Welcome! Please introduce yourself
Loomio Helper Bot
Public
Seen by 427
Take a moment to let the group know a bit about who you are. Post a comment below.
What’s your role or approach to participation in this group? What should people know about you to understand where you’re coming from?
Poll Created Thu 21 Dec 2017 2:39AM
Test - Who's better, SAS or PHI? Closed Mon 25 Dec 2017 2:03AM
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 60.0% | 3 |
|
| Abstain | 20.0% | 1 |
|
|
| Disagree | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Block | 20.0% | 1 |
|
|
| Undecided | 0% | 7 |
|
5 of 12 people have participated (41%)
Henry Taylor
Thu 21 Dec 2017 11:47AM
All I can do is agree or disagree. I'll say agree for SAS
Rick K
Thu 21 Dec 2017 6:27PM
SAS
Poll Created Wed 5 Dec 2018 9:45PM
Limits on RFA Contracts Closed Wed 12 Dec 2018 12:02AM
While RFA has been a beneficial system that gives an advantage to teams who would like to keep players coming off of rookie deals that might not re-sign on the open market, there have been some recent concerns with the system. Some have brought to the league's attention that in general, non-incumbent teams are setting too high a market value on short-term offer sheets for RFA, which the player then signs over a more modest long-term offer. They reason that this goes against the principles of RFA because it compromises the incumbent team's cap flexibility in the next couple years, when that space could be used to add outside pieces and make the team more competitive (or in the case of teams close to the hard cap, maintain their core). After a league-wide discussion, we have arrived at certain measures to afford incumbent teams more exclusivity. Please rank them in an order of your preference. Or, if you prefer a different combination of years and yearly salary, or missed the discussion, add an option below. I will be moderating the poll to make sure the 'add option' function stays on topic.
Results
| Results | Option | Rank | % of points | Points | Mean | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | 1 | 22.2% | 70 | 4.1 | ||
|
|
In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | 2 | 20.3% | 64 | 3.6 | ||
|
|
In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | 3 | 13.3% | 42 | 2.5 | ||
|
|
The system is fine as is | 4 | 13.0% | 41 | 2.6 | ||
|
|
In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | 5 | 13.0% | 41 | 2.4 | ||
|
|
Non-incumbent teams must offer a contract length of at least 2 years (no yearly value requirement) | 6 | 10.2% | 32 | 2.9 | ||
|
|
Non-incumbent teams must offer a contract length of at least 3 years (no yearly value requirement) | 7 | 7.9% | 25 | 2.8 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 0 | 0 |
21 of 31 people have participated (67%)
Piano9717 Thu 6 Dec 2018 12:49AM
| 3 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 4 - The system is fine as is | ||
| 5 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 6 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 7 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 3 million |
not a fan of options 3, 4, and 5. not letting teams give a 2 year contract is too limiting, and i also feel like the 10 million limit defeats the purpose of this rule--to allow people to take flyers on bad players.
VAN GM Thu 6 Dec 2018 4:28PM
| 3 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 4 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 5 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 6 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 7 - The system is fine as is |
fuck RFA
ShiDaW Thu 6 Dec 2018 4:36PM
| 3 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 4 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 5 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 6 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 7 - The system is fine as is |
10mil still offers some flexibility for non-incumbent teams. Would likely see use in situations of a “make or break” redemption year for slightly older players. Current system encourages RFA prospect churning abuse with minimal downside for non-incumbent teams.
ShiDaW Thu 6 Dec 2018 4:37PM
| 3 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 4 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 5 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 6 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 7 - The system is fine as is |
10mil still offers some flexibility for non-incumbent teams. Would likely see use in situations of a “make or break” redemption year for slightly older players. Current system encourages RFA prospect churning abuse with minimal downside for non-incumbent teams.
ShiDaW Thu 6 Dec 2018 4:37PM
| 3 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 4 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 5 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 10 million | ||
| 6 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of fewer than 2 years, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 7 - The system is fine as is |
10mil still offers some flexibility for non-incumbent teams. Would likely see use in situations of a “make or break” redemption year for slightly older players. Current system encourages RFA prospect churning abuse with minimal downside for non-incumbent teams.
ShiDaW Thu 6 Dec 2018 7:20PM
| 3 - Non-incumbent teams must offer a contract length of at least 2 years (no yearly value requirement) | ||
| 4 - Non-incumbent teams must offer a contract length of at least 3 years (no yearly value requirement) | ||
| 5 - The system is fine as is | ||
| 6 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 3 million | ||
| 7 - In order for a non-incumbent team to offer a contract length of 2 years or shorter, the yearly value must be less than 10 million |
Leave the yearly value to the market to decide. Too much oversight will kill RFA. Current system encourages RFA prospect churning abuse with minimal downside for non-incumbent teams.