2014 Free Agency

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:29 pm

We have nearly concluded the draft and free agent frenzy will begin soon. As Adam stated earlier, we have implemented a few new rules for free agency. Players are eligible for free agency at age 27. We are in the process of creating fair contract brackets for UFAs 27-31 and 32+ which will remove the need for the time-consuming arbitration hearings of the past.

• Teams will now be able to submit a maximum of four bids per UFA rather than three.
• Highest annual average value (AAV) wins, rather than highest total money offered over the length of the contract. A one year, $7 million ($7 million AAV) contract will beat a five year, $10 million total ($2 million AAV) contract.
• Any team can now to bid on any free agent, including free agents that the team did not re-sign at the end of the season.
• UFAs that have spent the whole 2013-2014 season unsigned can be bid on starting at 33% of their previous AAV.
• Teams will now be able to offer UFAs and RFAs a maximum contract term of seven years. However, teams cannot offer team or player options on bids and extensions offered from 2014 onwards – the money must be guaranteed.

The retention rule for pending UFAs will continue to stay in place, and is now applied to any player 27 and over (rather than 32 and over). I have been asked whether team/player options of pending UFAs will add to the number of free agents that can be retained. Exercising a pending UFA’s option will not affect the team’s ability to retain other UFAs before they hit the open market.

Pending UFAs/# retainable
1/1
2/2
3/2
4/2
5+/3

Rules regarding retention of pending free agents may be changed next year, so plan accordingly for your 2015 expiring contracts.

However, the retention rule will only apply to free agents that were on the roster at the end of the previous season, and does not apply to free agents acquired via trade after the conclusion of the playoffs. These contracts will continue to be handled by rights arbitration. This is to prevent the loophole of teams acquiring expiring contracts for the purpose of retaining more pending UFAs.

For teams that have acquired pending UFAs (i.e. Gaborik, Vanek, Heatley), rights arbitration has not changed and remains the same as last season. For new GMs, this process is explained in the rulebook.

IMPORTANT: Please keep in mind the new rules of 50 contracts maximum within the organization, and the minimum of 22 healthy players on your pro roster. Also note that any player 25 and over is now waiver eligible, two-way contract or not.

We realize that lowering the UFA age from 32 to 27 to mirror real life may take time to get used to. However, it should benefit the league in many ways – such as through increases in activity during the summer months and rewards for teams that have managed their cap space well.

If you have clarification questions on this, now is the time to ask them.

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:20 pm

So the current formula in the rulebook is for 26 year olds and under RFA's, and there is two new brackets to be released soon? (27-31 and 32+)

Post by **SharksGM** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:24 pm

Three things... first, are there any criteria for what qualifies as a pending UFA to add to the limit? On the pro roster at the end of the season or something? If there's no minimum NHL GP, then what's to stop people from including their own random garbage AHLers to max out their retainable FAs?

Second, it doesn't actually explicitly say in the rulebook that teams can't sign their own FAs with 110+ greed. This should be clarified as I know a few people have been confused by it.

Third, while higher AAV is better for younger players who aren't expected to decline, what about age 35+ UFAs? I would think they realistically prefer higher total contracts, especially if they're about to start vopatizing.

VancouverCanucksGM · Post by **VancouverCanucksGM** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:52 pm

I'm assuming there won't be a one time amnesty buyout?

Bruins_GM · Post by **Bruins_GM** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:55 pm

Well, this escalated quickly.

Dallas Stars GM · Post by **Dallas Stars GM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:25 am

Will there be any amnesty buyout option? #bieksaneedstogo

How many players that are going to become UFA (from my team), can I re-sign?

How can I get the numbers for my UFA and RFA players, of approx. how would their new contracts look like? (salary, length) - (I saw the calculator app. but it somehow didn't worked for me)

Post by **SharksGM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:47 am

Dallas Stars GM wrote:Will there be any amnesty buyout option? #bieksaneedstogo)

Why do you need an amnesty buyout? You can already buy him out at just 20% of his cap hit.

VancouverCanucksGM · Post by **VancouverCanucksGM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:15 am

I need one for Johnsson!

