UFA 28, 29, or 30 vs. appx. $40 million cap

[shakes]

I have never understood why some feel that "the owners have to give something". It is based on an unknowledgeable expectation that negotiations are "give and take". Some are, but many are not. The ones that are, are only that way when there is a desire to partner with someone. The league wants to partner with the players, but not with Goodenow.

If i were advising the owners, I would be counseling them to do everything in their powers right now to avoid Goodenow from claiming he got the players anything that wasn't being offered in February. If they do, they run the risk that he will somehow survive. I can tell you that is the LAST thing the owners want. They want Goodenow to bear the brunt of the players' anger over signing the deal they will be eventually required to sign and the anger of losing a year's wages to do so. They will want Goodenow to be the scapegoat (as he should be). If they do not, Goodenow will come back sometime, somewhere in the next negotiation loaded for bear, and the owners will have sown dragon's teeth. If Goodenow goes, the players can at least say "well, we got screwed by bad advice" and maybe move forward.

Jeremy? Jeremy Jacobs is that you?

 

[kdb209]

Isn't it age (31) and/or ten years service . . . which ever comes first (rules slightly different for goalies).

And as I said before, I think UFA is much ado about nothing . . . . because (again merely my opinion) UFA are not the reason salaries have gotten so out of hand . . . it is because of arbitration and qualifying offers.

The UFA criteria is purely age based (31yo). The 10 year thing is Group V FA, where a player who has been a professional (NHL or AHL) for 10 yrs and earns less than the league avg, can (at the expiration of his current contract) declare himself a UFA once in his career.

 

[shakes]

I've never heard of it happening in the NBA. It does happen a lot in baseball, mostly due to Scott Boras. It does happen in the NFL as well, although it's a little more subtle than in baseball.

I think Toronto has done it a couple of times.. Jamison for Vince Carter comes to mind..

 

[Tiki]

Wrong. This NEVER happens in the NFL. It does, however, happen in baseball.

That is not at all true. The Jets jsut did this exact thing in the past draft. They traded thier first pick for a Second and a TE that was already under a decent contract, because they would have other wise drafted a TE or CB in round 1 that would have cost more.

In the End they got thier CB in round 2, costing less $$, Drafted a Kicker with the additional 2nd round pick, and Filled thier TE hole with a less expensive player.

 

[Mess]

You can't actually believe that Demitra is just going to stop playing in the NHL because he's ONLY going to be able to make $3.5M, can you?

The NHL is not played in a vacuum you know that each individual item is independent of everything else ..

In the New CBA big market teams Det, Tor, Philly, Col, Dal, NYR, StL all have massive big $$ dollar contracts on the payroll and still maybe looking to buyout the LeClairs, Nolan's and Holiks rather then adding to adjust to the Hard Cap ..

So 7 teams down .. 23 to go ..

Middle of the road teams Salary wise but full of younger talent all about to become RFA like Ottawa & TB or Van come to mind as being so busy trying to sign their own and fit under a cap no room here to throw around 3.5 mil ..

Then you hit teams like Calgary Iginla and kipprosoff RFA to resign Conroy already released in cost cutting measures are not lining up for a 3.5 mil player ..Or Atlanta with Kovalchuk and Heatley RFA

Then you have younger teams that are still building .. The Nashville's and Columbus, Carolina's, Florida's and Pittsburgh, Washington that struggled making a profit Old CBA and minimal salaries .. without meaningful Revenue sharing going directly to player salaries where are they going to get the money to throw around 3.5 mil ..

Then you have the Edmonton's and Phoenix type teams that play around the $32-33 mil ranges.. They got teams now in that range they can't afford to freely throw 3.5 mil contracts around to anyone ..

So who is left .. Boston ,Chicago, LA , Montreal, ??

Then Demitra's salary expectations are clouded further because he is not even the best UFA available and teams might consider Kovalev, Kariya, Palffy, Murray, Lindros, Zhamnov, better value just to name a few and that was last years batch of UFA .. what about when Pronger and Niedermayer, Leetch, Naslund, Forsberg all join the UFA buyers list ??

Never mind Demitra taking a 50% pay cut alone from old CBA .. You tell me where is he even going to get that offer and play next NHL season ??

 

[WC Handy*]

You can't actually believe that Demitra is just going to stop playing in the NHL because he's ONLY going to be able to make $3.5M, can you?

 

[WC Handy*]

That is not at all true. The Jets jsut did this exact thing in the past draft. They traded thier first pick for a Second and a TE that was already under a decent contract, because they would have other wise drafted a TE or CB in round 1 that would have cost more.

In the End they got thier CB in round 2, costing less $$, Drafted a Kicker with the additional 2nd round pick, and Filled thier TE hole with a less expensive player.

The Jets didn't make that trade becuase they couldn't afford to sign the player they would have drafted.

"We didn't feel like for this draft the value was going to be there at 26" - Jets general manager Terry Bradway

They may have felt that whoever they would have gotten at 26th wuoldn't be worth the money, but it wasn't a matter of not being able to afford the player.

 

[Mess]

You can't actually believe that Demitra is just going to stop playing in the NHL because he's ONLY going to be able to make $3.5M, can you?

