Ok, first off, I tend to hate everything proposed so far, but I do detect a theme to most of the proposals;
'There is an FP I want available in Free Agency, but there is no way for me to get a shot at drafting him outside of winning the lottery'.
And of course, that player in this case is Getzlaf (three years ago or so it would have been Lecavalier).
I'd made this suggestion in the comments to one of the proposals, or in conversation with Doug, and I think it works much better than ED pick trading (Pandora's box should be so ripe with Evil), or the other suggestions;
Proposed:
- Teams that announce they are intending to select a new FP are seeded at the front of the draft.
- If more than one team is intent on selecting a new FP they are seeded 1st and 2nd (etc.) based on their lottery rankings. For example if Corey and I both announce we are selecting new FPs, Corey gets #1, and I (as pick 11), get #2.
- Teams that are re-seeded are also re-seeded at the end of the 2nd to reflect the snake draft. So if Corey is moved up to pick #1, he is also moved to pick #24 for the purposes of the 2nd round.
- Only unrestricted free agents may be drafted by reseeding. No RFAs (even ones own), or prospects may be selected. If a team is going to be re-seeded it must be with the express purpose of selecting an otherwise unrestricted free agent.
As I see it this proposal accomplishes several things;
- it increases the likelihood that the best unrestricted free agents become FPs
- it allows teams that are trying to rebuild to move up in the draft
- it does not allow ED pick trading
- it does not allow teams to move up with the intent of 'spiking' another teams RFA
- it retains the 'cost' of replacing an FP.
Proposal #6
Simple enough; be it resolved that the rules are acceptable as they are and that a moratorium on changing the rules be implemented for the next five years barring unanimous decision that there is an emergency need for change. My annual 'lets stop screwing around' proposal,
15 comments:
FPs that are replaced by FAs are to be drafted in "zero-eth" round while FPs that are replaced by RFAs are to be drafted in the first round? What if you don't know if your bid will be matched or not?
Brian, because he was pre-planning for his FP replacement (as all successful GMs do) has N.Backstrom rfa ready to go and picking 3rd he won't face any bids to other RFAs (say R.Miller) as he's picking 3rd and Bob and I draft ahead of him.
However, were I replacing an FP it would not be out of line for me to make a bid for R.Miller - am I SOL under your proposal?
Second question.
I finished 1st and get the first pick overall in the draft, except that I'm not able to get that pick since another GM wants to replace an FP. Fine, I lose out on the top available FA even though I "won" the lottery but I also lose my first back-to-back pick and have to finesse the same GM (or GMs) who cherry-picked the top Free Agents?
There seems to be a problem with #5 as Doug points out. More confusion to add to the pot.
I think we should keep it as proposed by Corey. But I agree with Cameron that you MUST announce you ARE REPLACING a FP in order to make such a deal as the original proposal.
There should also be no restrictions be it RFA or FA status. That defeats the whole purpose of the proposal.
I feel #6 does not allow us to move forward as a group if we addopt this.
I believe we have something in the covenant that addresses this in that we have discussion and votes during the offseason.
Rule Proposal #5 Objection:
I'm in total agreement with Doug on the absurdity of this rule. Why are we rewarding people who lost in the lottery or who have poor FPs, etc. I have never complained if I had to change one or two of my FPs in one year. I do it because I have to do it. Period. If it costs me it costs me. End of story. We bend over backwards to somehow feel guilty that someone has gotten the wrong deal doesn't seem a good reason to make rule changes like this. Second, to address Mike's point, at what point do we claim that we're changing an FP? Do we claim it at the draft lottery? Do we claim it a month before the entry draft? Do we claim it an hour before the entry draft? And are we definitive on who we're dropping or not dropping during those occasions? It seems to be a proposal that is fraught with problems.
Rule Proposal #6 Objection:
Consider the volatility of the pool and the NHL coming up to a CBA negotiation and potential strike, I don't think a moratorium on rule changes for five years is a good idea. It's one of those hubris "asking for it" things, asking for the wrath of the "up on high". You never know what comes up and what good or bad ideas continue to show up.
I steadfastly remain against any rule that involves entry draft pick swapping and while I admire your attempt, Cameron, at trying to be accomodating I do not think your proposal #5 helps us.
I'll start with Doug's questions;
Under the proposal only UFAs may be selected by re-seeded Gms doing FP replacements. Any GM (ie Brian) replacing an FP from their own roster (or attempting to spike an RFA) would maintain their lottery position.
