In terms of the UFA discussions and what we're going to do for free agency, wouldn't it make sense that a team can raise their offer for the UFA after the home team matches their original offer? Almost like a silent auction type style or was that already proposed?
So it's just like it was when everything was "unofficial"? And I guess we could only talk protected or exempt players?
I guess yeah, there's no real guidelines to the Boca Raton GM meeting other than you can't make any trades really. I'll start up the Boca Raton Thread now.
In terms of the UFA discussions and what we're going to do for free agency, wouldn't it make sense that a team can raise their offer for the UFA after the home team matches their original offer? Almost like a silent auction type style or was that already proposed?
Currently we're looking at a system where every non home team or Vegas can only make one bid with no counters. This gives more power to Vegas and the home rights holding squad in the UFA market which is more similar to what happens in real life.
In terms of the UFA discussions and what we're going to do for free agency, wouldn't it make sense that a team can raise their offer for the UFA after the home team matches their original offer? Almost like a silent auction type style or was that already proposed?
Currently we're looking at a system where every non home team or Vegas can only make one bid with no counters. This gives more power to Vegas and the home rights holding squad in the UFA market which is more similar to what happens in real life.
Right right, but lets say in real life a team offers a big contract to a player and then the home team matches. So the other team comes with a counter even greater that the home team can't match, to me that seems realistic as well. You know what I mean?
Boca Raton thread now live. It basically serves as a hangout thread. The only condition is don't agree to trades there. Otherwise, chill and enjoy good conversation with the other GM threads
Currently we're looking at a system where every non home team or Vegas can only make one bid with no counters. This gives more power to Vegas and the home rights holding squad in the UFA market which is more similar to what happens in real life.
Right right, but lets say in real life a team offers a big contract to a player and then the home team matches. So the other team comes with a counter even greater that the home team can't match, to me that seems realistic as well. You know what I mean?
I see what you mean... but the main principle behind one bid for non rights holding teams is that we don't want some team with boatloads of cap space making a lowball offer on someone like Shattenkirk, coming back with incrementally bigger offers until shattenkirks price has risen to like $10 million AAV. It'd also be sheer pandemonium trying to keep track of 31 GMs making and reading bids on UFAs all at once lmao
Right right, but lets say in real life a team offers a big contract to a player and then the home team matches. So the other team comes with a counter even greater that the home team can't match, to me that seems realistic as well. You know what I mean?
I see what you mean... but the main principle behind one bid for non rights holding teams is that we don't want some team with boatloads of cap space making a lowball offer on someone like Shattenkirk, coming back with incrementally bigger offers until shattenkirks price has risen to like $10 million AAV. It'd also be sheer pandemonium trying to keep track of 31 GMs making and reading bids on UFAs all at once lmao
Understandable, it would be hectic for sure. But in that case only one team "away" can make an offer for that player because let's say one team offers Shattenkirk 15 mil over 3 years, then the home team could match right away and have a bargain of a deal for Shattenkirk and then it becomes somewhat unrealistic. Or by only being able as an away team to make 1 offer, the "away" team making the 1st offer then becomes handcuffed because another team could just come in and raise it with that 1st team being unable to counter, if you get my point.
It's far away so I'm not too worried atm but its just some things to think about.
I see what you mean... but the main principle behind one bid for non rights holding teams is that we don't want some team with boatloads of cap space making a lowball offer on someone like Shattenkirk, coming back with incrementally bigger offers until shattenkirks price has risen to like $10 million AAV. It'd also be sheer pandemonium trying to keep track of 31 GMs making and reading bids on UFAs all at once lmao
Understandable, it would be hectic for sure. But in that case only one team "away" can make an offer for that player because let's say one team offers Shattenkirk 15 mil over 3 years, then the home team could match right away and have a bargain of a deal for Shattenkirk and then it becomes somewhat unrealistic. Or by only being able as an away team to make 1 offer, the "away" team making the 1st offer then becomes handcuffed because another team could just come in and raise it with that 1st team being unable to counter, if you get my point.
It's far away so I'm not too worried atm but its just some things to think about.
I think what Matt is saying is that all 31 teams can bid on Shattenkirk (for example), but the 'away' teams can only bid once (ie. best offer). With a guy like Shattenkirk I can guarantee he'll end up with a hefty salary.
