Challenge Questions/Feedback? Post Here!

Post by **Manimal** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:24 pm

As Batdad said, they are not UFAs or RFAs until their contract has ended. Then those rules are to be followed

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:36 pm

Exactly, Manimal. They are "potential free agents" when in the last year of their contract. If you offer them a new contract while they're still under contract to your team, that is a contract extension. If you fail to extend their contract, on July 1st they become either an RFA or a UFA, depending on their situation.

A free agent is not under contract.

tksolway · Post by **tksolway** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:38 pm

I looked at the two NHL teams, and I must admit, the ISlanders look really bad. They have about 20 mil tied up in players that will not play this season. Meanwhile the Preds have more than that tied up in players that are worth less that 1 mil per season. I mean seriously have you seen the stats on Martain Erat ?

I voted for the preds because they have some really long, and really bad contracts. Plus no goaltender. The islanders at least have a goaltender. not to mention that as soon as everyone gets healthy, the Isles are going to be a much better team than the Preds. I hope the next Challenge runs the NTNB rules though. Challenge 10 was my first challenge and I didn't want to try it in my first challenge, but I would love to try it.

Post by **batdad** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:40 pm

Wow! Who knew people knew so little about UFA and RFA. When a team has a player under contract, there is no possible way for him to be a free agent. If he was considered an UFA while under contract, any team could sign him away at any time in real life. I mean come on people it is common sense.

If a team has rights for a guy and he is unsigned, he is RFA.
If no team has rights for a guy, and he is unsigned he is UFA>

It is real simple. Period. No contract with an NHL club is FA

No contract, with rights assigned to NHL club (unsigned prospect) RFA. Can sign whenever you want.
No contract no NHL rights assigned to any NHL club UFA. Must follow challenge UFA signing rules.

Under Contract with NHL club....NOT RFA or UFA. Just a player under contract, and you can sign him to extension.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:11 pm

You have to admit that it is easy to read it the other way.

To clarify, you may not attempt to sign any player you own the rights to that you have not had under contract until 1 July, 2007, right? However, if they were, at one time, under contract to you and left the team as a restricted free agent, then you may sign them at anytime.

I think people are getting chewed out because of a misunderstanding. I think everyone here knows what UFA and RFA mean, but to have a rule that says you can't sign a guy until after july 1st, when he wouldn't become a free agent until that date anyway, seems redundant, especially since you used the word "resign", which would give the impression of not being allowed to "resign" your current player who WOULD BE a UFA come July 1 to a contract extension.

Everyone needs to keep their temper in check. Things always seem clearer to those who write them. This post makes perfect sense to me, but I can understand there may be some who don't follow my logic. There is no sense jumping down someone's throat over the issue.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:32 pm

Where is there a temper flaring or anyone jumping down anyone's throat? We're discussing what makes an player a free agent. Nobody is calling anyone names or yelling. We're just a little baffled over the confusion of what makes someone a free agent.

jbsnadb wrote: To clarify, you may not attempt to sign any player you own the rights to that you have not had under contract until 1 July, 2007, right? However, if they were, at one time, under contract to you and left the team as a restricted free agent, then you may sign them at anytime.

Were are you getting this? I can't recall this being said.

tksolway · Post by **tksolway** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:04 pm

I believe the problem stems from the rule in 5.6.1 "The earliest date in the game in which you can attempt to sign a free agent is 1 July 2007. This also covers your own UFAs, which you may not attempt to resign until 1 July 2007. " Since by definition you cannot own a UFA, i would read this statement as applying to players on my roster slated to become a UFA.

Post by **batdad** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:15 pm

jsnadb==Trust me, if I was mad you would know. Ask anyone.

And as for the UFA rules...again...if he is under contract to you...HE IS NOT AN UFA.

That rule in 5.6.1 is for other challenges. And it refers to guys who signed late into the season with a team in real life, who were UFA's in EHM. Peter Forsberg is the best example of this,in previous dbs and in the Lidas 1.1 db Brendan Shanahan is the example. They are UFA in the game at the start of the game, and we don't want people signing them.

The Forsberg one was particularly a concern if/when we used Nashville way back when. We never did, but we wanted the point in the rules.

there were other unsigned guys at the start of EHM in other dbs as well (as there are in Lidas) and what we are saying with that rule...is noone can sign them until after season 1, and then he counts to your UFA for season 2.

Anyway....move on. before I do get widdled. This is ridiculous honestly.

PS: It was also to keep players in challenges from signing guys who were UFA and remained UFA for 1/2 or more of the year, because then they were available for cheap for a few seasons. You cannot tell me you did not sign some star player for $750000 over 4 years because he could not find a team, and eventually came on board for nothing in the middle of a year.

To clear up: In season 1, sign anyone under contract to an extension that is on your team. Tis fine.

NO UFA's for your NHL team are allowed in season 1. Period. Must wait til July 1. RFA's...those you have rights for are fine. You may sign a few guys (24 and under) for your AHL team if you need to in order to make the required numbers.

