NHL should change rules for offer sheet compensation

  • We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.

    What This Means for You:

    • If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
    • If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
    • Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.

    Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.

    In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,832
14,687
Toronto, ON
Offer sheets are great and they should happen more often.

Here is how it currently works.

For compensation purposes, the AAV is capped at a five-year maximum. Example: A 7 year, $35 million deal would have a $5 million cap hit, but for compensation, the AAV would be calculated as $7 million ($35M/5), requiring a first-, second-, and third-round pick

Draft picks have to be the picks of the offering team (cannot be traded for) and have to be for the next season(s) as required by the compensation table (cannot be deferred to future years).

$1 - $1,511,701
No Compensation

$1,5111,701 - $2,290,457
1 x 3rd-round pick

$2,290,457 - $4,580,917
1 x 2nd-round pick

$4,580,917 - $6,871,374
1 x 1st-round pick, 1 x 3rd-round pick

$6,871,374 - $9,161,834
1 x 1st-round pick, 1 x 2nd-round pick, 1 x 3rd-round pick

$9,161,834 - $11,452,294
2 x 1st-round picks, 1 x 2nd-round pick, 1 x 3rd-round pick

$11,452,294 or more
4 x 1st-round picks

-----

NHL should change the rules to the following.

1. Get rid of the 5 year calculation. If it's a 7x7 deal then the compensation should land in the $7m range

2. Keep the requirement that the picks have to be in the allotted years (no deferment) but make it so that it can be a pick from any team so these can be acquired via trade


Maybe the compensation and $$$ thresholds would need to be adjusted to better reflect the new values but this would make things way more interesting.

I don't expect any comments on this except those of 100% agreeance.
 
I agree that the five year calculation poison pill should be scrapped, but I think the picks need to be sufficient and no deferment. Has to be the upcoming draft. And yes, that can be other team's picks.

Under $1.5m - 4th Rounder
$1.5m - $2.5m - 3rd Rounder
$2.5m - $4.5m - 2nd Rounder
$4.5m - $6.5m - 1st Rounder
$6.5m - $8.5m - 1st and 2nd
$8.5m - $10.5m - 1st, 1st and 2nd
$10.5m - $12.5m - 1st, 1st, 1st
$12.5m+ - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

I also like the idea that you can only go up to 7 years. Maybe there should even be a cap on high of an AAV can be offered. Like you can't make a player more than the fifth highest paid player in the league?
 
Don't mind #1. Not that big of a deal IMO.

Strongly disagree on #2. There is a MONUMENTAL difference in value between a high lottery pick and a pick in the 22-32 range. Being able to "replace" the organization's specific pick with another team's pick could reduce the value by over half. It would be a significant "enabler" of offersheets from bad teams, which might not be a bad thing overall, but it can REALLY change the calculus of analyzing these potential deals.
 
The draft pick thing is tough because, based on which team's pick a team has - it could be a major factor in deciding whether or not to match.

I'll use the Penguins as an example. Let's say they traded EK to a team and get a 2026 1st back. Say a top team like Dallas or Florida (PURELY FOR DISCUSSION SAKE).

If the Penguins want to offer sheet someone above the $4.5mil range, they have to give up their 1st. Now, if you're a team looking at matching it, there's a MAJOR difference between the value of the Penguins 2026 1st vs Dallas/Florida's 2026 1st. A value that could easily sway a GM into matching or declining to match.

I will agree with getting rid of the 5yr calculation. Base it on AAV.
 
Why do you like the 5 year calculation?

Greatly increaes the value of return for the team at risk of losing a player, which makes it a tougher decision to make on whether to keep said player or walk away.


Take for example Mason McTavish as the argument here.


Say Washington OS'd him 7x$8.25M. Under your suggestion, that compensation is only 1x1st and 1x2nd. That's an easy match for Anaheim.

Under the current rules, that compensation is 4x1st round picks... It becomes an infinitely tougher decision to make because the value of 4 1sts versus 1 1st and 1 2nd is just completely different.
 
Offer sheets are great and they should happen more often.

Here is how it currently works.

For compensation purposes, the AAV is capped at a five-year maximum. Example: A 7 year, $35 million deal would have a $5 million cap hit, but for compensation, the AAV would be calculated as $7 million ($35M/5), requiring a first-, second-, and third-round pick

Draft picks have to be the picks of the offering team (cannot be traded for) and have to be for the next season(s) as required by the compensation table (cannot be deferred to future years).