Understandable, it would be hectic for sure. But in that case only one team "away" can make an offer for that player because let's say one team offers Shattenkirk 15 mil over 3 years, then the home team could match right away and have a bargain of a deal for Shattenkirk and then it becomes somewhat unrealistic. Or by only being able as an away team to make 1 offer, the "away" team making the 1st offer then becomes handcuffed because another team could just come in and raise it with that 1st team being unable to counter, if you get my point.
It's far away so I'm not too worried atm but its just some things to think about.
I think what Matt is saying is that all 31 teams can bid on Shattenkirk (for example), but the 'away' teams can only bid once (ie. best offer). With a guy like Shattenkirk I can guarantee he'll end up with a hefty salary.
Right, no I get that. But in that case its kind of like the team that starts the bidding is screwed right?
I had a different question regarding the UFA bidding process;
What if you have one spot on your roster that you really need to fill through free agency, so you put in multiple bids on different players (first choice, plus 'safety' players), but you end up winning the bid on two or more when you only needed the one? Do you have the option to decline a signing if yours is the winning bid in that case?
I think what Matt is saying is that all 31 teams can bid on Shattenkirk (for example), but the 'away' teams can only bid once (ie. best offer). With a guy like Shattenkirk I can guarantee he'll end up with a hefty salary.
Right, no I get that. But in that case its kind of like the team that starts the bidding is screwed right?
Not really. If I'm the first to bid on Shattenkirk and I bid 9 million per, not many guys are going to want to beat that offer. I'm not bidding that, by the way.
Right, no I get that. But in that case its kind of like the team that starts the bidding is screwed right?
Not really. If I'm the first to bid on Shattenkirk and I bid 9 million per, not many guys are going to want to beat that offer. I'm not bidding that, by the way.
I see what you're saying it makes sense. The only reason why I'm questioning is just to make sure that when we start the process it's smooth and people aren't complaining.
I also think there should be a time period of about 1 day between the last offer on a player and when the home team can accept such offer. To prevent what I was explaining before with the home team matching the first offer on the table.
Not really. If I'm the first to bid on Shattenkirk and I bid 9 million per, not many guys are going to want to beat that offer. I'm not bidding that, by the way.
I see what you're saying it makes sense. The only reason why I'm questioning is just to make sure that when we start the process it's smooth and people aren't complaining.
I also think there should be a time period of about 1 day between the last offer on a player and when the home team can accept such offer. To prevent what I was explaining before with the home team matching the first offer on the table.
I should note that as of now we're doing blind bids. ricochetii had a google forms thing set up so that you could place a blind bid on a player and at the end of bidding, bids could become public. The idea behind blind bids is that every team puts their best foot forward in terms of negotiations and what they bring to the table, thus resulting in more competitive offers.
I see what you're saying it makes sense. The only reason why I'm questioning is just to make sure that when we start the process it's smooth and people aren't complaining.
I also think there should be a time period of about 1 day between the last offer on a player and when the home team can accept such offer. To prevent what I was explaining before with the home team matching the first offer on the table.
I should note that as of now we're doing blind bids. ricochetii had a google forms thing set up so that you could place a blind bid on a player and at the end of bidding, bids could become public. The idea behind blind bids is that every team puts their best foot forward in terms of negotiations and what they bring to the table, thus resulting in more competitive offers.
Oh really? Forget I even asked then. Sounds like a pretty good idea.
I should note that as of now we're doing blind bids. ricochetii had a google forms thing set up so that you could place a blind bid on a player and at the end of bidding, bids could become public. The idea behind blind bids is that every team puts their best foot forward in terms of negotiations and what they bring to the table, thus resulting in more competitive offers.
Oh really? Forget I even asked then. Sounds like a pretty good idea.
You're good haha. Most of the credit to the idea and workings of it definitely go to ricochetii, did some great work with the form he created and the thinking behind it.
I had a different question regarding the UFA bidding process;
What if you have one spot on your roster that you really need to fill through free agency, so you put in multiple bids on different players (first choice, plus 'safety' players), but you end up winning the bid on two or more when you only needed the one? Do you have the option to decline a signing if yours is the winning bid in that case?
What about this question? Do we have the option to pass on a signing if we win a bid on a player?
DirtyRebound liked this.
CapFriendly
CapFriendly