ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise NHL: Transactions => Franchise NHL => NHL DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise NHL: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: snugerud on August 13, 2012, 07:53:20 AM
-
Here is a question, lets say I decided to buyout pronger now, if he retire later would I get the option to finish the buyout at the 40%?
-
Here is a question, lets say I decided to buyout pronger now, if he retire later would I get the option to finish the buyout at the 40%?
great Q, snugerud! short answer - No.
thought about that but as there are several buy out types (only recently intro'ed), i believe keeping it relatively straight forward without mixing buy out types is best.
so, if you decide to buy out pronger now (pre-retirement announcement) at 66.66%, your team will not be able to claim an additional discount if pronger later officially announces his retirement (which would qualify for the 40.0% buy out).
-
So I can buyout Lidstrom at 40% of his contract?
-
So I can buyout Lidstrom at 40% of his contract?
the buy out rule for retired players goes into effect Oct.11'12 (what's expected to be the first day of the NHL season).
-
Last year Lidstrom was a free agent and there were numerous bidders for his services. The successfull bidder was Drew. We all knew his age, and uncertainty of how much longer he would be playing in the NHL. A contributing factor of Drew winning the league last year was Lidstrom's contributions. You knew the baggage from the get go. I believe the buyout for Lidstrom should be at 66 % for him. There should not be a discount buyout for him. The rules were set it stone. Going forward, if changes are made, then all future contracts are applicable. No animosity intended.
-
Last year Lidstrom was a free agent and there were numerous bidders for his services. The successfull bidder was Drew. We all knew his age, and uncertainty of how much longer he would be playing in the NHL. A contributing factor of Drew winning the league last year was Lidstrom's contributions. You knew the baggage from the get go. I believe the buyout for Lidstrom should be at 66 % for him. There should not be a discount buyout for him. The rules were set it stone. Going forward, if changes are made, then all future contracts are applicable. No animosity intended.
I actually acquired Lidstrom via trade last year but I see what your saying.
-
I actually agree with thunderblade on this one as much as it would hurt me on Pronger. With the exception of inherited contracts everyone was responsible for their own signings/trades etc and should suffer the consequence of a bad signing.
-
BTW, this should be re-worded to 0% , the current wording may lead to confusion that the team buying the player out would need to cover 100% of their salary.
NEW Death: NHL eligible players who have passed away can be bought out at 100.0% (x 1.00) of their contract value, standard b/o policy applies.
rationale: standard practice to render a contract null & void in cases of death and since teams cannot foresee this, they should be released from the financial burden.
-
real world NHL: player retires and their contract is null n void since the player cannot fulfill their obligation to play, thus the team doesn't have to pay.
the Kovie contract :NJD: of the NHL signed him to originally was way too long and front end loaded over 17yrs and the guy would've retired 5-7yrs before the contract expired. that was cap circumvention.
that's why in FNHL, a retiree cannot be a 100% buy out coming off the books. there needs to be a financial commitment by the team that might've signed them via FA knowing full well the player would retire after only 1yr of a newly signed FA 3yr deal.
currrently, I see Selanne likely headed for a 3yr FA contract but we know he might retire at season's end so FNHL needs to hold the team somewhat accountable, but there still should be a slight better buy out rate.
ultimately, everyone had a chance to bid on Lidstrom during last yr's free agency period so everyone would have a chance to receive the 40% buy out rate this season now that Nick has left the game.
-
I agree to a point that you cant control when a player retires and that Cap circumvention is a way of life right now in the NHL but on the flip side we have a 5 year max for our contracts. Selanne is signed to a 1 year deal in the NHL , I am sure if the ducks went and made him a 3 year offer right now to lower his cap hit per year the league would investigate that as cap circumvention.
By reducing the cap hit you are encouraging the cap circumvention. I will explain
lets say , as a contending team I wanted to sign selanne to a 1 yr contract at say 5.5million.
Under the current rules though I would be better off to sign him for a 6 million bid spread over 3 years. 2 million the first year, and then either use the amnesty clause or the retirement clause you pay only .8 million for the final 2 years.
I could go as high as a 9 million bid and still pay out less in the long run. 3 million + 1.2+1.2= 5.4 .
