|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Dec 13, 2004 12:51:58 GMT -5
No this doesn't address the lockout issues, but this will go into effect IMMEDIATELY. The RFA system has been largely revamped.
[glow=red,2,300]BRHL RFA SYSTEM[/glow]
Qualifying offers = Now 80% of previous contract. Obviously many players looking for a raise won't sign at 80%, but the overpriced guys will not continue to be over priced. This should cure a large portion of the artificial inflation involved with RFA's
Players not agreed to a new contract, but that have received an 80% qualifying offer, will test RFA. IF no offers are received there, they automatically sign at the 80% of his prior salary for 1 year. Pretty self-explanitory. If a guy doesn't sign prior to deadline (to be announced), then he will test the RFA waters if he received a qualifying offer. If no qualifying offer was submitted, he will be UFA
Compensation is to be determined by a commitee (Bryce. Eric, Ken and Steve). The following guidelines will be set out for compensation. A) The team losing the RFA must NOT receive back a player who is older; (B) The team losing the RFA must NOT receive back a player who is more expensive; (C) Compensation preferences will lean heavier towards prospects and/or picks (D) The team that has the players rights can match the offer of an outside team at a 10% discount. That applies to all incentives, signing bonuses etc...
Like it? Hate it? lets hear it. I'd like to thank Ken, Eric and Steve for their input in creating this, we think it will hopefully help the finances, as well as add a bit to the RFA process. Now if only the NHL and NHLPA can save the season we don't have to get into other topics.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by KingsGM on Dec 13, 2004 13:56:56 GMT -5
I DEMAND COST CERTAINTY!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Dec 13, 2004 14:03:55 GMT -5
42 milion cap, you got it.
|
|
|
Post by jorak30 on Dec 13, 2004 16:14:47 GMT -5
Let me be the first to say that I think this system stinks! I appreciate the efforts of all parties but this just doesn’t cut it. I understand the intent of a 80% qualifying other but I think there are other more appropriate fixes. If you have a pricey RFA let him walk. You still hold his rights and therefore have an advantage in resigning him at a reduced price. Asking him to take a pay cut is silly. Honor the contract signed and negotiate harder when it is extension time. Will there still be the Kariya‘s of the world, yes but live with it. As for compensation I think there needs to be a cut and dry system based off either rates, salary, or a combination of both. Anything other than a set system is too subjective and complicates GM expectation during the regular season. Sorry to piss on anyone’s parade but when you ask for an honest opinion you need to be ready for one. I hate both new policies. No hard feelings, just opinions……
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Dec 13, 2004 18:20:22 GMT -5
Let me be the first to say that I think this system stinks! I appreciate the efforts of all parties but this just doesn’t cut it. I understand the intent of a 80% qualifying other but I think there are other more appropriate fixes. If you have a pricey RFA let him walk. You still hold his rights and therefore have an advantage in resigning him at a reduced price. Asking him to take a pay cut is silly. Honor the contract signed and negotiate harder when it is extension time. Will there still be the Kariya‘s of the world, yes but live with it. I was not a huge proponent of the 80% qualifying offer, myself, however it has some merits. Here is the reasoning. Just because Player'X' is qualified at 80% does not mean he'll sign it. The market will define his worth. If the market has 0 interest than the player has no market value above his original contract price. So the 80% would be justified. Obvious RFA that are due their money will get that money. The compensation system was suggested by myself and agreed upon by others so I will defend it for you. There is a fine line between too harsh compensation leading to ZERO bids on RFA, nullifying the market demand, and having them sign for their qualifiers. However, compensation that is too easy to acheive also runs the risk of making it next to impossible to keep some sort of cost certainty in a league with an imposed salary cap. In the ZBHL for example, the compensation for signing a RFA is purely draft picks based on salary amount. Very boring. The draft pick demand is either too harsh for one amount but too lenient for another. The scale between the monetary levels is arbitrary already as determined by the comishes. The NHL has rewarded teams for signing players in similar ways through arbitration (Shanahan/Stevens) and (Nedved/Janney/Brown). However the NHL also mainly uses a salary/draft pick scheme to determine