Offer sheeting

[cross16]

It's really too bad that the NHL has such an archaic approach to offer sheets. They work in other leagues and if used properly could actually be an effective way to increase player movement, salaries and parity, not to mention fun for the fans.its quite unfortunate imo that they are seen as "predatory" instead of a useful too but the NHL as a league is pretty archaic unfortunately. 

[The_People1]

On 7/3/2017 at 3:09 PM, cross16 said:

It's really too bad that the NHL has such an archaic approach to offer sheets. They work in other leagues and if used properly could actually be an effective way to increase player movement, salaries and parity, not to mention fun for the fans.its quite unfortunate imo that they are seen as "predatory" instead of a useful too but the NHL as a league is pretty archaic unfortunately. 

 

What do you suggest should be changed about offer sheets?

[cross16]

30 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What do you suggest should be changed about offer sheets?

 

That's tough because I don't think it's a structural change to the offer sheet process it's how they are viewed. Right now we only view offer sheets as a way to punish another team and don't view them as an effective team builder and i'm not sure how you change that. 

 

Case in point, Wes Welker, one of the most productive receivers for many years, became a Patriot due to an offer sheet and interestingly enough Welker was one the rival Dolphins team. So the Patriots offer sheeted a player on a division rival and woudn up getting a very produtive player. Never once was it viewed as predatory or unfair it was just business. 

Now contrast that with the NHL. Canucks offer sheet David Backes. Mades sense, good player, who they want and they gave up what would be being a pretty fair offer in terms of the market. What do the blues do? Counter by offer sheeting Steve Benier in "retaliation"

 

Don't know how you change that, but it's just too bad. 

[Flyerfan52]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

What do you suggest should be changed about offer sheets?

Unless that was meant solely for cross I'll answer.

Remove the rule that recalculates the AAV for compensation from years offered to 5 years. The compensation for top $ contracts is already high but that makes it extreme.

The re-signing team already has an edge by being able to offer an extra year of term.

The 2nd highest tier already sets compensation @ 2 1sts, a 2nd & a 3rd with all having to be your own picks. If a team wants a player bad enough to give that & up to 9.8 for a player let the team holding his rights decide if they place the same value on him rather than raising the ante to make compensation = to a 13 million offer.

Changing the 2nd & 3rd to 2  more 1sts discourages OS.

 

In the lower compensation tiers the OS can be used to force a team to overpay or outright steal a player. An OS to a player up to 1.295 carries no compensation but can bump a raise to a valued player making 0.9 from 0.1 to dang near 4. Even 0.4 makes a difference to a team nudging the cap ceiling.

[The_People1]

On 7/4/2017 at 5:05 PM, cross16 said:

 

That's tough because I don't think it's a structural change to the offer sheet process it's how they are viewed. Right now we only view offer sheets as a way to punish another team and don't view them as an effective team builder and i'm not sure how you change that. 

 

Case in point, Wes Welker, one of the most productive receivers for many years, became a Patriot due to an offer sheet and interestingly enough Welker was one the rival Dolphins team. So the Patriots offer sheeted a player on a division rival and woudn up getting a very produtive player. Never once was it viewed as predatory or unfair it was just business. 

Now contrast that with the NHL. Canucks offer sheet David Backes. Mades sense, good player, who they want and they gave up what would be being a pretty fair offer in terms of the market. What do the blues do? Counter by offer sheeting Steve Benier in "retaliation"

 

Don't know how you change that, but it's just too bad. 

 

22 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Unless that was meant solely for cross I'll answer.

Remove the rule that recalculates the AAV for compensation from years offered to 5 years. The compensation for top $ contracts is already high but that makes it extreme.

The re-signing team already has an edge by being able to offer an extra year of term.

The 2nd highest tier already sets compensation @ 2 1sts, a 2nd & a 3rd with all having to be your own picks. If a team wants a player bad enough to give that & up to 9.8 for a player let the team holding his rights decide if they place the same value on him rather than raising the ante to make compensation = to a 13 million offer.

Changing the 2nd & 3rd to 2  more 1sts discourages OS.

