NHL should change rules for offer sheet compensation

[GIN ANTONIC]

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...

None of these things bother me in the least.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

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.

2nds and lower picks are one thing but getting 1st rounders via trade is a lot tougher.

 

[LPHabsFan]

Number 1 actually helps teams get more value from the offer sheet than they otherwise would because it artificially makes the aav higher for the purposes of compensation. Yes it's a bit of a poison pill but this shouldn't be something that happens on a consistent basis.

For Number 2, you could put a couple of modifiers. For example, the "not your own pick" can only be for picks in rounds 2 (or 3) and up.

Along with that, for the scenarios whereby teams would be acquiring the picks to give them the lower ones, you could make it so that if there are multiple, the team who's player was offer sheeted and are therefore getting the picks could choose which ones they want.

Ultimately though a team wouldn't be able to go out and acquire a pick after the offer sheet was made and signed to get "lower value" picks because it would be based on the picks they have at the time of the offer sheet.

 

[Rec T]

None of these things bother me in the least.

Which is why you aren't wearing a suit sitting in some team's front office somewhere & instead are coming up with summertime threads during a playoff race...

(but it did make for an entertaining lunchtime browsing so kudos)

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Number 1 actually helps teams get more value from the offer sheet than they otherwise would because it artificially makes the aav higher for the purposes of compensation. Yes it's a bit of a poison pill but this shouldn't be something that happens on a consistent basis.

For Number 2, you could put a couple of modifiers. For example, the "not your own pick" can only be for picks in rounds 2 (or 3) and up.

Along with that, for the scenarios whereby teams would be acquiring the picks to give them the lower ones, you could make it so that if there are multiple, the team who's player was offer sheeted and are therefore getting the picks could choose which ones they want.

Ultimately though a team wouldn't be able to go out and acquire a pick after the offer sheet was made and signed to get "lower value" picks because it would be based on the picks they have at the time of the offer sheet.

I would say, re-tool the comp values rather than artificially inflate them with this 5 year calculator. I think there's a lot more nuance that could be brought into the process.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Which is why you aren't wearing a suit sitting in some team's front office somewhere & instead are coming up with summertime threads during a playoff race...

(but it did make for an entertaining lunchtime browsing so kudos)

You don't know who I am or what I do.

 

[ManofSteel55]

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.

This. Or I would even be fine with it having to be your own teams pick for the first round, but any pick in later rounds, where the value of the picks isn't so drastic.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Offer sheets are intended as a failsafe to make sure RFAs get paid a decent salary. They're not intended for player movement. We have trades for that.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Offer sheets are intended as a failsafe to make sure RFAs get paid a decent salary. They're not intended for player movement. We have trades for that.

But the rules in place make it generally difficult and prohibitive for teams to actually make offers to players... so the result is that players don't really have this as a serious tool to influence their salary negotiations with their current team.

 

[qcal1427]

Maybe these changes would make teams more likely to offer sheet but they immediately make the decision to match 10x easier for a team that gets offer-sheeted.

Offer sheets are intended as a failsafe to make sure RFAs get paid a decent salary. They're not intended for player movement. We have trades for that.

Yep. The OS system is yet another NHL mechanism that is almost 100% fine but fans think that because it's something the NHL came up with it must be bad.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

It’s not fine at all. It stinks

 

[Sanderson]

Yes, we should just have drafted players be required to sign 20 year deals for league minimum upon entering the league so there is never any roster change except for trades, retirements, and if someone gets hit by a bus. C'mon and live a little.

Nice strawman. No one said anything remotely close to that.


Quite frankly, I find any suggested change that purely exists to create player-movement for the sake of "excitement" to be a complete waste of time. I'm a hockey fan, I watch hockey because I like hockey, not because I like people getting traded all over the continent. I couldn't care less whether there is a lot going on at the deadline, nor do I gain anything out of free agency. The hockey that is being played doesn't get any better or worse by the amount of trades or free agent signings.

Any change to the RFA-system should only come to fix issues, not to create faux exciment by increasing the number of players moving for the sake of increasing the number of players moving. These suggested changes don't fix anything.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Nice strawman. No one said anything remotely close to that.


Quite frankly, I find any suggested change that purely exists to create player-movement for the sake of "excitement" to be a complete waste of time. I'm a hockey fan, I watch hockey because I like hockey, not because I like people getting traded all over the continent. I couldn't care less whether there is a lot going on at the deadline, nor do I gain anything out of free agency. The hockey that is being played doesn't get any better or worse by the amount of trades or free agent signings.

Any change to the RFA-system should only come to fix issues, not to create faux exciment by increasing the number of players moving for the sake of increasing the number of players moving. These suggested changes don't fix anything.

It fixes RFA’s being able to seek compensation closer to their true on ice value based on league wide interest.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It fixes RFA’s being able to seek compensation closer to their true on ice value based on league wide interest.

You’re trying to fix an issue that doesn’t exist.

 

[Romang67]

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.

That's not a fix. Trade-downs exist. There is literally no reason for a team to not trade down, pick up extra value, and hand over the worse pick. Hell, a team could trade down for no extra value than "future considerations" just to screw over the team they offer-sheeted.

 

[archangel2]

All should become ufas at 23

 

[GirardSpinorama]

This. Or I would even be fine with it having to be your own teams pick for the first round, but any pick in later rounds, where the value of the picks isn't so drastic.

Agreed. Kind dumb to have to trade back for your own later round picks to make an offersheet.

 

[kvladimir]

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.

