I made a very exaggerated example for a reason but the lesser points could prove to be quite important also. All Im saying is i think you should reevaluate other peoples perceptions and how they've changed for players pre and post playoffs in the past. One big goal can make a player into something he's not. It can get players big raises (Bickell). Look at the WJC and the big names that emerged because of one tournament. I had a debate with someone else about this already, go back and look at some big name star junior players who were big unknowns and had great WJC's and gained stardom as a result. Its that easy. People like to repeat what they see on TSN, ESPN, etc but a lot of times its just fluff pieces that shouldn't be made into something too big yet there is always someone who does.

Alrighty, since I agree that dates are really iffy right now, I'll pitch a few more ideas across the board.

1. One of the most pressing issues is UFAs. Instead of having team beat home squad offer by $100k, that should be bumped to $500k if team that owns rights made playoffs this year, $250k needed to beat team that has rights of rights holding team missed playoffs this year. This would help make home team offers more competitive, and not making the UFA offering system so tedious. The home team should also be allowed to counter the highest bidder if it exceeds the $500k or $250k threshold. That addresses what seems to be the biggest issue with UFA rentention I think.

Also, I generally like richos UFA system. I'll read through it a few more times to make sure I completely understand it, but I think it's a good start. It could use some simplification to help the others out but I'm ok with the spreadsheet format and such to make bids. I still think each team that doesn't own UFA rights should only get one bid, that way if teams want a UFA, they have to pay up, as UFA's are generally overpaid on the open market. Maybe we ask one of the mods if they would like to oversee the UFA spreadsheet system so that all bids are made without the direct knowledge of what other's bids are? This way no GM gets the advantage of seeing everyone else's bids since somebody has to run the spreadsheet.

2. Expansion is another big issue. Ignoring the other issues around it (inactive GMs and dates) the expansion process should be fairly simple. Teams are required to submit expansion protection lists on some deadline where their rosters freeze until Vegas makes its expansion pick. Team who fail to turn in expansion protection lists on time get docked a 2017 (on next available year) first round pick that goes to Vegas. I think the expansion list late punishment should be fairly harsh to ensure GMs get their lists turned in on time. Soon after all lists are submitted, Vegas makes its picks (within a day or so of lists being submitted Vegas should start making picks). Of course, this results in UFA season to start before Vegas makes its picks since we want to give Vegas the 48 hour UFA negotiation window. Vegas UFA picks do count as expansion picks so it seems we'll have to do free agency before expansion which I don't know if we've considered that yet.

3. I like Brekels ideas with the draft. That seems like a good model to follow. I'm ok with the draft pick trade freeze the more I think about it.

If anything else comes to mind I'll post it here

The order of what we do probably should be:
1. Free agency
2. Expansion Draft
3. Entry draft

I mean, shouldn't we do them in the order they come for the NHL?

1.) Expansion Draft
2.) Entry Draft
3.) Free Agency

Yes. If I proposed otherwise, than it was a typo on my part. It only makes sense to do it in real time order.

The Vegas 48 hour UFA negotiation window is a completely separate thing from Free Agency. It's an expansion benefit.
Vegas basically gets to try to talk pending UFA's into signing with them, rather than re-signing with their current team, or testing the free agent market.
Only Vegas and the team holding a player's rights are involved. (Technically it is only between Vegas and the players, but players will already have an idea of what to expect as an offer from their own team. We also have no way of representing the player's choice, so competing with the home team for the player is the simplest way around that)

The only reason I suggest the home team's bids get carried over to actual free agency, is to prevent them from offering more than Vegas, and then changing their mind later. Vegas then misses out on a player they should have been able to sign.

Yes. This also means a player you want might not reach free agency and be available to the rest of the teams. If Vegas outbids the home team, they get him. Which makes owning the rights to a player you want to sign that much more important.

So we are really doing that period? I'm not sure we should overcomplicate things. Are you basically just saying that Vegas can match the highest bid instead of the home team? I'm not sure I understand this completely.

Ok, I thought the Vegas 48 hour UFA negotiation had to be with all offers from all teams on the table my bad. Although I feel like it'd make more sense that way, since some teams won't be tending offers to their UFA's. For example, as Columbus GM, I don't have much interest in re-signing Gagner or Quincey. In this case, is Vegas just going to be allowed to lowball them and pick them up with ease, or do I still have to set a price if I don't plan on keeping them?

I'm not too sure about whether this part is a good idea or not. I'd like to hear your reasoning behind giving Vegas a significant edge over everyone it seems. Not trying to be confrontational (apparently that's been a problem on here ) just interested in your line of thought.

No. This is part of the league's expansion rules and one of the benefits given to Vegas to help them be more competitive. This isn't a case of me making something complicated. It's happening exactly like that in real life. Except for how to decide who gets the player, that part is me. Vegas gets 48 hours to negotiate with free agents. This is a "two horse race" to decide whether the player is, or is not, willing to sign a contract with Vegas.
If the player decides he wants to accept Vegas' offer, he signs with them then and there. Vegas gets the player.

