RFA UFA system obsolete?

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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

No, the players don't get much credit, because they don't deserve much credit. Players don't have a freakin' clue what it takes to develop themselves into NHL players. Players are coached and developed into the players they are. Take Iginla for instance. He has always been a talent, but didn't show the consistency to be a top level player. Only through the coaching and mentoring that Calgary provided for him did he attain the level he was supposed to. Players have the talent, but it takes them many years to develop the confidence and work-ethic to play in the league. Coaching and mentoring makes this happen. If every team could do it, like you say they could, the team would have an endless stream of top level talent and a not a limited success rate like they do in the player development game.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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.

Bull and more bull. Companies invest money in people that they know will stick around, especially in today's world. Employess may get the basic training to complete their job funtion but those that are considered flight risks do not get the training that allow them to grow with the organization. In a lot of organizations you are seeing companies write clauses into employees contracts that include penalties for leaving should they participate in expensive and time intensive training. Companies are protecting themselves from the job hoppers. NHL teams are no different.

 

[Wisent]

No, the players don't get much credit, because they don't deserve much credit. Players don't have a freakin' clue what it takes to develop themselves into NHL players. Players are coached and developed into the players they are. Take Iginla for instance. He has always been a talent, but didn't show the consistency to be a top level player. Only through the coaching and mentoring that Calgary provided for him did he attain the level he was supposed to. Players have the talent, but it takes them many years to develop the confidence and work-ethic to play in the league. Coaching and mentoring makes this happen. If every team could do it, like you say they could, the team would have an endless stream of top level talent and a not a limited success rate like they do in the player development game.

BUt the point is that under a cap teams can hardly effort 2 players of the price of Iginla. So it's either they keep their top guy or get the other teams top guy. This of course assumes that the cap is low (which I assume). If that is still unfair, you could device some system that gives the team that developed a player money for the development which they themselves can invest in a player.

 

[mooseOAK*]

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.

If the function of an NHL team is to make a player better so the he can go out after a short time and make more money somewhere else then that is not good for the team nor their fans who pay the owners' and the players' salaries.

 

[WC Handy*]

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.

I have no need to defend my position as I have no interest in helping someone understand the value of restricted free agency. I'm not here to educate you.

 

[Weary]

Bull and more bull. Companies invest money in people that they know will stick around, especially in today's world. Employess may get the basic training to complete their job funtion but those that are considered flight risks do not get the training that allow them to grow with the organization. In a lot of organizations you are seeing companies write clauses into employees contracts that include penalties for leaving should they participate in expensive and time intensive training. Companies are protecting themselves from the job hoppers. NHL teams are no different.

NHL teams are obviously different. You just spent a whole paragraph explaining what other businesses do -- and what the NHL doesn't want to do.

An team, no matter how poorly run, can retain its players for a decade. How is that like other businesses? It's not. How does that promote "brains over bucks"? It doesn't.

 

[Weary]

If the function of an NHL team is to make a player better so the he can go out after a short time and make more money somewhere else then that is not good for the team nor their fans who pay the owners' and the players' salaries.

If you team in a manner that makes your players want to play elsewhere, you deserve to lose them. It may not be good for the team, but it's a deserving result for the team. And why is it not good for the fans? They're just rooting for the laundry.

 

[King_Brown]

RFA should be once you enter the NHL you sign a max 4 year deal. Once you play the first 4 years you are RFA, and once the new contract you sign no less then 3 years, you become a UFA after that. No age limit, unless a rookie is like 30 years old, then they are UFA.

Undrafter rookies are exempted from this rule.

 

[Weary]

I have no need to defend my position as I have no interest in helping someone understand the value of restricted free agency. I'm not here to educate you.

Then why bother quoting my post and responding to it? If you can't be right, at least be consistent.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

No, the players don't get much credit, because they don't deserve much credit. Players don't have a freakin' clue what it takes to develop themselves into NHL players. Players are coached and developed into the players they are. Take Iginla for instance. He has always been a talent, but didn't show the consistency to be a top level player. Only through the coaching and mentoring that Calgary provided for him did he attain the level he was supposed to. Players have the talent, but it takes them many years to develop the confidence and work-ethic to play in the league. Coaching and mentoring makes this happen. If every team could do it, like you say they could, the team would have an endless stream of top level talent and a not a limited success rate like they do in the player development game.

