NHL Must Lower UFA

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
acr said:
How would that help competitive balance?

How is Columbus going to compete when while they're still building their way up, Rick Nash becomes an FA?

This just doesn't fit in line with what the NHL wants, which is complete parity

I'll use a line all the owner backers love to use ..... it works for the NFL ......
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
I in the Eye said:
Interesting...

How about loosening the constraints on restricted free agents? Right now there is virtually zero restricted free agents moving teams each year... I assume that there would be demand for restricted free agents if the very high transaction cost wasn't there (5 first round draft picks) and if teams didn't have the right to match...

Leave UFAs where it is (30 or 31)... but open up the restricted free agent market (at age 25)... Don't allow teams to have a right to match, and make the cost a 1st round draft pick instead of 5 - allow the player to better control where he wants to play...

Loosen the constraints so that it is common place for a handful (or a baker's dozen) of restricted free agents to move teams each year, but not so loose that the restricted free agent market gets flooded...

That way, a player can have more control where he wants to play in the middle of his career (as a restricted free agent) and towards the end (as an ufa)...

At this point in time this is not a major bargaining issue for the NHLPA.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
vanlady said:
Does the phrase, "you can't have your cake and eat it too" mean anything to you. The NBA and NFL both took big hits on free agency, they NHL has to suck it up if they want what the big boys have.
Yeah I'm not real sure what your post has to do with my attempt to sound like a couple of the more insane pronhlpa posters?
 

Reilly311

Guest
acr said:
How would that help competitive balance?

How is Columbus going to compete when while they're still building their way up, Rick Nash becomes an FA?

This just doesn't fit in line with what the NHL wants, which is complete parity


Well if you have a salary cap, it works. If Columbus is still "building" they'll be able to keep Nash because they'll have tons of cap space. Lets say they can't afford him for some reason, it's not like he'll be the only 27 year old FA available. Columbus could go sign some other young star.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Wetcoaster said:
Goodenow subscribes to the Marvin Miller theory of free agency. With free agents not becoming unrestricted until such a late age, it limited the supply and drove up the demand.

Can you explain this theory further? If supply is limited, why is demand driven up? Usually when supply is limited relative to demand, price goes up. But for every player who becomes a free agent, a vacancy is created. If the supply of free agents goes up, so does the demand for free agents at precisely the same rate.

The equibrium price should be the same. If under a system that allows free agency at 31, and 60 players become free agents, then teams will be looking to fill 60 vacancies. If the system allows free agency at age 27, maybe 100 players will become free agents in a year and teams will also be looking to fill 100 vacancies.

Why will the price of free agents be affected? Instead of 60 bidding wars there will be 100 bidding wars. What's the difference?

Tom
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
I think if the PA were to reject the offer, this will be the focal point in which each side will bargain the age down to 28... deal signed, kiss the wife and kids we've got hockey.
 

Reilly311

Guest
futurcorerock said:
I think if the PA were to reject the offer, this will be the focal point in which each side will bargain the age down to 28... deal signed, kiss the wife and kids we've got hockey.

yeah, January 2006.
 

Reilly311

Guest
futurcorerock said:
You may very well be eating your words in a few days, It's pretty fair to say nobody has any idea how this will play out.


I hope I do eat my own words. :handclap:
 

Fredrik

Registered User
Apr 22, 2002
844
0
Stockholm, Sweden
Visit site
dumitru123 said:
my god, if we keep dropping the UFA age, why bother with player rights if you get to keep them for 6 years max?? Why bother with a draft? Lets have all the players UFAs from the start!

Yes exactly. Why have a draft at all? Why can't players move freely when their contracts have expired? That sucks IMO
 

MojoJojo

Registered User
Jan 31, 2003
9,353
0
Philadelphia
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
As fans, I think we'd all prefer the UFA age to stay high. Any tools we can give teams to help slow roster-turnover is a positive IMO.

Please. Restricted players are traded like venereal diseases at a gay bath house.

Lowering the age of free agency would significantly lower salaries. Why? because in the current system only one or two good players become available every year. Flood the market with players still in their prime, and suddenly the Rangers and Stars dont have to get into a bidding war over someone who's career is in decline. Lower free agent salaries means lower arbitation awards.
 

Puck

Ninja
Jun 10, 2003
10,770
415
Ottawa
I'm with John Flyers Fan on this one.

I figured the players did not propose lowering the age for unrestricted free agency to see if the NHL would, just to make a point with fans of small market teams about the league having their so-called best interests at heart.

