RFA UFA system obsolete?

[Wisent]

Could be that I'm completely off here, but I was asking myself what is the value of the UFA RFA system under a cap? I mean, if a player wants to change a club that was willing to pay his salary he couldn't have changed it because it was forbidden if the guy was RFA and the qualifying offer has been made. But in reality that offer would mainly have come from big market teams.
If you have a cap system now, the financial room that a team has is much smaller then before, obviously, so teams will think twice which player to sign.
So, couldn't it be that this rule now is more or less useless if a cap is coming. So the owners could let this one drop and by that giving in to a union demand. That should be good for the negotiations.
As said, I could be way off. Tell me what you think.

Click to read more...

 

[WC Handy*]

What you're suggesting makes every player a UFA as soon as their rookie contract ends.

 

[Epsilon]

Could be that I'm completely off here, but I was asking myself what is the value of the UFA RFA system under a cap? I mean, if a player wants to change a club that was willing to pay his salary he couldn't have changed it because it was forbidden if the guy was RFA and the qualifying offer has been made. But in reality that offer would mainly have come from big market teams.
If you have a cap system now, the financial room that a team has is much smaller then before, obviously, so teams will think twice which player to sign.
So, couldn't it be that this rule now is more or less useless if a cap is coming. So the owners could let this one drop and by that giving in to a union demand. That should be good for the negotiations.
As said, I could be way off. Tell me what you think.

Personally I agree. If there is a salary cap then restricted free agency should be totally eliminated.

 

[WC Handy*]

There's a reason why the NFL has restricted free agency...

 

[Weary]

There's a reason why the NFL has restricted free agency...

A good reason?

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Personally I agree. If there is a salary cap then restricted free agency should be totally eliminated.

So teams could lose their young players that they developed after their first contract?

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

....yeah, but if the rookie contract is going to be for FOUR years....

it kinda makes sense

 

[WC Handy*]

A good reason?

Perhaps because teams should get to retain players they develop for more than a couple years?

 

[Weary]

Perhaps because teams should get to retain players they develop for more than a couple years?

Why? What's the benefit? If they lose the players they developed, there will be players that other teams developed for them to acquire. If the organization isn't one players like playing for, why should the team be assisted in retaining players?

 

[Wisent]

What you're suggesting makes every player a UFA as soon as their rookie contract ends.

That's right. But where is the problem? That's what I mean. Money shouldn't be a problem anymore under the new CBA. And teams can not really afford too many good (high earning) players in the team. So it's right, if other teams take players one team spent time developing, other players are free.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

....yeah, but if the rookie contract is going to be for FOUR years....

it kinda makes sense

Practically no goalies are in the NHL 4 years after they've signed their first pro contract. Most dmen aren't in the NHL either. And at least 3 quarters the forwards haven't made a significant impact during their rookie contract.

Drafts would become nearly useless. I mean, what's the point of drafting dmen or goalies when you can just snatch them up on the market after someone else's gone through the trouble of developping them.

That would be goddamn awful.

It's already difficult enough for fans to feel attachment to some players....

 

[mooseOAK*]

Why? What's the benefit? If they lose the players they developed, there will be players that other teams developed for them to acquire. If the organization isn't one players like playing for, why should the team be assisted in retaining players?

I wouldn't bother developing players in the first place, let the other teams do it and bid for the best ones out there after the rookie contracts are over.

 

[riz]

Why? What's the benefit? If they lose the players they developed, there will be players that other teams developed for them to acquire. If the organization isn't one players like playing for, why should the team be assisted in retaining players?

What makes you so sure there are players around that other teams developed, if those other teams have just been waiting around to see which one of the poorer teams developes the best player for them to throw money at ?

This kind of system would only mean young players on the "rich" teams would not get to develope properly (why would the team put an effort into developing talent, when they can just sign young free agents developed by others) and "poor" teams would end up as development factories who develop kids into solid players only to loose them and then replacing them with some older kids who have not ye developed fully, as they have been with the "rich" teams....

