Offer Sheet - Alternate Rule Proposal

[SlackJack]

Instead of abolishing the RFA rule I wanted to try and fix it.

The problem with the RFA proposal as introduced is that fantasy hockey players have no free will. Therefore it is a GM's exclusive right to choose to release a player that they could otherwise extend. Why then should a GM be compensated for waiving that right?

The rule I am proposing here is a simple riff on the one Drew introduced. It's a very simple change of perspective but I believe it will work well and provide the same playful elements.

Imagine that GM's have the protected right to extend players during the 1st extension period but not during the 2nd.

If players (on 2-way contracts) are not extended through the 1st extension period they would now be considered RFA's entering the 2nd. As RFA's they would be vulnerable to Offer Sheets and the original GM would now be in a position to match or accept compensation.

Of course everything would be time-sensitive so if a GM is quick they might be able to sign an extension during this 2nd period before any hostile bids are posted.

If no extension is signed and no offer sheets are made then the player would be released to free agency where all GM's are able to submit regular FA bids.

---------------------------------------------------

Notes

1) I would include the home-team 10% discount in the 1st signing period.

2) Offer Sheets would be first come first serve (in other words rival GM's could not issue competing offers). GM's could also only issue one Offer Sheet at a time.

3) An offer sheet would (at the very least) have to meet or exceed the extension value.

---------------------------------------------------

Net result:

1) A greater number of slightly discounted extensions during the 1st extension period.

2) Some compensation being received for players lost in the 2nd.

3) The ability for all parties to take a pass on obscene extension values and bid freely against each other in free-agency.

[Drew]

I definitely like the concept of this but we would have to figure out how to make it more affordable to retain as well.

[Jesse]

3) An offer sheet would (at the very least) have to meet or exceed the extension value.

And This

3) The ability for all parties to take a pass on obscene extension values and bid freely against each other in free-agency.

Don't they contradict each other?? I like it except for the part that an offer sheet would (at least) have to meet or exceed the extension value.

[SlackJack]

I definitely like the concept of this but we would have to figure out how to make it more affordable to retain as well.

Apply the home town signing bonus during the 1st extension period.

[SlackJack]

I like it except for the part that an offer sheet would (at least) have to meet or exceed the extension value.

NHL offer sheets are born out of desperation. To date they have all been massive offerings in the hopes that the original stake-holder will not match.

A bottom feeder team might be willing to pay big bucks to steal away a budding star. For our purposes we're just allowing GM's to say "if you're not going to extend him, I will". Keep in mind this is where the compensation kicks in.

If no extensions or hostile bids are received during the 2nd signing period then the player would be released to free agency where everyone has a chance to low-ball to their hearts content.

[favo_zomg]

Don't they contradict each other?? I like it except for the part that an offer sheet would (at least) have to meet or exceed the extension value.

I don't see how they do... If we apply the rule that Slack is proposing, why should you get my guy cheaper in the 2nd round of extensions? He was originally my player, and I should have first priority over if I should get him for the cheaper cost. If I decide against it, then you could grab him for the cost that he is demanding and a draft pick.

If you do not like the contract, then you could pass on it as well and the guy would go into free agency.

--------------------------------------------------------

I really like this except for with how players are grabbed in the 2nd round of extensions. What if a GM cannot get on for the time because of an emergency? Personally, I say we have two after season extension periods. The first is a regular period, and the 2nd would be the time for teams to steal RFAs in a 3 day period. All RFAs would get their own thread, and any team in that 3 day period can place a claim kind of like how waivers work. The team that placed lowest in the standings would win the RFA.

Obviously, if a team cannot compensate with their own pick (no traded picks would be aloud to be used as compensation... places a little more value on picks), then the signing is invalid.

[SlackJack]

I really like this except for with how players are grabbed in the 2nd round of extensions. What if a GM cannot get on for the time because of an emergency?

Then simply extend your player during the 1st extension period. If you really want to keep a player don't let them become RFA's.

[favo_zomg]

Then simply extend your player during the 1st extension period. If you really want to keep a player don't let them become RFA's.

Emergencies are unpredictable; they can happen at any time. And the last thing you are thinking about in any emergency situation is your fantasy team. We need to give some kind of time period to mitigate this.

[Jesse]

I don't see how if we make it so that you can sign a RFA for any price not that an offer sheet would (at least) have to meet or exceed the extension value. you would lose your player for cheaper then what you would have paid match the offer sheet or get a draft pick?

[Jesse]

The problem I see with making it  that an offer sheet would (at least) have to meet or exceed the extension value. is that noone will bid on RFA's because there extension values are too high. Then we will just bid on them in FA and noone will get compensated