(It also counts as Vegas' pick from that team, so the home team ends up losing a free agent instead of a player they have under contract, but that's not the point you were addressing, I just thought it should be noted in case you weren't aware.)

That is a good point. We do have to figure something out to prevent low-ball offers where the home team doesn't plan to re-sign.
Perhaps based on previous salary with a certain percentage raise. Thanks for bringing it up though, it hadn't crossed my mind.

There's nothing in there that could be interpreted as confrontational. Addressing the topic and not the person is generally a safe approach, (but apparently not always).

As I said. It's not my idea. I'm just trying to model after the expansion process outlined by the league. Give me a sec and I'll see if I can drag it up and edit it in here, just in case I'm missing something else.

So you are basically saying "Player X is isolated for 48Hours to negotiated with Team A or Vegas" Whoever wins gets him and he doesn't become a total UFA?

Ok, thanks Rico! I was just trying to be careful with my wording in my previous post due to the volatility in the master thread haha

Now one thing about the previous salary plus percentage raise, I feel like that'll be tough to keep consistent. Gagner for example could fetch 4 million on open market. I wouldn't offer that but someone with the cap space might. His current salary is 650k (very close to, if not league minimum). Even at doubling his salary it's still not close to market value. I suppose we'll figure it out though

The bold is exactly what I'm saying, yes.
BUT if Vegas doesn't win him, he still becomes UFA.
Only the players Vegas is able to successfully sign to a contract will not go to free agency and be available to the rest of the teams.

First I understand, and yes I do realize there are other issues like that. I made a preliminary suggestion for percentage, but we'll need something more robust. I'm trying to avoid making complicated suggestions and see if others come up with something simpler first.

(Honestly I was close to suggesting everything is done randomly. That's pretty simple. )

Alrighty, sounds swell. And yeah random is as simple as you can get, *clearly it must be the best solution*

I completely forgot Vegas could select pending UFA's in expansion...... I figured it wouldn't be worth it for them IRL so it wouldn't be worth it here.

It should be pretty simple, no? They get the rights to that player meaning they have the ability to match any offer given +100K in free agency? Its a pretty distinct advantage. Frankly any key player a team has the rights to will match anything that gets offered.

Not just the rights. They get the player, under contract, and nobody gets to negotiate with him when free agency starts.
Where it is most likely to happen, is where Vegas doesn't like the options a team has presented them with by using their protections.
If you leave nothing but borderline NHLers or AHL journeymen available to them, there's a higher chance they go after one of the UFA's you'd like to re-sign or perhaps more likely, an AHL RFA that you haven't been giving an NHL opportunity to and would be more likely to agree to a move in order to get onto an NHL roster.

EDIT: An RFA can be selected with or without a contract agreement, but it's better for Vegas to agree on a contract before selecting that player and risking a holdout/arbitration.

Ouch that is a tough call but it is fair in a way. The problem with that is that there needs to be a bidding effect to drive up the price of the player. Otherwise they will be adding those free agents at a cost lower than it would take in a bidding war. I get the premise and it seems like a nice idea as it will help LV get some traction this year but seems like they might be getting quite a bit more of an advantage than IRL. If everyone thinks its a fair idea though, I'm ok with it.

As for the RFA's, since we don't have any restrictions on RFA signings other than the deal has to be approved by rangersnadislesfan and the rest of us so its not a low ball, I don't see any problems or why we would implement a holdout/arbitration? Who is taking the side of the player in that decision, no one? If its us, than I can imagine rival GM's making sabotage comments to limit a GM's ability to sign that player. Forcing him to overpay or trade. I mean that's why a contract is settled by an independent arbitrator, no?

I think if we start going down this road, it gets too complicated and really is not needed based on the rules as they are now.

Nonono, we aren't doing the arbitration and such. I was just explaining the real life situation and why.

What happened to the thread about the commissioner situation... I feel the commissioner if the position exists should not be a gm...too much conflict of interest...even still the commissioner does not make rules... I believe that's what the GM's, board of governors as well as nhlpa all vote and contribute to the process.

In a true democratic community having a 1 guy, who is part of the game too, decide rules and regulations is unconstitutional but there are plenty of bright people on here that will make sure to keep him honest.

Anyway, in terms of anything sketchy that you might be worried about, he has been a straight arrow thus far so I'm ok with letting "have his cake and eat it too."

In the future an impartial comish would be great. As it stands right now, Rangers is doing a dandy job

Has anyone asked him if he'd like help? I still think he could use some type of assistant.

We had a thread that I created strictly for asking him and the other GM's here what they preferred and that was quickly turned into a sh*t show when NBC starting posting......

He said he would welcome help but wanted to remain the head honcho...........which basically means thanks but no thanks. To be honest Brekel, lets just go with the flow and have fun in the process.