(Open Discussion) Playoffs + Free Agency Priority

[JetsGM (Jacob)]

Two quick things I'd like to discuss as a league.

1) Ending playoffs a week earlier and extending semis to 2 weeks.

This is 2 small proposals merged into one, but we could execute on one or both. Proposal is is to end the season (Finals) one week earlier (April 1) instead of April 7. This would allow the Finalists to take full advantage of their rosters and not have to deal with teams benching their stars leading up to the NHL playoffs starting.

I've also had a few teams pitch me on the idea to extend the semi-finals (Final 4) to 2 weeks as well. This would make the playoffs 1-1-2-2 format.

It would be a bit of work to update the schedule to make everything fit, but if the majority feels favourably towards this, I'll make the update.

2) Adjustment to Free Agency Priority List

There was a lot of ideas thrown around when we instituted the free agency priority list and we went with a public list where anyone could match. Rethinking it a few months later, I'm thinking it might be best that I keep the list private and update it every 3-4 months based on a weighted lottery for the reverse standings. This would allow more teams to get involved in matching without being accused of purposely dropping teams down.

I'm open to other suggestions for this rule as well, I don't know if a perfect rule exists, but the aim is still to avoid the "first to post wins" in free agency bidding.

Please let me know what you think.

[Smashville / PredsGM]

Both parts of rule 1 are great. First part is a no-brainer, you wouldn't want to lose the final because your best player was benched for the final two games. The second part would ensure more fairness in the league as it would basically change the schedule so that every team will play each other once and once only. Currently we play a few teams twice.

2nd rule is good. It will force teams to match when they genuinely want the player which was the intention behind the rule.

[Deleted]

I think ending the playoffs a week early is a good idea so yes to that

Personally, I'm for all semis/finals to only be 1 week but if the league wants to go 2 so be it

I haven't seen any issues with the priority list, I like it but always open to others opinions

[JetsGM (Jacob)]

Thanks for the early feedback guys! Appreciate it.

One other thing I forgot to add. I'm going to do an in-depth analysis later this season, but there's a very good chance we'll increase the number of re-signs per team from 3 to 5 this offseason, then up to 7/8 the following year (to deal with all the UFAs coming off contracts). May increase it again the following year as well. I know there were a few teams who were tight for re-sign this past offseason, but the vast majority didn't have tough decisions to make. Moving forward, there may be 1-2 tough decisions to make per team, but I don't want to get to the point where it's essentially a keeper league, so increasing this limit makes sense.

That's more for any teams who are looking at a huge amount of UFAs and already panicking. You'll have more slots available this offseason.

[chris - Hartford Whalers]

Oct 31, 2017 15:50:25 GMT -5 JetsGM (Jacob) said:

Thanks for the early feedback guys! Appreciate it.

One other thing I forgot to add. I'm going to do an in-depth analysis later this season, but there's a very good chance we'll increase the number of re-signs per team from 3 to 5 this offseason, then up to 7/8 the following year (to deal with all the UFAs coming off contracts). May increase it again the following year as well. I know there were a few teams who were tight for re-sign this past offseason, but the vast majority didn't have tough decisions to make. Moving forward, there may be 1-2 tough decisions to make per team, but I don't want to get to the point where it's essentially a keeper league, so increasing this limit makes sense.

That's more for any teams who are looking at a huge amount of UFAs and already panicking. You'll have more slots available this offseason.

how about a 1 year delay in this.   many teams myself included shed expiring contracts proactively because of the max 3 resign rule and changing this mid season punishes us not to mention the teams that built a warchest of cap space to bid on players.

[JetsGM (Jacob)]

Oct 31, 2017 15:57:54 GMT -5 chris - Hartford Whalers said:

Oct 31, 2017 15:50:25 GMT -5 JetsGM (Jacob) said:

Thanks for the early feedback guys! Appreciate it.

One other thing I forgot to add. I'm going to do an in-depth analysis later this season, but there's a very good chance we'll increase the number of re-signs per team from 3 to 5 this offseason, then up to 7/8 the following year (to deal with all the UFAs coming off contracts). May increase it again the following year as well. I know there were a few teams who were tight for re-sign this past offseason, but the vast majority didn't have tough decisions to make. Moving forward, there may be 1-2 tough decisions to make per team, but I don't want to get to the point where it's essentially a keeper league, so increasing this limit makes sense.

