Batch 3 and test drive of new UFA approach

[JiriHrdina]

Folks, we are going to experiment with a change to UFAs with Batch 3, that we are strongly considering as the new rule for next season.

There is a clear loop hole right now where teams are offering high $s on multi-year terms with low AHL percentages. Now this is something I used for my advantage with Kunitz, so this isn’t a complaint so much as realization that this is something we can improve on. I think this became more widespread this year as teams have a lot of cap this year (suggesting maybe our grids weren’t high enough).

As such, the change to the UFA system we will make for batch 3, and likely going forward assuming we like it – is we will who gets the UFA on something we will call “guaranteed dollars”. The formula for this will be $ per year * # of years offered * AHL %.

Examples:
Chris Kunitz gets the following offers
Offer 1: 3 years @ 10M/season @ 10% AHL
Offer 2: 2 years @ 7M/season @ 35% AHL
Offer 3: 1 years @ 5M/season @ 1 way.

Under current rules Offer 1 would win.

Under the new system the guaranteed dollar formula would be:
Offer 1: 3M
Offer 2: 4.9M
Offer 3: 5M

So offer 3 would win on the strength of the fact that it is 1 way.
In the event that there are offers that are tied in terms of guaranteed dollars the tie-breaking order would be similar to now:
1. Dollars per year
2. # of years
3. AHL%
4. Place in standings

We expect this will do a number of things
- Close the current loop-hole for the most part
- Drive most UFA contracts for established players to be 1 way
- Make UFA season even more interesting

Teams will still need to have enough cap for the Per Year Dollar amount. So for instance in the above Team 1 would need 10M, Team 2 7M and Team 3 5M to make it a valid offer.

We are going to pilot this with Batch 3 since we are down to tertiary players. We will then decide on whether or not to make this the system we use next year. Our strong lean is that we will.

Questions? Seriously. If you don’t get this ask. Don’t make assumptions.

[JiriHrdina]

Batch 3
D

Michael Rozsival
Lubo Visnovsky
Bryce Salvador
Mike Weaver
Peter Harrold
Bryan Allen
Andre Benoit
Adam Pardy
Jon Blum
Raphael Diaz
F
Steve Ott
Torey Mitchell
Sean Bergenheim
Matt Cullen
Stephen Gionta
Craig Adams
Matt Cooke
David Moss
Olie Jokinen
Jay Beagle
Drew Miller
David Clarkson
Rob Klinkhammer
Eric Nystrom

This will be our last batch with a defined set. After this we will have an open batch for all remaining UFAs.

Deadline Friday 11:59 PM Calgary time

[Slava]

This looks sensible and I think it's a good idea because it's much more realistic I think. I mean in the above scenario the player takes the $10m, but I wouldn't expect most deals to be that obviously far apart.

[Moshpit]

When is the deadline for bids? Friday midnight again?

[JiriHrdina]

Oops yup. Added.

[EldrickOnIce]

This looks much better. Not sure it shouldn't be tweaked a bit going forward, though I'm not not exactly sure how that would be.
For example
1 year @ 4.5 would probably be preferable to 3 years @ 1.51 to any UFA

[dsavillian]

Good idea, reasonable change.

I was going to suggest that all UFAs be 1 way if over a certain rating, I like this more.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

FI think this became more widespread this year as teams have a lot of cap this year (suggesting maybe our grids weren’t high enough).

....

Questions? Seriously. If you don’t get this ask. Don’t make assumptions.

Is that the reason, i remember correctly there are teams every year that have huge cap to throw around. I can say with 100% certainly that in years past had zero effect because of where we put the grids this year. I would say it would be better to look at which teams had large cap and how they came to acquiring it rather then making assumptions that don't hold true for all the previous years that had similar problems and a much higher GRID

With the quick acceleration of players getting great Ov while still under contract (which will run out) and veterans taking a cap hit re-signing at a more reasonable hit... plus dumping those that would have been grossly overpaid for being too low of the depth charts would have a better assumption

It would be a mistake to make quick reflex changes to a system (changing the GRID's) when players that where under the old grids contracts have yet to come up and re-sign) right now we are in a system that has players signed under the old and new, after this season only players that were originally signed for 3 years will be the only players still not signed under the new GRID's (not all players were signed to 3 years so the number will be lower then 1/3)

I think it would be better to make an evaluation about the grids after the RFA process next year otherwise you really are jumping the gun without playing out a full contract to understand where it really is

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Good idea, reasonable change.

I was going to suggest that all UFAs be 1 way if over a certain rating, I like this more.

Can't say I agree, not all UFA players are 1st line players that will be NHL players for the year. Make a rule for the Semin type player I understand but there's also players like John Scot that may be signed also

Maybe a 1st and 2nd Batch = 1way but this would also eliminate the new rule... meaning
Examples:
Chris Kunitz gets the following offers
Offer 1: 3 years @ 10M/season @ 10% AHL
Offer 2: 2 years @ 7M/season @ 35% AHL
Offer 3: 1 years @ 5M/season @ 1 way.

can't happen because offer 1 and 2 is not submittable

If this new wringle doesn't happen then I would say maybe Batch 1 and 2 being 1-way and then players after that can be 2way. Doubtful batch 1 or 2 has borderline NHL/Ahl players

[Hanna Sniper]

Think this is an interesting idea, looking forward to see how this batch plays out. if I make a bid I'll be posting my bid afterwards to share info on how it played out

First glance I think it's fun and will have a few GM's steamed. Should raise the AHL % up big time with NHL players and create a future "active GM'ing" to work with

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Is that the reason, i remember correctly there are teams every year that have huge cap to throw around. I can say with 100% certainly that in years past had zero effect because of where we put the grids this year. I would say it would be better to look at which teams had large cap and how they came to acquiring it rather then making assumptions that don't hold true for all the previous years that had similar problems and a much higher GRID

With the quick acceleration of players getting great Ov while still under contract (which will run out) and veterans taking a cap hit re-signing at a more reasonable hit... plus dumping those that would have been grossly overpaid for being too low of the depth charts would have a better assumption

It would be a mistake to make quick reflex changes to a system (changing the GRID's) when players that where under the old grids contracts have yet to come up and re-sign) right now we are in a system that has players signed under the old and new, after this season only players that were originally signed for 3 years will be the only players still not signed under the new GRID's (not all players were signed to 3 years so the number will be lower then 1/3)


I think it would be better to make an evaluation about the grids after the RFA process next year otherwise you really are jumping the gun without playing out a full contract to understand where it really is

Believe me I haven't made any final conclusions about the grid - which is why I used the word "suggests". Indeed it is something we can assess only after at least 1 season.
But the grids change every year anyways - as ratings change.

[dsavillian]

Regarding grids:

In the past, I rarely signed UFAs to grid deals.

This time around? I handed out more grid deals than all of my previous seasons combined.

small sample size though

[3thirty]

This looks fun. While I don't know if we see that much variance in batch #3 it would be interesting to see how this would shape up with a top tier batch.