RFA Rule Proposal & Discussion

[Drew]

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.

[favo_zomg]

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?

[Mariner]

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.

 

[Mariner]

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.

[Drew]

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.

[yahoolando]

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.

[SlackJack]

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.

 

Exactly what I have been saying! We're up to at least four cents now.

[nelly85]

Just another q on this what happens if say landdy goes for more then 7 mill more the the extension value what happens then?

[Jesse]

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

[yahoolando]

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  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.