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask. I would prefer if you ask them in this thread, so I can post my reply publicly to the benefit of all GMs.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 4:14:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Eric - Washington GM on Feb 6, 2004 4:25:09 GMT -5
After talking to Ken for oh, about an hour about the issue. There are some big things that I recognized, that would help out the financial status of the teams in the BRHL.
Q: Players would still get overpaid? A: Not to the team that gets him, say you want Yashin, and with the system currently in place you would probably offer 6+ mill for him and you would wonder if you could get him for less. I know I did it last year with Bondra, with this "Ebay" system each player will go for a proce that each GM is comfortable offering.
Each team probably has 2-3 overpaid players, am I right? but with this system you would only pay the money that you want to offer. I porbably wouldn't pay Jon Klemm more than 2 million dollars (dont tell him that) but hes making 3 million for the next 3+ years. Take a look at your team and as what would you pay for each player, and ask yourself if your overpaying.
You would be eliminating paying 3rd and 4th liners more money just to make sure theyre on your team, but would get them for money that you are comfortable with. With the saved money you could go after more free agents, that is if you have the money.
|
|
|
Post by CrismonCapsGM on Feb 6, 2004 7:19:45 GMT -5
We've had two years of experience with this system in the CNGHL, and I can honestly say it works great. Because you can bid on a number of players and drop out on bidding if the number gets too high, it does keep inflation down. You're not forced to blow the bank on that one big name UFA, and can rather try for a few guys and move on to another player if the first one gets too pricey for you.
This system will generally insure no "steals," as lower bids will usually be upped if the bid on another player gets too high. However, it also insures that there is no zany contract offers. Sure, bidding may increase a player's salary, but noone is forced to bid anymore than is required to beat the bid of the last GM. Noone has to bid a huge amount just to insure they have a player's services. A few GMs may go crazy and start offering huge contracts, but that's they're mistake and it will hurt them in the long term. Sure, the bids on a few guys may get large, but how is that any different than blind bidding? Atleast this way you know you didn't overpay from market value.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Feb 6, 2004 9:15:55 GMT -5
With our free agency system that all UFA's test the market this coud be successful in that with many star players, a team needing a goalie, and their are 7 legit starters on the market, they can drop out of the bidding for one guy to go to another that meets their need. I do see where a team with lots of cap room could go nuts (read ME). And sign like 5 star players, but I think this could work because we do have a real good group of GMs who are relatively smart with their funds (excluding Kirk). The thing I would try and bring onto the table is how to use a signing bonus and incentives into it as well.
I am curious how we could use that in this proposed system, otherwise the current finances becomes irrelevant to alot of teams cause they have over 20 million in the bank.
bryce
|
|
|
Post by habsgm on Feb 6, 2004 11:07:34 GMT -5
An immediate concern of mine is the levelness of the playing field where online bidding is concerned. What are the rammifications for a GM who only has a 28.8 dial-up connection? I don't know how many there are in the league who use lowspeed dialup - but there is at least one. Whereas, the determined GM with a reliable highspeed connection would be inclined to wait until "1 second short of the 12th hour" and submit a winning bid. In short, my initial reaction is that this is (or looks to be) a good idea although I have no problem with the current UFA system. BUT, my concern is that technology may play a bit of an influence in UFA signing - and that would suck.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 13:43:20 GMT -5
HabsgM wrote: -- "An immediate concern of mine is the levelness of the playing field where online bidding is concerned. What are the rammifications for a GM who only has a 28.8 dial-up connection? I don't know how many there are in the league who use lowspeed dialup - but there is at least one. Whereas, the determined GM with a reliable highspeed connection would be inclined to wait until "1 second short of the 12th hour" and submit a winning bid."
Reply: Because we would have a rolling deadline, there is no difference in an 11th hour bid. Each new bid resets the clock to 48hours. You need not worry about the messageboard or the slow loading page as you'd send your offer to the player agent's email. ex: Carl Maloon is currently at $3,300,000 and will sign in 24 hours as one day has passed with no new bids. You send in your offer which most likely is the next bid increment up. So $3,400,000.... now the clock is reset to 48 hours again.
