If the starting date is officially April 1, then yeah. I'll have to add Pedrie and Lettieri back to my team as well in that case

1. Doesn't resolve the issue of how difficult it is to determine who is already on a roster. Then punishes people who aren't able to figure that out. Doesn't make sense to me.

2. I think I can figure this part out. The first few characters are likely to be correct, so incorrect spellings would appear next to each other when I sort them.

3. I don't want that either. I'm going to suggest a maximum of 10 submissions and 5 signings. At most, that is 310 submissions and 155 players signed. Seems excessive, but a lot of duplicate entries will cut that number drastically.

4. Running it (wave 2 of FA) has been "advertised" since before the first wave of free agency, so I don't consider it optional.

--------------

With all that said, I don't see a way to prevent people from submitting currently owned players yet. With this proposal, that's the only thing still getting in the way. It isn't realistic to expect GM's to check their submissions against the roster of every single team and it isn't possible to do that with players hidden in the minors. If we can't come up with a more efficient way to check this, we're going to have to reconsider building a publicly available list of players.

Would it be impractical to create a master list of all the players currently signed and their contracts? Each team would be required to submit all their own players and contracts to us.

It would certainly make it easier to keep track of previously retained salaries and contracts in trades, unsigned RFAs and many other things.

Hmm.

It's not practical to expect them to keep it up to date, but maybe as a one-time submission.
We wouldn't need contracts would we? Just player names works for this purpose.

Perhaps:

1. Have GM's submit a list of every player they have signed to their roster. Players listed in descriptions don't count, only those actually signed to contracts.
2. Give GM's the option of a) Submitting the list themselves or b) making all of their players visible so we can create a list for them.
3. Make it in a thread, one player/line, last name first, to make it as simple as possible for them.
4. Any player not submitted correctly may be lost and that is the responsibility of the GM, so be careful and thorough with your submissions.
5. We can use this to identify any potential errors or doubled players as well.

Unsigned prospects that are still that teams property should be included though, because they wouldn't be eligible for free agency. Maybe they could just note that the player is unsigned

That could get messy and they'd definitely have to make the list themselves in that case. So forget the a/b option in #2.
So basically two separate lists. One for signed players and one for rights owned. Keeps it to just names.



Signed players
Schenn Brayden
Mackinnon Nathan
...

Unsigned prospects
Withehair Guy
Lukslikalady Dude
...

Sounds good. I think it would be a good idea

1. GM's must submit a list of all currently signed players and unsigned prospect they own.
I will compile these and check for duplicates so we can resolve any issues which might be made evident.
Someone will have to run through unsigned prospects and make sure they are actually owned by the team submitting them.
Teams will be able to search this list prior to adding a player to their submissions.

2. Submissions for second wave of free agency.
I will use anonymous team sheets for submissions and each team will be able to submit up to 10 players they have interest in.
Teams will have the opportunity to sign players in a draft style format beginning with the current waiver order. (This means no ties)
Only the players you are listed for will be available to be signed when it is your turn. If you submit the top 10 players available and you don't pick until 30th, you probably aren't going to get anyone, so try to submit players that will be in your range.
Each team will only be able to sign up to 5 players, including unsigned INTL/Domestic players and remaining NHL UFA's.

3. Are we okay with the list being public after all submissions have been made? (similar to the UFA Master sheet after bids were already made)
You would see which teams were interested in which players, but wouldn't be able to change your own selections, it may impact the order you make your selections in. (If you are the only one interested in a player, you wouldn't select them first)

4. Contracts
Players entering an ELC would be signed to a $925k contract with term dependent on their current age, as per NHL rules.
Players who qualify as free agents (no-ELC) may be signed to a 1 year term only, with salary dependent on the round they are selected in.
Round 1: $900k
Round 2: $800k
Round 3: $700k
Other: $650k

Does that look good enough for a vote? Did I miss anything?

I think that #3 sounds like a good idea and the rest all looks good to me. 1-0 in favour of this plan.

Look, we don't even know if teams are going to participate in a second wave, so why are we assuming everyone is? We should set up a poll tonight to see if teams would even be interested in signing these guys (NHL and non-NHL) before we force them to submit lists of who they own and don't own.

People had trouble setting up the very vividly stated FA Budget, so I have zero confidence that all 31 GMs can list who they have and don't have.

They have to invoke waiver priority if they "draft a player", on the sole condition that multiple GMs have the same player. So if Arizona, the team with the highest waiver priority, "drafts" Spencer Foo to a 925k x 2 year deal, Rodzik has to move to the end of the line. We don't need to use "team sheets" for teams to submit. Simply email or Twitter DM one of the BOG members instead of having to set all this up will be much easier. Teams can then "draft" accordingly.