 

In the lower compensation tiers the OS can be used to force a team to overpay or outright steal a player. An OS to a player up to 1.295 carries no compensation but can bump a raise to a valued player making 0.9 from 0.1 to dang near 4. Even 0.4 makes a difference to a team nudging the cap ceiling.

 

I may be of the minority opinion as I don't like teams losing their young players too often.  As exciting as it may be to see teams transform overnight, it's dangerous letting the NHLPA, basically, nullify team rights on players.

 

Once teams lose control of young players, then next to go is drafting and development.  Why would any team invest in grooming kids when kids leave to the highest bidder after 3 years?  And when they can do the same to others, why care to develop their own?  Prospects will then be largely left to fend for their own.  Sink or swim.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

I may be of the minority opinion as I don't like teams losing their young players too often.  As exciting as it may be to see teams transform overnight, it's dangerous letting the NHLPA, basically, nullify team rights on players.

 

Once teams lose control of young players, then next to go is drafting and development.  Why would any team invest in grooming kids when kids leave to the highest bidder after 3 years?  And when they can do the same to others, why care to develop their own?  Prospects will then be largely left to fend for their own.  Sink or swim.

I defiantly agree with you. But the way the NHL is going youre still going to need your feeder system as you cant offer sheet every single player to fill your line up. Obviously you could see offer sheets for lower level players, but either youre going to overpay to get the player or youre not going to get him. So the only time it would probably work is for higher end guys like a draisital, and even then I dont see teams changing the model just because of that. 

 

I think teams would still want to develop their own players to fill spots, and teams on the cusp  might offer sheet a draisital to put them over the top if its something they were missing. But on that note not many teams are going to be comfortable giving up X number of picks if they are in the middle of a rebuild, so like I said I think it would have to be the right situation with the right team.

[phoenix66]

On 7/4/2017 at 4:27 PM, The_People1 said:

 

What do you suggest should be changed about offer sheets?

I'll weigh in too.   I think you may need to inject a degree of the NFL system. Bring in Tags.

Franchise player, nobody can touch him but hes guaranteed a salary range based on his peers,  I forget all the levels but it goes down to ones where you can match or get compensation. I believe it would limit the threat of "predatory" types on your top players because those players would be more protected, and guaranteed better compensation , while still leaving the benefit of working out a long term deal on the table.

 

Aside from the perceived "breaking of the GM code " offer sheets are restricted by , the second biggest reason we don't see them is because they are rarely  successful and because of that only serve to drive the price up on players . Kevin Lowe probably single handedly eliminated Bridge deals in the NHL due to paying Penner. That's why Burke was upset , he could have cared less , and said as much many times,  about the offer sheet itself.

 

I'm guessing there must already be some form of rule against "poison pills" ..or we would have seen more by now. They should also stay that way.

As an example (like Cross used) from the NFL.   Minnesota offer sheeted Steve Hutchinson of Seattle,  but put in a clause that said his entire salary was guaranteed if he wasn't the highest paid team lineman. On Minnesota he would be , on Seattle , Walter Jones was and always would be higher so that clause would have destroyed Seattle's cap. so they lost the player .. but as as seems to happen .. Seattle poached Nate Burleson from Minnesota the same way in retaliation .

 

BT said recently he expects them to become an accepted usable tool in the not too far future, just due to the declining options in free agency , and the  growing difficulty in making "hockey" trades , but adjustments need to be made. The Tag system could be a way to even it up and make everybody happy . It should eliminate the stigma of breaking the code , and shift it to the "retaliation poaching" being frowned upon, not the initial offer sheet 

[cross16]

16 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

I may be of the minority opinion as I don't like teams losing their young players too often.  As exciting as it may be to see teams transform overnight, it's dangerous letting the NHLPA, basically, nullify team rights on players.

 

Once teams lose control of young players, then next to go is drafting and development.  Why would any team invest in grooming kids when kids leave to the highest bidder after 3 years?  And when they can do the same to others, why care to develop their own?  Prospects will then be largely left to fend for their own.  Sink or swim.

