But he's not even on IR in real life? So how can we just put guys on LTIR in game?
If that's how it works can I put Monahan on LTIR because he's out of the lineup right now yet he's still listed on the teams roster.

Given that Tanev is out for the season, I don't think there's a problem with him going on LTIR, even if the irl Canucks put him on regular IR.

But he's not even on regular IR in real life yet is my point.

LTIR is only used IRL to save/open cap space. Tanev isn't on LITR since the canucks dont need cap space.

The circumstances here are very different. Monahan is just sick, and we obviously know he'll be back (most likely next game). Tanev on the other hand, is almost certainly out for the season.

Just because I know how much everyone loves it when I share my thoughts and ideas, I figured I'd do it again. So here goes.....

When it comes time for UFA bidding in June, I'd like to suggest something to help simplify the process.
Have each team submit a complete list of all their UFAs broken down by position (G-LW-C-RW-D)
Then rather than creating daily lists based on "good to lesser" players, simply do it based on position.
This could be put together and posted in advance so everyone has a chance to go through and see who they want to take a run at each day ahead of time.
Example:
Day 1 - Goalies
Day 2 - LW
Day 3 - RW
Day 4 - C
Day 5 - D
That way it breaks down to a simple 1 week process Mon-Fri
BOG then takes the weekend to process all bids and starts to post results the following week.
After that, any UFAs not bid on or signed simply go into one big pool posted by the BOG and it becomes a first come-first served type of thing.
This also takes a bit of stress time wise off the BOG as they don't need to post results on a daily basis unless they wish to.
Create a NEW thread with 32 team reply's where you just post to each individual teams spot with who they have won in Free Agency. (ONLY BOG CAN POST TO THE THREAD)
Then we all just go in and check which teams got which players with the contract terms clearly visible for all.

With that idea in mind, you could change the Divisional Trade Block threads to the place where each team posts their RFA signings.
Again, this keeps everything well organized by team and much easier for each of the GMs to search for who signed who.

Just some thoughts I had over the weekend
No one has to use them but I did want to share because recalling my brief time as a BOG member, I know this can be rather time consuming so this helps reduce that a little.

**Side note, I still have the spreadsheet we used last year for the draft. If you'd like me to copy it and erase so you can use it again this year, just let me know. Happy to help.

At the request of the BOG to revisit this trade and seek a suitable revision, I am here to announce that no revision could be agreed upon and therefore the trade is being cancelled.
Any and all assets in this deal will be returned to the original team via trade revision on the respective team pages.

Incorrect.

I have a suggestion for UFA's after the "bidding process" is complete. Once Free Agents are left in the pool, we should be able to sign as many Free Agents as you like, but you provide a signing value for how many years with the points criteria applied for best offer for players to say "yes" to (hypothetically) and if its a tie, you provide the signing player which team has the waiver order priority for that player. If the waiver priority is used to land the Free Agent, that team then drops back to the last team in the waiver priority list accordingly, but gets the player in Free Agency signed that they wanted. This should also help some teams determine some contract values being "just right" for players point production and history on IRL teams and games played, etc...

What are your thoughts on this?

You'd still have to take into account the contract limit of 50
So that would really be the determining factor in "as many as you like".

Hello BOG members, I come in peace. I don't have a big problem but it may be for some other GMs. This was brought up not too long ago, and the answer was to make FA more "exciting", but like why aren't we allowed to extend more than 1 UFA? I'm not asking for unlimited UFA extensions, but like anything more than 1 would help a fair share of GMs.

It makes it so the offseason free-agency period isn't useless.

And thats why I don't get. Why does it matter? There are going to be free agents regardless, they just want big name guys in there to make it "entertaining"

yep.

That's precisely why this is how it is. Last offseason, sure, there were free agents. But we aso had like 8-10 people out of 31 actually placing bids because most were depth options at best. Having star players and high-calibre players help make the market exciting and more people involved.

