ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => NHL Leagues => Franchise NHL => Topic started by: ripper on October 15, 2014, 03:10:57 PM
-
Let's have a discussion about buy-outs.
If you bid on a player, win him then buy him out......
You should not be able to use an exemption and essentially win back the player at a reduced salary.
I would like to see a time added (30 days) before you can even bid on a released player.
We need to correct the rule to make this a better league.
-
:iatp:
-
Keep in mind that the buy-out rules are purposely forgiving. The aim is to 1) prevent franchises from being burdened with crippling contracts and 2) to replenish the free-agency pool. If as a result GM's are able to wiggle out tough contracts I think it's all well and good.
That said a couple minor stipulations might help. Not sure what a 30 day clause would do, but what about one that stated something to the effect that all new contracts must be honoured for the season they were signed in? In other words, new contracts would be ineligible for buy-out until their second year. Fair?
-
30 days clause is specifically so you cannot buyout someone, then start bidding on them. I am fine either way honestly, if the rule changes, everyone will just be buying guys out, while the sale lasts. I am sure every GM has a list.
Here is another idea,
if you buyout a player, and then win that player back, then the original contract is restored. I like that. Loophole is closed.
Although, you could argue this rule makes the league unique and why it still exists.
-
30 days clause is specifically so you cannot buyout someone, then start bidding on them. I am fine either way honestly, if the rule changes, everyone will just be buying guys out, while the sale lasts. I am sure every GM has a list.
True about the sell offs. I suppose a 30 day restriction would help assuming other GM's get in on the free-agent. Wasn't looking at it with that in mind but see now it works. (Except that it would be a hassle to track. Far simpler to say that if you buy a player out, you can't rebid on same. Period. )
-
Can we call it the Sean Avery rule?
Even though I am obviously the biggest offender and it may surprise you, but I am entirely for that change. I think its a total cop out, but I am definitely going to use it while I can.
As with Hutch I full well knew someone would bid him.. I just went the 22 to get the market to where I needed it without a bunch of pussy footing.
-
Can we call it the Sean Avery rule?
Even though I am obviously the biggest offender and it may surprise you, but I am entirely for that change. I think its a total cop out, but I am definitely going to use it while I can.
:iatp:
haha, :rofl:
Snug I'm totally for you using it while its available. I almost used it a couple times and then didn't, but maybe I might if the rule is going to change soon. But I think it something we talk about and change for the future.
-
Can we call it the Sean Avery rule?
Even though I am obviously the biggest offender and it may surprise you, but I am entirely for that change. I think its a total cop out, but I am definitely going to use it while I can.
As with Hutch I full well knew someone would bid him.. I just went the 22 to get the market to where I needed it without a bunch of pussy footing.
and I only bid on him b/c I knew if it didn't work out, I could do same thing. Also, I only have Lehtonen, and if he goes down, I am toast.
-
As long as he doesnt get sent to the minors your ok...
I had it all figured out that at the 5.5 , I could buy him out again at the .66 and lump it all into this year.
I had actually offered a 4th round pick to about 8 different GMS to trade and have them buy him out so that I could use the buy out /discount option at the 5.5 rate, but couldnt get anyone to bite.
-
30 days clause is specifically so you cannot buyout someone, then start bidding on them. I am fine either way honestly, if the rule changes, everyone will just be buying guys out, while the sale lasts. I am sure every GM has a list.
if you cant see me I am rubbing my hands together and licking my chops for people to start buying out their players!! I got money in the bank and would love for that to happen.
-
if you cant see me I am rubbing my hands together and licking my chops for people to start buying out their players!! I got money in the bank and would love for that to happen.
haha, I think that's why we never closed up that loophole last time. Because there is some risk involved and if you want to risk it, you can risk it.
-
Snug, nothing personal as you are within the rules. Good discussion.
-
no worries, i dont take it personal.
-
We've discussed this before. Its an annual tradition.
Keep in mind that the buy-out rules are purposely forgiving. The aim is to 1) prevent franchises from being burdened with crippling contracts and 2) to replenish the free-agency pool. If as a result GM's are able to wiggle out tough contracts I think it's all well and good.
:iatp:
Its an open market after any buyout so everyone has a shot to sign the recently dropped player.
-
The rule was left there to allow new owners and maybe even overly aggressive current owners bail themselves out of a bad contract.
Given our cap # mirrors the NHL's it seems fair to allow owners to have that option of resetting a bad deal or getting rid of one and claiming the discount. Like JD and other have said anyone can bid on the Free agent once they hit the market so it's not anti-competitive by any means.
-
Let's have a discussion about buy-outs.
If you bid on a player, win him then buy him out......
You should not be able to use an exemption and essentially win back the player at a reduced salary.
I would like to see a time added (30 days) before you can even bid on a released player.
