There is a cost to doing that though, even if bought out from the AHL.
There rules are made so that if you re-sign a UFA it is 1 way, but in open free agency they aren't - so that is one of the clear distinctions between the two.
I did wonder though, as I processed these deals, if we should re-order the criteria for who wins. Right now it goes $$, term, AHL%. I wonder if we should go $$, AHL%, term.
Something to consider for next season.
For now these rules have been in place for a number of years and have worked well.
The cost is very marginal when buying a player out in the AHL.
Sure the system has been in place but we've changed other rules too.
If its one way then teams may only sign 1 year deals. Thus more UFAs to n the following years pool. Also will increase trading as teams wont be scared of taking on multi year contact.
Maybe allow teams to offer 1 way?
Then go money, 1-way or 2-way, AHL %, term
The cost is very marginal when buying a player out in the AHL.
Sure the system has been in place but we've changed other rules too.
If its one way then teams may only sign 1 year deals. Thus more UFAs to n the following years pool. Also will increase trading as teams wont be scared of taking on multi year contact.
Maybe allow teams to offer 1 way?
Then go money, 1-way or 2-way, AHL %, term
Teams can offer 1-way already and do. So that plays into the AHL% as a tie breaker. I do like the idea of that order though. Right now teams can offer a longer term with low AHL%. Reverse the order and teams are probably motivated to offer a higher %.
Glad to have gotten 2 of the many players I sent in, tried to go low on as many of the offers as possible, and seeing what some of the players went for, I had no hope.
Boyle will be a good top 4 fill in for a year, and emery will be a serviceable backup at 1 mil. Still have 26 mil available, 2 player spots left to fill.
Teams can offer 1-way already and do. So that plays into the AHL% as a tie breaker. I do like the idea of that order though. Right now teams can offer a longer term with low AHL%. Reverse the order and teams are probably motivated to offer a higher %.
I did not know that. Hows how much I participate in UFA.
Glad to add hainsey at that rate and term. Just missed Boyle but in all honesty we only needed 1 D. I missed the forwards I wanted and didn't want them for any higher than I bid. But that's the way it goes.
Was debating hard going after a backup. But Murray's rating and contract was solid so we decided to stick it out with him.
Would still like another depth forward but all will depend on the cost of getting them next round vs trade.
Glad to add hainsey at that rate and term. Just missed Boyle but in all honesty we only needed 1 D. I missed the forwards I wanted and didn't want them for any higher than I bid. But that's the way it goes.
Was debating hard going after a backup. But Murray's rating and contract was solid so we decided to stick it out with him.
Would still like another depth forward but all will depend on the cost of getting them next round vs trade.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Swayze11 For This Useful Post:
First time doing this, but I'm imagining round 2 turns into an overpayment extravaganza where GMs who missed out on batch 1 players then throw oodles of cash at players in batch 2 to finish their lines?? Can't wait to watch it unfold!!!
First time doing this, but I'm imagining round 2 turns into an overpayment extravaganza where GMs who missed out on batch 1 players then throw oodles of cash at players in batch 2 to finish their lines?? Can't wait to watch it unfold!!!
Each year is different. A lot more teams have cash this year
Lack will be the starter in Carolina. They tried handing over the reigns to Khudobin and it didn't work out. Lack will definitely be given the first chance.
Isles have $19.5 mill tied in goaltending. See what they do next. Any team looking for a number 1?
The Following User Says Thank You to Da_Chief For This Useful Post:
