Rule Discussion - Free Agency Matching

[Drew]

SlackJack brought this up that, sort of a modified RFA process where the original team that owned the player has the right to match the contract that the player signs in free agency.

Another option would be to have RFAs and UFAs with a RFA being players under the age of 25 or under 300 games played or something like that. Team has to offer 110% their original but they still go to free agency and if signed by another team for more money then they are compensated the following:
$1.0m or below: No compensation
$1.1m – $1.6m: A 4th round draft pick
$1.7m – $3.1m: A 3nd round draft pick
$3.2m – $4.7m: A 2nd round draft pick
$4.8m – $6.2m: A 1st round draft pick
$6.3m – $7.8m: A 1st round, 2nd round, and 3rd round draft pick
Over $7.9m: Two 1st round picks

Or a combination of both. Under 25 year old or 300 games played, original owner has the right to match whatever the player signs in free agency, if they choice not to sign them, they get the rights to compensation:
$1.0m or below: No compensation
$1.1m – $1.6m: A 4th round draft pick
$1.7m – $3.1m: A 3nd round draft pick
$3.2m – $4.7m: A 2nd round draft pick
$4.8m – $6.2m: A 1st round draft pick
$6.3m – $7.8m: A 1st round, 2nd round, and 3rd round draft pick
Over $7.9m: Two 1st round picks

Discuss below and which one you think would be best.

[Tony]

It does not matter to me but I believe this was discussed in the past and rejected.

I will wait to see what others think about it.

[BeanTown]

Not sure how I feel about this one, although i will take some time to consider it! I guess with me BY is so great as it is and don't want to see it go through TOOOOO many changes but will consider it to make it better.

I am stuck in a "If it's not broke, don't fix it" mentality right now I think lol

[favo_zomg]

I do not like it because it complicates a simple formula. The reason I love backyard so much is because the upkeep is so little, and now that I have to consider a players age when I am signing them in FA, it just complicates things too much. Just keep things the way they are, in my opinion.

My vote is a  to this idea.

[SlackJack]

Two different ideas on the board here. I'm not lobbying for what I put forward but don't want it getting lost in the wrong debate. Namely Drew's chart for compensation, which I would agree is complex.

The idea that I was interested in was that the original team that owned the player has the right to match the contract that the player signs in free agency. Kind of echoing the right to match an offer sheet. The idea has some merit but it would skew the market. Giving a GM the ability to match an offer would create more downward pressure on FA contracts. (Why bid on a player if you know you can match?) Ultimately, if you want your player back you can bid on him like everyone else.

What is behind my thinking is the idea of bringing extension values and free market values a little closer together. At the mid to upper ranks (the top 20?) I think extension values are at least 10% high and could be reduced to reflect the idea of 'hometown discount'.

(Seriously, is anyone ever going to extend the number 1 ranked forward at 8.7m? If I had Crosby on my roster in the last year of his contract I would probably give more consideration to putting him on Waivers than I would to Extension.)

My disclaimer here is that I haven't seen a round of free-agency yet. I'm simply guessing based on the limited amount of cap space the majority of teams have and on the premium value placed on players with small contracts.

Is there any interest in discussing this idea (reducing extension values) in a new thread?

[abbyroad]

Have to agree with the majority so far and say I don't really think this rule is neccesarry and would only further complicate matters. As Favo has stated...... before I make a FA bid on a player......I would have to look up their age,games played ect,ect. Let's keep in mind that this is FANTASY. That rule was put into place because those GM's and owners in the NHL are playing with REAL money.

Let me add by saying that I personally like the fact that each year a new group of players go to FA and teams are allowed to re-build if they choose. A good example of that would be the Blackhawks. That team will look nothing like the team that won the cup .

[Drew]

Yep I just wanted to put it up for discussion and see what people thought, seems like majority is to leave it the same.

The first option is the simplest, GM has the right to match any player they owned before being released to free agency.

[BeanTown]

Yep I just wanted to put it up for discussion and see what people thought, seems like majority is to leave it the same.

The first option is the simplest, GM has the right to match any player they owned before being released to free agency.

I agree that if we did make a move of this nature then we decide number 1, which I see much better and less complicated.

Not that I am 100% for it, but out of the 2 it's a better option IMO

[Drew]

I agree that if we did make a move of this nature then we decide number 1, which I see much better and less complicated.

Not that I am 100% for it, but out of the 2 it's a better option IMO

Well there are actually 3 options haha. But I can't say I am a fan of any of them as I like the open market concept. If any were to go through it would probably be the simple one though.

[norrya66]

Although I haven't been through an off-season yet either, I like it the way it is.  Allowing teams open bidding on players.