Post by **SharksGM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:24 am

VancouverCanucksGM wrote:I need one for Johnsson!

Nuts to that, you traded for him! You can still save ~1.2M by buying him out at 75%.

I don't really see the justification for compliance buyouts anyways, it's not like our cap or salary structure is changing radically.

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:57 pm

SharksGM wrote:
VancouverCanucksGM wrote:I need one for Johnsson!
Nuts to that, you traded for him! You can still save ~1.2M by buying him out at 75%.

I don't really see the justification for compliance buyouts anyways, it's not like our cap or salary structure is changing radically.

For some of the newer GMs, whether they traded for or inherited bad contracts, it could be useful. Teams that don't use them maybe get compensatory 8th round draft picks?

Post by **SharksGM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:16 pm

If they inherited bad contracts, they're cheap to buy out. If they traded for them willingly, why should they get a pass?

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:22 pm

SharksGM wrote:If they inherited bad contracts, they're cheap to buy out. If they traded for them willingly, why should they get a pass?

I dunno, maybe a veteran GM hussled them early on in their tenure. Maybe they traded for one before they had fully immersed themselves in the depth of EHEC. I don't care if it happens or not, but I don't think it's a terrible idea with all the new blood. It would open up some lower end teams to make some moves.

Calgary.Flames · Post by **Calgary.Flames** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:43 pm

Being able to get rid of Bieksa and Johnsson is worth a lot.
To make up for the fact that I wouldn't be using this buyout thing, I'd want something way better than a 8th round draft pick.

Calgary.Flames · Post by **Calgary.Flames** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:48 pm

SharksGM wrote:Second, it doesn't actually explicitly say in the rulebook that teams can't sign their own FAs with 110+ greed. This should be clarified as I know a few people have been confused by it.

Can we get an answer to this, please.

TorontoGM · Post by **TorontoGM** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:46 pm

I suggested that the rewards for the draft reviews/activity check would be a choice between player upgrades, amnesty buy out, or clearing a contract off the buy out list. I don't think a standalone buy out clause was ever mentioned or suggested.

Sure, clearly Wisniewski's contract off my books would be nice but I could care less if I can't. I aint in no financial purgatory. I just thought it was a decent idea. I've seen a lot of things implemented with less justification and hell the NHL got two "compliance" buy outs and those owners still keep throwing around retarded contracts.

Edmonton Mike · Post by **Edmonton Mike** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:17 pm

TorontoGM wrote:I suggested that the rewards for the draft reviews/activity check would be a choice between player upgrades, amnesty buy out, or clearing a contract off the buy out list. I don't think a standalone buy out clause was ever mentioned or suggested.

Def an idea I can get behind, even if I don't think I'd need it right now. The amnesty buy out could be a reward you can keep in your back pocket and use when need be. Like the NHL did; you get an amnesty buy out (if you choose so) that you can use once in the next 2 years. The team would then be prohibited from sending an offer to the player who was bought out for 1 year.

Doesn't have to be an every year thing. I think it makes for a better off-season to create a little buzz. Adding something new and making GM's work a little bit and participating in one way or another to get that privilege, I don't see how it's a bad thing.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:57 pm

Calgary.Flames wrote:Being able to get rid of Bieksa and Johnsson is worth a lot.
To make up for the fact that I wouldn't be using this buyout thing, I'd want something way better than a 8th round draft pick.

I traded Armia for Morrow to get rid of Bieksa, I would need an extra 1st!

TorontoGM · Post by **TorontoGM** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:45 pm

Penguin wrote:
Calgary.Flames wrote:Being able to get rid of Bieksa and Johnsson is worth a lot.
To make up for the fact that I wouldn't be using this buyout thing, I'd want something way better than a 8th round draft pick.

I traded Armia for Morrow to get rid of Bieksa, I would need an extra 1st!

You traded for Bieksa in the first place.

And if you still had Bieksa, you would be completely and utterly in favour of this.

Post by **SharksGM** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:09 pm

I still don't see what the motivation is for amnesty buyouts. They only happened in the NHL because the cap dropped.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:17 am

I wouldn't, Mikey. I'm a fair dude that's why karma brought me 2 cups.