compensation. ---NHL Scheme--- $727,502 or below -- No compensation $727,502 - $1,000,315 -- Third-round choice $1,000,315 - $1,182,191 -- Second-round choice $1,182,191 - $1,455,005 -- First-round choice $1,455,005 - $1,818,754 -- First and third-round choices $1,818,754 - $2,182,505 -- First and second-round choices $2,182,505 - $2,546,256 -- Two first-round choices $2,546,256 - $3,091,882 -- Two first-round and one second-round choice Over $3,091,882 -- Three first-round choices Each additional $1,818,754 -- One additional first-round choice to a maximum of five ---------------------------------- The one problem with using an NHL style scheme is parity. An NHL player can make an impact if you put him in a game, there are no "ratings". In the world of FHL, you know calling up and playing your 63ov prospect from your farm is not going to suffice. In the NHL you could be pleasantly surprised by youth, in the FHL they sim as per their rating. Therefore, if an award to a team losing a Jerome Iginla because some other stupid GM wants to sign him to $10M is a few first rounds. That team loses, severely, any chance to be competitive. In FHL GMs come and go, and leagues fold. Allowing mere draft pick compensation is a low reward system. Alternately, setting some sort of RATINGS based compensation is also undesirable since again those are arbitrary. Here, by comittee, a GM who is taking a risk at signing another team's RFA does NOT know precisely WHO he is going to lose as compensation, however DOES now that player WILL be certain of two things. That player will NOT be older and will NOT be more expensive. And further, there will be a reliance moreso on prospects and youth to make sure teams losing RFAs are not burdened by poor GMs who draft from the left field, but are assured decent return. Restricted Free Agency is not open season on acquiring a player for nothing. Because this league has a 100% UFA system, we want to make it easier to either retain one's own RFA or ensure decent return for the player.
|
|
|
Post by washcaps on Dec 13, 2004 18:39:48 GMT -5
Overall I like it, I am a bit concerned about the "unknow compensation" for RFA, but I guess there really is no perfect system.
One question, will there be any negotiations with RFA players, example I have Joe Schmuck, his salary is 1 million, I offer 80%, Commish says no, will he counter offer? Is it a 1 time deal? How about years?
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Dec 13, 2004 18:44:23 GMT -5
Overall I like it, I am a bit concerned about the "unknow compensation" for RFA, but I guess there really is no perfect system. One question, will there be any negotiations with RFA players, example I have Joe Schmuck, his salary is 1 million, I offer 80%, Commish says no, will he counter offer? Is it a 1 time deal? How about years? Tim, is still the RFA agent. I'd like to think only players in exceptional circumstances would automatically sign for an 80% reduction. Basically, the 80% is only a qualifying offer. I can't see any player simply signing to it w/o testing the market. Regarding the unknown compensation: It's not unknown. You know it's not going to be a core guy to your team (no one older or more expensive). You know it will most likely lean towards prospect(s) and/or draft picks. The comittee is seen as a way to be subjectively objective. Instead of one agent or one commish determining the results, you have 4 very well versed hockey gods throwing in their two cents.
|
|
|
Post by penguinsgm on Dec 13, 2004 19:25:43 GMT -5
Well I was going to reply to these comments, but I feel that Ken has done an admirable job.
I will say that i agree 100% with the proposal put forth by Bryce, Ken, Eric and myself.
As for the unknown RFA compensation... you can expect it to be along the same lines as what was suggested before. I will say that we had discussed that the compensation will be approximately 75-80% the value of the player... take that as you may cause its not easy to quantify 80% of the value of a player, but thats a ballpark number to keep in mind I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by atlantagm on Dec 13, 2004 21:48:24 GMT -5
I can live with this.
|
|
|
Post by jorak30 on Dec 14, 2004 10:07:55 GMT -5
Call me bored, called confrontational but I am unmoved... more so I hope to hear some more feedback from guys other than self-proscribed hockey gods or co-creators... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Dec 15, 2004 10:29:35 GMT -5
I understand your concern, but it isn't like everyone will be signing at 80% of prior levels. Most players will get a raise if they deserve it. The amount of guys who sign for less than 100% is likely going to be below 10% of RFA's.
I would like to hear some others input as well, I talked to Tim the agent and he is on board with the system. But lets hear from the other GMs, where is Cal's usual griping?