Yes, the teams who 'won' the lottery would for the purposes of the first two rounds be bumped in favour of the reseeded Gms. The good news (such as it is) is that the reseeded Gms are moved to the back of the 2nd rnd to maintain the snake. Plus, they would still have first crack at Getzlaf if the decided they wanted him as an FP.
This should make sense in that if Getzlaf is offered two contracts, one of which makes him a franchise player, the other of which is only for one year why would he choose not to be an Fp?
This proposal also makes trades possible. If Doug knows that he might lose out on Getzlaf because someone else wants him as an FP, than Doug can trade an Fp away to make room and guarantee himself landing Getzlaf.
Is this proposal perfect? No. But it kicks the he'll out of reintroducing ED pick trading, even in a limited form. It also addresses a need (making elite UFAs into FPs) that I think is marginal at best. In truth I vastly prefer the current system, but if getting guys like Getzlaf to become FPs is such a big deal this is a fair way to go about it.
Cam, in response to my question regarding bidding on another GM's RFA to make an FP replacement you said:
Under the proposal only UFAs may be selected by re-seeded Gms doing FP replacements. Any GM (ie Brian) replacing an FP from their own roster (or attempting to spike an RFA) would maintain their lottery position.
Fair enough except what happens if my bids on M.Green, N.Backstrom and R.Miller are all matched as I can not draft a FA for my next FP?
I like how you've managed to bypass ED trading entirely. That said, the difficulty that arises from nullifying the value of the slot selection draft seems overwhelming. I don't have any suggestions for that at the moment.
I very much appreciate your effort.
Cam, another question - what if you are replacing two FPs?
Doug said: what happens if my bids on M.Green, N.Backstrom and R.Miller are all matched as I can not draft a FA for my next FP?
There is nothing preventing you from drafting a FA as your new Fp, you just wouldn't be elligible to be seeded higher.
As for double FP replacements, the proposal only works for the first. The second FP selection would be at the end of the 2nd and would be open to whatever options available at that slot.
As for concerns that those who had 'won' the lottery are getting ripped, let's keep in mind that nobody is guaranteed the first pick prior to the lottery - it is afterall still pure luck that someone picks 1st overall, so displacing the winner to allow an FP replacement hardly seems like a hardship to me.
The most likely criticism not yet mentioned is that some GMs (Bob) replace FPs every year - and are we really ready for Bob to pick first overall year after year after year?
Some other thoughts;
- I believe when we have done expansion we essentially proceeded in this manner, seeding the new teams at the top of the draft so they can select their FPs.
- I'm not convinced that the 'sanctity' of the lottery is all that big a deal for us to violate so that teams looking to sign elite UFAs can do so. A trade off had to come somewhere, and I prefer that it come in the form of reducing the advantage of lottery winners than in reintroducing ED pick trading.
- The 'cost' of replacing an FP in this manner remains the same, a 1st for a 9th. Nor does the pool of available elite UFA players expand in any way, so the re-seeding option shouldn't replace either trades, or drafting an RFA/Prospect off of ones own roster.
- Despite the fact this is my proposal, it is not something I sincerely endorse. I merely prefer it (by light-years) to reintroducing ED pick trading. There is clearly a perceived need by some to make available elite UFAs at the entry draft, and this seems to me to be a much simpler and less controversial method for making that happen.
Is this better than ED pick trading? Yes.
Do I like it? Not really.
Would I be willing to support it starting next year? I guess.
Would I support it for this year? No.
As for a freeze on future rule changes, I can't support this. I think the rules are pretty solid but I recognize that we need the flexibility to change things.
I'm not sure Cameron if you want me to be replacing FPs each year (I say this sarcastically) but when I did have to replace FPs, sometimes even two FPs in a season, and I was drafting either third overall or seventh overall, it never mattered to me and I never complained. It was just a fact of life that I needed a new FP. Why are we suddenly making a rule proposal around FP replacements and creating a "zero-th" round. It just seems like a waste of time during our draft. Further, you still haven't answered my questions as to when we would have to announce when we were going to drop an FP and who that FP was going to be. I think this proposal, which you yourself find hard to support by your own admission, should think about its long-term implications. As for the moratorium proposal my objections stand as we are not fortune-tellers.
Bob said: Why are we suddenly making a rule proposal around FP replacements and creating a "zero-th" round.
- There is no 'zeroth' round, just a shuffling of the first round based on those GMs who wish to draft UFAs.
Bob said: when we would have to announce when we were going to drop an FP and who that FP was going to be.
- I don't see any reason why the announcement can't take place at the draft, though there could be a case for doing it a week early to allow others to strategize.
Post a Comment