Calgary.Flames · Post by **Calgary.Flames** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:24 am

If by "karma" you mean "Iginla"... then yeah, it brought you two cups.

Dallas Stars GM · Post by **Dallas Stars GM** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:52 am

If they inherited bad contracts, they're cheap to buy out. If they traded for them willingly, why should they get a pass?

Bieksa was here (and with his god-damn contract) since I got here/took over the Dallas Stars.

But on the other hand, if I had Morrow again and somebody would offer me Armia + Bieksa, I would probably accept it

BUT, not again, since I can't pay two "Bieksas"

if you know what I mean.

So, amnesty buy out option would be cool but I will understand if they will not be allowed.

Post by **SharksGM** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:22 pm

Dallas Stars GM wrote:
If they inherited bad contracts, they're cheap to buy out. If they traded for them willingly, why should they get a pass?
Bieksa was here (and with his god-damn contract) since I got here/took over the Dallas Stars.

Yes... so you can already buy him out at 20% of his cap hit. An amnesty buyout would only save you 1.1M for the next 3 seasons.

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:39 pm

Tampa Bay GM wrote:So the current formula in the rulebook is for 26 year olds and under RFA's, and there is two new brackets to be released soon? (27-31 and 32+)

Correct.

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:59 pm

Three things... first, are there any criteria for what qualifies as a pending UFA to add to the limit? On the pro roster at the end of the season or something? If there's no minimum NHL GP, then what's to stop people from including their own random garbage AHLers to max out their retainable FAs?

We've based it on some sort of criteria in previous years and haven't had a problem with it. I'll have to check with Adam.

Second, it doesn't actually explicitly say in the rulebook that teams can't sign their own FAs with 110+ greed. This should be clarified as I know a few people have been confused by it.

It doesn't say anything. There is precedent that teams have re-signed their pending 110+ greed FAs through arbitration in prior years.

Third, while higher AAV is better for younger players who aren't expected to decline, what about age 35+ UFAs? I would think they realistically prefer higher total contracts, especially if they're about to start vopatizing.

There's going to be a frenzy of bids and for simplicity, we think AAV is the best way to do it. We don't want to keep checking winning bids dependent on age and AAV versus total salary.

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:09 pm

Dallas Stars GM wrote:How many players that are going to become UFA (from my team), can I re-sign?

Pending UFAs/# retainable
1/1
2/2
3/2
4/2
5+/3

How can I get the numbers for my UFA and RFA players, of approx. how would their new contracts look like? (salary, length) - (I saw the calculator app. but it somehow didn't worked for me)

You can sign UFAs and RFAs for a maximum length of seven years.

The roster page from the webpage is now a different format than what the cap calculator reads. However, it now incorporates age, which we will now be able to plug in to find the player's contract bracket.

You can still copy and paste a player's contract details into the calculator from this page: http://www.ehechockey.com/gmcp/rosterde ... ?teamid=10

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:19 pm

As for an amnesty buyout, we haven't had much of a chance to discuss it yet. $5 million in cap space is very valuable and a lot of teams don't have a contract they want to get rid of, so we would need to come up with a draft review reward that is equivalent.

Dallas Stars GM · Post by **Dallas Stars GM** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:55 am

How many players that are going to become UFA (from my team), can I re-sign?

Pending UFAs/# retainable
1/1
2/2
3/2
4/2
5+/3

What is this?

How many players (that are becoming UFA this summer-excluding TOs) can re-sign from my team????

4, 5 ??? Give me the exact number, please. Thank you.

VancouverCanucksGM · Post by **VancouverCanucksGM** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:22 am

CapsGM wrote: Pending UFAs/# retainable
1/1
2/2
3/2
4/2
5+/3

If you have ONE, you can keep ONE.
If you have TWO, you can keep TWO.
If you have THREE, you can keep TWO.
If you have FOUR, you can keep TWO.
If you have FIVE or MORE, you can keep THREE.

Not to say you can't place bids on the one's you don't sign, you'll just be in competition with the other teams in the league.

I think I got it right.

