ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Archive => Backyard NHL => Archive => Backyard NHL: Archives => Topic started by: Drew on June 03, 2013, 06:14:48 PM
-
Here is the RFA rule that makes the most sense, is close to the actual rules, and works the best I believe.
D) Restricted Free Agents
Definition
Restricted Free Agents (RFA) are limited to any player who is coming off of a 2 way contract; that being any player who was on a 2 way contract for the current season and are due for an extension for the next season.
A player becomes an RFA in the follow way:
- The GM decided to forego the extension and release the player to free agency, that player then becomes an RFA and can be signed during free agency by any of the 18 teams.
If one of the 17 teams other than the original owning team signs the RFA, the original team can either
1) Match the offer and take on the contract as signed
or
2) Accept compensation from the team who signed the RFA. The compensation is as follows:
Under $1.0m - No compensation
$1.1m - $1.6m - 4th round pick
$1.7m - $2.5m - 3rd round pick
$2.6m - $3.5m - 2nd round pick
$3.6m - $5.5m - 1st round pick
$5.6m - $6.5m - 1st & 3rd round picks
Over $6.6m - 1st, 2nd & 3rd round picks
This value is the per year amount, so if a player is signed to a two way contract it includes the two way fee for compensation.
-
i am curious to what you thought of my idea?
-
Compensation values seem pretty high for a property that is otherwise being released. It's not as if were dealing with offer sheets here. No problem with the rest of it.
-
i am curious to what you thought of my idea?
It was ok but this protects the prospect aspect of them as say a player with lots of potential but not a high scorer yet goes into the RFA process then they may get paid a lot of money but then would only get a small draft pick compensation.
-
Compensation values seem pretty high for a property that is otherwise being released. It's not as if were dealing with offer sheets here. No problem with the rest of it.
I don't see them being released and I do see it as more of an offer sheet as that is what RFAs are when being signed by another team. Values are high to try and allow original teams to maintain their players.
If a player like Nuge or Landy head to free agency I can't see how they wouldn't be paid between the 1st round pick region.
What would you recommend for values? I feel anymore lower and the compensation along with $ value would make most RFAs good as gone.
-
I hear what you are saying but an offer sheet is a hostile offer, hence the compensation. All a team has to do to retain their RFA is sign an extension.
If they choose to let that player walk, that's their problem. Otherwise, if extension values are too high maybe they should be reduced.
To be honest I think what you have devised is a fair model without any compensation at all. Making a significant reduction to the compensatory draft picks is harmless.
-
If you really want an RFA rule that reflects offer sheets then:
D) Restricted Free Agents
Definition
Restricted Free Agents (RFA) are limited to any player who is coming off of a 2 way contract; that being any player who was on a 2 way contract for the current season and are due for an extension for the next season.
A player becomes an RFA in the follow way:
- The GM decided to forego the extension and release the player to free agency, that player then becomes an RFA and can be signed during free agency by any of the 18 teams.
If one of the 17 teams other than the original owning team signs the RFA, the original team can either (match or receive compensation).
In other words, don't give the original team exclusivity. Let players coming off 2-way contracts be bid on (by all teams) regardless of weather they have signed an extension or not. Then you will see hostile bids which if left unmatched would be compensated appropriately.
-
If you really want an RFA rule that reflects offer sheets then:
In other words, don't give the original team exclusivity. Let players coming off 2-way contracts be bid on (by all teams) regardless of weather they have signed an extension or not. Then you will see hostile bids which if left unmatched would be compensated appropriately.
I am a bit confused, the way I wrote the rule is how rfas are usually dealt with.
All teams can sign the player, then the original team has the option to match or receive compensation from the signing team.
Yes the teams can sign qualifying offers but I don't want to introduce arbitration so I feel this is the best way to do an rfa without getting to complicated.
It's easiest to just track who is released to be an rfa instead of having them all available.
-
I am a bit confused, the way I wrote the rule is how rfas are usually dealt with.
All teams can sign the player, then the original team has the option to match or receive compensation from the signing team.
Yes the teams can sign qualifying offers but I don't want to introduce arbitration so I feel this is the best way to do an rfa without getting to complicated.
It's easiest to just track who is released to be an rfa instead of having them all available.
I'm confused too. I don't know if we're saying the same thing in different ways or not. I'll try to clarify.
It is this clause that I have trouble with:
A player becomes an RFA in the follow way:
- The GM decided to forego the extension and release the player to free agency, that player then becomes an RFA and can be signed during free agency by any of the 18 teams.
To me, if you release a player to free agency you should not get any compensation. Period.
On the other hand, if you sign an extension and then are overbid you should receive compensation if you fail to match.
-
It is this clause that I have trouble with:
To me, if you release a player to free agency you should not get any compensation. Period.
On the other hand, if you sign an extension and then are overbid you should receive compensation if you fail to match.
I have a problem with this otherwise it looks good. It makes no sense why someone should be allowed to bid on your players that you have signed
-
Oh yes maybe it was just my wording. The premise of this rule is for gms to get more years out of their young players instead of losing them only after 3 years.
