UFA "value" idea

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

I Don't see the point of the floor, other then we don't want another GM to get a great deal. Most ALL our players in our league are overpaid, a few deals here are there is a good thing. I fail to see what having a floor serves other then bitterness towards a team that played that angle and won

Why have a floor on one player to prevent him for going for a deal but not have a cap on Ramo to prevent someone paying 9.99M.

What we are saying is overpaying is good and underpaying is bad and setting up rules to enforce it. I'm cheap so it's obvious why one way appeal to me but the handcuffs that are placed on myself are by my own doing and not the leagues.

The only thing something like this effects is the bargain players. I fail to see why they are such an issue when everyone has the chance to offer that player a fair deal and all passed on it

Doug, you are missing the point.

This is to force people to actually put effort in and again, to make it more realistic. It is a starting point.

4 mill is EXTREMELY underpaid, not overpaid for Robidas. It also helps newer GMs figure out value. A newer GM might bid 2.5 million for Robidas and think that is more then fair, when they really could have focused on a player who is asking for 2.5 million.

Again, this isn't 100% realistic but it is better then the current system. An NHL player's agent will tell every GM what they are expecting.

[Hanna Sniper]

It's not that I miss the point and it's not that it's more realistic (please stop using realistic, nothing will ever be realistic). I just don't see why having a team bid 2.5M on Robidas and loosing him to a higher bidder and thus not having the option to have that 2.5M to bid on another team is a bad thing.

This is a protection to shy away teams from using their cap to bid on a loosing bid and not having enough cap to bid elsewhere.

I would think that is the point of the current system, GM's cap are locked up in unsuccessful bids, teams are forced to make hard decisions where to put their cap. What is a flaw to one is the point for the other

if this is a good thing or bad but I do think that is the goal of the current system

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Just finished reading this thread and personally I enjoy the UFA system the way it is. It is relatively simple (which I enjoy) and I like the potential for steals. Some UFAs in our system get overpaid big time and some of them get steals. With our UFA and RFA grid pricing the salaries are high enough, rookies on entry level deals are already worth a ton.

I don't see the need to prevent steals, if someone chooses to big 1 mill on 16 players and gets a few at a cheap price then good for them. They also risk striking out entirely and not adding any assets because they weren't willing to pay a decent salary. All part of the game.