But why force teams to trade big name players or lose them for nothing. Again, doesn't affect me but ye

What is the drop dead date for when we have to stop making trades that may involve a UFA from our teams?
Meaning, what date do we all need to submit our lists of UFAs we will not be signing so the BOG can compile the master list.
Also, and lastly, has anyone given any consideration to my ideas on how to streamline the UFA bidding process??
Inquiring minds want to know.

post exp draft-> i'd assume.

you can trade anyone (UFA rights included) after the SC finals voting and before the UFA bidding begins (excluding a few days of a trade freeze for the Expansion Draft). UFA extensions will have to be finalized before UFA Bidding begins (tentatively June 13th)

We haven't talked about the UFA bidding process but we will try to use as much from last year as possible. The only issue I remember from last year was the winning deals with obnoxious term. If we eliminate that issue (we plan to set term ranges for each UFA), I'm not sure what else needs tweaking. Personally, I think scheduling a variety of positions each day makes the most sense; it gives teams a second chance to fill needs rather than if, for example, we auction all of the RHD on one day, a team could potentially miss the boat on all of them and be SOL.

It's not a perfect system but it's the best we can do without the context that matters IRL. But think of it this way - we're taking about 30 UFAs off the market already, if we allow for 30 more, the UFA process will be trivial (and rental trades won't exist). More importantly, if we change things now, there would be a lot of complaining from teams that have already structured their rosters according to the existing rules.

Fair and valid point.
If that's the case would it be possible to not only list the player names, but also their positions so we don't have to spend time looking up each guy on the off chance we're not familiar with what side they play (wingers & D)

Or perhaps break down the daily list by position.
So like Day 1 5xC 3xLW 7xRW 4xLHD 2xRHD 8xG

Last year, didn't we do the same thing? 1 UFA signing per team? What if we say 1 extension, but the team who had the player's rights gets some sort of advantage of having the player's rights?

The sort of advantage is being able to offer an 8th year.

IMO teams should get a small advantage of having the player's rights. The 8th year doesn't seem to help with that much though, as teams would try to give their depth players 8 year deals at 675K or whatever the minimum is. Here would be my suggestion:

Maybe give the original team an extra 20% or so of the amount per season (20% is just a random number, could be a different percentage). So, the contract they offer counts as that plus 20% or whatever the number is, but the team signs the player to the contract without the 20% if they win the bid. It's like the player is taking less money to stay with his current team.

Example:
Let's say Seattle wants to re-sign John Smith for 2,000,000 over 2 years. Houston decides to offer him 2,300,000 over 2 years. Seattle's offer counts as 2,400,000 (2,000,000 + 20 percent (400,000) = 2,400,000), so they beat Houston's bid. If those are the 2 highest bids, Seattle would win the bid, but would only have to pay Smith 2,000,000 over 2 years.

If Seattle offers John Smith 3,000,000 over 3 years, and Houston offers 2,500,000 over 4 years, Seattle would still win the bid. Houston is offering 10,000,000 in total, and Seattle is offering 3,600,000 per year (3,000,000 + 20 percent (600,000) = 3,600,000) X 3 years = 10,800,000 in total. Seattle wins the bid and pays Smith 3,000,000 over 3 years.

If Seattle offers John Smith 1,000,000 over 1 year and Houston offers 1,300,000 over 1 year, Houston wins the bid as Seattle's offer counts as 1,200,000 over 1 year. Houston must pay Smith 1,300,000 over 1 year.

If we do something like this, we'd have to figure out what to do if there's a tie after adding the 20%. Also, 20% might be a bit too high. Maybe more like 10 or 15 percent?

Also, to stop teams from offering players 7 year contracts at the minimum salary, we could do what we did in v1 where we made amounts per season that a contract for a certain number of years must be. Example:

1 year - 675,000 to 2,000,000
2 years - 800,000 to 4,000,000
3 years - 1,000,000 to 5,000,000
4 years - 2,500,000 to 7,000,000
5 years - 3,250,000 to 8,000,000
6 years - 3,750,000 to 9,000,000
7 years - 4,250,000 to 12,000,000
8 years - 7,000,000 to 15,000,000

I'm not suggesting those amounts, just using them as examples.

Both of these are just suggestions to think about. What do you think?

We are definitely going to do some version of what you're proposing on the signing limits by term... it will probably be more subjective, with the BOG assigning a range of AAV/term restrictions for each player. (ex. Zdeno Chara - 2 yrs max, Carter Rowney - 3 yrs max, etc.). We don't want to decide everything with salaries, etc. but we have to cut down on excessive term that is only added to ensure a winning bid.

As for "hometown advantage", it's a solid idea - we'll discuss to see what best fits the concept.