Proposal for Offer Sheet Compensation: Smooth, logical solution

[Muikea Bulju]

The current RFA Offer Sheet Compensation is pretty bad, the jumps are too big between 2, 1+3, 1+2+3, 1+1+2+3, and 4x 1 -picks. More levels with a smoother continuum would be better. Players would get what they deserve, rather than teams just thinking that they should offer the max you can offer without paying an extra 1st rounder.

So I made a smoother version with more continous compensation, no sudden jumps.

Based on the 81,5M$ salary cap we have now, the max salary is 20% = 16,3M$

There would be main levels with 1st rounders + smaller jumps with lesser picks in between:

6M$: 1st -rounder
9M$: 2x 1st
12M$: 3x 1st
15M$: 4x 1st

If you go over those levels:
-by 1M$: add 3rd rounder
-by 2M$: add 2nd+3rd

So, for example:
8M$: 1st + 2nd + 3rd
13M$: 3x 1st + 2nd

For salaries less than 6M$, the compensation would be:

1M$: 5th
2M$: 4th
3M$: 3rd
4M$: 2nd
5M$: 2nd + 3rd

As a picture it's easier to get, of course:

The 3 million dollars between 15M$ / 12M$ and 9M$ / 6M$ are equally valuable in a cap world, so the difference in compensation should be pretty much equal.

I do not think you should be getting a 1st rounder if the salary is less than 6M$ with the current cap. If you don't want to pay someone that much, the player is not that special. It would also be good to see some middle-level players moving around more in the league.

The current compensation is:

I think the current compensation is way too high, especially in the 1-5-million-range, and the jumps are just too large.

Click to read more...

 

[Muikea Bulju]

Examples off recent contracts, what they would have brought in as compensation based on AAV (if offer sheeted as an RFA):

McDavid: 3x 1st
Matthews: 1+1+2+3
Aho, Trouba: 1+2+3
Hayes: 1+3
Nylander: 1st
Girard: 2+3
Dvorak: 2nd
Vrana: 3rd
Bennett: 4th
Erne: 5th

Seems just about right to me.

 

[Viqsi]

I think the current compensation is way too high

That's because you, like so many others, have missed the point of Restricted Free Agency and offer sheets. Your proposed compensation levels look very much like an attempt to line up RFA compensation and "trade market fair value", as though offer sheets are supposed to be a way to move players around (or get other teams Upgrades By Hostile Takeover). They're not. Restricted Free Agency and offer sheets exist so that kids coming off their ELC have at least a bare minimum of leverage in contract negotiations so that they won't get entirely ripped off during what are arguably their most valuable years. They're the boogeyman - a formalized threat to the other guy, the closest thing to sanctioned "tampering" we have; not a sane player transfer mechanism. If an offer sheet actually succeeds in transferring a player, some GM somewhere failed.

 

[Garbage Goal]

That's because you, like so many others, have missed the point of Restricted Free Agency and offer sheets. Your proposed compensation levels look very much like an attempt to line up RFA compensation and "trade market fair value", as though offer sheets are supposed to be a way to move players around (or get other teams Upgrades By Hostile Takeover). They're not. Restricted Free Agency and offer sheets exist so that kids coming off their ELC have at least a bare minimum of leverage in contract negotiations so that they won't get entirely ripped off during what are arguably their most valuable years. They're the boogeyman - a formalized threat to the other guy, the closest thing to sanctioned "tampering" we have; not a sane player transfer mechanism. If an offer sheet actually succeeds in transferring a player, some GM somewhere failed.

However you choose to describe the purpose of it, I don’t see why making it so offer sheets are viable ways of player acquisition, with fair market value compensation, is a bad thing. Even if it means perceiving them as player movement mechanisms instead of player leverage.

 

[Muikea Bulju]

That's because you, like so many others, have missed the point of Restricted Free Agency and offer sheets. Your proposed compensation levels look very much like an attempt to line up RFA compensation and "trade market fair value", as though offer sheets are supposed to be a way to move players around (or get other teams Upgrades By Hostile Takeover). They're not. Restricted Free Agency and offer sheets exist so that kids coming off their ELC have at least a bare minimum of leverage in contract negotiations so that they won't get entirely ripped off during what are arguably their most valuable years. They're the boogeyman - a formalized threat to the other guy, the closest thing to sanctioned "tampering" we have; not a sane player transfer mechanism. If an offer sheet actually succeeds in transferring a player, some GM somewhere failed.

My proposed levels are exactly equal to the current levels of compensation in the 4-4,2, 8-8,45 levels. My proposal is also higher than the current one at 1-1,395. So if those levels are wrong / too low in your opinion, why are not complaining about the current levels?

My proposal is a better, continuos, smooth, logical version vs the current Pejorative Slured rollercoaster with sudden jumps.

A player worth exactly 8,9M$ as an RFA is not going to get their money through the current offer sheet -system, because every other team wants to pay them just below the lower compensation level due to the high jump.