Yes, absolutely agree with this, and I would even up the ante as follows:

Allow the player to trigger immediate transfer of their rights to the team that signs them rather than waiting the week for the original team to match, and if this is used and the signing team agrees to it, it increases the value of the return. Something like an additional pick based on the $ value of the contract. This would only be allowed for offer sheets of 3 year length or more, to prevent poaching players through 1 or 2 year overpayments like with Kotkaniemi.

This way, you would have a much easier time resolving issues of disgruntled young players having no options for moving to a new team and away from a toxic situation other than holding out and demanding a trade. For teams, it would make it much, much more important to maintain a good relationship with young players and prioritize getting them signed before they become a FREE AGENT (with compensation).

 

[kvladimir]

I also agree with easing the draft pick requirements to just any pick any round that the offer sheeting team owns, with it being up to this team which picks to include as compensation if they own more than one from a round that needs to be offered. There would be strategy to this, since all it affects is how likely the compensation package would incentivize the rights-holding team to match, and would help deal with the ambiguity in value of [x] round draft pick (especially 1sts)

(i.e. lots of rebuilding teams expecting to draft high could offer later 1sts they acquire from other trades as "1st round pick" compensation instead of their own, but the team deciding whether or not to match would know which picks they are getting, and could match if they don't think it's enough)

 

[Golden_Jet]

That's not a fix. Trade-downs exist. There is literally no reason for a team to not trade down, pick up extra value, and hand over the worse pick. Hell, a team could trade down for no extra value than "future considerations" just to screw over the team they offer-sheeted.

I think poster meant “higher”, as in it is confusing when posters aren’t clear)
Does higher mean a higher pick by number overall, or higher meaning better?

If team making the offer sheet, in the second round, traded away the 54th overall

Then a team could offer say the 37th pick overall, instead.
Both picks in second round.

 

[StreetHawk]

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.

But it’s hard to determine that as free agency is after the current draft. So talking future draft picks where you do not know where the position is.
Like if you do not have your 2nd rounder you have no clue whether the one you have from another team will be earlier or later than yours at the time you make the OS.

What would a penalty be if your pick should be say #44 and the one you acquired is 48? Should you then owe another draft pick? If it’s #41, then that should be fine.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

But it’s hard to determine that as free agency is after the current draft. So talking future draft picks where you do not know where the position is.
Like if you do not have your 2nd rounder you have no clue whether the one you have from another team will be earlier or later than yours at the time you make the OS.

What would a penalty be if your pick should be say #44 and the one you acquired is 48? Should you then owe another draft pick? If it’s #41, then that should be fine.

That wasn't something I was trying to fix. All I was trying to say is if a bad team signs someone to an offer sheet and owes the other team a 1st round pick in compensation, they shouldn't be allowed to acquire a lower 1st round pick at the TDL and use it to satisfy their obligation. I agree with you that there needs to be more rules about having the necessary picks, and what to do if a team trades down in a round, and all sorts of other things.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

That's not a fix. Trade-downs exist. There is literally no reason for a team to not trade down, pick up extra value, and hand over the worse pick. Hell, a team could trade down for no extra value than "future considerations" just to screw over the team they offer-sheeted.

I think poster meant “higher”, as in it is confusing when posters aren’t clear)
Does higher mean a higher pick by number overall, or higher meaning better?

If team making the offer sheet, in the second round, traded away the 54th overall

Then a team could offer say the 37th pick overall, instead.
Both picks in second round.

What I meant was if you have 2 (or more) picks in the round that year, it's the highest pick you own in that round that goes. That stops bad teams from offer sheeting someone and then acquiring a late 1st at the TDL to satisfy their obligation while keeping their lottery pick. Or giving up 54th for the offer sheet and keeping 37th for themselves. Trading down is a different issue entirely, and probably needs a different fix.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

What I meant was if you have 2 (or more) picks in the round that year, it's the highest pick you own in that round that goes. That stops bad teams from offer sheeting someone and then acquiring a late 1st at the TDL to satisfy their obligation while keeping their lottery pick. Or giving up 54th for the offer sheet and keeping 37th for themselves. Trading down is a different issue entirely, and probably needs a different fix.

Wait... I think the point that was missed until @StreetHawk brought it up is that the draft happens before free agency opens up and the ability to sign an RFA. So you are always giving away NEXT years draft pick and of course we don't know what that pick will end up being until the draft lottery for the next year. It could be 1OA or it could be 32OA. So technically all picks are on an 'even' playing field. Based on this, it should just be a 1st rounder = 1st rounder. Doesn't matter who's it is as long as you have the right amount of picks needed to satisfy the compensation.

1. If a team has multiple picks that would qualify then it should default to that

2. If a team doesn't have their own pick and have 1 pick of another team that meets the requirement then they give that one over

3. If a team doesn't have their own pick but has multiple picks of other teams that meet the requirement then I would say the team giving up the player gets to choose

I'm glad this is solved now and we can all move forward with this new rule change.

 

[Golden_Jet]

What I meant was if you have 2 (or more) picks in the round that year, it's the highest pick you own in that round that goes. That stops bad teams from offer sheeting someone and then acquiring a late 1st at the TDL to satisfy their obligation while keeping their lottery pick. Or giving up 54th for the offer sheet and keeping 37th for themselves. Trading down is a different issue entirely, and probably needs a different fix.

You quoted me saying “higher” could be interpreted 2 different ways,

But then used the “highest pick you own in that round”, in a response, so not sure which one you mean.

Higher being (1) 52 OA instead of 42 OA
Or higher being (2) 35 OA instead of 42 OA (as in a better pick)

As my initial response assumed OP meant (2), but it wasn’t clear.