Free Agency - 2 way contracts

[Jesse]

In a few years the FA market that is eligible to be signed to a 2 way contract will be very slim as the draft will grab most of these players I feel that if we sign them to a 2 way deal they have to be under the games limit and you have to add a million to their contract or 500 k per year most of us are tight against the cap imagine everyone you signed that is able to get a 2 way contract is a million more you are going to have more big name players in the minors 500k is way more manageable then 1 million 

[Jesse]

500k does hurt a bit but doesn't make it so that if you sign someone you are screwed for 2 years if you want them on your big club

[favo_zomg]

500k does hurt a bit but doesn't make it so that if you sign someone you are screwed for 2 years if you want them on your big club

That is why I suggested the two way deals towards players under 40 games is 500k and players over 40 games are 1M. No one is gonna sign EVERYONE to a two way deal, as there are some players that you know for a fact that will stay in your main club. And if you do sign someone worth 5M a year (this is talking outside of my 3M cap proposal) to a two way deal, why sign him in the first place? Guys making 5M should be reliable enough to stay in your main roster, and the only reason to send them down is if you do not have the cash to keep them.

The idea of two way contracts is to protect the relief players and young prospects. Not to sign everyone to a two way deal. 1M is a big deal, but when you need a relief player, you will have the extra cap from the injure player. At the same time, if you wanna keep a young prospect on your main roster, 500k is not a big hurdle to keep him around.

Also: I do not think all of the players will be out of the mix of potential draft prospects and/or FAs. There are 30 teams in the NHL, and only 18 teams in our league. 30 NHL teams means there are 30 AHL teams, all of which have extra prospects sitting in Europe, the NCAA, and Youth Canadian leagues. And as long as there are players who have not played a single game in the NHL (which there are a lot), we will have draftable players. The constant rotation of players in the NHL (for example: resets like Ottawa did this year) will also help keep a healthy crop of FAs in our league. I can even go through my watch list and name ten players who have been in the NHL for a while AND are consistent performers (that are not in our minor league system) that are still available.

As for the 3M thing: I think it should be there just in case... It should only apply to players over 40 games as well, as players under 40 games should have a two way contract, even if they make 3.6M a year before the two way deal (like Taylor Hall... and yes, I would pay 4.6 to give him a two way deal).

[Jesse]

Ok I see what your saying now makes sense. I approve free agent 2 way contracts on these basis

1- Players who played under 40 games (30 in the case of a goalie) only cost 500k more a year for a two way deal.

2- Players who played over 40 games (30 in the case of a goalie) cost 1M more a year for a two way deal.

3- No player over 3 million will be allowed a 2 way contract
 

[Miku]

What if a team gets into a bidding war and the player becomes over 3 mil and then no one wants the player? Since they only wanted them for the two-way deal. That's a big downfall to this, also there will always be tons of players under 40 games and while maybe players active at the time and around 30 games may be scarce at the moment you need them but all you need to do is sign a player to something like a two-way, two year deal and they could play 82x2 games 164 games in that two-years, plus they could have played up to 39 games already, so if you sign a few two-way players a head of time and not always be relying on signing someone right at the moment you need them then you'll be fine, it's not like their two-way contracts change once they hit 40 games. Also the two-way market should be kind of scarce because that brings up the value of draft picks. If we can sign anyone under 3 mil to two-way deals then that introduces a whole huge new market and will again bring down the value of draft picks by quite a bit.

I'm also just bringing up some of these points so we can see all sides of the arguement,

I wouldn't be against being able to sign anyone under 3 mil to a two-way deal but at the same time I think it would devalue draft picks and prospects. If we have to sign players under 39 games prospects and draft picks become a lot more valuable pieces to the teams and might even help a few teams like PHI rebuild. (Could probably trade that number 1 draft pick for a lot, if prospects and draft picks were this valuable.) And it's not like there aren't lots of players out there who can be signed to a two-way deal and it's not like there aren't going to be even more next year.

I'd rather keep it simple, (1 mil or 500k) extra for players under 40 games signed to two-way deals from FA.
No extra fee's if signed from a N/C gotten from trading or drafting. Lots of teams have prospects already, and with the draft coming up and all of the players who have played around 20-30 games already and all of the players playing next year and the years after etc, there should be plenty of players for a team to sign at least 2-3 two way players.

[favo_zomg]

Ok I see what your saying now makes sense. I approve free agent 2 way contracts on these basis

1- Players who played under 40 games (30 in the case of a goalie) only cost 500k more a year for a two way deal.

2- Players who played over 40 games (30 in the case of a goalie) cost 1M more a year for a two way deal.

3- Two way deals cannot be offered to experienced players (40 games or more) who are offered a contract worth 3M or more before the two way deal is put into place

I like this a lot better... It keeps people from signing big stars to two way deals, which I believe should never happen.

[favo_zomg]

What if a team gets into a bidding war and the player becomes over 3 mil and then no one wants the player? Since they only wanted them for the two-way deal. That's a big downfall to this, also there will always be tons of players under 40 games and while maybe players active at the time and around 30 games may be scarce at the moment you need them but all you need to do is sign a player to something like a two-way, two year deal and they could play 82x2 games 164 games in that two-years, plus they could have played up to 39 games already, so if you sign a few two-way players a head of time and not always be relying on signing someone right at the moment you need them then you'll be fine, it's not like their two-way contracts change once they hit 40 games. Also the two-way market should be kind of scarce because that brings up the value of draft picks. If we can sign anyone under 3 mil to two-way deals then that introduces a whole huge new market and will again bring down the value of draft picks by quite a bit.

I'm also just bringing up some of these points so we can see all sides of the arguement,

I wouldn't be against being able to sign anyone under 3 mil to a two-way deal but at the same time I think it would devalue draft picks and prospects. If we have to sign players under 39 games prospects and draft picks become a lot more valuable pieces to the teams and might even help a few teams like PHI rebuild. (Could probably trade that number 1 draft pick for a lot, if prospects and draft picks were this valuable.) And it's not like there aren't lots of players out there who can be signed to a two-way deal and it's not like there aren't going to be even more next year.

I'd rather keep it simple, (1 mil or 500k) extra for players under 40 games signed to two-way deals from FA.
No extra fee's if signed from a N/C gotten from trading or drafting. Lots of teams have prospects already, and with the draft coming up and all of the players who have played around 20-30 games already and all of the players playing next year and the years after etc, there should be plenty of players for a team to sign at least 2-3 two way players.

I don't see how giving anyone a two way deal that cost an extra million will devalue a draft pick... In fact, I see this making draft picks more valuable, as they come with a free two way contract instead of having to pay for the contract.

[Tony]

My opinion is that drafted players should be the only ones that can be signed to a two way contract or we might as well get rid of our 2nd and 3rd picks.

[Miku]

I'm not against Jesse's post either, I wouldn't mind it, I would just like prospects and draft picks to be worth more then they currently are and I think making it so that any player making under 3m would devalue them by a decent amount. Still though I don't mind the other way either. Also if we did this would we be able to resign players STILL under 39 games to two-way deals for the extra 500k or 1 mil? Like first time contract is no charge but if over two years they played 30 games could we resign them for the extra money? Or if we signed some of our prospects already under 39 games to one-way contracts could we pay the extra to get them on two-way deals?

[Miku]

.