A player is only going to get a 8,9M$ offer sheet if they are actually worth way more, and somehow wants to take a cut.

Someone worth 11M$ (as an RFA) is pretty much guaranteed not to get an offer sheet for that amount, because of the moronic jump from 1+1+2+3 to 4x 1 @ 10,5M$

 

[Devil Dancer]

I like it.

But I'd lower the threshold for a first way down to somewhere around $3 or $3.5. Teams should get more protection for emerging young players who haven't broken out yet.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Or, we could just leave it how it is, because it's perfectly fine how it is and it does its job. We're a long way from the season, the factors affecting this off-season are extremely unique, and more player movement with young stars would be bad for the league.

Changes like this are based on something more than kids being bored and impatient in the summer.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The current RFA Offer Sheet Compensation is pretty bad, the jumps are too big between 2, 1+3, 1+2+3, 1+1+2+3, and 4x 1 -picks. More levels with a smoother continuum would be better. Players would get what they deserve, rather than teams just thinking that they should offer the max you can offer without paying an extra 1st rounder.

So I made a smoother version with more continous compensation, no sudden jumps.

[remainder of post snipped]

Explain why the owners are going to go for this. Even better, explain what the players are going to give up to get this.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

However you choose to describe the purpose of it, I don’t see why making it so offer sheets are viable ways of player acquisition, with fair market value compensation, is a bad thing. Even if it means perceiving them as player movement mechanisms instead of player leverage.

"However you choose to describe it"?

This is restricted free agency, not unrestricted free agency.

 

[bukwas]

Seems offer sheet compensation solutions have replaced draft lottery solutions.
I don't expect much to change on either front but i do feel compensation would be a better target for it.

 

[Name Nameless]

How does this thing with years on the contract work in the formula. I tried to figure it out, but I'm not sure I managed to.

If a depth-player signs a 2-year contract at 1.2 mill now, does that count as 1.2 mill, or does the low year do something?

Oh, and I don't understand why you should creep compensation down into taking effect for that player. The compensation is not there to help the teams low-ball the players who are just good enough to play, just to help them keep the more valuable ones (or get something for them if they leave early).

 

[Muikea Bulju]

Explain why the owners are going to go for this. Even better, explain what the players are going to give up to get this.

Why would the owners care, at all?

The players get 50% of the league revenue, no matter which players get the money. Only thing the owners should really care is how to make more revenue, more entertainment, more excitement.

This proposition might actually help the owners:

-less long hold-outs, deals done faster in dramatic fashion (more like Aho, less like Marner)
-more money for the better players, better incentives for them, better play from them as a result?
-more money for younger guys, more money for them to train better, become better?
-more excitement to the league, more money for the league

 

[Muikea Bulju]

How does this thing with years on the contract work in the formula. I tried to figure it out, but I'm not sure I managed to.

If a depth-player signs a 2-year contract at 1.2 mill now, does that count as 1.2 mill, or does the low year do something?

Oh, and I don't understand why you should creep compensation down into taking effect for that player. The compensation is not there to help the teams low-ball the players who are just good enough to play, just to help them keep the more valuable ones (or get something for them if they leave early).

I didn't mention it separately, but I would just take the AAV. And dump the "length of contract OR 5 years, which ever is less" -bs.

I put compensation for lower level players also, because even they have some value, even though it might not be much. That would also set the prices more accurately, when there would be less of a sudden jump from zero compensation to 3rd rounder.

The current compensation starts @1,395, my proposal started @1. I don't think that's a big difference. Especially considering that the compensation in my model was lower between 1,395-4M$

 

[Muikea Bulju]

Seems offer sheet compensation solutions have replaced draft lottery solutions.
I don't expect much to change on either front but i do feel compensation would be a better target for it.

I have also had multiple suggestions for the draft as well.

(Putting a limit to the luck a team with Taylor Hall can have)

I think the draft lottery is there to distribute the talent across the league. It is not meant to be there to give absurd results for some team that happens to get really, really lucky.

 

[Muikea Bulju]

Changes like this are based on something more than kids being bored and impatient in the summer.

"because it's perfectly fine how it is and it does its job."

It is not perfectly fine. It doesn't work for players in the 8,4-9 or 10,5-12-levels.

"more player movement with young stars would be bad for the league."

I do not think this would really increase the movement. This would just add excitement, avoid hold-outs, and bring the dragging salary negotiations faster to the right level of pay.

 

[Muikea Bulju]

I like it.

But I'd lower the threshold for a first way down to somewhere around $3 or $3.5. Teams should get more protection for emerging young players who haven't broken out yet.

I put the threshold "high", because keeping a 4-million-player is not about compensation, or anything else. If you want the player, you pay the 4 millions, you don't take the compensation.

Every team has enough space to pay someone 3-5 million. If a team is unwilling to pay that, or clear out cap room even that much, the player sucks.

There has also been almost zero "low salary" offer sheets as it is, even with zero compensation.

 

[kgboomer]

Why would the owners care, at all?