$1 - $1,511,701
No Compensation

$1,5111,701 - $2,290,457
1 x 3rd-round pick

$2,290,457 - $4,580,917
1 x 2nd-round pick

$4,580,917 - $6,871,374
1 x 1st-round pick, 1 x 3rd-round pick

$6,871,374 - $9,161,834
1 x 1st-round pick, 1 x 2nd-round pick, 1 x 3rd-round pick

$9,161,834 - $11,452,294
2 x 1st-round picks, 1 x 2nd-round pick, 1 x 3rd-round pick

$11,452,294 or more
4 x 1st-round picks

-----

NHL should change the rules to the following.

1. Get rid of the 5 year calculation. If it's a 7x7 deal then the compensation should land in the $7m range

2. Keep the requirement that the picks have to be in the allotted years (no deferment) but make it so that it can be a pick from any team so these can be acquired via trade


Maybe the compensation and $$$ thresholds would need to be adjusted to better reflect the new values but this would make things way more interesting.

I don't expect any comments on this except those of 100% agreeance.
Is the point of offer sheets to make things more interesting though? Or to create a more equitable situation for the players and teams involved
 
Greatly increaes the value of return for the team at risk of losing a player, which makes it a tougher decision to make on whether to keep said player or walk away.


Take for example Mason McTavish as the argument here.


Say Washington OS'd him 7x$8.25M. Under your suggestion, that compensation is only 1x1st and 1x2nd. That's an easy match for Anaheim.

Under the current rules, that compensation is 4x1st round picks... It becomes an infinitely tougher decision to make because the value of 4 1sts versus 1 1st and 1 2nd is just completely different.
I did mention that the compensation values should be tweaked if my changes were to take effect.
 
The draft pick thing is tough because, based on which team's pick a team has - it could be a major factor in deciding whether or not to match.

I'll use the Penguins as an example. Let's say they traded EK to a team and get a 2026 1st back. Say a top team like Dallas or Florida (PURELY FOR DISCUSSION SAKE).

If the Penguins want to offer sheet someone above the $4.5mil range, they have to give up their 1st. Now, if you're a team looking at matching it, there's a MAJOR difference between the value of the Penguins 2026 1st vs Dallas/Florida's 2026 1st. A value that could easily sway a GM into matching or declining to match.

I will agree with getting rid of the 5yr calculation. Base it on AAV.
Yes... exactly. Makes it much more interesting and would lead to a lot more activity.
 
Don't mind #1. Not that big of a deal IMO.

Strongly disagree on #2. There is a MONUMENTAL difference in value between a high lottery pick and a pick in the 22-32 range. Being able to "replace" the organization's specific pick with another team's pick could reduce the value by over half. It would be a significant "enabler" of offersheets from bad teams, which might not be a bad thing overall, but it can REALLY change the calculus of analyzing these potential deals.

The rule could be the highest pick owned in the allotted round, so a bad team can't acquire a worse pick and keep their lottery pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShootIt
Don't mind #1. Not that big of a deal IMO.

Strongly disagree on #2. There is a MONUMENTAL difference in value between a high lottery pick and a pick in the 22-32 range. Being able to "replace" the organization's specific pick with another team's pick could reduce the value by over half. It would be a significant "enabler" of offersheets from bad teams, which might not be a bad thing overall, but it can REALLY change the calculus of analyzing these potential deals.

Completely agree with you on #1.

There is an easy way to keep teams from replacing picks as you put it. Caveat it with a "default and lock in" clause for the compensation picks when an offer sheet is signed. That is, if a team has its own pick then that's the default. If a team does not have its own pick, then a replacement can be used provided the team has the round in possession at the time of the OS. Clear as mud?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beukeboom Fan
Don't mind #1. Not that big of a deal IMO.

Strongly disagree on #2. There is a MONUMENTAL difference in value between a high lottery pick and a pick in the 22-32 range. Being able to "replace" the organization's specific pick with another team's pick could reduce the value by over half. It would be a significant "enabler" of offersheets from bad teams, which might not be a bad thing overall, but it can REALLY change the calculus of analyzing these potential deals.
I think it would be great. Lock up your young players or they could get offersheeted and you might lose them for a package of picks that isn't all that great. Forces teams to be more proactive.

But also, I did state that if these changes were implemented then the compensation packages should be re-tooled to match the potential new values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kvladimir
Don't mind #1. Not that big of a deal IMO.

Strongly disagree on #2. There is a MONUMENTAL difference in value between a high lottery pick and a pick in the 22-32 range. Being able to "replace" the organization's specific pick with another team's pick could reduce the value by over half. It would be a significant "enabler" of offersheets from bad teams, which might not be a bad thing overall, but it can REALLY change the calculus of analyzing these potential deals.

Sure, but the team doesn't have to accept the offer sheet either.

It would just simply be another part of the evaluation process.


