|
Post by Philly Pete on Oct 24, 2018 1:55:17 GMT
Hey guys, Stephen already knows my feeling on this but i'm making them public. I feel it's bs Edmonton can win Cédric Latour in UFA after the SJ offer was entered in the previous file.
League rule
I feel that, having the offer entered in a league file, should have locked in SJ's rights as their offer was no longer private. EDM could sim ahead and see what it would take to beat the SJ offer.
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Oct 24, 2018 3:29:49 GMT
I have to side with Pete on this issue. Edmonton should not have been able to bid until Latour rejected SJ's bid if he was going to.
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Oct 24, 2018 13:03:06 GMT
Hey guys, Stephen already knows my feeling on this but i'm making them public. I feel it's bs Edmonton can win Cédric Latour in UFA after the SJ offer was entered in the previous file. League rule I feel that, having the offer entered in a league file, should have locked in SJ's rights as their offer was no longer private. EDM could sim ahead and see what it would take to beat the SJ offer. I don't agree that I contravened the specific rule you cited, but I actually do agree with the idea. I know in past years I've missed out on UFAs in round one and not followed up because I wasn't sure if I was allowed. In this case I decided to go for it, figuring that if it is not allowed I would be told that. Either way, if we want contract offers to be locked in, so to speak, then we need to have that clearly stated in the rules. I should add, there are three players who this impacts at the moment: Alex Trush - was taking 2.0/2yrs TO from NYI, instead took 2.0/2yrs PO TO from Pit. Erick Niit - was taking 1.0/2yrs TO two-way from Ott, instead took 2.0/2yrs PO TO from Col. Cédric Latour - was taking 4.0/3yrs TO two-way from SJ, instead took 6.0/3yrs TO two-way from Edm.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 24, 2018 14:42:33 GMT
I think it would smart to bring in a sort of Agent system for certain UFAs
EDM didn't do anything wrong, but the rule should be reworked
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Oct 24, 2018 15:24:10 GMT
I think it would smart to bring in a sort of Agent system for certain UFAs EDM didn't do anything wrong, but the rule should be reworked I have been in leagues with a two or three step system that doesn't really involve EHM. For instance: (player) | Best Bid (R1) | Best Bid (R2) | Best Bid (R3) | Maurice Richard | Edm (5mil, 2yrs) | Ott (6mil, 3yrs) | Phi (7mil, 4yrs) | Gordie Howe | Stl (12mil, 3yrs) | no improved bid | n/a | Bobby Orr | Bos (6mil, 1yr) | Mtl (10mil, 4yrs) | no improved bid | etc | | | |
So UFA contracts would be entered over a specified period of time with the best bid announced and teams given a short period to beat that. If there is no improved bid, the previous round's best bid gets the player. I should add that I'm not saying we should go this route (I am also happy if we just say "send in bids, best bids are entered and locked in unless the player rejects it"), but it is one I've seen in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen (League Admin) on Oct 24, 2018 15:43:09 GMT
I agree that Edmonton didn't violate the letter of the rule, but inadvertantly violated the spirit of the rule.
We can rework the rules. I option is that I edit the amount of time a player considers the contract for, that way he will either accept or rject in that 3 day first window. I already do that with draft boost players. However, that could equate to a lot of players so i would nut mind limiting it to certain players in some way.
Regarding player disputes I normall take a crummy player and duplicate the disputed players stats on to him so both parties get the player. Not sure thats appropriate in this case, but can do that again here. DOn't mind doing it for the three effected players. We also have a new gm taking over San Jose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2018 18:42:42 GMT
Did I lose out on a good player before I even started
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh(Doug) on Oct 24, 2018 21:38:59 GMT
It may be reasonable to change the process for offering contracts on the UFA boosts only. Maybe limit that offering window to one set of offers and best offer takes it. No edited UFA between the ages of 20 - 23 will turn down a 1 mil salary. When i did my own testing for contract offers, the game only will allow you to input a better contract. Which in turn gives the advantage to the second round period.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Oct 24, 2018 23:17:22 GMT
I agree that Edmonton didn't violate the letter of the rule, but inadvertantly violated the spirit of the rule. We can rework the rules. I option is that I edit the amount of time a player considers the contract for, that way he will either accept or rject in that 3 day first window. I already do that with draft boost players. However, that could equate to a lot of players so i would nut mind limiting it to certain players in some way. Regarding player disputes I normall take a crummy player and duplicate the disputed players stats on to him so both parties get the player. Not sure thats appropriate in this case, but can do that again here. DOn't mind doing it for the three effected players. We also have a new gm taking over San Jose. I wouldnt give both the same player. I think EDM should just get him since he technically didn't break the rules. But now we re-work that rule so we don't run into this problem going forward
|
|
|
Post by islandersgm on Oct 25, 2018 1:46:10 GMT
I agree with BluesGM. I wouldn't give both the same player either just rework the rule going forward. As far as UFAs, I'd say whatever is easiest on the simmer. I like the system OilersGM mentioned. I see it as the player has an agent who is letting other teams know what the best offer is to drive up the price.
|
|