This proposition might actually help the owners:

-less long hold-outs, deals done faster in dramatic fashion (more like Aho, less like Marner)

Owners sure do care... their solution during the last lockout was to actually eliminate the 2 years bridge deal and make it a 5 yrs ELC instead of 3. If they would have been able to pass that, we wouldn't have any of those hold-outs for Marner, Point, Laine, etc. They would have all been signed for 2 more years on their ELC.

 

[Dekes For Days]

"because it's perfectly fine how it is and it does its job."
It is not perfectly fine. It doesn't work for players in the 8,4-9 or 10,5-12-levels.

Says who? It prevents players from being forced into a massive underpayment when there is no other resolution mechanism. That is its job, and it does it well.

 

[Empoleon8771]

This seems pretty nonsensical, considering offersheet compensation isn't high enough for players in the first place. Of course this website supports lowering that return, because this website hilariously overrates draft picks.

Aho's offersheet this year had the real compensation of a 1st, 2nd and 3rd. That's not going to get you even remotely close to getting an Aho caliber player. Using someone from my own team, Guentzel's contract extension has the compensation of a 1st. I'd laugh at you if you seriously thought a 1st for Guentzel was fair.

 

[Garbage Goal]

"However you choose to describe it"?

This is restricted free agency, not unrestricted free agency.

A) You purposely omitted words I used in that sentence

B) I don’t know what the point of your post is

 

[Leafsrock95]

Did u really make a 2nd thread it’s a big fat no

 

[Viqsi]

However you choose to describe the purpose of it, I don’t see why making it so offer sheets are viable ways of player acquisition, with fair market value compensation, is a bad thing. Even if it means perceiving them as player movement mechanisms instead of player leverage.

Because rapid player exchange does not necessarily increase fan engagement - but it would create yet another battlefield in which contract values of youngsters keep going up. You'd end up with a situation in which contract values for RFA and UFA ended up virtually indistinguishable - and what's the one thing we all know about UFA contract values? Say it with me now - they're almost always way too high.

Now, if you could somehow sell the player's union on the idea of giving up guaranteed contracts... and if we were chatting face to face, I wouldn't be able to finish that sentence before breaking up in laughter.

* * *​

Why would the owners care, at all?

The players get 50% of the league revenue, no matter which players get the money. Only thing the owners should really care is how to make more revenue, more entertainment, more excitement.

This proposition might actually help the owners:

-less long hold-outs, deals done faster in dramatic fashion (more like Aho, less like Marner)
-more money for the better players, better incentives for them, better play from them as a result?
-more money for younger guys, more money for them to train better, become better?
-more excitement to the league, more money for the league

-more teams losing core young players, thus depressing fan turnout
-GMs having new excuses to overspend, causing even more Cap Hell
-value of UFA status suddenly becomes next to nil compared to RFA
-value of the draft takes a nosedive (because you no longer get "good young cheap players" from it - as soon as that ELC is over, you're toast)

But hey, on the positive side, everybody else will know the Oilers' contract pain. Maybe that's what we're going for here.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Why would the owners care, at all?

Because they're the guys who own the rights to the players you want to talk about. And, purportedly your idea would lessen the chances of retaining the rights to those players.

The players get 50% of the league revenue, no matter which players get the money. Only thing the owners should really care is how to make more revenue, more entertainment, more excitement.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure the owners should care about A WHOLE LOT MORE things that just what you mention. And, I'm pretty sure the players would agree with that because there's a number of things they'd rather NOT be worrying about.

This proposition might actually help the owners:

-less long hold-outs, deals done faster in dramatic fashion (more like Aho, less like Marner)
-more money for the better players, better incentives for them, better play from them as a result?
-more money for younger guys, more money for them to train better, become better?
-more excitement to the league, more money for the league

-- less long hold-outs? The owners don't care; if the players want to sit at home instead of signing a contract, that's their problem - not the owners.
-- more money for the better players, etc. etc.? Given the opportunity, the owners would rather pay all the players less regardless of their performance.
-- more money for younger guys, to train, etc.? See the prior point.
-- more excitement? Really, that's all you're after - and I don't know that your idea accomplishes much of anything at all, seeing as how the major deterrent for offer sheets is by far "the other team is just going to match."
-- more money for the league? See the prior point.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

A) You purposely omitted words I used in that sentence

Purposely? I most certainly did not.

 

[Jozay]

This seems pretty nonsensical, considering offersheet compensation isn't high enough for players in the first place. Of course this website supports lowering that return, because this website hilariously overrates draft picks.

Aho's offersheet this year had the real compensation of a 1st, 2nd and 3rd. That's not going to get you even remotely close to getting an Aho caliber player. Using someone from my own team, Guentzel's contract extension has the compensation of a 1st. I'd laugh at you if you seriously thought a 1st for Guentzel was fair.

this is the key.

I'd actually be OK with lowering compensation as a fan, because it would make the league more entertaining. But theres no way the owners would allow this, because its not even close to fair. And because the compensation is so low, these offersheets would be matched 99% of the time without hesitation.