RFA re-signing

[Anaheim GM]

We have had issues when dealing with RFA's that dont receive a bid during the bidding process but are elected to be resigned by the GM.

I propose that we set a rule in place so that there is no argument, but a clear set standard for everyone. This is up for discussion as it is just an idea. Administrators have final say

For Instance. Player A is $800,000(2012-13)RFA, but during the bidding process, no other GM places an offer. Then the current GM then offers a 1 yr $525,000 offer and gets rejected. This can be argued because no one placed a Bid and should get league min. But others say that the player is worth $900,000 and decline. And I see both sides of this.We need to put it numerically so it cant be argued.

What if a RFA who makes

under 1 Million = their salary stays same.
1 Million - 2.5 Million = 10% increase in salary
2.5 Million - 4 Million = 15% increase
4 million - 6 Million = 20% increase
6 Million + = 25% increase

Percentages may be adjusted upon hearing GMS opinion.

So if Player A got $800,000(2012-13), they would receive $800,000(2013-14).
Player B is $4,000,000(2012-13)RFA they will receive a contract of 4,000,000 x 1.20 % = 4,800,000(2013-14)
Player C who is 2,000,000(2012-13)RFA they would receive a contract of 2,000,000 x 1.10% = 2,200,000(2013-14)

Chances are that players who make over 2 Mil will get bid on.

Thoughts?

[Kings Gm]

Sounds fair for resignings, though I thought if no one bids on an RFA they become a UFA. I assumed resigning was not an option until the player went to UFA. Also wouldn't this be a way for GM's to save money on a player that could have deserved a large raise?

[Anaheim GM]

Because they are RFA, the GM has the option to offer a 1 year contract on that player before they go to free agency. And if the player was to deserve large raise, then they would probably get bid on. And its a way for GMs to keep their young talent a little longer by keeping the salary in check for the resigning GM as opposed to FA where they can get big bucks, thats for UFAs.

[Kings Gm]

Understood, thanks for the clarification

[Blackhawks GM]

I think in stead of solely based on salary, that term would come into play as well.

1 year no change
2 year 10%
3 year 15%
4 year 20%

Also, not sure on having under 1 mil at no change, minimal okay, so 5%?

[Avs GM]

Under the current rules the term can only be one year, so a variance on term would be another change.

[Penguins GM]

I don't think there should be an extended term. Each team has one extension to use... This keeps the fa pool deeper.

It was not fair to let unbid on RFA's just walk to free agency where the owning team gets 0 compensation.

I like the bidding system. Then the option to match. If no offer is made 2 attempts to sign the player for 1 year (voted on by tab).

Maybe set an arbitrator, who can set te price and then it gets voted on if the owner can't come to a proper price?

[Blackhawks GM]

Jul 21, 2013 20:09:58 GMT -5 Penguins GM said:

I don't think there should be an extended term. Each team has one extension to use... This keeps the fa pool deeper.

It was not fair to let unbid on RFA's just walk to free agency where the owning team gets 0 compensation.

I like the bidding system. Then the option to match. If no offer is made 2 attempts to sign the player for 1 year (voted on by tab).

Maybe set an arbitrator, who can set te price and then it gets voted on if the owner can't come to a proper price?

^ This

[Anaheim GM]

How about.......

$525,000 - No change in salary
$526,000 - $999,999 = 5% increase in salary
1 Million - $2,499,999 Million = 10% increase in salary
2.5 Million - $3.999.999 Million = 15% increase in salary
4 million - $5,999,999 Million = 20% increase in salary
6 Million + = 25% increase in salary

I was thinking the 20% and 25% increase is a little steep, thoughts?

Also I think a clause would need to be put in place for a GM to ask TAB for special circumstances(Injuries, Age,etc). As there is always something, but TAB would need to be very strict on allowing this.

[Avs GM]

A simplification of this would just be a flat 10% increase in salary. I am definitely for less debate and TAB voting.

[Anaheim GM]

I was thinking same thing earlier AVS, but was concerned that it would be too easy an answer. So i complicated it. ha

But i would agree to that.

[Anaheim GM]

Shall we place the RFA signing amendment to a vote???

A: Keep it same - Tab Votes
B: 10% increase across the board
C: Modified Increase depending on salary

[Blackhawks GM]

sounds like a plan

[Stars GM]

Lets vite