 

I get what you are saying, and just to clarity i'm not suggesting that I think offer sheets should, or would, be used to "poach" elite talent. I too am not in favor of creating a system where teams get their top end talent poached. What I would like to see is a system where maybe a more under appreciated asset somewhere else can be moved via an offer sheet without fall back.

 

Look at the Dustin Penner situation and to me it shows how offer sheets can work. Has anyone actually ever considered what the Ducks received for not matching that offer sheet?

With the first round pick they moved around but ended up drafting Jake Gardiner. With the 2nd they drafted Justin Schultz. 

 

Penner wound up being a decent Oiler and ended up netting them a decent prospect (Tuebert who didn't pan out) and a 1st rounder when they traded him. So when I look back on that process I see a situation that was a win all around (especially considering that I don't think it drove up salaries like Burke said it would) and yet it's a situation that is commonly perceived as negative. That is more the process i'd like to see, not situations where guys like Drasaitle, Monahan, Eichel etc move around via offer sheets but I also don't think that would ever happen.

 

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I get what you are saying, and just to clarity i'm not suggesting that I think offer sheets should, or would, be used to "poach" elite talent. I too am not in favor of creating a system where teams get their top end talent poached. What I would like to see is a system where maybe a more under appreciated asset somewhere else can be moved via an offer sheet without fall back.

 

Look at the Dustin Penner situation and to me it shows how offer sheets can work. Has anyone actually ever considered what the Ducks received for not matching that offer sheet?

With the first round pick they moved around but ended up drafting Jake Gardiner. With the 2nd they drafted Justin Schultz. 

 

Penner wound up being a decent Oiler and ended up netting them a decent prospect (Tuebert who didn't pan out) and a 1st rounder when they traded him. So when I look back on that process I see a situation that was a win all around (especially considering that I don't think it drove up salaries like Burke said it would) and yet it's a situation that is commonly perceived as negative. That is more the process i'd like to see, not situations where guys like Drasaitle, Monahan, Eichel etc move around via offer sheets but I also don't think that would ever happen.

 

agreed, i think Burke played it right in not matching .. this "we will match any offer sheet " bravado (altho 9/10  its just a scare tactic) is harmful in itself.

I do still believe it drove a price up as it took away the expected bridge deal and created a comparable for future players to use, but you are correct - Anaheim got fair compensation 

 

to add to my earlier post, regarding the NFL model.. the way I see it as workable, is along the lines of the same 3 tags with adjusted conditions:

 

Franchise tag (exclusive)--  player can negotiate only with his team.. player gets paid 1 year @ an average of the top 5 players at his position 

 

Franchise tag (non - exclusive) - can negotiate with all teams-- if signed by another team , rights to match, or 2 1st round draft picks- if tag is used, then player gets a 1yr deal at an average of the top 10 of his position 

 

Transition: Player gets a 2 year deal at the average of his top 10 comparables. Team has rights to match.  If player is signed by another team, for the average of his top 5 comparables or less, no compensation -  if signed for more, then it becomes a sliding scale much like they have now to determine compensation 

 

obviously there'd need to be a good system in place for determining "comparables"

 

I feel the exclusive would allow teams to keep their elite talent , while still guaranteeing the player fair compensation 

On the transition , it would protect the GM's against themselves, while still protecting the player against lowball offers and deals

 

 

I also believe they should allow players to renegotiate their contracts if they choose again..

[cross16]

The danger with using the Franchise tag is you are again providing a tool to artificially raise salaries, which is what it has done in the NFL. 

 

Take Radulov. Let's say Montreal was desperate to keep him so they use the tag. As a RW he would be entitled to a salary of 8.58 Million with is almost 3 million more than he signed for. That is a huge bump and now you've also given other players a comparable. Eberle is a  pretty comparable player so let's say is UFA next year (i know he isn't) how does he not use Radulov as a comparable in negotiations? How do you convince Radulov to play at 1 year for 8.58 million but sign for term at millions less?

