I like Jacketsman idea of the home team getting the first chance to match and then the next team gets a chance. Seems to be the most fair

I also have a question on how we decide who can get which certain over agers who didnt get drafted (ex: Darren Raddysh). Are we just going to let it be that the team he signs with in real life gets him?

That's always been the plan. I don't see any way we would end up leaving that part out, so don't worry about that.



That's one thing we have to be sure to account for. The waiver order idea would cover those players. They would be signed to a max ELC and might have 3 teams interested. Waiver priority would be the tie breaker in those instances.

I dont understand the "listed by priority" for the 3 players. The priority is irrelevant because we will have to go through every player. I like a lot of what you have said, but there are somethings that I want to contend against.

"Home team as the right to match an offer to a free agent they hold rights to."
This means that this is purely turning UFAs into RFAs, minus the compensation. This defeats the purpose of the UFAs, since the home team gets to have the last say, in every situation. I'll use your example to describe what I am saying.

Cody Franson has offers of 12/4 from Chicago (AAV of 3) ; 8.25/3 from Vegas (AAV of 2.75) ; and from 5/2 from Buffalo (2.5 AAV). I think that Buffalo should have two choices:

1.) They automatically get to sign Cody Franson, if they offer him either 1 more term at a 10% increase in AAV (in this situation, it comes out to be 3.3 AAV per four years.)
2.) They can automatically get to sign Cody Franson if they offer him a 25% increase in AAV (in this situation, it comes out to be a 3.75 AAV per three years).

Should Buffalo decide to decline both of these options, we are left with this situation:

1.) They can submit their best offer to Franson, with the chance for Chicago to raise the offer one more time, which leaves Buffalo one last chance to match, should they do this, they keep their player.

Cody Franson was offered 12/4 by Chicago. Buffalo, Franson's UFA Right's holder, decides to match and raise the offer of Chicago to 13.5/4. Having seen this, Chicago decides that they also would like to match and raise the offer from Buffalo from 13.5/4 to 14.25/4. At this point in time, there are no more chances for Chicago or Buffalo to "see you, and I'll raise you". Buffalo can either match that offer of Chicago, or let him walk.

Secondly, I have to say I completely disagree with the idea the other teams that didn't match Chicago's offer get a chance to match it. That defeats the purpose of matching the offers. You have to submit what you believe will be the strongest offer on the table, not "lets lowball him just so we can match from another team in a different cap situation."

Third, I absolutely despise the idea of the "Waiver Wire." Since when does one team only get one UFA? Any GM should be allowed to pursue any UFA that they want, regardless of the Waiver Order. If anything, set up the Waiver Order as a tiebreaker, for a scenario that you laid out in Example 2, with the team finishing with the worst winning % (much like the lottery), gets the UFA.

This in now was is a shade throw at your character, or that I believe that these ideas are completely yours, not saying that they are, not saying that they aren't. I am not contending you, rather the opinions that you have suggested.

I hope everyone gets a chance to read through both of what we have written, so that we can make the best decision with the most education on the subject.
thanks - phillyjabroni

I'm thinking an NFL type deal where the more of your UFA's get signed by opposing teams, the higher you go up in waiver order and signing a UFA takes away a point in the order

Dirty Rebound, idk what you mean "like NFL" since they dont go by waiver orders

I think the problem with doing a waiver order with the worst teams getting highest priority is that many free agents wouldn't actually want to sign with bad teams.

I9 : we aren't basing it off of where they "would actually" sign. We are doing whatever the hell we want with their lives, some players are getting moved 3/4 times in a matter of weeks. The Waiver Order is designed to be used as a tie breaker in a scenario.

I get that but there are still so many factors that go into FA decisions (although I understand why we kinda have to ignore them)

What I mean is use an NFL like system. The NFL takes away draft picks based on free agent signings and gives draft picks to the teams that lose free agents. Not exactly like the NFL but a spin off of it.

Guys I think we're getting too hung up in waiver order, etc. It will only apply to teams in the event their offers for a player are tied. If the bid is based off total dollars, it'll be quite rare that they'll match exactly to the closest dollar. I mean You can offer 10.258M total if you want. It would incredibly unlucky to have a matching offer to such a random number.

sorta like the MLB works too.

Owning the rights to a player is an advantage, and it should be. If you want that advantage, you can acquire the rights.
I don't see this as an issue myself and it's probably the one thing that has been discussed consistently about free agency.



I didn't see someone say other teams get to match the highest offer? It should only be the Home team, and if they do not, Vegas. Other teams wouldn't get the chance to match.
You also contradicted your first part, where you say teams can make one final bid and then the highest team gets to match. Something may have been lost in translation?



I think you misunderstood the waiver order section. Using it as a tiebreaker was the only purpose for it. It doesn't stop you from getting other UFA's, it just puts you at the back of the line, so when you win the first tiebreaker you are more likely to lose the second tiebreaker. If you start at the end of the waiver order, you will eventually move up. (We can also carry that waiver order past free agency, if we are doing waiver claims after the season begins, but that's a future consideration.)
It also means you have to be wise about when you choose to evoke your waiver priority. It might be better to let another team take a player and keep your position in the order.