We need to correct the rule to make this a better league.
Good open discussion... we've held this chat annually since I've been around starting in 2011 off-season.
The administration would be a pain for what amounts to little gain for anyone really.
As other have stated, the playing being bought out goes into the Free agent pool and is available for any team to bid on in the open market. The fact the team buying out the player gets to claim the buyout discount once that player get signed to a new contract just helps give teams flexibility in our fantasy cap league.
It's also a good opportunity for new owners to purge bad contracts and/or clear cap space for a rebuild. No one likes getting stuck in a rebuild for a full yr or 3 with bad contracts signed by past owners or if the salary cap ceiling suddenly falls like it did in 2013-14.
Open for all owners/GMs to comment.
-
....the player being bought out goes into the Free agent pool and is available for any team to bid on in the open market.
The issue is that the Franchise that released the player gets to immediately set the starting bid to maximize the discount. They can then proceed to claim the discount on the player which they just released even if no one else bids at all. This actually encourages GM's to overbid in free-agency as they know they can effectively renegotiate contracts.
It would be clear and simple to rule that GM's may not bid on players they have bought-out. There are better ways to allow cap forgiveness and give flexibility to GM's. Improved ABO's for example.
If this is an annual discussion, perhaps something should be done to address it.
-
Sean Avery here,,, I am with Slackjack.
Current rule is a too easy of a cop out and encourages overbidding in FA with little to no consequences same for extensions.
I think the ability to buyout a player and claim a discount on them when someone else signs them is more than enough of a gimmie.
-
I don't think it encourages over bidding. What I believe the discount allows for is the ability of teams in this 30 team league to bid aggressively to build a contender quickly. This is fantasy hockey where guys can opt out after 1yr of taking a shot at the title. Then the next guy gets stuck with a franchise overloaded with bad contracts in some cases.
I see what Slack and Snug are saying but so fair the Free agent market in this league has been competitive without being crazy. We are 30 teams and the cost of good players will be high.
-
What I believe the discount allows for is the ability of teams in this 30 team league to bid aggressively to build a contender quickly.
The discount is fine and I am all for player turn-over and forgiveness on bad contracts.
The issue is allowing GM's to set the bid price on players they have just bought-out. Yes it is fantasy hockey but it doesn't have to be dumb.
-
The discount is fine and I am all for player turn-over and forgiveness on bad contracts.
The issue is allowing GM's to set the bid price on players they have just bought-out. Yes it is fantasy hockey but it doesn't have to be dumb.
To me it's a no Brainer.A team should not be allowed to bid on their own released player to try and increase the discount of their buyout. Like said by commishioner, it is discussed every year, so a problem definately exists. A very simple solution has been discussed and should be implemented for the good of the league.
-
To me it's a no Brainer.A team should not be allowed to bid on their own released player to try and increase the discount of their buyout. Like said by commishioner, it is discussed every year, so a problem definately exists. A very simple solution has been discussed and should be implemented for the good of the league.
Best thing to do is to vote on this.
Boys, set it up! :thumbsup:
-
Best thing to do is to vote on this.
Boys, set it up! :thumbsup:
The vote I want to see would be for a tandem of balancing amendments on two rules.
1) An amendment on discounts restricting GM's from bidding on players they have previously bought-out.
2) Allow for amended amnesty buy-outs to contracts.
Current ABO's must be divided over the length of remaining term and are at 40%. Do away with the stipulation on term and reduce the cost to 25%. With one ABO per roster per year allowed (all at once) we will have lots of flexibility and plenty of free agents in the pool.
This amounts to keeping the status-quo while injecting a little more common sense.
-
Using :MON-NHL: with Michael Hutchinson as an example.
Under current rules Snug gets to keep the player and reduce a 4 year contract from $7.3m per year to $5.5m each.
Using the proposed amendments it would cost the same $7.3m to buy out the contract using an ABO. But Hutch would be released into free-agency for everyone but :MON-NHL: to bid on.
Of course he could still do a regular buy-out at $4.8m over 4 years, but he would still lose the player. As it should be.
(Lest there be any confusion, I am not in any way voting against Snug's excellent maneuvers. This is an example.)
-
To make it easier and require less math, I say we just put a time stop on it. I say we should make it 72 hours to not allow the team that released the player not be alloud to bid on him. That way, there is a chance that the team loses the player, but if the bidding is still going on, the team can come in and place a bid. 72 hours should be more then enough for the other 29 teams to see that the player is available too.
I don't have a problem with teams winning players back, but I am definitely not a fan of a team starting a bid on a player as soon as the player is released. That is why I feel 72 hours aka 3 days is sufficient time.