By foregoing I meant that say Landeskog's extension price is 7m after next season the GM can then instead of extending can allow him to go to free agency and either get him cheaper or be compensated. It is more about trying to protect young players then allowing GMs to get something for nothing.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to give 2 way players a cheaper extension value than to try the RFA thing? I get what you are saying, but I feel that not everyone is getting it. Kind of a home grown discount?
Also, what do we do when the compensation is not there to compensate?
-
Oh yes maybe it was just my wording. The premise of this rule is for gms to get more years out of their young players instead of losing them only after 3 years.
By foregoing I meant that say Landeskog's extension price is 7m after next season the GM can then instead of extending can allow him to go to free agency and either get him cheaper or be compensated. It is more about trying to protect young players then allowing GMs to get something for nothing.
:iatp:
-
Wouldn't it be easier to give 2 way players a cheaper extension value than to try the RFA thing? I get what you are saying, but I feel that not everyone is getting it. Kind of a home grown discount?
Also, what do we do when the compensation is not there to compensate?
That's a great point about the compensation. Whoever signs a RFA may have dealt most or even all of their draft picks. So if three teams lose a RFA and all are owed a 1st round pick as compensation but only two of three teams that signed the RFA have a first round pick to give it would be unfair for the team that does not get the 1st rounder.
-
That's a great point about the compensation. Whoever signs a RFA may have dealt most or even all of their draft picks. So if three teams lose a RFA and all are owed a 1st round pick as compensation but only two of three teams that signed the RFA have a first round pick to give it would be unfair for the team that does not get the 1st rounder.
That team wouldn't be allowed to bid then. It is similar to if you don't have cap space, then your not allowed to bid unless you make the appropriate cap space. Further on this, we would have to add into the rules that it would be your own 1st/2nd/3rd/4th if you own more than one first.
Wouldn't it be easier to give 2 way players a cheaper extension value than to try the RFA thing? I get what you are saying, but I feel that not everyone is getting it. Kind of a home grown discount?
Also, what do we do when the compensation is not there to compensate?
It would be easier but doesn't add anything by just getting a discount. I would rather scrap the idea then give a discount to 2 way players.
The non-compensation would have to be added into the rules. If this happens, by a certain date (just like in the actual NHL), RFA would then become a FA and the team wouldn't receive any compensation. It would make sense that this would be a week before the season starts that this deadline would happen.
-
I think that a 2-way discount is the way to go instead of RFA if this is an option you want. The problem with RFA is that release the player anyway. If you release them then suck it up and take nothing. If you really wanted him then sign him to that extension.
Too many rules, makes it very difficult to follow. Just my two cents.
-
If you release them then suck it up and take nothing. If you really wanted him then sign him to that extension.
Too many rules, makes it very difficult to follow. Just my two cents.
:iatp:
Exactly what I have been saying! We're up to at least four cents now.
-
Just another q on this what happens if say landdy goes for more then 7 mill more the the extension value what happens then?
-
Sounds to me like people dont understand what a RFA is. There cant be this much confusion because Drew basically copied and pasted the NHL rulebook but made it not so confusing
-
Sounds to me like people dont understand what a RFA is. There cant be this much confusion because Drew basically copied and pasted the NHL rulebook but made it not so confusing
But the point here is that we aren't offering the RFA a deal :agent: and then he is not accepting it. We either offer him the extension based on his extension value or we let him go like any other FA. Why should we get a pick because we let one of our building blocks go? If we wanted him, we sign him plain and simple.
In a Fantasy world the player can't refuse to play for us and not accept the deal. LOL. This is why I don't see the need for a complicated addition to an already great league.
-
But the point here is that we aren't offering the RFA a deal :agent: and then he is not accepting it. We either offer him the extension based on his extension value or we let him go like any other FA. Why should we get a pick because we let one of our building blocks go? If we wanted him, we sign him plain and simple.
In a Fantasy world the player can't refuse to play for us and not accept the deal. LOL. This is why I don't see the need for a complicated addition to an already great league.
Its about getting him cheaper then the extension value. Your not going to see a Landeskog hit the RFA market but someone like Nick Spaling, who the extension value says he is worth 3m but you and I both know he isn't worth 2m. So thats when this rule will come into effect. Say I have him but don't want to pay 3m but I want to keep him thats when I let him go to the RFA market and hope I can get him for closer to 2m. Thats where you should be compensated
-
Its about getting him cheaper then the extension value. Your not going to see a Landeskog hit the RFA market but someone like Nick Spaling, who the extension value says he is worth 3m but you and I both know he isn't worth 2m. So thats when this rule will come into effect. Say I have him but don't want to pay 3m but I want to keep him thats when I let him go to the RFA market and hope I can get him for closer to 2m. Thats where you should be compensated
I understand your point but don't think it is really needed. You want him sign him. You don't, then let him walk and bid on him in FA for $2m, plain and simple. If someone wants to pay him $2.5m, you walk away with nothing, no reason you should get compensated as it wasn't like he didn't like your Extension offer, it was YOU the GM that didn't like the extension value. Just like any other FA.
