RFA UFA system obsolete?

[MePutPuckInNet]

somewhat along this same subject - I keep wondering if somehow the dudes at IMG who are planning on taking on the whole UFA issue are actually trying to establish a basis in which unsigned '03 draft picks would NOT be subject to the Entry Level System,,,

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

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.

I believe it is fair to have 10 percent raises.
I mean, if you don't think the player is worth it, simply let him go.

 

[Wisent]

I believe it is fair to have 10 percent raises.
I mean, if you don't think the player is worth it, simply let him go.

Actually I don't think there should be a fixed raise (perhaps to balance inflation), because, that will automatically end in the breaking of the cap. Of course when rookie contracts end players should get an increase due to their play but otherwise I see no problem if a player simply stays on the salary level for some time or ever. If the cap is low enoough (some even suspect that it is down to 32 Mio) then I believe we will see that anyway. A players raise has to be determined by the cap (the budget) for the system to stay effective.

 

[Weary]

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.

In both the NFL and the NBA, restricted free agency holds a player to his team for four years. If an NHL entry level contract is for four years, then making a player a UFA after that contract would be the same as the other leagues.

Your assertion that star players don't move around the NFL and NBA due to free agency is clearly wrong. A prime example is the NBA MVP, Steve Nash.

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.

Bettman's own words from a letter to season ticket holders:

Our objective is to negotiate a CBA that...will assure a stable business while giving your team the opportunity to compete for the Stanley Cup every season.​

He doesn't want franchises building up their teams. He wants every team to have a shot every year. The NBA has the Larry Bird rule to allow teams to build up. The NHL will offer nothing similar. All they want is a hard cap. A hard cap designed to bring all the teams down to having the same chance.

 

[garry1221]

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.

definitely an interesting concept and i agree a few tweaks and it could be a workable idea

 

[mooseOAK*]

In both the NFL and the NBA, restricted free agency holds a player to his team for four years. If an NHL entry level contract is for four years, then making a player a UFA after that contract would be the same as the other leagues.

Your assertion that star players don't move around the NFL and NBA due to free agency is clearly wrong. A prime example is the NBA MVP, Steve Nash.

Nash wasn't the star with the Mavericks, Nowitzki is. Nowitzki is still there.

Bettman's own words from a letter to season ticket holders:

Our objective is to negotiate a CBA that...will assure a stable business while giving your team the opportunity to compete for the Stanley Cup every season.​

He doesn't want franchises building up their teams. He wants every team to have a shot every year. The NBA has the Larry Bird rule to allow teams to build up. The NHL will offer nothing similar. All they want is a hard cap. A hard cap designed to bring all the teams down to having the same chance.

Stable is the key word there, and teams being able to keep their stars is part of that stability. There are plenty of teams that aren't all that concerned if a cap is hard or not.

 

[Weary]

Nash wasn't the star with the Mavericks, Nowitzki is. Nowitzki is still there.

If the NBA MVP is not a star in your book, you have rather high standards. Do you consider Shaquille O'Neal a star? He went to the Lakers as a free agent.

Stable is the key word there, and teams being able to keep their stars is part of that stability. There are plenty of teams that aren't all that concerned if a cap is hard or not.

Is says "stable business," not stable rosters. And please note, he wants every team to have a shot every year. You can't do that when rosters are static.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Actually I don't think there should be a fixed raise (perhaps to balance inflation), because, that will automatically end in the breaking of the cap. Of course when rookie contracts end players should get an increase due to their play but otherwise I see no problem if a player simply stays on the salary level for some time or ever. If the cap is low enoough (some even suspect that it is down to 32 Mio) then I believe we will see that anyway. A players raise has to be determined by the cap (the budget) for the system to stay effective.

Look, if you are going to take away a player's ability to negotiate a contract for himself for the first 8 to 10 years of his career, you have to make amends some how.

Either allow UFA after the first contract, or you pay the piper in other ways, such as inflationary qualifying offers.

 

[mooseOAK*]

If the NBA MVP is not a star in your book, you have rather high standards. Do you consider Shaquille O'Neal a star? He went to the Lakers as a free agent.

Was Nash even close to being an MVP candidate in Dallas? No.

Since you can cite only one instance of a star player leaiving his team as a free agent shows that is an abnormality.