That's not necessary. You're just discussing ideas, I don't see anything to take offense at.



Interesting. Possible if it can be managed easily enough, but I'd be concerned about teams having 8 UFA's they never intended to sign and climbing the order as a reward for not trading those rights to teams that actually wanted them.



Exactly, although I'd prefer we have a minimum standard (ie, $25k rather than allow something like an $8k amount).

Look I am not going to take offense to what you wrote here. But you really should chill. Think about it this way, when this game started people just signed their RFA's to contracts and no one got a chance to offer sheet right? Why not give the team that owns the rights going into UFA, some sort of an advantage? For your case, considering you are the GM of the Vegas team you get the advantage on all other teams (other than the team who holds the rights) to match an offer?

I do have an advantage for the "home team." They get to match the offer in this scenario :

Cody Franson has offers of 12/4 from Chicago (CAP HIT of 3) ; 8.25/3 from VGK (CAP HIT of 2.75) ; and 5/2 from Buffalo (CAP HIT of 2.5)

They automatically get to sign Cody Franson if they do either of the following two things

1.) Add 1 more year to the best contract offered (12/4 from CHI) and increase his CAP HIT by 10%. This comes out to be 3.3 CAP HIT for 4 years
2.) Increase CAP HIT by 25% to the best contract offered (12/4 from CHI). This comes out to be 3.75 CAP HIT for 3 years

I mentioned nothing of the sort about VGK getting any biased, other than they need compensation for not recieving the 72 hour exclusive negotiation period. We don't need a new Waiver System since the one that we already have ins't broken.

I strongly is opposed to the idea that any team has the chance to match. Now, any team can "lowball" the best offer by submitting the minimum allowed, and then see what everyone else values the player at, and decide if it is higher or lower than their evaluation.

Each team should submit their best offer to that player. It should then go between the best offer and the UFA rights holder to bid out for he UFA.

It doesn't make sense to me for the home team to pay more than the best offer.

I also don't understand why you would want the highest bid to get a chance to raise their bid. Which also goes against the "best foot forward" idea.
If you put out an offer and the Home team is willing to match it, that's the end of it.
Having a second bid, against only the Home team, is just pushing the cap number higher than the best offer after they've already matched.

Then why are we calling this UFA period and not RFA Peiod pt.2? These players should be treated with UFA rights not RFA Rights.

I want the highest bidder a chance to raise it because its not RFA, its UFA. There has to be some difference in advantage. The reason for the second bid is to determine if they are truly willing to pay for the player. If anything, it should go like this.

1.) Each team interests submits their best offer for this UFA.
2.) Home team can either match offer or decline to match and let the player walk.
3.) If matched, the team with the best offer (yet to be determined b/c cap hit may not be the best offer) can raise the offer for the final time.
4.) The home team can now either match that offer and claim the player or let him walk.

Example

Chalupa Batman is offered 12/4 by VGK, the best offer to him. The home team, CBJ, matches that offer. VGK then raises his offer from 12/4 to 15/4. The home team has decided that would match the new offer of 15/4, which results in them recieving that player.

The part I don't see is how you view it as being the same as RFA and/or what difference it makes that necessitates adding an extra step.
Unless the highest bid is a low-ball offer, and the high bid team just wants to narrow it down to 2 teams so he can take advantage of the home team's cap situation, I don't see the purpose.

It looks like you're suggesting the highest bidding team shouldn't put their best offer out until they know whether the home team intends to match.
Do you see what I mean?

You're saying you'll pay $1 for an apple, unless the other guy is going to pay $1 for the apple, in which case you'll pay $2.
You should be offering $2 for the apple in the first place, as $1 wasn't your highest bid.

whats wrong with doing what I would do with the apple? I may value the apple at $3, but I am not going to offer $3 for the apple if I know I can get it for $1. Giving out your best offer shouldnt be the maxium that you are willing to pay. I understand what you are contending, though. i am not wanting to tip my hand so early and overrpay for a player that I might value at that price, but I know I can get him for lower.

You're saying that if I you were at an auction, you would bid your "best" offer or the one with the most cap, regardles of what other people value it.

That's how a blind auction works. If I was at a blind auction, I would submit my best offer or I wouldn't win the item. That's what we have been discussing for UFA, and I was under the impression that people would prefer that method so others can't see their bids.

You're talking about something different, which is fine if people want to do something like that, but as you just said yourself, low-balling and not making your best offer are going to happen. If it's going to be open bidding, that's different. People can see the low-ball offers and beat them.

We might be able to do like best offer and highest willing to go

Example : Pepe Silvia
VGK Best Offer : (12/4) ; Highest Offer (16/4)

Eww. Lol.

I say that because I'm working on a system and that would be added difficulty and complication to what I'm attempting.
I'd have to think about something like that.

I don't get why we are trying to change ****. Rico had a great system idea, let's just use it!

I think that the more complicated we make it, the harder it will be for ppl to follow. Hell, they cant even post in the Draft Thread correctly.

Which one was it that you liked?

I agree we need to settle on something soon. There's just a lot of opinions and little consensus. I'm trying to get enough feedback from people to make sure we have something functional and get it as simple as possible, but still cover everything we need to cover.