 

Tags are really problematic and I think the issue with tags is you would drive up salries for the top end and further squeeze out the bottom. With the RFA system in place I don't see how tags would beneift the league, it would hinder it. In the NFL they get UFA status at a much younger age which is why they have the tag system. 

[phoenix66]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

The danger with using the Franchise tag is you are again providing a tool to artificially raise salaries, which is what it has done in the NFL. 

 

Take Radulov. Let's say Montreal was desperate to keep him so they use the tag. As a RW he would be entitled to a salary of 8.58 Million with is almost 3 million more than he signed for. That is a huge bump and now you've also given other players a comparable. Eberle is a  pretty comparable player so let's say is UFA next year (i know he isn't) how does he not use Radulov as a comparable in negotiations? How do you convince Radulov to play at 1 year for 8.58 million but sign for term at millions less?

 

Tags are really problematic and I think the issue with tags is you would drive up salries for the top end and further squeeze out the bottom. With the RFA system in place I don't see how tags would beneift the league, it would hinder it. In the NFL they get UFA status at a much younger age which is why they have the tag system. 

see also recall this would only apply to Restricted Free agents. UFA stays UFA

 

the goal is , right now you pretty much have Collusion .. you don't sign my RFA i wont sign yours ..players get trapped in the minors who may have gotten a shot somewhere else,  Many wont get tags, but this keeps some protection on ones you care about , while still gving the player the freedom to get what they deserve

[cross16]

26 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

see also recall this would only apply to Restricted Free agents. UFA stays UFA

 

 

I realize that but i'm not sure it changes the point i'm making or what I think the danger would be.

 

Use Draisaitl as an example. Avg of the top 5 paid centers (based on salary) is 11.84 million. So he gets a 1 year 11.84 million deal and then what happens when he is RFA the next year and needs to be qualified at 100% of his salary?

[phoenix66]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I realize that but i'm not sure it changes the point i'm making or what I think the danger would be.

 

Use Draisaitl as an example. Avg of the top 5 paid centers (based on salary) is 11.84 million. So he gets a 1 year 11.84 million deal and then what happens when he is RFA the next year and needs to be qualified at 100% of his salary?

you do so and franchise again if necessary.

the logistics obviously need some tweaking, i just came up with numbers off the top of my head as examples. .. maybe you do 10,or top 10% etc..   and also teams dont have to use a tag for example. If PC is confident nobody is going to offer him an offer sheet in that range, then you dont tag him and let the regular rules apply .

To me, to be ideal, you would only exclusive a true franchise player.. someone who is going to get paid in that range anyway , but you'd be protected against ridiculous offers.

To me as you said its ridiculous to pay him $11.84 so a Draisaitl would likely be a non exclusive or maybe even a transition player ..   and in many cases just like now, the motivation would be to make a long term deal.  What does Drai want , 1 year at 11, or 8 years at 9?

Maybe if a player plays under a tag , normal qualifying offer rules dont apply ?

 

so many options for details but the concept is what I'm gettng at 

 

 

[cross16]

Interesting that I found this today given the discussion taking place.

 

Quote

 

“I will tell you, I have a pretty interesting conversation with one GM after it’s over. I specifically asked him about Draisaitl. He said he didn’t think so. But he thinks the offer sheets are coming. Maybe not this year, but maybe in a year or two.

 

“And the reason he thinks so is because the quality of free agents are getting lower and lower every year. Guys are re-signing. They’re taking their term and they’re re-signing. How many big guys hit the market now. And I mean we’ve got a big one next year potentially in Tavares. But you look at it – Vlasic is gone. Fowler is gone. Price is gone. Stamkos went last year. McDavid now you know he’s signed for eight years.

“He’s saying we’re getting less and less on the big free agent stars. He thinks the day is coming where we’re going to see a big-time offer sheet.”

https://www.fanragsports.com/news/friedman-gm-thinks-offer-sheets-coming/

 

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Interesting that I found this today given the discussion taking place.

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/news/friedman-gm-thinks-offer-sheets-coming/

 

Hard to say what the future holds, there will be teams experience talent overloads like CHI and either have to trade players before they have to pay them or use them to try and win with a playoff run and have them become UFA.