Also it is not expected that a player agent make a post after every single new bid. He will post once or twice a day with a deadline on each player. I generally used 10pm as my signing deadline, other agents liked to use the exact time the offer was received.
So example again: Players Pos. / Rating Length Base Team Next Increment Bid Closes Time Status Daniel Alfredsson RW / 81ov 4 years $6,800,000 Blondes $7,100,000 Aug 4 12:01am PST
Alfredsson will sign on Aug 4th and precisely 12:01am PST if no new bids are recieved. If I were to receive a bid at 11:55pm Aug 3rd, than that bid would go through and the clock would reset to 48 hours.
Yes this method takes LONGER to accomplish than simply tossing an offer in the wind and in the dark. But I'd like to to know what is the rush when the offseason takes a while anyway, while the commish goes through the rerates.
|
|
|
Post by kingshuck on Feb 6, 2004 13:56:04 GMT -5
i think that the free agent system from last year worked great..
I liked last years system because in the nhl if you want a top guy to sign with u u pretty much have to go after him and him alone.. when's the last time two prize free-agents signed in one city? (excluding selanne kariya cause that was for different reasons).. this isnt the NBA where u can sign both grant hill and tracy mcgrady. teams that sign big name free agents in the offseason usually get one top end guy then another good player but not a star.. say anahiem. they sign federov then land prospal a mid teer player.. take detriot they sign hatcher then sign whitney a mid-teer player.. take dallas they sign guerin top end guy then sign boucher a solid player.. then their are teams like boston who think that a guy like martin lapointe is gonna be the peice they need to win a cup and overpay for him.. with the new system it looks like u can just erase the mistakes that could possibly happen.. i know one person said that u can sign 4 guys for the price that u think is acceptable. but that not how hockey finances work.. if u and another team both want a player ur gonna have to probably overpay to land that guy..
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Feb 6, 2004 14:22:21 GMT -5
I dont see how finances cannot be inflated with the proposed system. Yeah I may not be willing to go to high and will bow out, but that does not mean that there are not other idiots who will overpay and create contracts that are too high. These become crutches for the leagues, not just the GMs who make the initial offer.
I know at this point someone will try and respond, well that is the problem for the GM who makes the offer, but we can never just look at the current GM in FHL because of the high turnover.
Another thing is that guys could have their salaries inflated in another way. If I was going after Joe Sakic but was outbid, I may turn my attention to another guy say Whitney. Maybe Whitney was about to sign for 3.0 million, but I make an offer of 4.2 million after I pulled out of the Sakic offer. Maybe this is not bringing up salary with one huge overpayment, but it is adding 1.2 million to the league salaries that would not have been added under the current system. Why? because he would have signed with the guy who had offered 3 million as his first priority. What this does is allow us to turn our attention elsewhere (which has positives of course, but negatives as well) after we have lost on one guy so even if we are not seeing individuals get way way too much everybody will increase slightly which wil increase the average salaries in the league.
Also, in the current system we are only allowed to make one bid. Perhaps last year I would have offered slightly more to Sakic (as I was very close) had we had this system in place, and his salary would be even higher this season. I am yet to be convinced that guys will not do this and that salaries will not be increased. The opportunity to outbid others garantess that it is gonna happen.
Bringing up Stu Barnes is completely irrelevant Ken as he was signed under the old BRHL system. In the last two years we have not seen any ridiculous offers, some too high maybe, but I see the same thing happening even more with this system.
I dont think with the current system we have to "go for it all" right away as you say due to the priority rule. You know that there is less competition for a guy who is your 1st priority so you dont have to offer as much. With your second guy, same thing, as you are only competing against the guys who had him 2nd, or you never had any chance as someone already signing him first. You can actually offer less under the current system than a player would normally get if you make them your first or second priority and think that they would not be that high on anyone elses list.
Oneother league I was in, (with Jessie, Chris, George, and Eric) which had a similar system, saw Forseberg get 21 million a year due to idiots trying to outbid each other. So sorry that I dont believe you when you say some guys wont get out of hand. Sure we can limit the ammount that is offered, but we can do that under the current system as well.