Is says "stable business," not stable rosters. And please note, he wants every team to have a shot every year. You can't do that when rosters are static.

A stable roster leads to a stable business. It would make it more difficult to sell tickets to a team when no one knows what it is going to look like next season. "Be sure to buy your season tickets and see uh, whoever, lead the Flames to a successful season!" isn't much of an advertising campaign.

 

[Epsilon]

Was Nash even close to being an MVP candidate in Dallas? No.

Since you can cite only one instance of a star player leaiving his team as a free agent shows that is an abnormality.

A stable roster leads to a stable business. It would make it more difficult to sell tickets to a team when no one knows what it is going to look like next season. "Be sure to buy your season tickets and see uh, whoever, lead the Flames to a successful season!" isn't much of an advertising campaign.

But hasn't one of the most repeated drones this off-season been "I cheer for the front of the jersey, not the back"? (I'm not saying you personally believe this, but it seems a lot of fans have been making this claim). If you know the economic parity is going to ensure your team has a shot provided they are run competently, why worry about who is and isn't on the team?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

And please note, he wants every team to have a shot every year. You can't do that when rosters are static.

Deceptive, misleading comment. He wants every team to have the same chance at getting a shot every year. Level playing field accomplishes that. Excessive player movement is not a requirement, only the ability of every team to afford the same level of player, something that has been lacking last few years.

 

[mooseOAK*]

But hasn't one of the most repeated drones this off-season been "I cheer for the front of the jersey, not the back"? (I'm not saying you personally believe this, but it seems a lot of fans have been making this claim). If you know the economic parity is going to ensure your team has a shot provided they are run competently, why worry about who is and isn't on the team?

Star players on teams have always changed over the years and while fans cheer for the jersey, personalities are always a draw for many of them.

Running a team competently involves the drafting and development part and UFA status at a very young age runs against that when the team is suddenly stuck competing with a whole bunch of other teams to keep them around.

 

[Weary]

Was Nash even close to being an MVP candidate in Dallas? No.

Since you can cite only one instance of a star player leaiving his team as a free agent shows that is an abnormality.

Here's what you wrote: "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."

I only needed one example to disprove it.

Rosters are highly unstable in the NFL. They are more stable in the NBA. But that's not because of restricted free agency as your say. It's because of the soft-cap and the "Larry Bird rule."

A stable roster leads to a stable business. It would make it more difficult to sell tickets to a team when no one knows what it is going to look like next season. "Be sure to buy your season tickets and see uh, whoever, lead the Flames to a successful season!" isn't much of an advertising campaign.

Tell it to the NFL. Their rosters are highly unstable, yet they have the most stable businesses in pro sports.

 

[Weary]

Deceptive, misleading comment. He wants every team to have the same chance at getting a shot every year. Level playing field accomplishes that. Excessive player movement is not a requirement, only the ability of every team to afford the same level of player, something that has been lacking last few years.

So a team goes 30-52 one year while another team goes 52-30. How do you give them "the same chance at getting a shot every year" without ensuring that the good team loses some of its good players and the bad team gets some good players?

 

[Weary]

Star players on teams have always changed over the years and while fans cheer for the jersey, personalities are always a draw for many of them.

Then why worry about roster consistency when it comes to marketing?

Running a team competently involves the drafting and development part and UFA status at a very young age runs against that when the team is suddenly stuck competing with a whole bunch of other teams to keep them around.

But every team will be in the same situation. It's not like your team is the only team that will be drafting and developing players. Every team will. The key is, you have to give other teams a chance to acquire those players if you truly want every team to have an equal chance every season.

 

[Titanium]

You'll probebly find that, with several teams competing for each player, once one or two decent guys go to a team, some pothers may want to go to the same team! A cap will restrict this to a certain extent, but many players (particularly older players) will be swayed by the chance of a Cup!

And don't tell me none of you have favourite players you'd hate to see leave! Practically every player in the league, especially the best players, will ended up being hated by some teams' fans for leaving their team! You can say it's the same for everyone all you want, but don't tell me you wouldn't be bitter if, say, Sidney Crosby walked out on your team!

I don't know if this has yet been mentioned, but what would you do about a draft order? If every team has the same rights to acquire players, who gets the top pick? Giving it to the worst team last year is pointless, since they could have the best team the following year! You may as well chuck them in the FA pool too!

