Mock offseason #3 (Mock is over, thanks to all participants!)

[Tweaky]

I have no problem making the votes public, it was merely a game and no one is out to make anyone feel bad and it might stir some good discussion and debate

and would offer more awards like:

Most likely to resemble the plans/moves of the actual Team/GM
Most surprising transaction

Agree^^

 

[AslanRH]

I do think that by combining Tweaky's idea of us debating/approving the best deals + my idea of having "waves" of free agency would work well.

for the most part we all were pretty fair and objective regarding the re-signings, and as long as we don't have a dog in the fight, should be able to come to a consensus on what most players would likely prefer in UFA.

 

[Tweaky]

Yeah the waves of UFA signings is a good plan. May take a bit longer to get through everything, but if we do a day of offers, then a day of debate/decisions, then move to the next wave, I think it would work well.

 

[InjuredChoker]

One of my suggestions would be some procedure when we open UFA

1) give it 24 hours and then halt all offers on new players.
2) Take any player that received an offer in that first 24 hours "wave 1" and finish the negotiating/signing within the next 24 hours. ex: Mike Green, Beauch, Tikhanov would be done by the end of day 2.
3) reopen for 24 or 48 hours and then do the same 24 hour finalizing for "wave 2"

after that, all the rest should be pretty easy to finish. My thought is that this would facilitate people missing out on targets early and either going after the 2nd tier guys harder and/or having more time to seek a trade, etc

this is something i thought about adding too, though not in that exact format.

My only thing is that big name players test ufa instead of all resigning before

this was another idea of mine that i'd add.

Close the loophole concerning AAV versus total contract value, as AAV is better in almost all cases. For the old guys that the extra years would be of value, maybe do something like each year after 37 is worth an extra 10% cumulative bonus. So say you offer a 35 year old winger a 4 year worth $12M. Someone else offers 2 years for $9M total. To compare, second contract is $4.5M AAV, first is ($12M+$1.2M+$2.4M)/4 = $3.9M AAV(adj). Add another year at $3M and it becomes ($15M+$1.5M+$3.0M+$4.5M)/5 = $4.8M AAV(adj). This allows for the player to take into account earnings in the waning years of a career. The player could make $9M in 2 years, then have to get a new contract...but would that contract be worth the $6M more the second contract guaranteed? Signing most 37yo guys for over $2M AAV is questionable. There are a few that would be worth it, but not that many, and the players know it. Therefore, I think they would value the extra paid years a bit more that a youngster would. Flip side, the young guys are not going to take a longer contract at lower AAV just because the total is higher (a loophole many of us took advantage of this year). ROR would take $7.5Mx3 over $7Mx4 all day every day. He knows that at the end of the 3 year term, he can get a contract worth more than the $5.5M difference. But a guy 10 years older may not feel the same depending on how well he ages.

Prolly need to cap it, otherwise a loophole of offering a 36yo player an 8 year contract at $1M AAV adjusts to being more valuable than a 3 year $3M AAV deal (8+0.8+1.6+2.4+3.2+4+4.8)/8 = $3.1M AAVadj. $8M should never be worth more than $9M. Capping the bonus years at 40% seems to fix this (8+0.8+1.6+2.4+3.2+3.2+3.2)/ = $2.8M AAVadj.


Or could make it simple and just blanket rule that any contract that takes a player to 40 goes by total value. But then there is the issue of a 32yo getting the 8 year contract worth $40M being worth more than the 3yr $10M AAV deal. Pretty easy for a guy worth $10M at 32 to make another $10M over the course of 5 years, even at 35 years old (see Iginla, Jarome).

Or maybe go to a system like we did for undrafted ELCs, where folks decide on the best deal. Subjective, but it seemed to work this year (I say as one of the ones that "won" an ELC showdown).


Or go to the new CBA that limits new contract length to 1 year. Not like we have to deal with the consequences of the long ass deals some of us gave (MaJo wont be getting 8 years for real). Same rationale as not allowing future picks or considerations in trades.

that was a loophole i planned to close as i mentioned earlier.. planned to name the rule after you, actually..

it would take more time with that as approvals were pretty slow to come but i think it would be the most reasonable that posters can decide which offer is the best. it's better than trying to come up with some limits and such or AAV beats in all cases imo (would punish contending teams too much). other posters just need to be active with that. obviously if someone like stamkos or kopitar is UFA (unlikely though) almost everyone would have their horse in a race and we would have to do some exceptions.

i thought about adding AAV rule for all players over 32 or something and contending teams and previous teams getting 5-10% edge but the math work could become infuriating among other possible issues with that method.

maybe we could do the highest bidder for smaller UFAs (up to 3mil) and all offers over that would be decided by other posters.

also, no more team lottery. i wouldn't take team at least in top 5 or so i think that should work out. and if some have to take two teams, one has to be rebuilding team, one contending team.

there's still at least one more but that's a secret and you have to wait until next year if i can run this again .

 

[forsbergavs32]

this is something i thought about adding too, though not in that exact format.



this was another idea of mine that i'd add.



that was a loophole i planned to close as i mentioned earlier.. planned to name the rule after you, actually..

it would take more time with that as approvals were pretty slow to come but i think it would be the most reasonable that posters can decide which offer is the best. it's better than trying to come up with some limits and such or AAV beats in all cases imo (would punish contending teams too much). other posters just need to be active with that. obviously if someone like stamkos or kopitar is UFA (unlikely though) almost everyone would have their horse in a race and we would have to do some exceptions.

i thought about adding AAV rule for all players over 32 or something and contending teams and previous teams getting 5-10% edge but the math work could become infuriating among other possible issues with that method.

maybe we could do the highest bidder for smaller UFAs (up to 3mil) and all offers over that would be decided by other posters.

also, no more team lottery. i wouldn't take team at least in top 5 or so i think that should work out. and if some have to take two teams, one has to be rebuilding team, one contending team.

there's still at least one more but that's a secret and you have to wait until next year if i can run this again .

I personally liked the team lottery that we did. Also with the AAV stuff I definitely want to keep the math to a minimum

 

[tigervixxxen]

I'm cool with making our superlatives votes public. Thought might get a few more opinions in private but if you guys don't think that's a factor then nothing wrong with it being open.

For next year maybe leave open for sign ups a bit longer to get as many different people to join. I like the group we had though.

I like the idea of not being able to sign your own UFAs until they hit the market.

 

[InjuredChoker]

I personally liked the team lottery that we did. Also with the AAV stuff I definitely want to keep the math to a minimum

we could do it if everyone had one team but it was bit of a mess with late entries and some having two teams and so on.

it also took quite a bit of time and this whole thing lasted a month and some seemed to lose a bit of interest. and with my planned changes, it would last even longer than month so the team lottery is the logical thing to cut.

i have though about cutting the draft pick time shorter and doing RFAs before the draft to speed up the process. no UFA re-signings would help too.

 

[tigervixxxen]

I'm fine with cutting the draft lottery. I don't think anyone would take huge issue with just first come first serve selection.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

I do think that by combining Tweaky's idea of us debating/approving the best deals + my idea of having "waves" of free agency would work well.

for the most part we all were pretty fair and objective regarding the re-signings, and as long as we don't have a dog in the fight, should be able to come to a consensus on what most players would likely prefer in UFA.

Sounds like a good idea to me.