Dallas Stars GM · Post by **Dallas Stars GM** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:30 am

This is FAR MORE easier to understand. Thank you for clarifying it to me

Singin the BLUES · Post by **Singin the BLUES** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:03 am

Well this kinda sucks.....i have like 16 UFAs just on my NHL roster that is posted in the Gm office.....

Edit.....some are RFAs

Commish Bub(NYR) · Post by **Commish Bub(NYR)** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:22 am

Singin the BLUES wrote:Well this kinda sucks.....i have like 16 UFAs just on my NHL roster that is posted in the Gm office.....

Edit.....some are RFAs

And some of them have options; plus, like VAN said, once they go UFA you can still make bids for them. You'll just be competing with the rest of the league for them.

Dallas Stars GM · Post by **Dallas Stars GM** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:34 am

Another question . . . When will be the trades done? There are some new faces on its way to come to Dallas (Saad, Ahnelov, Enroth and others) and I would like to see if some of them have TO.

BTW There is showing that player has an option (f.e. Armia, Vatanen) when checking it out via GM Office even though when I check him out via playerscout there's no TO or even PO showing up . . . so how is it then?

Singin the BLUES · Post by **Singin the BLUES** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:41 am

I would say look in ur EHM file first off then go from there. GM office may have a cpl of wrong things, not sure

Commish Bub(NYR) · Post by **Commish Bub(NYR)** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:04 am

I'll try to update all the trades before we get to the draft (in the file, that is), so you can take a look at your team as we move towards the free agency period.

Dallas Stars GM · Post by **Dallas Stars GM** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:19 am

Ok, thank you guys

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:46 pm

Dallas Stars GM wrote:Another question . . . When will be the trades done? There are some new faces on its way to come to Dallas (Saad, Ahnelov, Enroth and others) and I would like to see if some of them have TO.

BTW There is showing that player has an option (f.e. Armia, Vatanen) when checking it out via GM Office even though when I check him out via playerscout there's no TO or even PO showing up . . . so how is it then?

Armia and Vatanen are coming off their ELCs and did not have options on their contracts regardless.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:43 am

I'm back, everybody. Hope you missed me. I'll digest everything that went on while I was gone and have answers to any questions that need them sometime on Saturday.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:21 pm

To address some of the things in this thread:

1. The 1/1, 2/2, 3/2, etc. format will apply to the minor leagues as well. It will increase the amount of work that we have to do in free agency because teams will be signing players to fill out their AHL roster, but that's how the real life minor league system works anyway. Add in prospects that turn 20 and sign some depth guys to fill it out. It's the best way to do it and it prevents teams, for the most part, from stashing guys in the AHL. Don't forget that waiver rules are also changing, so that's a consideration when trying to circumvent cap/free agent rules.

2. Amnesty buyouts will not be offered as a courtesy for the rule changes. Like Dan said, the cap went up, so you can either eat the buyout cost or simply deal with having that player. That being said, we are discussing extending the length of the buyout, just like the NHL. The NHL splits buyouts over twice the length of the contract. So, in the case of Bieksa, for example, the EHEC buyout is 4.125M (75% of 5.5M) per year for 4 years. In the NHL, given a 5.5M salary, Bieksa's would be 1.8425M (67% of 5.5M (3.685M) divided by 2 for the additional length) for 8 years. There are more wrinkles to the NHL cap hits, but if we extended the buyout period, we would keep it as simple as possible. So, if we were to adopt the 2x years policy, Bieksa's would go from 4.125 over 4 to 2.0625 over 8.

3. I understand that this policy is going to upset some people, but keep in mind that, as Tim and Jason (VAN) both said, you can bid on your players on the open market. That's not a bad thing. It will increase activity throughout the season and teams won't be able to get into the same comfort zones that they have. We've done what we can to make the finances appear more realistic, but we can't replicate negotiations, player unhappiness, family situations, etc. The reality is that most NHL teams have a hard time retaining a large percentage of their UFA players.