I absolutely hate the idea that teams are limited to how they can and can't submit on their list, especially if we have a player signing limit at 5. If we are forcing teams to plan accordingly, then we should force teams to plan accordingly in the first wave and there wouldn't be a second wave of NHL free agents. If a team can sign up to 5, let them submit 100 if they want. The constant variable doesn't change when you modify how many players you can list.

I don't think publishing a list is necessary, especially in my suggestions, since teams will know who they can and can't select. If they draft a player they weren't supposed to draft, they forfeit that spot. Simple as that.

Again, we have to gather and see if people even want to do this, regardless of whether it was advertised or not. I will set up a poll, barring sufficient votes, to see if people want to do this.

The poll is a good idea

We cannot chose not to do the second waive. We agreed before we did the first waive that there would be a second waive and we certainly can't change that now. I am totally against even considering not doing the second waive as it would exclude some players who are currently signed to NHL contracts from being available in the game. Simply because it would take a bit of work to do doesn't mean that we should ignore aspects of the game. Even if I am the only person that wants to sign some of the college free agents, we should still allow me that chance.

If teams have trouble submitting a list of who is on their team, that's an issue for this game, not just for the second waive of free agency. Everyone should know exactly who they own and have the rights to and they should be more than willing to spend 15 minutes writing those players down to make the BOGs life a bit easier.

Now that I think about it, I agree with you that maybe limiting the amount of players that teams can have on their list doesn't really make sense.

I like Rico's draft idea better than simply using waivers, because it will be a much clearer and simpler system.

A lot of this is only necessary because we aren't creating a single master list for everyone to follow. If we did that it would much simplify the process. The rest of you wanted the anonymity, so I worked to come up with a way to make that happen, and this is it.

As for whether teams are interested, it doesn't matter. We already know some GM's want it. The only reason to vote on it, is whether to have it at all.
I don't see a point in voting to see how many teams are interested if we're doing it anyway. Are you suggesting we don't do it if there isn't enough interest/participants?

I set it up so we don't have to use waivers for tiebreakers. As I said before, the likelihood of ties is higher and we aren't using salaries, so we can go a much simpler route by drafting.
If Arizona drafts Spencer Foo, he's already going to the end of the line in this format, as all 30 other teams get to select before he goes again.

Didn't you just say in your last post that you didn't want teams submitting 50+ players?
The more submissions, the higher the likelihood of errors, and the more work sorting it all out.
In the first round of free agency, I bid on about a dozen players. Some teams bid on over 100. All it did was slow down the process, as those teams were only able to sign a handful of players in the first place.
If every team can list 100 players, we might as well just assume every team is "in on" every player and then it's just like a regular draft.

Try going over it again and maybe it will make more sense and you'll see why it has to be this way?

If 5 GMs, for example, say they want to do a second wave, we don't have to bring out all the bells and whistles because, well, only 5 would participate. I am not against doing a second wave, I am against assuming every GM wants to participate. I am saying we should adjust accordingly to the amount of people who are participating. If you are the only one who participates, then we don't need to give you a submission template. We can simply have you just sign those players.

Off the top of my head, I can name about 5 GMs that will screw up the players they own rights to and don't own rights to. Thats a major issue that v1 cannot fix, but v2 can.

It was implied that the waiver priority would carry over to the second waive. If (3) teams want Spencer Foo, Arizona, the team with the highest waiver priority, must invoke that priority on Foo, so long as they meet the criteria to even "draft" Spencer Foo. If teams can simply just not be forced to invoke waiver priority, that defeats the purpose of it.

I like Rico's draft to include a draft, but I want there to be waiver priorities invoked if multiple teams have the same player listed.\

If we don't give people a master list to pick from and they have to submit the players that they want to bid on privately. I don't think teams submitting 100 players will be an issue. I only see 10-20 players who are really worth signing.

If we did the draft format and a team didn't pick a player when it was their turn, would they move to the bottom of the list or no?

Also should we have a time limit on teams to sign a player in the draft format?

That "I don't want teams listing 50+ FAs" was for the purpose that you can only sign "x" amount of players you list. So when it is proposed that we can only sign 5, then I don;t care how many you submit, since you can't sign more than 5.

I don't understand this "If Arizona drafts Spencer Foo, he's already going to the end of the line in this format, as all 30 other teams get to select before he goes again." You are saying that this is a "snake draft"?

The fact is if we have to invoke waiver priority if there is a tie, like in the first wave. The second wave shouldn't be different.