That's more for any teams who are looking at a huge amount of UFAs and already panicking. You'll have more slots available this offseason.

how about a 1 year delay in this.   many teams myself included shed expiring contracts proactively because of the max 3 resign rule and changing this mid season punishes us not to mention the teams that built a warchest of cap space to bid on players.

I don't see that as a strong enough reason to delay personally, but this is why I opened it for discussion. I'd say every team has made decisions (re-sign lengths, trades, free agent signings) based on the max 3 re-sign, so it impacts everyone equally. Don't think because a team makes 10x the trades another makes means they are better planned out. While I understand some teams have been (overly IMO) active in clearing 2018 free agents, we are the beginning of November. I'd understand if this was being brought up in January, but as of right now, the vast majority are more concerned about their early team performance than shaping their team this offseason.

Teams with a huge amount of cap space may have it for any number of reasons, it's not fair to assume it's because they were licking their chops for the 2018 free agents. Some of them have had a large amount of cap space since the original FA when there were plenty of attractive FAs available.

[chris - Hartford Whalers]

I thought it was interesting to see what teams did when they couldn't just exclusively resign every player they wanted to keep as is the case in some leagues.

[Devils GM(Colin)]

While I think Chris' reasoning isn't the best, I am not really for adding more re-signs. If we do it, teams will stay too much the same, they already get the RFA compensation /natch rule.

Personally I think we should keep it the same as it is. This is coming from a guy with 5 UFAs and 4 RFAs on my starting roster coming up this offseason.

[Smashville / PredsGM]

Nov 2, 2017 18:29:51 GMT -5 Devils GM(Colin) said:

While I think Chris' reasoning isn't the best, I am not really for adding more re-signs. If we do it, teams will stay too much the same, they already get the RFA compensation /natch rule.

Personally I think we should keep it the same as it is. This is coming from a guy with 5 UFAs and 4 RFAs on my starting roster coming up this offseason.

I'm of the same opinion. Bumping up the re sign amount would actually benefit me and most others but I'm against it. Half of the challenge of this league is finding the balance of being competitive and keeping it together. Adding more resigns basically removes some of the challenge IMO and will make it harder for those teams who are struggling to rebuild.

I'm not totally against increasing re signs to 4 if but I personally don't see the need for 5+.

In order to counter this, we could look into only have 1 active goaltender spot. This would also take away the insane price one has to pay to acquire a goalie.

[Smashville / PredsGM]

Bump

[JetsGM (Jacob)]

As I mentioned though, it isn't to make it easy for teams to keep their teams together. The average number of UFAs is 5.85 for this upcoming offseason, and it jumps to 9 and 9.4 respectively in the next 2 years. That's only taking into account UFAs, and every year there's quality RFAs who also need to be re-signed or will only be re-signed to continual 1-year deals until they're UFA. In 2 years from now, without a bump in re-signs, teams will be losing 2-3 quality players per year, then this becomes much more of a glorified keeper league than a dynasty league. Of course, if consensus is to keep it to a low amount, I won't put an argument, it's just mainly to point out that in the next few years, it won't just be 1-2 teams per offseason losing quality players, it will be every team. Plus, it will minorly kill the trade market in the sense that teams will need all their re-signs to keep their top pieces, so no re-sign rights trades will happen. No major action last offseason but there was a few.

Happy with the discussion so far and lots of good points. Thanks guys.

[Devils GM(Colin)]

Didn't realize about the AVG UFAs in the coming years. This is a good point.

[Jim Rutherford/Pens GM]

I’m all for that playoff change. I also agree with the increase in resigns per year. All of our inherited contracts are going to expire in the same year and it’s going to be a frenzy in free agency. I think people will end up losing too many good players to free agency. I’ve already tried to trade a good amount of UFAs in fear of this and mostly have RFAs but even these guys aren’t safe. I believe the limit should increase to at least 4, but 5 would be better. I also think maybe we should revisit the 1 year rfa resign if no other GM offer sheets them, I mean no one else wanted them so why should I be limited to a one year contract. Just my thoughts on all of this.