I mean in the same way, an offer sheet this summer from Chicago is going to be taken a hell of a lot different versus an offer sheet from say Dallas(No idea if they even have a 1st).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beukeboom Fan
Completely agree with you on #2. Easy way to keep teams from replacing picks as you put it would be to "default and lock in" those picks when an offer sheet is signed. That is, if a team has its own pick then that's the default. If a team does not have its own pick, then a replacement can be used provided the team has the round in possession at the time of the OS. Clear as mud?
Ya - I think this is fair. Team's own pick is defaulted or maybe something like it's the highest of the picks that a team has if they have multiple. Adding another level of gamesmanship into it.
 
Sure, but the team doesn't have to accept the offer sheet either.

It would just simply be another part of the evaluation process.


I mean in the same way, an offer sheet this summer from Chicago is going to be taken a hell of a lot different versus an offer sheet from say Dallas(No idea if they even have a 1st).
Teams don't have a choice to 'accept' the offer sheet though. I mean, they do but it's either sign the player to the deal that they accepted from the offering team or take the package of picks. That's it.
 
I would modify "other team's pick" requirement so that would only be allowed if the pick is higher than the team's original pick. This would prevent some shenanigans.

I think the poison pill on term is there as a means of discouraging front loaded deals where the out years are really there to just bring down the AAV to lower the compensation.
 
2. Keep the requirement that the picks have to be in the allotted years (no deferment) but make it so that it can be a pick from any team so these can be acquired via trade
Oh HELL NO. This would immediately be gamed by those teams who went deep in the playoffs. Trade their very late round firsts for something/someone reasonably valuable to a team that wants to offer sheet somebody else (while keeping their own high pick). Late first round picks historically are about 50/50 on if the player will ever play more than a handful of NHL games, most deep playoff teams would be happy to trade it for a reasonably decent prospect that fits their competitive window.

The team that is going to offer sheet someone makes enough of those deals to cover the offer sheet, tactically target a team who is tight against the cap & probably won't be able to counter offer, & pick up a star player for a couple of fourth liners/players who top out in the AHL? The team's GM who did that better be careful on the way through the parking lot as the team that got hosed GM may hire Rocco to go break his kneecaps...
 
I would modify "other team's pick" requirement so that would only be allowed if the pick is higher than the team's original pick. This would prevent some shenanigans.

I think the poison pill on term is there as a means of discouraging front loaded deals where the out years are really there to just bring down the AAV to lower the compensation.
But what's the game plan with front loading? It's not like you're going to release the player after you've paid them the bulk of the actual money. The dollar amount and the years still line up. Maybe just make it so that offer sheet contracts have to be structured so it's even money every year or something. Isn't there already a rule in place where you have to keep the year to year change in salary within a certain range?
 
Oh HELL NO. This would immediately be gamed by those teams who went deep in the playoffs. Trade their very late round firsts for something/someone reasonably valuable to a team that wants to offer sheet somebody else (while keeping their own high pick). Late first round picks historically are about 50/50 on if the player will ever play more than a handful of NHL games, most deep playoff teams would be happy to trade it for a reasonably decent prospect that fits their competitive window.

The team that is going to offer sheet someone makes enough of those deals to cover the offer sheet, tactically target a team who is tight against the cap & probably won't be able to counter offer, & pick up a star player for a couple of fourth liners/players who top out in the AHL? The team's GM who did that better be careful on the way through the parking lot as the team that got hosed GM may hire Rocco to go break his kneecaps...
Nah, definitely fine with this kind of 'gaming' of the system. Let's get spicy on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JKG33
Don't mind #1. Not that big of a deal IMO.

Strongly disagree on #2. There is a MONUMENTAL difference in value between a high lottery pick and a pick in the 22-32 range. Being able to "replace" the organization's specific pick with another team's pick could reduce the value by over half. It would be a significant "enabler" of offersheets from bad teams, which might not be a bad thing overall, but it can REALLY change the calculus of analyzing these potential deals.
Exactly. Not sure that the "own pick" requirement is much of an obstacle anyway. The Blues were missing their 2nd and simply reacquired it prior to the Broberg/Holloway OS's.
 
Nah, definitely fine with this kind of 'gaming' of the system. Let's get spicy on this.
Sure, I'm convinced. However you'll still need to convince all the owners of the teams that chaos with their valuable investments is the way to move forward, that if the GM they hired pulled this that they'd be pariahs throughout the league, they'd never get any benefit of the doubt/goodwill in any trade moving forward (no matter how many future considerations they've stockpiled...), & their GM is suing them for worker's comp as somehow he fell down multiple times out in the parking lot shattering his kneecaps. Other than that though, brilliant plan...
 

Ad

Ad