I'm not an economist but I can see both Wetcoaster's and Tom's point. One might have to define supply and demand curves for different skill-set players for different markets. There will always be a high demand for the superstars, these guys might do better with earlier unrestricted free agency, even if the overall supply of players increases (there is always a more limited supply of superstars). Economics is a science always concerned with the optimum reallocation of scarce resources. There are different types of resources.

Technically, the richer teams should have an edge in acquiring the most of these skilled but scarce resources. But with a cap at hand, the league probably figures it has the bidding wars under some control. Maybe the players figure lower free agency rules might not help their bid power anyway with a cap in tow? A free market would let the so-called equilibrium price to rise under the various supply and demand assumptions. A hard cap, set at a lower rate, would impose a ceiling on the price and skewer all our micro-economic models anyway. No?

For all those who want a lower UFA age, why don't you just ask the league to free up the RFA restrictions? The unwritten rules too....
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Can you explain this theory further? If supply is limited, why is demand driven up? Usually when supply is limited relative to demand, price goes up. But for every player who becomes a free agent, a vacancy is created. If the supply of free agents goes up, so does the demand for free agents at precisely the same rate.

The equibrium price should be the same. If under a system that allows free agency at 31, and 60 players become free agents, then teams will be looking to fill 60 vacancies. If the system allows free agency at age 27, maybe 100 players will become free agents in a year and teams will also be looking to fill 100 vacancies.

Why will the price of free agents be affected? Instead of 60 bidding wars there will be 100 bidding wars. What's the difference?

Tom

I've heard the same theory before. If every player in the NHL was signed to one year contracts that expired every year and there were 700+ UFA's each year, it would be the best way for owners to keep salaries lower.

It would be total chaos, and too much roster turnover to ever be acceptable, but I do think it would help keep salaries down.

I understand your point in a theoretical basis, that 60 players for 60 spots should be the same as 700 players for 700 spots. Promblem is that not all spots are created equal.

#1. There would be no inflationers "arbitration, qualifying offers etc."

#2. While this year in free agency there is only one #1 defenseman available - Scott Niedermayer, there would be 8 teams they would need a #1 defenseman. 1 guy for 8 spots.

If all were free agents there would be Niedermayer, Lidstrom, Chara, Pronger etc. etc. It might be 9 defenseman for 17 spots.



Again it's all theoretical, but I tend to believe the theory.
 

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
Tom_Benjamin said:
Can you explain this theory further? If supply is limited, why is demand driven up? Usually when supply is limited relative to demand, price goes up. But for every player who becomes a free agent, a vacancy is created. If the supply of free agents goes up, so does the demand for free agents at precisely the same rate.

The equibrium price should be the same. If under a system that allows free agency at 31, and 60 players become free agents, then teams will be looking to fill 60 vacancies. If the system allows free agency at age 27, maybe 100 players will become free agents in a year and teams will also be looking to fill 100 vacancies.

Why will the price of free agents be affected? Instead of 60 bidding wars there will be 100 bidding wars. What's the difference?

Tom

The difference is that team's spending budgets during the free agency period would not change. If all teams combined to have $200 milllion to spend on free agents that summer, then regardless of whether there were 60 or 100 players out there, they would still only be able to spend a combined $200 million.

You do the math. $200 million divided by 100 is a lot less than being divided by 60.

A lower Free agency age is just bad news for the PA. GMs would be forced to use their brains (like they have been the last two off-seasons) as opposed to continue to doll out qualifying offers just because they can.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
AH said:
The difference is that team's spending budgets during the free agency period would not change. If all teams combined to have $200 milllion to spend on free agents that summer, then regardless of whether there were 60 or 100 players out there, they would still only be able to spend a combined $200 million.

Of course the amount would change. The team spending budget would be the same, but they would have fewer players under contract and less of their money committed. It makes no difference at all.

A lower Free agency age is just bad news for the PA. GMs would be forced to use their brains (like they have been the last two off-seasons) as opposed to continue to doll out qualifying offers just because they can.

Forced to use their brains? I thought the teams needed cost certainty because these guys didn't have any brains.

Tom
 

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
Tom_Benjamin said:
Of course the amount would change. The team spending budget would be the same, but they would have fewer players under contract and less of their money committed. It makes no difference at all.

And what if the teams with the more roster spots are the ones that can't spend like the Torontos and Philadelphias. What then ?