-
To make it easier and require less math, I say we just put a time stop on it. I say we should make it 72 hours to not allow the team that released the player not be alloud to bid on him. That way, there is a chance that the team loses the player, but if the bidding is still going on, the team can come in and place a bid. 72 hours should be more then enough for the other 29 teams to see that the player is available too.
I don't have a problem with teams winning players back, but I am definitely not a fan of a team starting a bid on a player as soon as the player is released. That is why I feel 72 hours aka 3 days is sufficient time.
Buy-outs will always require math.
-
But again free agency is open to all. Even if the team buying out the player bid up the recently released player, all other teams still have a shot at outbidding him otherwise the guy getting the same player back deserves the reduced rate since no one else wants him.
So what if you block the team from bidding. Then arent you just colluding to limit the ceiling on a supposedly free market?
Boys, there needs to be some give in a deep league. Sure if youre in a 18-20 team league the rules should be tighter but why handcuff teams. Let us all have tools to be the most competitive owners and GMs we can be. Thats part of the fun of fantasy isnt it?,!
-
But again free agency is open to all. Even if the team buying out the player bid up the recently released player, all other teams still have a shot at outbidding him otherwise the guy getting the same player back deserves the reduced rate since no one else wants him.
So what if you block the team from bidding. Then arent you just colluding to limit the ceiling on a supposedly free market?
Boys, there needs to be some give in a deep league. Sure if youre in a 18-20 team league the rules should be tighter but why handcuff teams. Let us all have tools to be the most competitive owners and GMs we can be. Thats part of the fun of fantasy isnt it?,!
JD, take another look at what has been said. No one is saying we should be hand-cuffed. That's why the proposal to relax ABO's!
As far as your take on the free-agency market, consider this. All other teams have a shot at bidding on the released player but in most cases those teams have moved on and committed their cap dollars to alternatives when they were originally over-bid. It's not a level playing field the second time around.
More importantly (for me at least) it's just an offensively dumb loophole. There are an unlimited number of ways to provide cap flexibility and promote player movement that actually make sense. Buying out a player then setting the market on him is just wrong.
At minimum, there should be a 72 hour window that prevents re-bids if they are not banned altogether. Loosen up ABO's to counterbalance and promote further movement.
Looking back through this discussion it looks like about 5 out of 7 interested GM's are opposed to re-bids on buy-outs. That's not enough participation to go to a vote but it's a clear majority among those that have bothered to give it real thought. It's up to the Commissioners to figure out weather they want to make an improvement catering to those active and engaged enough to express their desire for it.
-
72 hours just isnt enough time to start a bid and have it finished. on average a player sits in the bidding phase for 3-4 days. at least a week is needed.
I dont see a need to loosen ABO's.
There are of course ways around this as well. Trade the player to another team to have them buy them out so you can rebid. Just makes a GM work a little harder...
That being said, I have tons of cap space this year not that Hutchinson is off my books. I am willing to buyout players in exchange for draft picks. ...
-
72 hours just isnt enough time to start a bid and have it finished. on average a player sits in the bidding phase for 3-4 days. at least a week is needed.
I dont see a need to loosen ABO's.
There are of course ways around this as well. Trade the player to another team to have them buy them out so you can rebid. Just makes a GM work a little harder...
That being said, I have tons of cap space this year not that Hutchinson is off my books. I am willing to buyout players in exchange for draft picks. ...
But 72 hours is more then enough time for another team to set the market for the player you released. The issue is not the fact that you can win the player you released back - to me, the issue is a team being able to set the market on a player they just released. I personally have no problem with you winning the player back. My personal issue is with you setting the market on s player as soon as you buy him out.
-
but changing this rule seems to force changes to several other rules.
The more i think about this the less it makes sense for game play.
The team dropping the overpriced player and resigning that same player isnt getting a gamebreaker of an advantage. Just a simple way to make a market correction to their team's budget.
But a general vote would help clear this up.
-
...
Like said by commishioner, it is discussed every year, so a problem definately exists. A very simple solution has been discussed and should be implemented for the good of the league.
It's raised each yr - Yes.
Is it a problem? No. A problem is something that creates a truly unbalanced playing field.
This is more a "it bugs me" kinda deal.
Does 1 player dropped into FA and won by the same team after 29 other teams have a chance to bid really give that team an completely unfair advantage? No.
I not to change 3 rules to because of this loop hole that happens to be available to all teams.
(reference: Starting 2 goalies in a 30 team league - yes, completely unfair advantage for a group of teams. So we changed that rule.)
-
Yes this is indeed an "it bugs me" kind of deal, as expressed by the majority of GM's that have bothered to read and respond to this thread.
Is it a problem? No. Is it dumb? Yes.
That should be reason enough to want to make an improvement. This is a money league boys, let's have a higher standard.
-
Yes this is indeed an "it bugs me" kind of deal, as expressed by the majority of GM's that have bothered to read and respond to this thread.