-
I understand your point but don't think it is really needed. You want him sign him. You don't, then let him walk and bid on him in FA for $2m, plain and simple. If someone wants to pay him $2.5m, you walk away with nothing, no reason you should get compensated as it wasn't like he didn't like your Extension offer, it was YOU the GM that didn't like the extension value. Just like any other FA.
Further to this, the compensation picks provide such a significant deterrent against bidding that the original proprietary GM's will be getting most of their players back at well below market value.
Personally, I won't bid on any players in Free-Agency if I have to cough-up draft picks just to get them. Tell me I'm wrong but I know I'm not alone on this.
Far easier to simply grant GM's a 10% reduction for extensions on 2-way contracts.
-
Further to this, the compensation picks provide such a significant deterrent against bidding that the original proprietary GM's will be getting most of their players back at well below market value.
Personally, I won't bid on any players in Free-Agency if I have to cough-up draft picks just to get them. Tell me I'm wrong but I know I'm not alone on this.
Far easier to simply grant GM's a 10% reduction for extensions on 2-way contracts.
:iatp:
Totally 100% agree that the detriment of giving up the picks will make the RFA signings way below market value. I wouldn't give the picks up either.
You would also have to sign the player for a certain amount of years like 3 or something instead of only 1 or 2.
-
:iatp:
Totally 100% agree that the detriment of giving up the picks will make the RFA signings way below market value. I wouldn't give the picks up either.
You would also have to sign the player for a certain amount of years like 3 or something instead of only 1 or 2.
I agree with everything that has been previously mentioned in regards to the RFA thing hurting the game. I think having a 10% discount on 2 way players will help keep the players we want on the team long term.
-
Further to this, the compensation picks provide such a significant deterrent against bidding that the original proprietary GM's will be getting most of their players back at well below market value.
Personally, I won't bid on any players in Free-Agency if I have to cough-up draft picks just to get them. Tell me I'm wrong but I know I'm not alone on this.
Far easier to simply grant GM's a 10% reduction for extensions on 2-way contracts.
:iatp:
Love this idea!
-
I'll think on this one for now on the 10%. All in favour of disposing of the RFA discussion (6 opposed and I'll trash the idea)?
-
I prefer the 10% idea
-
10%
-
I prefer the 10% idea
:iatp:
-
3 to abolish thus far.
-
I am part of the 10% :koolaid:
-
Im still undecided, I don't mind the RFA thing, I actually kinda like it.... On small contracts 10% doesn't really do much, not enough to sway me to sign, or not sign, a player anyways
-
Im still undecided, I don't mind the RFA thing, I actually kinda like it.... On small contracts 10% doesn't really do much, not enough to sway me to sign, or not sign, a player anyways
If the extension value is already low there is no need for further incentive to keep the player.
-
Well even on a 3-4 million contract 300-400K doesnt really do much, esp on a low tight cap
-
Well even on a 3-4 million contract 300-400K doesnt really do much, esp on a low tight cap
Maybe not but it beats encouraging a catch and release system where GM's will jettison players in hopes of getting picks as compensation.
How much incentive do GM's need to retain their players anyway? Why should they get any at all? The 10% is just a bonus as a home-team discount.
-
Well even on a 3-4 million contract 300-400K doesnt really do much, esp on a low tight cap
You must be living well, because I live on a "every dollar counts" kind of budget LOL.
Maybe not but it beats encouraging a catch and release system where GM's will jettison players in hopes of getting picks as compensation.
How much incentive do GM's need to retain their players anyway? Why should they get any at all? The 10% is just a bonus as a home-team discount.
I don't think this is about encouraging players to keep their young building blocks - I think it is about making it easier to keep them, and if you cannot keep them, at least get something in return.
But as you said, SlackJack - its not like the player is refusing to sign our contracts. They have no free will in the game. So why should a GM be compensated for releasing their player? You choose to let him go.
And I am with you on spending draft picks to obtain one of these guys via free agency - why am I going to take the time to try and win a guy I want when the previous owner is going to snag him out from under me anyway? Seems like a waste of time to me, considering I have to let my bid sit for 48 hours before the guy is on my team... Or the previous owner matches the offer sheet.
I don't like it. But I do like the direction your proposal is going. When I get more time, I will reply with my thoughts in that topic as well.
-
You must be living well, because I live on a "every dollar counts" kind of budget LOL.
HAHA.... I also do, but in the realm of this, on say a 3M contract, saving 300K isn't going to sway me to sign the guy any moe.... If i am willing to pay 2.7M for him i am willing to pay 3.0, and same fact if I deem 3.0 is too expensive then 2.7 will still be too much for me.
i don't disagree with the proposal of the 10% just more or less playing Devil's Advocate here a bit
-
10%