New rule idea, opinions requested

[Rob]

From an administrative perspective it may be easier to have a short "Offer Sheet Period".  Maybe for 1 week between the season closing and the "Extension Period" starting.  All Offer Sheets would need to be posted and responded to during this period.

[snugerud]

It's already costing them at least 20% above market value.  Adding more of a monetary cost to it could dissuade people from doing it.

whats market value though?  The extension cost?  People only extend players when their value is higher than their extension cost. I think there has to be a cost associated to the infringing GM or they can up people with little to no consequences. 

[Rob]

Yea, extension cost is what I mean by market value.

[-BA-]

If you had to say give up your 1st round pick for example you could only really do it once or twice max I would assume.  That would limit what a team could do, and would make those 1st rounders more valuable.

[Eric]

I think the NFL does it with only one offer sheet. Like if Boston has a restricted player (player A), and I put an offer in on him. Boston can counter the player and sign him or reject it and Vegas would sign him.

[Eric]

If you had to say give up your 1st round pick for example you could only really do it once or twice max I would assume.  That would limit what a team could do, and would make those 1st rounders more valuable.

Yeah thats what the NHL does, I believe.

[jmtrops]

- Once an RFA has been issued an offer sheet, no other team may submit an offer sheet for that player.

I think you have to allow all teams to put in a offer sheet on the same player but the team with the lowest finish has the claim.

[Capn Cally]

In a different league I am in, for Basketball, there is an interesting twist to "RFA" players.

For any player with an expiring contract that is deemed an "RFA" there is a separate "RFA Bidding" season, which happens before regular FA season.

For the RFA bidding, any team in the league can bid on the players, it is the exact same as FA. At the end of the bid (48 hours, or whatever the timeframe), the team that owns the RFA has the choice to match the bid or let the winning bidding team have the player.
However, there is draft pick compensation attached to the bid amount.
That is something that would have to be figured out for our league.

Probably something along the lines of the extensions:

Salary - Max Years
$5m+ - 5 years (the overall limit)
$3.5 to $4.9m - 4 years
$2 to $3.4m - 3 years
$0 to $1.9m - 2 years

If the per-year value of the bid is over $5m, then you surrender a 1st Round Pick
If the per-year value is between say, $3.0 and $4.9m, then you surrender a 2nd Round Pick
If the per-year value is under $3.0m, then it's a 3rd round pick


The interesting thing is though, is that this RFA bidding happens before the rookie draft (in our case it would be the supplemental).
So the team that owns the RFA can choose to take this year's 1st round pick, knowing which position the team is drafting in, or they can take the 2018 1st round pick if they choose.
The only stipulation though is that the bidding team must have the draft picks for compensation RFA bidding in the next 2 years. As in, 2019 picks wouldn't count for compensation purposes.
Since we all get our 2019 picks after the season, it means any team would easily be able to bid in RFA. But those 2019 picks are so far away, they aren't really all that valuable - it's so far away.
So if a team doesn't have a 1st rounder in 2017 or 2018, they wouldn't be able to bid on RFA's over the $5m threshold.
I think there is also a rule that if say your bid is in the $3m-$4.9m range and you don't have any 2nd rounders in the next 2 years but have a 1st, then the team can choose to take your 1st.

It's kind the same as the NHL in terms of, if you don't have the correct compensation draft picks available, you can't make an RFA offer sheet to a player.
(Trust me, I've tried numerous times on NHL 17, and 16 and 15 and 14 etc etc... and it doesn't allow you to make RFA bids if you've traded away the corresponding draft picks to the dollar amount of the offer sheet, haha).


The only thing for our league is to determine which players are considered RFA's...
I think we already said the players that have P-n/a contracts are exempt from all of this.
It just becomes a matter of if ALL expiring contracts are available for RFA or how that would happen.
Because if ALL expiring contracts are available, then there would almost be no extensions to do. Which might be good, might be bad, who knows.

[Anthony]

Maybe there is some sort of service time rule that we can use here. If a player has been on a team for X amount of years, they become a "cornerstone player" who a team then has exclusive rights to resign (exactly how current extensions work right now). The reasoning behind this is that in the NHL, players who have been on teams for years are much more likely to resign with their team. A lot of the best players in the league have opted to stay with their original teams (Toews, Kane, Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, Lundqvist, Price, etc.) It would be nice to have the assurance as an owner that if I have put X amount of years into a player that I would be able to keep him, instead of having to fight every owner and overpay on him.

The downside to this is that it could affect our trade market and teams would be less likely to make blockbuster trades for this reason.

[GypsieDeathBringer]

I'm not a real big fan of any RFA being able to be offer sheeted.  That seems like way to much movement of players every year.  Almost like an expansion draft each offseason.  Look at the Ducks.  They would've possibly lost Tavares, Parise, and Benn.  That is just gutting a team. 

Offer sheets happen so infrequently in the NHL.  We would use offer sheets all the time because we are animals.

So I'd suggest a team can only have 1 player taken by offer sheets.  Or, have no limit except on guys making over a certain salary, so multiple elite guys aren't being picked off.

Having the offer sheet period before the extension period could essentially give teams free pick's/or whatever perk we give to a team that has a player nabbed from them.  Since nobody has to offer a qualifying extension.  Maybe the Ducks can't afford those 3 players, and weren't planning to sign Parise or Benn, allowing them to get picks/whatever for players they weren't going to sign.  So maybe move it to after the extension period and before the draft like Capn suggested.

We could use the NHL's compensation chart, or doctor it up to suit or draft (they release a new one each year to compensate for salaries):
Less than $1,239,226    Nothing
Over $1,239,226 to $1,877,615    Third-round pick
Over $1,877,615 to $3,755,233    Second-round pick
Over $3,755,233 to $5,632,847    First and third-round picks
Over $5,632,847 to $7,510,464    First, second and third-round picks
Over $7,510,464 to $9,388,080    Two firsts, a second and third-round picks
Over $9,388,080    Four first-round picks

Since multiple offer sheets for the same player never happens in the NHL we are making up our own rules there.  I'd suggest instead of a first come first serve situation where people are just camping out until midnight hits for whatever date we choose.  We can have a certain period where all teams can put in, but they only get 1 shot.  Best and final number and if someone beats you on that player you can't come back with a new offer.  That puts all teams on the same level. 

Just my 2 cents.