Just my two cents. And yeah, I'm a Rangers fan

 

[Weary]

I wouldn't bother developing players in the first place, let the other teams do it and bid for the best ones out there after the rookie contracts are over.

Exactly. Isn't that what the whole salary cap thing is about. Brains over bucks -- the ability to identify the best talent and having that talent available to you. Let other leagues do the developing. Allow the NHL teams to decide when players are ready for the real deal.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

What makes you so sure there are players around that other teams developed, if those other teams have just been waiting around to see which one of the poorer teams developes the best player for them to throw money at ?

This kind of system would only mean young players on the "rich" teams would not get to develope properly (why would the team put an effort into developing talent, when they can just sign young free agents developed by others) and "poor" teams would end up as development factories who develop kids into solid players only to loose them and then replacing them with some older kids who have not ye developed fully, as they have been with the "rich" teams....

Just my two cents. And yeah, I'm a Rangers fan

And hockey would become just like baseball...

 

[Weary]

What makes you so sure there are players around that other teams developed, if those other teams have just been waiting around to see which one of the poorer teams developes the best player for them to throw money at ?

This kind of system would only mean young players on the "rich" teams would not get to develope properly (why would the team put an effort into developing talent, when they can just sign young free agents developed by others) and "poor" teams would end up as development factories who develop kids into solid players only to loose them and then replacing them with some older kids who have not ye developed fully, as they have been with the "rich" teams....

Just my two cents. And yeah, I'm a Rangers fan

It's the new world order, now. Revenue sharing, salary caps, and salary floors, all work together to ensure there are no rich teams or poor teams. Everyone is equal.

With restricted free agency, it's actually the rich teams that will become development factories. With the salary money they have left over, they can pour it into developing their prospects. That's a huge advantage if you can hold onto those players until they are 28. On the other hand, if those players are UFA at age 22, spending gobs of money on their development doesn't provide quite the same advantage.

 

[Wisent]

Perhaps abolishing that system could come with a warranty to have player development centers. They probably have that anyway so there wouldn't be much change, just the obligation to do so. That would ensure the quality and the equality.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Exactly. Isn't that what the whole salary cap thing is about. Brains over bucks -- the ability to identify the best talent and having that talent available to you. Let other leagues do the developing. Allow the NHL teams to decide when players are ready for the real deal.

I don't see what is so brainy about throwing money at players as opposed to drafting and developing them.

What will be these other league's motivation to develop players for the NHL? Your typical 18 or 19 year old in the Russian league, unless he is really hot stuff, sits on the bench while the experienced players get the ice time.

 

[Weary]

I don't see what is so brainy about throwing money at players as opposed to drafting and developing them.

Unless the league is going to cap player development costs, as well, it gives an advantage to the rich teams. They can funnel that extra money that used to go to salaries into developing their young players. This would give them quite an advantage. But if all players are available to all teams, the salary cap ensures everything is equal.

What will be these other league's motivation to develop players for the NHL? Your typical 18 or 19 year old in the Russian league, unless he is really hot stuff, sits on the bench while the experienced players get the ice time.

Transfer fees. If a league develops quality players for the NHL, they can get paid when those players make the jump.

 

[WC Handy*]

Why? What's the benefit? If they lose the players they developed, there will be players that other teams developed for them to acquire. If the organization isn't one players like playing for, why should the team be assisted in retaining players?

Do you wake up in the morning and set a goal for yourself to be involved on the wrong side of the dumbest arguments on this board?

 

[Weary]

Do you wake up in the morning and set a goal for yourself to be involved on the wrong side of the dumbest arguments on this board?

Ad hominem attacks only make it look as if you can't defend your position. You really should try to avoid them and instead look to shore up your argument.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Ad hominem attacks only make it look as if you can't defend your position. You really should try to avoid them and instead look to shore up your argument.

Well, he has a very good point. Calgary traded for and developed Iginla into one of the top players in the game, but they should should Iginla sign elsewhere (under your system) they should be happy that they can sign other players that other teams developed, like Jason Bonsignore? Doesn't make sense. Teams invest time and money into a player and they want to see that player perform for them for several productive years to gain a return on that investment. That's a reasonable expectation IMO.