Not everything is as linear and simplistic as you present it.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Tom_Benjamin said:
Can you explain this theory further? If supply is limited, why is demand driven up? Usually when supply is limited relative to demand, price goes up. But for every player who becomes a free agent, a vacancy is created. If the supply of free agents goes up, so does the demand for free agents at precisely the same rate.

The equibrium price should be the same. If under a system that allows free agency at 31, and 60 players become free agents, then teams will be looking to fill 60 vacancies. If the system allows free agency at age 27, maybe 100 players will become free agents in a year and teams will also be looking to fill 100 vacancies.

Why will the price of free agents be affected? Instead of 60 bidding wars there will be 100 bidding wars. What's the difference?

Tom
If we were talking about widgets then replacements would be as you say. We are talking about unique commodities both from a skill level and by position. An Ilya Kovalchuk on the open market is worth more than a Steve Moore - it is difficult to replace a Kovalchik. Depending on your team needs a power play quarterback defenceman may be worth more to you than a 50 goal scorer.

Miller's theory is to allow a few players on the market each year at the various positions which then acts as a drag on salaries across the board. I am not sure that he figured this out in advance or that this was simply a side-effect of what he obtained and he now has ex post facto rationalization. In any event it seems to work in the unique market of professional sports.

All you have to do is look at the history of the past ten years.

For an in-depth look at how the NHLPA made the system work have a look at Bruce Dowbigggin's book "Money Players: How Hockey's Greatest Stars Beat the NHL at its Own Game".

Also good on this issue is Marc Edge's (from Vancouver BTW) just published book "Red Line, Blue Line, Bottom Line: How Push Came to Shove Between the National Hockey League and Its Players." For reviews see:
http://www.quillandquire.com/reviews/review.cfm?review_id=4240
http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/10-3-04cba.htm

Marvin Miller expounds on his theory in his book "A Whole Different Ball Game : The Inside Story of the Baseball Revolution".
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Wetcoaster said:
If we were talking about widgets then replacements would be as you say. We are talking about unique commodities both from a skill level and by position. An Ilya Kovalchuk on the open market is worth more than a Steve Moore - it is difficult to replace a Kovalchik. Depending on your team needs a power play quarterback defenceman may be worth more to you than a 50 goal scorer.

There is no doubt that the distribution of the money changes based on the date of free agency, but that's all. There will not be a "flood of free agents" which is the premise underlying Miller's comments. He was bragging, spouting something a first year economics student could easily dispute. He's making it sound like it is simple supply and demand and he obviously does not understand supply and demand.

It does not matter where you set the age limit. If you set it at age 31, Ilya Kovalchuk will be very desirable and Steve Moore is out of the league. If you set it at 26, Kovalchuk is very desirable and Steve Moore is not. The number of desirable free agents will be precisely the same, all other things equal, and the number of teams chasing them would also be precisely the same.

At 26, players would reach free agency a second time which might increase supply in any given year, but it also increases demand. An earlier free agency date woulod also lead to longer contracts.

It doesn't wash, not according to any known economic theory. Earlier free agency will not result in any increase in supply that is not offset by an increase in demand.

So what am I missing?

Tom
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Tom_Benjamin said:
If you set it at 26, Kovalchuk is very desirable and Steve Moore is not. The number of desirable free agents will be precisely the same, all other things equal, and the number of teams chasing them would also be precisely the same.

My assumptions: age of UFA, 26... More teams will be in the market for a 26 year old Kovalchuk than a 31 year old Kovalchuk (I would think that more teams will be in the market to get a great player in his prime, rather than a great player towards the end of his career)... More teams should be able to afford Kovalchuk (assuming a salary cap - according to the advertisements)...

If the supply is the same (there is only one Kovalchuk - and basically the same number of UFA options in the market - only earlier), but demand for Kovalchuk increases (more teams in the market for him), then wouldn't Kovalchuk's salary theoretically be higher as a 26 year old UFA than as a 31 year old UFA - assuming no cap on individual player salaries?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Tom_Benjamin said:
There is no doubt that the distribution of the money changes based on the date of free agency, but that's all. There will not be a "flood of free agents" which is the premise underlying Miller's comments. He was bragging, spouting something a first year economics student could easily dispute. He's making it sound like it is simple supply and demand and he obviously does not understand supply and demand.

It does not matter where you set the age limit. If you set it at age 31, Ilya Kovalchuk will be very desirable and Steve Moore is out of the league. If you set it at 26, Kovalchuk is very desirable and Steve Moore is not. The number of desirable free agents will be precisely the same, all other things equal, and the number of teams chasing them would also be precisely the same.