There are always good's and bad's to every rule change, I am just playing devils advocate on this one.
-
There's always going to be Pros and Cons with anything and in the case of retired players I think it's nice to have the discounted buyout options available to your team. No one knew with 100% certainty that Lidstrom would retire. In fact some players retire then make a comeback. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Selanne played another season after this year same for Brodeur just so they don't feel like they retired too soon when they still had some gas left in the tank to make a go of it. I still think Lidstrom easily could've played another 2 to 3 years however I'm also sure his family wanted him around more often and it wasn't like Lidstrom needed more cash to line his pockets. So snugerud it almost sounds like you are advocating or prefer a straight 66.66% buyout, even for retiring players that suddenly retire. If that's the case then it's somewhat unjust for the owning team as a sudden retirement is just that out of the blue and unexpected. Mind you I see your point and it would be simple and straight-forward and force FA bidders to be responsible with their bids. :toast:
-
I am not for or against it. I was just pointing out the loop holes. I commission another league and have 3 guys that seem to be experts at exploiting loop holes so I have grown accustomed to working out different scenarios for new rules before implementing them. Just trying to be proactive instead of waiting for someone to abuse it. I see fantasy hockey as a risk reward game. you can risk the long term signing on a 35+ guy but it might come back to bite you in they retire early. Under the current rules you will never see a guy signed for a 1 year contract unless that is for 200k. To go a step further why couldn't a guy bid 6 million on selanne, have him play at the 2 million for the year and then simply buy out his last 2 years in a lump sum at the end of the season even at the %66 hit they would save cap during the season and it would cost them less than then the full 6 million at the end. I would consider making an over 35, 36,37,whatever rule that people are responsible for 100% of the salary after that age. Then there becomes some real strategy during the FA. A 1 yr bid on a guy like Selanne actually becomes a viable option. Then you can risk the idea that he will play 2 more years. Under the current rules there really is no risk to the long term signing.
I actually see a bigger issue which is the long term injury just to name a few you have pronger, savard, Diepetro from the past Lindros, Foresburg,sakic. Guys that get injured at the ending of their career but refuse to just say I retire. I dont remember the last time a star player suddenly retired that people had no idea that it was coming.
I see the Amnesty clause as the out for the injured folk, although I missed that date for Pronger so now I have that headache (pun intended) for at least the rest of this year.
-
I see the Amnesty clause as the out for the injured folk, although I missed that date for Pronger so now I have that headache (pun intended) for at least the rest of this year.
I actually laughed out loud a little bit at this. Okay just chuckled to myself but still, good stuff haha.
I'm not sure how you could prevent people bidding up on Selanne and then buying him out next year or the year after.... Any contending team going for it this year would rather pay him 2m this year (6m bid) or 3m this year (9m bid) and then worry about the consequences next year and beyond for the buyout. If you're close to a championship and are going all out for it this year, why not take that burden and free up some extra cap for yourself this year for other players?
But that's the thing - It's up to you about how to run your team. If you're going for it, it makes perfect sense. I don't really see anyone signing Teemu to a 6m - 8m per year contract for one year.... Don't think anyone things that's going to happen.
Not sure how you could set it up, but maybe give a retirement fee of a lesser percentage to guys who actually DO retire out of the blue (ie. Brian Rafalski last year) where no one really saw it coming.
BUT, using Selanne as an example this year, and I guess Lidstrom last year.... If a player is old, and is a Free Agent in this league... And then retires next year, the team should be accountable for the 66% under normal buy-out rules. Don't think it would be that difficult to police that one...
And you have to know that if a guy is 38-41 years old, and has 1 year left on his contract, or he just signed only a 1-year contract in the NHL after humming and hawing about retirement, they're probably not going to play another 3 years in the NHL!
(On that note, I was very surprised to see Dallas dish out 9m to Ray Whitney for 2 years at his age!!).
Probably wouldn't be tough to put in some sort of rule regarding this, because I don't think it happens THAT often where a fantasy-worthy player keeps dragging on his career one year at a time like Selanne.
-
Glad I provided at least a chuckle.