All the guys being release is also poor evidence that the current system is flawed. That is the result of poor management by GMs (which is not solved by the proposed system) and by the cap being too low (yes it is IMO) and being a hard one.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 17:03:05 GMT -5
WTF Kirk. I never said this system would lead to the signing of every single superstar free agent by one team. Remember this is the B-R-H-L not the N-H-L. The NHL, currently does not have a salary cap, and a poor NHL team does not just go out and sign a bunch of free agents... (... err never mind, Ranger clause).
My point is, in this system you are in the hunt for a few top free agents, when you are able to sign one, you stop bidding on the other. How many teams are in a position financially to sign3-4 superstars? So tell me Kirk. You've had personal conversations with Ken Holland, Pat Quinn, Brian Burke, and Pierre Lacroix to KNOW their free agent strategems. You know they obviously NEVER go after more than one top tier free agent at the same time. Why that would be ludicrous.
Moreover, you DO realize that the NHL does not have a mandatory UFA becomes UFA rule. In the NHL believe it or not potential UFAs do, in fact, resign with their team well before the offseason. Therefore we do have an influx of a ton of free agents.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 17:09:05 GMT -5
a) Increasing the cap will lead to just as many GMs maxing out their rosters to the fullest limits possible
b) If a GM goes above and beyond the minimum set bid, than that's is his perogative. If Foresberg currently is being inched up through $5M and you want to offer $9M, go ahead. But you probably could have had him for $7M.
With everybody in the game for every player, salaries are generally lower for the top tier guys as GMs realize that A they cannot go above a certain point and still be able to sign other players. .
|
|
|
Post by habsgm on Feb 6, 2004 19:39:50 GMT -5
Thanks for clearing up the rolling deadline.
The only other issue of concern with the proposed system has already been voiced. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but under the current UFA system a club can manage some good deals and even some steals with regard to contract payout. Of course, there will always be GM's who will overpay under any system. My point is that under the proposed system would player salaries increase across the board as a result of the open book nature of bidding?
I have no doubt that UFA signing being a game in itself will lead to several outrageous contracts. It may cripple a club, but will it sink the league? However, if UFA players salaries increase globally in the BRHL that will definitely make trading/dealing a much tighter affair and many more clubs will be treading the close to the cap - whatever it is set at.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 20:04:01 GMT -5
Aside from the one GM who did, how many of you would pay Wes Walz and Kris Draper a combined $5.6M a season?
|
|
|
Post by DylanIslanders on Feb 6, 2004 21:04:47 GMT -5
Well, for starters, from a purely economic perspective, only a system such as the one Ken has proposed can achieve can achieve fair and just pay for players.
The system has been used without problems for years in the CNGHL, I can't say whether or not it leads to salary inflation, the best player available does get paid accordingly, but conversely, a GM can get some good deals. I got a 75ov d-man for under a million last year. So overall it balances things out.
Can a team rebuild through free agency? Yes. But is that a bad thing? It takes strong management to be in a possition to do so and because there won't just be one team bidding, a team can't become unstoppable. It creates parity initiated by good management, that's exactly what the objective ought to be.
Also, in the CNGHL there is not manditory UFAs, so that thins the market, and the laws of the market economy states that the more product available, the cheaper it will be.
I have no great care either way, but I have yet to see a critical failing within the system Ken proposes and have yet to see the BRHL system in work, but I fear it over simplifies and takes out the fun and realism and interaction of the e-bay style system.
|
|
|
Post by CrismonCapsGM on Feb 6, 2004 21:16:43 GMT -5
Essentially, what this system does is insure every player gets market value. Because the bids are out in the open, teams will bid on players until they can no longer afford to bid. Players will recieve exactly what the league as a whole can afford.
Yes, this means there won't be any steals. It also means that teams who really have no business signing a free agent won't. Those teams with the most cap room will get the best players. But, isnt' this a good thing? I find the priority list system assinine. It gives every GM a fair shot at UFAs despite their salary cap space. It really does nothing to try and improve parity. You know what? If a GM has cleared more cap space, he SHOULD get better free agents. If you take issue with that, fine. But, it's not going to better the league.