What you suggest doesn't make sense. It would be like buying a beat up '65 Mustang and investing time and money to restore it and then waking up one morning to find it stolen before it could be appraised and getting the news that the insurance company is only willing to give you what you originally paid for the vehicle. But YOU would be okay with that and not be pissed that all the time and money that YOU invested in restoring the vehicle because you can just go out and buy another vehicle and start the process all over again. Or you can pay an over-inflated price and buy one that has been already restored, but not to the same level and detail that you yourself would put into the job. Your scenario makes little sense ffrom a business perspective and makes even less sense from a player development perspective. Teams develop players and they deserve the right to get a fair return from those players. 28 is the earliest free agency should be in hockey because most players take four to five years to mature into a capable NHLer and the team should expect a similar time frame for a productive return.

 

[Goibniu]

I actually thought about this in the past, and came up with a system.

First, all drafted players get a 5 year 2 way contract with a maximum value based on the cap. Reduce the draft to 5 rounds and the maximum values are based on 10% of the cap for a player drafted in the 3rd round.
Assuming a 35 mil cap the max values would be as follows

1st overall, 5 mil over 5 years
1st round, 4.5 mil over 5 years
2nd round, 4 mil over 5 years
3rd round 3.5 mil over 5 years
4th round 3 mil over 5 years
5th round 2.5 mil over 5 years

This money may be paid out as salaries or bonuses but the total maximum value of the contract is limited as above.
For example, a player drafted in the third round can get a contract of $700,000 a year, or a contact of $500,000 a year with bonus clauses up to 1 million.
This is a maximum value and any contract can total less than the maximum amounts.
The 5 years begins when the player signs a contract and rights never expire.
These are also 2-way contracts, so any time spent in the minors will reduce the amount the players will earn.

Any player who declares for the draft and goes undrafted is a free agent.
All players are free agents after their initial 5 year contract.

In order to allow teams to retain their best players, each team can declare up to 5 players each year as restricted free agents. The declared player can be anybody the team had under contract at the end of the season. There is no age requirement and no qualifying offers. Any player declared restricted has the right to request arbitration.
This will allow teams to keep their core players every year and provide some roster consistency for each teams fans.

In order to be fair to the players, there should be a provision to allow each player to put in a formal request for a trade once in their careers. Any player doing this can not be declared a restricted free agent and must be traded within 1 year or they become unrestricted free agents. Even drafted players can do this before their first contract.

I’m sure there are several things that would still need to be tweaked but the effects would be to allow teams to keep their core players together. It would probably make teams give out longer contracts in order to keep as many of their players around as long as possible. The players that would be free agents would be the lower line players that are much more abundant. This should effectively keep player salaries to a reasonable level.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Well, he has a very good point. Calgary traded for and developed Iginla into one of the top players in the game

Yes. Calgary developed Iginla.
Any team in the league could have developed Iginla.

Do the players get any freakin' credit, with you, Ico?

Iginla developed himself.
And he's by far the biggest reason for Calgary's success

 

[Weary]

Your scenario makes little sense ffrom a business perspective and makes even less sense from a player development perspective. Teams develop players and they deserve the right to get a fair return from those players. 28 is the earliest free agency should be in hockey because most players take four to five years to mature into a capable NHLer and the team should expect a similar time frame for a productive return.

From a business perspective, my scenario is how things work in the business world. Companies spend money to develop employees all the time. They hope that their investment will be repaid when the employee elects to stay at the company, but they have no guarantee of that. If the employee does leave, they look to replace him with someone from a different company. That's how the business world works.

As to teams deserving to get "fair return" for developing players, aren't players deserving of "fair return" for what they do to develop? If a player sacrifices for years to make himself the best he can, why should he be stopped from seeking the best possible employment? The salary cap system is supposed to ensure 'fairness.' It should really eliminate the need for restricted free agency.