New Idea For When DP Contracts End

A lot of people feel otherwise, I tried to give a solution without the complication of RFA.

Also could add a feature where if a DP is going into his 3rd season and issues a TR, the TR MUST be granted by his management

 

RFA has been a nightmare for so long...... I love new ideas but this isn't a new idea it is an old one that did not work.

 

I don't know where you get your info, but the quality of the bidding pool is perfectly fine

 

Because let’s just go quickly into players that could have been “resigned or retained under your new rule”

@xNav61 @Bo-Dangles10 @PenguinsHockey__ @aREAP__ @Aye Keeks @Giroux
1- 3.5
2- 5.5
3- 8 million

All those players listed above are all WAY below market value. Besides Penguins who was 7.5 there is no doubt in my mind that every player would be over 8 million in bidding, and since Myles was drafted in the mid second round his contract resigns would be even less. PSN bidding is already meh as it is why put more and more people into below market value contracts. They tried to do the thing that you suggested with and nav was below 6 million then dropped like 100+ points on the league. 2 seasons on a 2 million or less deal, you have those two seasons to play on your rookie deal then you can enter bidding or mgmt like everyone else.

 

I see what ur saying, but these players don’t exist in the draft anymore, each year the draft gets weaker in weaker, that’s why I’m suggesting a 3 year contract, an extra little incentive for management to scout and incorporate DP’s into their organization

 

Giroux just got off his contract....he would be 3.5 million under your idea. Slayer is gonna be 3.5 next season? I don’t understand your point. Go to bidding.

 

I don't understand your argument/logic here? What do you mean RFA was a way for good players to play out of position? Also what does "RFA out of the secondary position" mean? I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.

 

I strongly disagree. It sounds like it was a good idea with a few major flaws that turned all the LG OGs off of it, but those flaws seem quite easy to fix to make it a viable option in LG.

No one has named a flaw with my personal rules. All of the arguments against me are because of flaws in the rule back in the day, not my proposition.

 

Giroux is GM on St Louis.

 

Here's a flaw: Bidding is already hard enough as it is. There's luck involved since it's anonymous and most people arent corrupt. Say you bid on a guy for 3 days and get matched at the last minute. You're fucked for the upcoming season. your draft pick compensation thing isnt enough.

 

Having gone through RFA both as a BOG and an Owner I can confirm 100% that it's one of the most disruptive and destructive practices the league has ever had. While RFAs going to bidding isn't ideal for the player himself, it's far and away the most fair solution for the league. The important thing is to get players as close to their actual market value as possible. Imagine if Josh hadn't been banned and then was drafted. And then allowed to resign his draft contract. The RFA resign at a premium increased value that Nav benefitted from was also a practice I was heavily involved in and that only lasted one season because it created an imbalance. What's good in theory isn't always as good in practice. RFA works IRL but doesn't work for us. It had to go and the worst thing we can do is bring it back.

Love,
Dad.

 

RFA was dumb

Reference: Went through RFA and considered it dumb

 

As I stated before, the timer resets when getting matched.. as it would when a player gets a new bid. It doesn't add any extra "difficulty" to bidding.

 

Again, it sounds like that was a flaw with the old RFA system. This new proposed RFA system wouldn't have that flaw lol. The point of the proposed system is to have a DP re-sign with their current team at a fair market value, and if the owner doesn't want that player at market value then they get compensated for the work they put in to draft and develop that player.

There's no re-signing draft contracts.
There's no re-signing "at a premium increased value".

There is only entering bidding to determine fair market value for a player, and the team who drafted that player can now re-sign the player at that fair market value, or let them walk and get compensated for it.

 

Correction. The old RFA was dumb.

 

You just think there's no flaw. The site isn't capable of a match function. So it's something that has to be done manually. And that takes someone to be paying attention. How long does the team have to match? It has to be immediately because other players who won the bid for the RFA player might want are set to expire. But it can't happen immediately because none of the staff are capable of being around 24 hours a day. Neither are the owners. So what's an acceptable amount of time for it to be matched? What if my next target who I could afford if not for winning this bid expires before a decision is made? I'd lose my shit as an owner. Your idea is as broken as every idea that came before it. RFA doesn't work in a sim style league like this.

 

Take a couple minutes to think about your ''doesn't add any extra difficulty to bidding'' comment and come back to me if you still think it doesn't.

 

You seem to be completely missing the point that the flaw you propose can happen with the UFA system we use now in bidding. If you get out-bid and don't get a player then you're screwed. Your problem here is with bidding, not with RFA's.

This website is capable of doing a lot of things and I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to add "match bid" to the website. It's obviously not there now and sure, it's more work than not adding it in. But matching bids does NOT have to be manually done by BOGs. This is under the assumption that a match bid function is added to the bidding system. If not, then I agree it would be silly to be done manually by BOGs.

 

Can you explain how it adds difficulty to bidding then? There's legit no difference between an RFA and UFA in terms of difficulty. If it's difficult for you, then bidding is difficult for you.. RFA's aren't the difficult part.

Unless I'm missing something, which I would like to hear if I am.

 

In case anyone wants a quick recap of this thread I’ll do one:

Hi I’m @bonwl I heard bidding is scary so I’ve thought about a way for me and other DPs to potentially not get a @B-Bunny type of aids contract.

Me,Niner,BJ,JP,Flap: people with mgmt, bog and league expierence who have seen RFA before on this site, telling you why this is a dumb idea and how it won’t work

Bonwl: But I don’t want to be expensive in bidding and I hope that by having this dumbass system I thought up which didn’t work previously...I can avoid that same fate.

People: Yeah no go to bidding.

Doing it manaully is a pain in the ass. Here are just some situations that I’ve encountered, alone just for any teams that I’ve managed.

One season after RFA was done with and they released the who won who list I noticed that I clearly outbid 4 different players. So then the bogs had to go back to each team for those 4 players and see if they would like them back at a increased rate ranging from 500k to another 1.5 million.

One season I had 2 RFAs. None of them went thru the original process so they needed to make a separate PM which only included my players.

@P t P 10 had to have have his team who won him redone. As one owner bid
@P t P 10. 5 million
And the other owner had
@P t P 10 10 million.

The bogs thought it was PTP for 10.5 million. But what the owner really meant was PTP10 for 5 million. So they had to redo it and ask the owner who bid the 10 million if they wanted PTP or another player in the plus 6 million range. It’s too much work for too little reward. Lg has tried this and it was miserable for everyone involved from mgmt to players to bogs.