At 26, players would reach free agency a second time which might increase supply in any given year, but it also increases demand. An earlier free agency date woulod also lead to longer contracts.

It doesn't wash, not according to any known economic theory. Earlier free agency will not result in any increase in supply that is not offset by an increase in demand.

So what am I missing?

Tom
By setting the age at 31, there are fewer free agents. To last that long in the NHL you generally will be an elite player so therefore more skills and abilities that are in demand.

As I said it works because of the unique nature of the professional sports markets - normal economic theories have limited application.

The proof of this is in the fact that it actually works this way. The Miller theory may have been promulgated to fit the facts but regardless it seems to work that way.

Miller says he was terrified that the other owners might listen to Charlie Finley who advocted one year contracts and players becoming free agents each year and flooding the market.

Of course as we both know economic theories are often contradictory and do not always work the way econmists predict.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Wetcoaster said:
Miller says he was terrified that the other owners might listen to Charlie Finley who advocted one year contracts and players becoming free agents each year and flooding the market.

I can see where Miller is coming from here... If every year, a team can decide to get into the market for a player, or decide to wait a year to get into the market for the same player - or another 'similar-type' player (since there are 1 year contracts), then, IMO, the theory is intriguing... Teams can catch the next train if they missed it the first time around... The urgency isn't there to get into the market, and thus, demand gets watered down...

But if you still limit the number of times a team can jump on an ufa player train (only the train passes during "daylight" rather than the "twilight" of the player's career), then I think this would be an attractive benefit to the players... economically, and also personally - as players will be able to have a much larger say as to where they want to play much earlier in their career...
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Wetcoaster said:
By setting the age at 31, there are fewer free agents. To last that long in the NHL you generally will be an elite player so therefore more skills and abilities that are in demand.

Exactly. These are the same players who were elite at age 27. There aren't any more or any fewer elite players. At age 27, there are about 50% more players freed but none of the extra players command anything.

The reult of reducing free agency age is to reduce the amount players over 30 will get and increase the amount players under 30 will get. That's all it will do.

As I said it works because of the unique nature of the professional sports markets - normal economic theories have limited application.

What unique nature? What makes supply and demand any different in sports?

The proof of this is in the fact that it actually works this way. The Miller theory may have been promulgated to fit the facts but regardless it seems to work that way.

How so? Baseball has much earlier free agency than hockey in an uncapped system. Are salaries lower in baseball as a result? I don't think so.

Miller says he was terrified that the other owners might listen to Charlie Finley who advocted one year contracts and players becoming free agents each year and flooding the market.

I know Miller said it and I know Finley advocated it. That doesn't make them right. I think teams would spend the same amount globally no matter what the age of free agency. I think most (all?) economists would agree with me.

Of course as we both know economic theories are often contradictory and do not always work the way econmists predict.

This is true, but this is a different issue. Both Finley and Miller were pretending that an economist would predict lowering the age of free agency would lower the price. In that respect, I think they are wrong. They are supporting their positions with economic theory they clearly do not understand. Their opinions are based on supply and demand and they are wrong on the theory.

Tom
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Tom_Benjamin said:
Exactly. These are the same players who were elite at age 27. There aren't any more or any fewer elite players. At age 27, there are about 50% more players freed but none of the extra players command anything.

The reult of reducing free agency age is to reduce the amount players over 30 will get and increase the amount players under 30 will get. That's all it will do.


What unique nature? What makes supply and demand any different in sports?

How so? Baseball has much earlier free agency than hockey in an uncapped system. Are salaries lower in baseball as a result? I don't think so.

I know Miller said it and I know Finley advocated it. That doesn't make them right. I think teams would spend the same amount globally no matter what the age of free agency. I think most (all?) economists would agree with me.

This is true, but this is a different issue. Both Finley and Miller were pretending that an economist would predict lowering the age of free agency would lower the price. In that respect, I think they are wrong. They are supporting their positions with economic theory they clearly do not understand. Their opinions are based on supply and demand and they are wrong on the theory.

Tom

Tom - first off it is not my theory, it is Miller's and Goodnow has said he subscribes to it.

I simply put it out as a reason why the NHLPA is not pushing for significant (or any) reduction in the age qualifications for unrestricted free agents. Many posters seem to think the NHLPA should be pushing for less restrictve free agency.

Whether or not it is valid under traditional economic theories appears immaterial, the system seems to work this way based on observable past performance.

There may be other explantions for an economic theorist to advance but based on my Econ 101 course from 35 years past, I do not know what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->