I am suggesting a different method if only a few teams want to participate. This plan is geared for 31. I want to adjust the plan if 5 participate.

I'm ok with asking teams if they want to participate, but I think it's unnecessary. Those teams wouldn't make bids anyways

I'm in favour of Rico's 2nd wave of FA plan. Vote is now 2-0

Can someone explain to me how waiver priority is somehow eliminated, even though the first wave of FA implied that it would carry over into the NCAA/CHL/INT'L.

Here is how I see the draft playing out. It just continuously cycles through like this.
Arizona Selects : Spencer Foo (4)
Since (4) teams wanted Foo, Arizona moves to the end of the waiver priority

Buffalo Selects : Will Butcher (1)
Since (1) team wanted Butcher, Buffalo still holds waiver priority.

Buffalo Selects : Alex Keirfoot (3)
Since (3) teams wanted Keirfott, Buffalo invokes waiver priority and moves to the end of the line

Detroit
etc, etc

Yes, that's basically it

Thats not how Rico conveyed it. He made it seem like it was a "snake draft", which is why I am vehemently opposed to the snake and having what I said cycle through.

The way Rico made it sound was that if Arizona drafts 1st, they also draft 62nd, or whatever the end of the second round would be

No. If Arizona is 1st they also draft 32nd.
It works out the same as using waivers, but the positions don't change.
The guy with highest priority still gets first crack at "his" players, picks one, and has to pass on the guys he doesn't select.
I've seen the reluctance to use waiver priority from the first round. If we involve waivers again, just about everyone is going to be passed around and picked up by the first team in line anyway. The first few rounds would just be pass, pass, pass, pass. These aren't big name free agents we are talking about, they are maybe NHL'ers and guys nobody wanted in the first round. My method just avoids a lot of time and effort that aren't necessary.
Invoking waiver priority was the tiebreaker method for the first round of bidding. This allows us to avoid ties completely, eliminating the need for the tiebreaker.

The number of teams involved doesn't matter to me. It's all the same from a processing perspective. I already have team sheets created, I just have to copy/paste a new format and grant permissions again.

Still doesn't resolve teams listing players that aren't actually available. If someone wants to volunteer to sort through once the list has been created, be my guest. No guarantee any of us can do it accurately either. We can check through all 31 teams with their rosters called up and read team descriptions, but some teams have players they themselves aren't even aware of or they are aware and don't have them listed.
We can't punish GM's for submitting players when there is no simple way to check the status of those players, that's not a reasonable expectation. We also have to remove those players so GM's aren't wasting their picks and being punished for it in that manner either.

eliteprospects says whether a non-NHL player is drafted. Anyone who is an UDFA is not eligible for this part of Free Agency

Arizona should only draft 32nd if they invoke waiver oder. Here is what I am saying:

Arizona Selects : Spencer Foo (4)
Since (4) teams wanted Foo, Arizona moves to the end of the waiver priority

Buffalo Selects : Will Butcher (1)
Since (1) team wanted Butcher, Buffalo still holds waiver priority.

Buffalo Selects : Alex Keirfoot (3)
Since (3) teams wanted Keirfott, Buffalo invokes waiver priority and moves to the end of the line

It continuously cycles through until we reach a max of 5 players per team

In your scenario, Buffalo has no reason to pick Butcher first, as he will not be selected by another team.
Therefore they select Keirfoot first and pick up Butcher later.
If they do select Butcher first for some reason, they've already allowed the other three teams to take Keirfoot, so it would be Buffalo's turn to select him anyway.

It still ends up working out the same.

If Arizona select players A, B, C, D, E:
A (4 teams)
B (Arizona only)
C (3 teams)
D (2 teams)
E (Arizona only)

Scenario without waivers: Arizona picks A first.
The other teams get a chance at C and D before Arizona selects again.
Let's say D was taken, but the other teams didn't select C.
Arizona can now take C with their next turn.

Scenario with waivers: Arizona picks A and moves to the back of the waiver order.
The team taking D then moves to the back of the waiver order, behind Arizona.
The teams that didn't take C picked other players instead and moved to the back of the waiver order, behind Arizona.
Arizona is still ahead of those teams and can take C with their next turn.

Both scenarios produce the same results. The only difference is if teams take uncontested players first. It's disingenuous, but that's their prerogative.
We want contested players selected first. It speeds up the process for later selections.
We resolve the players with multiple interest first, leaving teams free to sign the remaining players with no contest.

------------------


Not sure what you mean by this. We're deciding on our own that these players are available.
Non-NHL, undrafted free agents are kind of the point and we're adding leftover UFA's from the first round.