Wow.
Wow.
Wow.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Bow.
Wow.
Wow.

Good doggie.

 

[blamebettman*]

such idiocy

No, the players don't get much credit, because they don't deserve much credit. Players don't have a freakin' clue what it takes to develop themselves into NHL players. Players are coached and developed into the players they are.

and who coaches and mentors the players? why, PLAYERS of course. at every level.

seriously, this takes the cake for dumbest thing ever posted here.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Good doggie.

Spare yourself the ridicule and go change your post, feller.

I promise I won't tell anyone.

 

[Mess]

If the function of an NHL team is to make a player better so the he can go out after a short time and make more money somewhere else then that is not good for the team nor their fans who pay the owners' and the players' salaries.

More money somewhere else ??

Why can't his own team pay him that same money and not have him leave ??

or

Why should the team that wants to control his rights and keep him to protect development cost not be forced to pay him that amount?


The new CBA should find a way to address that issue. Right now UFA is the only way to know what the market will bare for your services ..

In a Hard Cap world all 30 teams are egual in spending ability and should set a fair price as big market free spending is removed from the equation ..

 

[thinkwild]

I always saw restricting free agency as a compromise from the players to the owners in lieu of a cap. It allows the ability to get great players developed for 10 years at less than market value. It prioveided a market place of option swhere you could use brains over bucks. It took a lot of brains to manage this use of bucks, but the options were provided. A marketplace for developing and then winning co-existed.

Under a uniform low cap, why develop? Isnt the objective for every team to spend the same? If you want spending the same to translate into equal, it is imperative that values are assigned properly in the marketplace. Under an RFA system, one team could have Heatley, Hossa, Thornton, while another has Leclair Turgeon, and Holik at twice the price. But it would be the expensive team that would need to add talent in order to become equally competitive with the lower spending team. Last year, Detroit needed to spend more money to become as good as the half as expensive Calgary.

Why would it be proper for Nash to be paid so much less than Iginla? If the spending the same to make all teams equally competitive is to have any value, the spending on these two should be much closer, otherwise getting Nash cheaper would be an unfair cap advantage.

If you have cap, there is no need to restrict free agency, its redundant. Unless you want to accomodate developing teams. But then you no longer have 30 equal teams. If you go this route, whats the difference if a developing cheap team with young players is $10mil or $20 mil less than a top team.

 

[Wisent]

I always saw restricting free agency as a compromise from the players to the owners in lieu of a cap. It allows the ability to get great players developed for 10 years at less than market value. It prioveided a market place of option swhere you could use brains over bucks. It took a lot of brains to manage this use of bucks, but the options were provided. A marketplace for developing and then winning co-existed.

Under a uniform low cap, why develop? Isnt the objective for every team to spend the same? If you want spending the same to translate into equal, it is imperative that values are assigned properly in the marketplace. Under an RFA system, one team could have Heatley, Hossa, Thornton, while another has Leclair Turgeon, and Holik at twice the price. But it would be the expensive team that would need to add talent in order to become equally competitive with the lower spending team. Last year, Detroit needed to spend more money to become as good as the half as expensive Calgary.

Why would it be proper for Nash to be paid so much less than Iginla? If the spending the same to make all teams equally competitive is to have any value, the spending on these two should be much closer, otherwise getting Nash cheaper would be an unfair cap advantage.

If you have cap, there is no need to restrict free agency, its redundant. Unless you want to accomodate developing teams. But then you no longer have 30 equal teams. If you go this route, whats the difference if a developing cheap team with young players is $10mil or $20 mil less than a top team.

I agree.
But I don't think that developing teams should be accomodated. It should simply be a warranty that every team develops. You have that in soccer as well. Every team has a youth developing center. And you obviously can't measure it on the success of the players, because some players simply develop better and it has little to do with the work that has been put into them.

 

[mooseOAK*]

More money somewhere else ??

Why can't his own team pay him that same money and not have him leave ??

or

Why should the team that wants to control his rights and keep him to protect development cost not be forced to pay him that amount?