This is what we are doing in the league I commission currently 100% on Fantrax so contracts,salary, cap all done on the one site. Not saying this would work here but just as an example. Only started this but so far we are still seeing mostly long term or 3 year contracts but it has produced about 10%-15% one/two year contracts.
We allow buyouts at 75% no discount for retiring players. Max contract is 3 years with a one time extension for 2 years (5yr total) and 3 franchise tags that can be applied to any player on the last year of their contract that allows you to extend them again.
A player is won by the highest total contract value. Tie break goes to the team bidding the longer number of years due to the commitment.
Bids are posted in the format (# of years) @ (year salary) = (contract total and value)
The highest contract value wins the bid.
Contracts will have a diminishing value for each year. (This is only for the purpose of determining a winning bid)
1 yr - 100 % value
2nd yr - 50%
3rd yr - 50% ( i wanted to do 25%, but got voted down)
this means 10 million @ 3 yrs will equal a 20 million value (10 + 5+5)
if you bid 10million @ 2 yrs it would have a 15 million value (10+5)
so in this example to win this bid with a 1 yr offer you would need to bid 20.1 million @ 1 yr. (the tie in value goes to the longer contract)
To give a more realistic example.
If you bid Dan Boyle - 3 yrs @ 5 million (5+2.5+2.5) = 10 mill contract value.
next bid could be 2 yrs @ 7 mill (7+3.5) = 10.5 mill contract value.
next bid could be 3 yrs @ 6 mill (6+3+3) = 12 mill contract value.
-
For administration sake it should probably stay consistent. If Selanne retires its 40% but if he plays a year in Europe its 66%?
-
If Selanne plays in Europe its 40%.
NEW 2012-13 Player Signs with Non-NHL affiliated Team:: NHL eligible players who have signed a contract to play in a non-NHL affiliated league (ie. KHL, SEL, etc) excluding AHL and ECHL, can be bought out at 40.0% (x 0.40) of their contract value, standard b/o policy above apply.
I think the variation and complexity adds to the league. Isn't that the point of this league? The rules are very well written and if there is any confusion all it takes is a quick reference. The is even a link for the contracts page above the team pages.
I know that one of the reasons I joined this league was that it seemed more challenging and in-depth than most leagues.
-
i believe that providing cap tools in a salary cap league is the best way to create an entertaining and somewhat realistic fantasy experience while also potentially allowing for more player movement.
For administration sake it should probably stay consistent. If Selanne retires its 40% but if he plays a year in Europe its 66%?
i don't mind the admin as it's a 1-time change to a contract and it's only a 2nd rate variation on buy outs.
...
I think the variation and complexity adds to the league. Isn't that the point of this league?...
I know that one of the reasons I joined this league was that it seemed more challenging and in-depth than most leagues.
same here, i think joeshmoe did a great job overall with rules so i tried to do the proper upkeep with these new additions.
that said, i will lean towards providing more cap tools that allow for different ways to manage salary cap versus trying to introduce purely player movement-type rules such as "waivers" or "two-way contracts" which already exist in many other ProFSL leagues.
-
...
We allow buyouts at 75% no discount for retiring players. Max contract is 3 years with a one time extension for 2 years (5yr total) and 3 franchise tags that can be applied to any player on the last year of their contract that allows you to extend them again.
...
The highest contract value wins the bid.
Contracts will have a diminishing value for each year. (This is only for the purpose of determining a winning bid)
1 yr - 100 % value
2nd yr - 50%
3rd yr - 50% ( i wanted to do 25%, but got voted down)
this means 10 million @ 3 yrs will equal a 20 million value (10 + 5+5)
if you bid 10million @ 2 yrs it would have a 15 million value (10+5)
so in this example to win this bid with a 1 yr offer you would need to bid 20.1 million @ 1 yr. (the tie in value goes to the longer contract)
To give a more realistic example.
If you bid Dan Boyle - 3 yrs @ 5 million (5+2.5+2.5) = 10 mill contract value.
next bid could be 2 yrs @ 7 mill (7+3.5) = 10.5 mill contract value.
next bid could be 3 yrs @ 6 mill (6+3+3) = 12 mill contract value.
how many teams is your league snugerud? and is it paid or free... i'm thinking paid given the advanced way you bid on FA's and structure contracts.