4. Regarding 35+, I think it's a case-by-case basis of earning money up front or getting financial security in the twilight of a contract. The salary rollback that we've proposed for unsigned FAs could help these guys get some 2/1.6 or 3/2.4 type deals in free agency as opposed to the 1/1.5 type deals they might have gotten. I know we've talked about a lot of things and it's hard to keep them all straight and organized, but please bear with us as we try to improve the EHEC experience for everybody.

With the draft finally winding down, we hope to have all the particulars hammered out over the course of the next week. My intention will be to start free agency a week from Monday (July 28) so that we can get everything organized now that I'm back from vacation and can resume talks with Pat and Tim on other league changes. Our goal is to have long-term solutions to some of the problems in the league so that the next offseasons go more smoothly, so this one is a little bumpy, but it should be a positive in the long run.

Calgary.Flames · Post by **Calgary.Flames** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:04 pm

Calgary.Flames wrote:
SharksGM wrote:Second, it doesn't actually explicitly say in the rulebook that teams can't sign their own FAs with 110+ greed. This should be clarified as I know a few people have been confused by it.

Can we get an answer to this, please.

PLEASE.

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:37 pm

Its been that way for awhile. Search the forums, its there.

CapsGM · Post by **CapsGM** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:35 am

Calgary.Flames wrote:
Calgary.Flames wrote:
SharksGM wrote:Second, it doesn't actually explicitly say in the rulebook that teams can't sign their own FAs with 110+ greed. This should be clarified as I know a few people have been confused by it.

Can we get an answer to this, please.

PLEASE.

http://ehechockey.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 069#p39069

Jets GM · Post by **Jets GM** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:39 am

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=949&p=6568&hilit=110+greed#p6568

?

Calgary.Flames · Post by **Calgary.Flames** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:58 am

Still confused.

Will Colorado be able to offer Zdeno Chara a contract before he's a UFA or not?

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:29 pm

That post was from before the new financial policy. Player greed has nothing to do with rights arbitration anymore. That had to do with players that refused to accept offers in EHM, so we couldn't even offer them a contract. It's irrelevant now.

GM Office Q · Post by **GM Office Q** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:57 pm

Yes, Zdeno Chara will be an Av next season.

Calgary.Flames · Post by **Calgary.Flames** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:35 pm

Are you guys aware that some players were traded because teams thought they couldn't even make them an offer?
I'm talking about players over 32 and with 110+ greed.

We never heard about this not being an issue no more. We were still under the impression that those guys were to test market, cause that's what was happening in-game.

Sorry Quinn, but I want either Adam, Pat or Tim to write it, black on white, "Yes, Colorado can offer Zdeno Chara a contract, like any other player on his team, regardless of the age/greed factor."

I don't know if it's just me, but it's kind of a big deal.

Post by **SharksGM** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:38 pm

I'm obviously not the only one who thought that this rule still applied.

Virtual Jarmo · Post by **Virtual Jarmo** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 5:10 pm

I'm looking for a definitive post.

I found this, where Ryan Smyth was listed as testing the market and that's exactly what was going to happen if he didn't accept a PO from a previous arbitration case: http://ehechockey.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 021#p30021

My best guess is that we instituted the rights trading policy so that teams could get something out of players that wanted to test the market because we were forcing them to become free agents.

However, this arbitration case with Todd Fedoruk, who wanted to test the market, was completed with his current team: http://ehechockey.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 587#p21587

Then this was this post in Boston's contract thread re: Darcy Tucker: http://ehechockey.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 010#p13010

As far as a concrete answer goes, I cannot find one by searching the forums or the Rulebook, and I believe the Fedoruk exception is the only one as far as letting a team keep a player that wanted to test the market. Like I said, I think that was the reason that we instituted the trading of rights. From what I can tell, GMs have gone ahead and traded a player's rights that wanted to test the market assuming that was the rule. The date and the wording of the thread linked in here are from prior to our current financial policy, as evidenced by the parts about allowing us to offer the contract in EHM, which we do not do for 28 & older players (and will not do for a player of any age in the future).

This will be your concrete answer: Teams cannot re-sign a player that wants to test the market.

Calgary.Flames · Post by **Calgary.Flames** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 5:15 pm

THANK YOU.