 

[norrisnick]

So a team goes 30-52 one year while another team goes 52-30. How do you give them "the same chance at getting a shot every year" without ensuring that the good team loses some of its good players and the bad team gets some good players?

So you honestly believe the goal for the NHL is to create 30 teams that go 41-41?

Having the ability to have a chance at succeess is not the same thing has actually pulling off success with that chance. Diminishing financial handicaps via a cap range is but one way to help support parity.

The GMs, coaches, and players still have to do some of the work.

 

[Weary]

So you honestly believe the goal for the NHL is to create 30 teams that go 41-41?

No. But once again I'll give you Bettman's own words:

Our objective is to negotiate a CBA that...will assure a stable business while giving your team the opportunity to compete for the Stanley Cup every season.​

Having the ability to have a chance at succeess is not the same thing has actually pulling off success with that chance. Diminishing financial handicaps via a cap range is but one way to help support parity

The GMs, coaches, and players still have to do some of the work.

Exactly. But Bettman wants every team to compete every season. If the GMs, coaches, and players your teams has didn't do the job the previous season, what are the chances they'll do the job this season? Very small. In order to achieve Bettman's goal, you must have significant player movement.

 

[norrisnick]

No. But once again I'll give you Bettman's own words:

Our objective is to negotiate a CBA that...will assure a stable business while giving your team the opportunity to compete for the Stanley Cup every season.​

Exactly. But Bettman wants every team to compete every season. If the GMs, coaches, and players your teams has didn't do the job the previous season, what are the chances they'll do the job this season? Very small. In order to achieve Bettman's goal, you must have significant player movement.

Opportunity. Big word there.

 

[Weary]

Opportunity. Big word there.

If you wish to read it that way. If you do, however, then under the last CBA every team had the opportunity every season.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Here's what you wrote: "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."

I only needed one example to disprove it.

Hilarious. Okay, you win for that single shining example of uncontrolled, rampant movement of stars in the NBA. Give yourself a cookie for that one.

Rosters are highly unstable in the NFL. They are more stable in the NBA. But that's not because of restricted free agency as your say. It's because of the soft-cap and the "Larry Bird rule."

Both league have mechanism's in place that allows teams to keep their best players. That's what I'm talking about.

Tell it to the NFL. Their rosters are highly unstable, yet they have the most stable businesses in pro sports.

It's the nature of the sport, careers are a lot shorter than the others.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Then why worry about roster consistency when it comes to marketing?

To quote myself: "personalities are always a draw for many of them."

But every team will be in the same situation. It's not like your team is the only team that will be drafting and developing players. Every team will. The key is, you have to give other teams a chance to acquire those players if you truly want every team to have an equal chance every season.

Not team is going to have an equal chance in every individual season, which is what you are twisting Bettman's words to mean. What he meant is that the highest spending teams have a consistently better chance of making the playoffs and he wants to change that.

 

[norrisnick]

If you wish to read it that way. If you do, however, then under the last CBA every team had the opportunity every season.

The financial disparity, for the most part, took a big hit at league-wide competitive parity. Sure any team could have signed any player for any contract level, but realistically that wasn't the case.

 

[Weary]

Hilarious. Okay, you win for that single shining example of uncontrolled, rampant movement of stars in the NBA. Give yourself a cookie for that one.

When you make a statement, it only takes one counter-example to refute it. Your statement has been refuted. If you wish to reword it, please do.

Both league have mechanism's in place that allows teams to keep their best players. That's what I'm talking about.

And the NHL isn't offering a CBA with such features.

It's the nature of the sport, careers are a lot shorter than the others.

I assume this means that your former contention that roster stability equalling business stability is wrong. If not, then you still have to explain why the NFL is such a stable business despite it's roster instability.

 

[Weary]

To quote myself: "personalities are always a draw for many of them."

But as you say, they come and go. It shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Not team is going to have an equal chance in every individual season, which is what you are twisting Bettman's words to mean. What he meant is that the highest spending teams have a consistently better chance of making the playoffs and he wants to change that.

He said "compete for the Stanley Cup every season." If he hadn't said 'every season,' your interpretation might be right. But by adding that, it is clear he wants bad teams to be better the next season.