ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: Rob on April 12, 2017, 05:08:20 PM
-
Disclaimer - This is a proposal/idea for some future season, don't be concerned about this years rules changing.
I'm wondering what you all would think about adding a new twist to the league: Offer Sheets. This is just an idea which I haven't ironed through yet, but here's how I envision it working:
- Any player entering RFA status is eligible for an Offer Sheet. This is a contract offered by another team.
- An Offer Sheet must be offered at a minimum 20% above the players extension value.
- The current team has 72 hours to match the offer and keep the player or else he goes to the team that gave the Offer Sheet.
- Offer sheets must be submitted during the Extension Period and can be issued for any RFA that has not been offered an extension AND up to 72 hours after a RFA has been offered an extension.
- The ability to extend players year-round is eliminated. All extensions must be done during the Extension Period (Apri-Jun) - I can't think of any other way to do this.
- Players being extended prior to their final contract year are NOT eligible for Offer Sheets.
- Prospect Discount eligible RFA's are NOT eligible for Offer Sheets.
This would add a way to steal players from each-other... intrigued? Or at the very least, drive up the costs on other teams at the risk of taking on a big contract. And it adds incentive to extend early, with more uncertainty. What do you all think? I'm just throwing those rules out there since they seem to make sense. The timing and all that is subject to change. Some may not like the elimination of year-round extensions. Maybe someone has an idea that would allow us to keep that. I'll keep thinking too.
If you think this is a good idea, let me know if there's any elements that I'm not considering that may need to be changed. If you think it's a bad idea, let me know that too...
** Another idea, instead of giving the current team 72 hours to match and keep - give the current team 72 hours to either relinquish the player OR enter an FA style bidding war with the team that's submitting an Offer Sheet.
-
It would be ok if we did it like the NFL. If a team signs a player to offer sheet and gets the player then they have to give the other team a draft pick equal to the players PR. top 15 player is a first round pick or something like that.
-
i really like this idea , because it will eliminate the cheapo extensions on some players that happen to have 2 years in a row where they have a couple injuries.
I dont like the bidding style , i think if a team is going to extend an offer to a player that they know could be matched, they need to make their best offer first or it will get matched.
The prospects being exempt is a must otherwise you drive the value of them to non existent.
-
It would be ok if we did it like the NFL. If a team signs a player to offer sheet and gets the player then they have to give the other team a draft pick equal to the players PR. top 15 player is a first round pick or something like that.
Not a bad idea. Either have the other team send a pick or add supplemental round picks (in between rounds). A supplement to the supplemental.....
-
It would be ok if we did it like the NFL. If a team signs a player to offer sheet and gets the player then they have to give the other team a draft pick equal to the players PR. top 15 player is a first round pick or something like that.
If the other team has to give up a pick it may prevent the system from being used much. That's why I'm thinking that additional picks might be better. To compensate the team that's losing a player without punishing the team that gave the offer sheet.
-
Not a bad idea. Either have the other team send a pick or add supplemental round picks (in between rounds). A supplement to the supplemental.....
how about instead of draft picks as compensation, the offer extending team owes 10% of cap space to the team regardless if they are successful or not. It should cost something to make that pitch otherwise we could end up in Free Agency 2nd edition.
-
how about instead of draft picks as compensation, the offer extending team owes 10% of cap space to the team regardless if they are successful or not. It should cost something to make that pitch otherwise we could end up in Free Agency 2nd edition.
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.
-
Although, given the current cap climate I would imagine it's going to be the poor stealing from the rich for the most part. It's not like teams like Vancouver, St Louis, Anaheim etc could afford to match much. So maybe that 10% tax wouldn't be so cumbersome.
-
Another thought - should it be limited? Like, 1 per team per year? Cause a team like Vegas right now with 63m in the bank could cause some real damage to a contender if he can go crazy with this system.
-
Just going to add to my proposed rules as we go along:
- Any player entering RFA status is eligible for an Offer Sheet. This is a contract offered by another team.
- An Offer Sheet must be offered at a minimum 20% above the players extension value.
- The current team has 72 hours to match the offer and keep the player or else he goes to the team that gave the Offer Sheet.
- Offer sheets must be submitted during the Extension Period and can be issued for any RFA that has not been offered an extension AND up to 72 hours after a RFA has been offered an extension.
- The ability to extend players year-round is eliminated. All extensions must be done during the Extension Period (Apri-Jun) - I can't think of any other way to do this.
- Players being extended prior to their final contract year are NOT eligible for Offer Sheets.
- Prospect Discount eligible RFA's are NOT eligible for Offer Sheets.
- Draft pick compensation or tax?
- Teams may issue X Offer Sheets per season
- Once an RFA has been issued an offer sheet, no other team may submit an offer sheet for that player.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yea, extension cost is what I mean by market value.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
- 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I like gypsie it seams to work out the best