Is it a problem? No. Is it dumb? Yes.
That should be reason enough to want to make an improvement. This is a money league boys, let's have a higher standard.
I will delegate the vote setup to Slackjack.
Let the voting be open for min. 7 days.
If a change is demanded by majority - we can implement next yr per our rule change process in FNHL.
Go for it SJ. :toast:
-
I will delegate the vote setup to Slackjack.
Let the voting be open for min. 7 days.
If a change is demanded by majority - we can implement next yr per our rule change process in FNHL.
Go for it SJ. :toast:
Will do. I'll write something up tonight and put it out there. However we all feel about it I appreciate the discussion and the shared opportunity.
:toast:
-
PR maybe you should just say you don't want to have to manage another timer activated rule. Lol
-
I will delegate the vote setup to Slackjack.
Let the voting be open for min. 7 days.
If a change is demanded by majority - we can implement next yr per our rule change process in FNHL.
Go for it SJ. :toast:
Have posted a thread for a Rule Change Vote on the Loophole. Need a mod to set it as a poll. Thanks for listening. :toast:
-
We don't want this in the league. Quick discussion...
If you own two teams we can't have you drop a guy and then go and pick him up with your other team?
Why not....because it allows you to essentially make one good team (cut your bad contracts and get discounts) the weaker team picks up the cut players to create the discount.
-
We don't want this in the league. Quick discussion...
If you own two teams we can't have you drop a guy and then go and pick him up with your other team?
Why not....because it allows you to essentially make one good team (cut your bad contracts and get discounts) the weaker team picks up the cut players to create the discount.
30 teams can bid on him. If you want him bid on him, this isn't a discussion.... it is called FA... first you complain when the team that drops him bids on him, and now you complain when a team that does not drop him bids on him. What washington does and what Edmonton does is in their best interest. Not your best interest. Sounds like you want to run every team in league. Go look at who was spent most on FA since season started. It has been the Caps and we continue to spend to add the few points Harrison adds (12).
-
Johnny Collusion!!
-
Johnny Collusion!!
shut up, you idiot! Never seen someone cry so much!
-
We don't want this in the league. Quick discussion...
If you own two teams we can't have you drop a guy and then go and pick him up with your other team?
Why not....because it allows you to essentially make one good team (cut your bad contracts and get discounts) the weaker team picks up the cut players to create the discount.
Gents let's keep this discussion pro level talk. :judge:
Means gents give a damn which is good.
-
Johnny Collusion!!
In the pro ranks. Yes.
In fantasy hockey it's smart cap and roster management.
-
30 teams can bid on him. If you want him bid on him, this isn't a discussion.... it is called FA... first you complain when the team that drops him bids on him, and now you complain when a team that does not drop him bids on him. What washington does and what Edmonton does is in their best interest. Not your best interest. Sounds like you want to run every team in league. Go look at who was spent most on FA since season started. It has been the Caps and we continue to spend to add the few points Harrison adds (12).
True and true!
The move by :EDM: is good cap management.
Buying out Jay's 4m cap hit is a smart move given his suspect scoring this yr.
Jay's in the Free agent pool and open to all to bid on.
Collusion would be plotting to block Jonathan from bidding to keep his D from improving and possibly reduce his chances of winning the FNHL Stanley Cup with :WAS-NHL3:
It's free agency for Jay Harrison and anyone can outbid Jonathan's :WAS-NHL3: current high bid of 4m.
-
We don't want this in the league. Quick discussion...
If you own two teams we can't have you drop a guy and then go and pick him up with your other team?
Why not....because it allows you to essentially make one good team (cut your bad contracts and get discounts) the weaker team picks up the cut players to create the discount.
That's why an owner of 2 or more teams cannot trade directly between his teams.
But tossing a player into the open market where anyone can snatch him is fair play by anyone's definition. If St.Louis thinks Jay Harrison is a game changer, place a higher bid on Harrison. Free agency. Free market. Why would you want to put restrictions and add more conditions.
There's no unfair competitive advantage for EDM or WASH.
-
It's fine. Leave the rules alone StLu!
-
I Guess that's the advantage of having a second team, you get more power?
Is Phoenix for sale?
-
REPOST from another thread but relevant here as well from a league setup perspective:
We have to make cap management tools available to owners to dig themselves out of holes previous owners have dug or ones they've dug themselves.
Otherwise, ppl get frustrated with the cap issues their team face and they decide to abandon the team.
To promote ownership stability and foster long-er term commitment to building winning franchises we have created these tools for owners to use. Call them loopholes but in fantasy play, no one wants to get stuck with too many problems that block them from contending. Buying out, resigning and applying for a Buyout discount are all cap management tools to help teams compete on the fly.
-
So it this conversation done. Seems like it.