|
|
Post by Dallas Stars on Mar 18, 2015 23:20:12 GMT -5
Also I have another idea but I'm not sure how many people would actually like it. If you minimize mid-season UFA resigns to 3-5 per team and then the remaining UFAs are put into the bidding system otherwise I'm not sure how many UFAs would make it into the open market. This would create a lot more deadline deals as owners would know which players they won't be able to re-sign without losing into the bidding system. Also, this adds more strategy since owners can manage contracts based around a rule that limits their UFA resigns. Not to mention you would be signing all your RFAs so its primarily focused on players over 27.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Sabres on Mar 18, 2015 23:20:14 GMT -5
Yes wolf is nominated to set it up Cause if i do he will have to fix it anyways and he had nothing else to do seeing as his team has been out of the mix since October!  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Sabres on Mar 18, 2015 23:23:19 GMT -5
We did discuss that in another thread in the past few weeks on the vhl lounge. It was quickly discovered that on average teams would only have that many ufas anyways
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Seo on Mar 18, 2015 23:46:26 GMT -5
Since bid rescission is not allowed, how will GMs be expected to stagger their bids between several free agents?
For example, suppose Boston is looking to sign one 1st line winger, and they are interested in three free agents - Zach Parise, Bobby Ryan, and Martin St. Louis, in order of priority. Boston only has enough cap room to sign one of these wingers.
The free agency auction begins, and the Parise auction is fast and furious. On the 7th day, Boston tenders Parise their maximum offer of a 4-year, $8M per year contract. It stands as the top bid as of then, but it's low enough that another team could outbid Boston by the end of the 24 consecutive hour period.
Before Parise's window closes, Ryan and St. Louis's top bids are significantly less than what the Bruins offer would be if Parise were unavailable. However, they can't bid because if Parise signed, an additional signing would put them significantly over the cap. Their windows close and the two players sign with other teams.
Meanwhile, another team has just outbid Boston on Parise before the 24-hour period is over, and now Parise is too expensive. In this case, the Bruins lose out on all three of Parise, Ryan and St. Louis even though the team could have easily signed one of the other two players.
How can a GM prevent a scenario like this from happening?
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Sabres on Mar 18, 2015 23:50:23 GMT -5
He can't.
We Discovered in our practice bidding that you can tell if your in on a guy or if bidding gets too high early on in the process.
There are no guarantees with this process or the old system. This is how it works I'm afraid. Open market so plan as best you can
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 18, 2015 23:58:09 GMT -5
Since bid rescission is not allowed, how will GMs be expected to stagger their bids between several free agents? For example, suppose Boston is looking to sign one 1st line winger, and they are interested in three free agents - Zach Parise, Bobby Ryan, and Martin St. Louis, in order of priority. Boston only has enough cap room to sign one of these wingers. The free agency auction begins, and the Parise auction is fast and furious. On the 7th day, Boston tenders Parise their maximum offer of a 4-year, $8M per year contract. It stands as the top bid as of then, but it's low enough that another team could outbid Boston by the end of the 24 consecutive hour period. Before Parise's window closes, Ryan and St. Louis's top bids are significantly less than what the Bruins offer would be if Parise were unavailable. However, they can't bid because if Parise signed, an additional signing would put them significantly over the cap. Their windows close and the two players sign with other teams. Meanwhile, another team has just outbid Boston on Parise before the 24-hour period is over, and now Parise is too expensive. In this case, the Bruins lose out on all three of Parise, Ryan and St. Louis even though the team could have easily signed one of the other two players. How can a GM prevent a scenario like this from happening? With the way bids were flying in the staff test auction (with only 7 GMs mind) we found out soon enough whether we would be in the running on a certain player. You have 8 days (7 days + at least another 24 hours) to decide if you are willing to pay what it will take or move on if you can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Mar 19, 2015 1:49:47 GMT -5
Really glad this went through, free agency is about to be alot more fun this summer. Love the transparency. As for the prospect waivers, I'm not totally enamored with it. But that's mostly because a) I'm a top 10 team in the league standings-wise and b) I am active claiming prospects after the draft. I understand why the rule was made but it really sucks for me  |
|
|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks on Mar 19, 2015 6:12:41 GMT -5
Love it boys, great job!!! Im also for capping the amount of UFA's a club can resign to give everyone a fair shake. The format plays well in my other leagues and puts more on the gm to make tough decisions who to keep. It also forces more trading which is in my wheelhouse
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Sabres on Mar 19, 2015 6:36:28 GMT -5
To stop confusion. There is no cap on resignings
|
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Hull on Mar 19, 2015 9:42:11 GMT -5
maybe i missed this but can we see what the highest bid is on any given player in the 7 day period
|
|
?