Anyways as you will see by my other post here, RFA season is open, start signing your guys.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Dec 15, 2004 12:45:46 GMT -5
why am I singled out?
anyhoo, this bores me which is why I have not responded. I couldnt really care. Im fine with keeping it at the old system but if this new one lessens salaries in any way then Im fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay on Dec 15, 2004 19:25:31 GMT -5
I can live with this.
|
|
|
Post by penguinsgm on Dec 16, 2004 9:27:45 GMT -5
OK, I just wanted to clear something up here cause I am finding the compensation thing a little confusing... Are both sides to submit a compensation package proposal and then the committe decides which is the lesser of two evils, or does the committe just come up with their own compensation package that they feel is suitable?
Steve, Pens
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Dec 16, 2004 12:16:45 GMT -5
commitee comes up with it on their own, with no input from the GMs, i you sign another teams RFA, neither you nor the team you signed him from know what it will be.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Dec 16, 2004 12:42:20 GMT -5
Now I have something to say as I had never really thought about this part too hard before. The teams involved should ALWAYS have the first option of figuring out their own compensation. You, Ken, Eric, and Steve are not the GMs of my team and there is a good chance that you are not the GMs of the other team too. And frankly I dont trust any of you to decide what is best for my team.
If no compensatin can be worked out then yes it is good to have a system or a committee or whatever to figure out what is fair, but in no way should you guys be the first option.
So unless this part is changed Im voitng against this proposal. Its a "non-starter" Bettman.
|
|
|
Post by jorak30 on Dec 16, 2004 15:36:33 GMT -5
Take everything I said previously and multiply it by two... Unknown compensation in which neither GM has an input sounds like Bush foreign policy.... absolute crap that is....
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Dec 16, 2004 21:42:14 GMT -5
Here is first hand experience of "lesser of two evil" compensation.
Team A - Let's Mark Parrish go RFA (Minimum Bid $2M) Team B - OFFERS Parrish $3M Team A - Declines to match Team B - Awarded Parrish Team A - Submits compensation suggestion to commish (Stefan & Fedontenko) Team B - Submits compensation suggestion to commish (Valeri Bure @ $3.5M) Commish - Opts for Team B b/c Team A shot for the moon even though the player awarded is more expensive and older.
I don't think it's fair to negate allowing GMs to come to an agreement between each other first. However if no agreement can be reached than it can go to commitee with the two rules being in effect (Nobody more expensive, and nobody older).
The only problem with allowing GMs to come to conclusions on their own is that RFA compensation decisions usually are precident setting. Thus during other negotiations for compensation another set of GMs may refer to an amicable decision of two prior GMs; even though that decision may have been decided upon what is needed for the teams involved and not 100% what is precisely deemed fair.
However that said, I have no qualms allowing GMs to hash out b/w themselves what they feel is fair. However if an agreement cannot be reached within a specified/reasonable period of time, the issue goes to committee. I, personally, want to see us do away with pre-set compensation packages like the draft picks/contract ratio. I'd like to see all teams remain competitive and not some get hampered because of the salary cap we have in place. Some teams I've seen in FHL leagues drafted and traded so well that they had hordes of young stars (Kovulchuk, Nash, Heatly, Luongo, Brewer, Fischer, Thornton all on one team) and there came a time when over zealous RFA agents tried to extort the GM and force him to let some test the RFA waters. I'd hate to see a guy forced to lose RFAs because of being too good at FHL. And because of our mandatory UFA rule, there should be more incentive to keeping our own young players or at least the option to restock our young players through reasonable compensation guidelines (no older, no pricier rules).
|
|
|
Post by flamesgm on Aug 24, 2005 3:52:22 GMT -5
I'm fine with all new rules except for compensation being unknown, i just don't like it at all but have nothing else to offer up as a suggestion. The guidelines you set limit what will go but i don't think thats enough i think the gm should get to exempt a few players or something.I think this will benefit teams that trade away there good youthful prospects and don't build from within. If they have nothing to lose except the usual picks they will be free to pursue while another team that might have a guy or 2 that he really thinks will become great players some day will stay out of the bidding just on the chance that the 4 making the decision will pick him. Well this is just to give you some other examples to look at, like i said i have no solid suggestions just alot of skeptiscism.
|
|