All I am suggesting is we should be allowed to sign enough UFAs to qualify for EXP draft rules./

BOO just BOO

If we are recognizing May 19th, 2018 as the start of our v3 game, then WHY in the bloddy Blue He(dbl hockey sticks) are we recognizing July 1st as the date for contract clauses.

What we're saying here is that if a player signed an absolutely stupid real life new contract, we don't have to recognize it because it was signed AFTER our game started.
That would mean then, our "season" should officially end as of May 18th, 2019 at Midnight EST meaning any current contact clauses should end on that date or at least switch to their new function.
So if player has a full NMC, but it switches to a M-NTC "next season", in regards to our game that "next season" would start on May 19th, 2019
Yet, we're being told that players with such clauses need to be auto-protected in the upcoming expansion draft in our game because the clause doesn't switch until July 1st....

Expansion draft is scheduled for May 20th start, which would mean all our current in game contracts would end the day prior to that, yet we have to recognize the current clauses for another month after expansion.

Clitch in the system, easily fixed by either moving the expansion draft back to July 2nd (won't happen) OR just let it be known that any clauses that switch as of July 1st actually take effect May 19th to reflect our in game year long season.

The only personal example I gave offer is my dear friend Johnny Boychuk.
WHY should I be penalized by being forced to protect him in our "in game" expansion draft just because his real life contract changes 40 days too late.

It blurs too many lines. We either recognize our in game start date as the change over date for everything, or we follow any and all real life dates.
Again, our game started May 19, but if a guy somehow signed an absolute crap new contract on May 20, the team who has that player doesn't have to keep it and can sign him to something new (and likely much cheaper)

Me: Not mad, just thinking out loud

Blah Blah Blah.
Quick thought on a rule that should be implemented.

Can we resign extra UFAs prior to expansion draft in order to qualify for EXP purposes.
Or do we not really care about the rules?
Since almost no team will qualify for the real EXP draft rules, if this is not inacted.

All I am suggesting is we should be allowed to sign enough UFAs to qualify for EXP draft rules./

Following suit with what happens IRL. Contracts go from July 1 to June 30th. This has always been the rule.



I don't know what any of this means. What does it matter if he is a UFA-to-be or a signed UFA? If you want to extend a guy, protect him. If you don't, you run the same risk as any other UFA.

All I am suggesting is we should be allowed to sign enough UFAs to qualify for EXP draft rules./

Well to meet expansion draft quota, you must have 1 FWD and 1 DEF that are available and are signed for at least 1 year, so can't be UFA.

All I am asking is that we are able to sign an extra player, to meet our quota.

Or do we not care about that rule?

That is a rule, and I find it hard to believe that a team would have zero forwards or zero defenseman that are exposed after protection lists are made. You only have 7 forwards and 3 defensemen that have played more than 2 years of pro hockey?

It isn't that.
There is another part of the rule that states you must have 1 FWD and 1 DEF that are signed in the next year.
Are we just going to overlook this rule?
Instead, letting Nick have extra UFA signing rights to all UFA expansion drafted players?

They either have to be signed next year or be RFA. Nick will have the same UFA signing ability as everyone else.

Exactly, so I don't meet that quota because I only have UFA defenceman available.

You have Carl Dahlstrom. Played more than 10 games in N.A. in 2 seasons when he was older than 20, RFA status means he counts as a signed player for next year.

Yes, but what for teams that don't meet that requirement what happens?

Yes, but what for teams that don't meet that requirement what happens?

Then you have to expose someone on your projected protection list.

I challenge you to find a team that doesn't meet requirements. We've known since day 1 that the rules were exactly the same as the VGK expansion draft. I find it highly unlikely that even one person doesn't meet the criteria.

Yes, but what for teams that don't meet that requirement what happens?

What if it you can't due to NMC

NJD -> Defence
^ joke btw

Easy

What about NJD defense isn't meeting criteria?

Following suit with what happens IRL. Contracts go from July 1 to June 30th. This has always been the rule.

Nevermind.
Andrew Jackson

I hear ya, and that's where it gets confusing in a small way.

Guy signs a new contract on Aug 14th
Doesn't count to us because it was after May 19th

Guys contract clause runs out June 30th
Doesn't count to us because it's not June 30th yet.

That's more what my thought process is/was.
We're looking away from crappy new contracts based on our games start date, but we're honoring contract clauses because we follow real life contract dates.

If that's the way we want to do it, WE in game should NOT be doing any UFA signings "in game" until it hits July 1st
This is a perfect example of how us doing things far ahead of real life finds some of us with craptastic contracts such as Thomas Hickey signed to 7yrs x $5M when he signed a "real life" contract only 41 days after our game started at 4yrs x $2.5M

That alone explains the problem with our game. We as team GM's "negotiate" a contract but then real life happens and the same player is signed to a much shorter, less expensive contract just days later.

This only happens when dealing with UFAs, because when it comes to our RFAs I am absolutely considering the idea of not re-signing any of mine until AFTER they sign their shiny new real life contract just so I don't get stuck with a possibly "bad contract". And it keeps a little more "realism" in our game because we're considering trades based of real life players with real life contracts.

No chance in Hell I could ever trade Hickey at $5M for now 6 more years, but a 5-6 Dman making $2.5 for only 3yrs might be much more attractive to a team needing to fill a hole due to injury.
**Please note, Hickey is simply brought up as an example I am familiar with**

Shouldn't have handed out such a disastrous contract then.

As Shaggy would say...."Wasn't me".