The new CBA should find a way to address that issue. Right now UFA is the only way to know what the market will bare for your services ..

In a Hard Cap world all 30 teams are egual in spending ability and should set a fair price as big market free spending is removed from the equation ..

There will still be some form of arbitration and players will still be able to hold out and the player will have his agent and the NHLPA's help in getting him the most money that he can. Salaries spiraled even with restricted free agency to the age of 31 in the past so to say that it kept the players as slaves, is ridiculous.

 

[Weary]

There will still be some form of arbitration and players will still be able to hold out and the player will have his agent and the NHLPA's help in getting him the most money that he can. Salaries spiraled even with restricted free agency to the age of 31 in the past so to say that it kept the players as slaves, is ridiculous.

But the value of a restricted free-agent's contract will still be limited by the contracts of his teammates so they can all fit under the cap. Unless arbitration is allowed every time a RFA's contract expires, he will be limited by his team's individual situation. Holding out won't make the cap come down.

If you make everyone an unrestricted free agent, then player's salaries will be more equitable across the league. You won't have a situation where a player is making much less than he would elsewhere because of his team's salary cap issues. Since the salary cap is supposed to provide equal footing for the teams, getting rid of restricted free agency would be a fair way to provide equal footing for the players.

 

[Hoss]

RFA is fine as long as qualifying offers are not allowed to dip below 100%. Teams should not be allowed to control a players opportunity to get a fair market value for there services. If the teams won't at least match a players current salary he should be waived without draft pick compensation.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

RFA is fine as long as qualifying offers are not allowed to dip below 100%. Teams should not be allowed to control a players opportunity to get a fair market value for there services. If the teams won't at least match a players current salary he should be waived without draft pick compensation.

So a team should be able to pay a player his rookie contract salary until he reaches Unrestricted Free Agency?

 

[mooseOAK*]

But the value of a restricted free-agent's contract will still be limited by the contracts of his teammates so they can all fit under the cap. Unless arbitration is allowed every time a RFA's contract expires, he will be limited by his team's individual situation. Holding out won't make the cap come down.

If you make everyone an unrestricted free agent, then player's salaries will be more equitable across the league. You won't have a situation where a player is making much less than he would elsewhere because of his team's salary cap issues. Since the salary cap is supposed to provide equal footing for the teams, getting rid of restricted free agency would be a fair way to provide equal footing for the players.

Goody for the players but unhindered movement will result in teams going through high turnover from year to year which would have a negative effect on the marketability of the team.

Even this site would suffer because who would care who has the best prospects when they could be scattered to the winds before they even have a chance to reach their potential.

Discussions of who's team is better are moot because next year they will all have vastly different lineups.

 

[Weary]

Goody for the players but unhindered movement will result in teams going through high turnover from year to year which would have a negative effect on the marketability of the team.

High turnover is to be expected once a salary cap is implemented anyway. Look at what happened to the NFL and NBA.

Discussions of who's team is better are moot because next year they will all have vastly different lineups.

But that's what Bettman is shooting for. He wants all 30 teams to have a shot every year. The only way to achieve that is through extensive player movement.

 

[Hoss]

So a team should be able to pay a player his rookie contract salary until he reaches Unrestricted Free Agency?

What's fair in your mind? Guaranteed raises? I prefer performance based incentives over guaranteed raises and a much lower UFA level.

edit: to be clear I support lowering the UFA age, furthermore I do not support a low rookie cap.

 

[mooseOAK*]

High turnover is to be expected once a salary cap is implemented anyway. Look at what happened to the NFL and NBA.

Both of those leagues have restricted free agency. Even if there is movement, you will notice that key star players stay in the same place and don't move around other than by trade.

But that's what Bettman is shooting for. He wants all 30 teams to have a shot every year. The only way to achieve that is through extensive player movement.

No, it isn't. It is by having teams be able to hold on to their stars and build around them, such as the aforementioned NBA and NFL.

 

[Wisent]

I don't think that a high turnover is going to happen. Because it is in the teams interest to keep players for the reason of marketability. You want to identify with the club, so they better keep the players. Many leagues function like that.