Season 2 and on: You may sign 2 UFAs for your team if you wish (be careful as to who and how much, because you gotta keep yer guys around and cap $ suck. You may sign 2 UFAs 24 and under for your AHL team.

jbsnadb · Post by **jbsnadb** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:35 pm

batdad wrote:jsnadb==Trust me, if I was mad you would know. Ask anyone.

And as for the UFA rules...again...if he is under contract to you...HE IS NOT AN UFA.

That rule in 5.6.1 is for other challenges. And it refers to guys who signed late into the season with a team in real life, who were UFA's in EHM. Peter Forsberg is the best example of this,in previous dbs and in the Lidas 1.1 db Brendan Shanahan is the example. They are UFA in the game at the start of the game, and we don't want people signing them.

The Forsberg one was particularly a concern if/when we used Nashville way back when. We never did, but we wanted the point in the rules.

there were other unsigned guys at the start of EHM in other dbs as well (as there are in Lidas) and what we are saying with that rule...is noone can sign them until after season 1, and then he counts to your UFA for season 2.

This clears things up quite nicely, thank you. The wording did not seem clear that it applied to guy who were truly UFA, since the wording said "YOUR UFAs".

I am one who has not participated in previous challenges, and I am anxiously looking forward to getting into this one. All I am trying to do is get clarification. Thank you for providing it.

tksolway · Post by **tksolway** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:41 pm

For clarification, can we claim players from waivers?

Post by **batdad** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:48 pm

thunderbug · Post by **thunderbug** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:22 am

Batdad and Bruins, can I suggest slightly tweaking the wording on 5.6.1 and 5.6.3 a bit? I understood the definition of a UFA, but when reading those it appears that the term was being used for someone in the last year of his contract as the only way for you to sign "your" UFAs (I read as the players who will become UFA on July 1st) prior to July 1st would be to give them an extension. This is where I think the confusion came into play. If you tweak the part about your UFAs it will be a whole lot clearer to people.

Post by **batdad** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:04 am

IF we have some time. That rule is clear. Anyone who should have been on the roster that is not, is not eligible to be signed until July 1 2007 in the game. I don't care where the confusion came into play anymore ( I did at one point) and now it is cleared up here.

Since the rules state you must read every word of every thread on challenges before playing...this should be enough for now. We shall see....if we find time we will tweak it.

tksolway · Post by **tksolway** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:23 pm

It says we will have to promote two homegrown players per season in the new rules. Will that be from the second season on like the old rules, or will we be required to select two homegrown players in the first season as well?

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:40 pm

Second season and any beyond that, just like before.

Post by **Lidas** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:54 am

A couple of Qs regarding the new rules.

1. We are supposed to stay under the Player Budget assigned by the team. Should we keep the Average Club Salary or Total Player Salaries below the Player Budget?

2. UFAs we sign must be 24 years of age and under. Is this for ALL UFA signings, or only the ones for the farm team?

3. UFAs we sign for the farm team must be waiver ineligible. Is there a quick and simple way to check this?

Post by **batdad** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:19 am

1. Gotta look at my game finance screen to answer that...so I will wait and do it on MOnday unless someone beats me to it,.

2. AHL UFA's. Other UFA's (the 2 you are allowed for year 2, you are not allowed any for year 1) can be whatever age.

3. Yes, it tells you in the information screen if they are waiver eligible or not, but basic rule that I would follow is under 24 and played less than 40 games in NHL. That way you can be sure.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:55 pm

We've always gone with Averaged Salary as the number that needs to be kept under the team budget and/or salary cap.

Post by **Lidas** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:18 pm

bruins72 wrote:We've always gone with Averaged Salary as the number that needs to be kept under the team budget and/or salary cap.

Thanks Batdad and B72 for answering my Qs. Just wanted to make sure, so I dont make any mistakes this time

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:36 pm

Before the challenge starts, we'll have a sticky'ed post recapping all of the rules for this challenge and clarifying some of the new ones. Since these rules are just for this challenge, we won't be changing the challenge rules in their normal place.

Post by **Lidas** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:51 am

One more question:

Are players who are signed for the AHL team (450K ctr, max 24 Y.O) EVER allowed to play in the NHL team?

Post by **batdad** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:56 pm

Speaking with B72 on this right now.,,,will let you know.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:58 pm

Okay, what we've come up with for the young UFAs (the AHL fillers Lidas asked about)... they are not allowed to play on your NHL team in season 1. They're to be signed for depth for your AHL affiliate. They are allowed to play on your NHL team in season 2 but they won't be eligible to be a homegrown until season 3. All rules regarding homegrown eligibility would still apply.

I'd also just like to make sure that even though it looks like the New York Islanders are going to be the team we use for Challenge 12, you should NOT start your game yet. We've got 1 or 2 more things in the works that would change how things are done at the beginning of your game. If you start now, all of your work could be for nothing because you'd have to start over. Make sure you wait until the official announcement!

tksolway · Post by **tksolway** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:59 pm

do we know when the start will come, i know I'm chomping at the bit

Post by **batdad** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:02 pm

Most likely late this week, or early next.