Suggestion Box

[Eric]

I agree with favo in teams losing 1st esp in thw bottom half of the league.

[yahoolando]

I hate to see a team lose their first round pick to RFA, especially teams in the middle of rebuilding like New York, Dallas, and Minnesota. I think this compensation package will be good for everyone.

I think 1st round pick should be included depending on the rank of the player.  If a team doesn't want to lose the pick then its pretty simple.  DON'T BID ON THE RFA

[Jesse]

I will disagree with Favo about losing a 1st. If we did it based off number of years they are signed for then a 4 year deal is only for players that make 6.5m or more so we are talking an all star player or a goalie and in both cases I think at minimum there has to be a 1st round pick. I am thinking about it like a trade would we allow Taylor Hall be traded for a 2nd and 4th from any team not just the rebuilding teams but a team like Chicago??

[SlackJack]

2 ways have to stay as it makes for a realistic environment with the 40 GP stipulation

Agree but for prospects only, not for veteran free agents.

[SlackJack]

Also, want to say be careful with change. It's fun, but too much....not so much.

[yahoolando]

Agree but for prospects only, not for veteran free agents.

Obviously if they are over 40 GP they can't sign 2-way

[SlackJack]

Obviously if they are over 40 GP they can't sign 2-way

Guess what I am trying to say is that I think draftees should be the only ones eligible for 2-way contracts.....not free agents, regardless of how few games they have played.

The new rule forcing FA's to sign a min 2 year deal for a 2-way helps but in context of the RFA conversation I view 2-way FA contracts as a loophole that will be systematically exploited to capitalize on the RFA bid matching clause.

Limiting 2-way contracts to draftees is elegant as it makes draft choices even more valued.

Other then that, I was trying to agree with you. 

[yahoolando]

Guess what I am trying to say is that I think draftees should be the only ones eligible for 2-way contracts.....not free agents, regardless of how few games they have played.

The new rule forcing FA's to sign a min 2 year deal for a 2-way helps but in context of the RFA conversation I view 2-way FA contracts as a loophole that will be systematically exploited to capitalize on the RFA bid matching clause.

Limiting 2-way contracts to draftees is elegant as it makes draft choices even more valued.

Other then that, I was trying to agree with you. 

I understand what you are saying but, if BY is trying to replicate the NHL then the system in place for 2-ways would need to stay.

[SlackJack]

I understand what you are saying but, if BY is trying to replicate the NHL then the system in place for 2-ways would need to stay.

Agree to a point, that being that this is fantasy hockey. Some simplification and streamlining will always be necessary. (For example, if we really wanted to replicate the NHL we'd be signing FA's to seven year contracts....obviously for our purposes we have to draw some arbitrary lines.)

There is a danger with adding layer upon layer of new ideas that basic transactions become over-complicated. I am all for innovation and have a ton of ideas but the idea I most want to voice (among all the other great thoughts and suggestions) is that there is power in simplicity and that sometimes the greatest addition is done by subtraction.

 

[Drew]

I'll come up with an RFA base rule discussion in the next couple days.

+/- is something we were talking about before and we'll talk about it as well.