Like I said, under this system, the players will get what the market can afford. No huge crazy contracts, and no lowballs. How is that not a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 6, 2004 21:35:33 GMT -5
Because Bryce, according to Kirk you cannot sign TWO good players. You are only allowed to sign one superstar, one second tier player, and perhaps a role player, and a farm player. That's it.
;D
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Feb 6, 2004 21:57:04 GMT -5
I like this method much better then blind bidding.
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Feb 7, 2004 0:43:36 GMT -5
I still dont see how the contracts will not get really high. I have seen it. Maybe in this other league there is not one stupid GM, I dont know, but I find it hard to believe. We have quite a few new GMs and I garantee that at least one or two will be boneheads.
Bryce: I fail to see how guys with less cap room or none, who have "no business signing UFAs" can in the BRHL when they are not allowed to go over the cap. They can only sign what they can afford so if they CAN sign them and fit them in to their salary structure then they DO have business signing UFAs.
|
|
|
Post by edmontongm on Feb 7, 2004 0:57:47 GMT -5
And what works for one league will not usually work in another. I'm glad that system works in the league it's currently used in, however humans are selfish creatures. Personally I like the system currently in place because it promotes parity (something that we don't see in the NHL currently).
In just about any other league that has a rolling structure like this, you would see Vernon Fiddler going for 1.2 million (and yes, I'm serious...some know nothing that plays for Nashville maybe another 50 times in his career got offered 1.2 million in a very similar system). Under the proposed system, in many cases, you will see every player overbid on till it's not possible to bid anymore. Under the current system, upper class players get overpaid, lower class players are underpaid. I think that under the 'blind bidding' system we currently employ allows teams to take a chance on the player best suited. Under the proposed system, the 6 upper class defencemen available will all be over bid on because every team wanting to improve their defence core will go after Pronger/Blake, then move onto Schneider/Lidstrom, then Zubov/Hatcher instead of bidding on all at the same time. That won't keep the salary down. Where as I could seriously see two of those 6 get minimum bids.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 7, 2004 2:45:28 GMT -5
If Vern Fiddler gets that kind of money you have a horrible horrible league I want no part of. That does NOT happen. GMs are not forced to offer that much money. you simply don't offer. Why is that so hard to fucking believe?
|
|
|
Post by CrismonCapsGM on Feb 7, 2004 4:47:56 GMT -5
So, you want to implement a blind system just to protect dumb GMs from themselves, rather than promoting a fair system that forces GMs to be responsible? This is backwards. If a GM really does offer Vernon Fiddler 1.2 million dollars a year, he should be fired. He shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Not implementing a more fair system for fear that dumb GMs would screw it up is backwards. If that's what the BRHL has come to, why are we all still in it? There's always going to be stupid GMs, and they'll pay the penatlies. Trying to prevent their mistakes is never going to get us anywhere. It's going to happen no matter what we do.
As for the priority system, yes it DOES give GMs close to the cap an unfair advantage. Having more cap room should get you better players. The priority system, when played properly by a GM, insures that everyone can get a good player, regardless of their cap room, and that noone can get two. Why SHOULDN'T a GM who has more cap room be able to get better players? If I can afford Sakic and Bondra, why shouldn't I be able to sign them both? Because it's not fair somehow? I cleared that cap room. It's an asset like anything else. I should be able to use it to my advantage.
|
|
|
Post by habsgm on Feb 7, 2004 15:30:14 GMT -5
This proposed system would make free agency much more competitive. And nobody likes losing (unless your Phoenix). It would be unreasonable not to expect some inflated semi-star salaries and several outrageous ones. BUT WE DO HAVE A CAP and I think that is what would make the difference in this system. The only big difference I see would be that the savvy GM who is running close to the cap cannot pick up that solid player (say a mid 70 ov) as easily as in the current system. Definitely more parity under the proposed system as I see it.
|
|