NO .. The NHL is in case you couldn't figure that out from my post .....

 

[Winger98]

Just because a player is a restricted FA until whatever age the new CBA brings into play, does that necessarily mean that you will be able to hold onto him. Say by some miracle the Caps land Crosby as well as AO, and say further both become the next great thing, number 1 and 2 in the league by far talent wise. Can they tie them up, and afford under the cap to pay them, until they turn 28 (or older as determined by the new CBA). In the NFL the Cap effects of a player come into play much sooner as they are not tied up until age 28, 29, 30, so this is not so much an issue there, but in hockey, how will this play out? Will those two in my example just have to take less, perhaps far less, than their market value as both todether would blow a teams Cap all to hell and back, until they turn 28? I may feel entirely stupid after asking this and seeing some of the answers but for the life of me I can not yet picture how this will work.

What skills and assets will be most valuable under a new CBA?

For the first part, I'm guessing that teams in such a situation, and under a hard cap, will simply be screwed out of having talant they drafted and developed. A way to fix this would be a simple soft cap allowing teams some financial loophole for signing players they develop or have been with the team X Number of years. With a hard cap system, I imagine there will be a few more Yashin/Peca/Fedorov situations where a player will be willing to sit out a long time to force a deal for a better contract.

And I will also guess that teams may start trying to avoid this problem by simply not building their teams with mega-star quality players (such as the ones in your Caps example). The skills and assets I see becoming more valuable in players will be their ability to fit within a system and do all of the grunt work. I wouldn't be surprised to see systems become even more important within the NHL if roster turnover becomes more severe league wide because there will be less time to develop chemistry and to truly "build" a team.

People seem to have this dream that the moment no one can build a long term talant laden team that everyone will be equal and play fun, fast hockey. I think there is a damn good chance it'll go the exact opposite and we'll see even more teams adopting the Devils/Wild type system but pulling it out to an even greater length, as they draft and develop players to fit their systems instead of drafting based more on talant. Or maybe I'm just overly pessimistic.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

The players value compared to his output or performance is irrelevant at this stage as he does not have any option but to begin negotiations off of his entry level contract with qualifier added .. His agent can't use leverage in the fact that Kovalchuk scored the most goals in the NHL and say he deserves Sakic type money .. He is CBA bound by its rules ..

I'm not sure I'm following you here. The *team* certainly begins negotiations off the entry level contract + qualifier, but the agent can ask for anything he pleases. To my knowledge, there is no rule in the CBA that says a player can only ask for a limited amount. There's nothing to stop Kovalchuk from asking for $10M off his entry level contract, nothing to stop him from asking for a Jagr-like salary. Granted, he's not going to get it, but his agent can certainly begin his side of the negotiations at that level if he so chooses. Am I wrong or am I just not understanding what you're saying?

 

[Mess]

I'm not sure I'm following you here. The *team* certainly begins negotiations off the entry level contract + qualifier, but the agent can ask for anything he pleases. To my knowledge, there is no rule in the CBA that says a player can only ask for a limited amount. There's nothing to stop Kovalchuk from asking for $10M off his entry level contract, nothing to stop him from asking for a Jagr-like salary. Granted, he's not going to get it, but his agent can certainly begin his side of the negotiations at that level if he so chooses. Am I wrong or am I just not understanding what you're saying?

Mine was the readers digest version based on what would be realistic to expect in the final result The agent could ask for the moon as you say and the owner starts at old cotract + qualifier .. However it really comes down eventually to player age, years of service in the NHL and players of similar ilk to him in comparison statistically etc .. Simon Gagne agent might use Marty Havlett and Alex Tanquay for example for contract comparisons .. Comparing him to Jagr is not going to move the proceedings along .. Biggest catch though is that the player has ZERO options but withhold services and a hard line owner is not obligated to go 1 cent over old contract plus qualifier.. Million dollar question how do you resolve that .. The NHLPA would suggest set him free and let the market decide based on supply and demand, where he could come crawling back with no takers, but it would make sure the owners offer was fair or he risks losing him ..

 

[txomisc]

I've never heard of it happening in the NBA. It does happen a lot in baseball, mostly due to Scott Boras. It does happen in the NFL as well, although it's a little more subtle than in baseball.

Scott Boras. Now there is a guy who I think almost all of us can agree has done some damage to the sports industry.

 

[Mighty Duck]

I'd rather see UFA status based on the games a player has played (with an age maximum).

Maybe 600 games played or turning 29, whichever happens first.

That not fair to players on the fringe in their organization, who, infact might be able to start on some other team. The only way it works, same for all players.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I have never understood why some feel that "the owners have to give something". It is based on an unknowledgeable expectation that negotiations are "give and take". Some are, but many are not. The ones that are, are only that way when there is a desire to partner with someone. The league wants to partner with the players, but not with Goodenow.

If i were advising the owners, I would be counseling them to do everything in their powers right now to avoid Goodenow from claiming he got the players anything that wasn't being offered in February. If they do, they run the risk that he will somehow survive. I can tell you that is the LAST thing the owners want. They want Goodenow to bear the brunt of the players' anger over signing the deal they will be eventually required to sign and the anger of losing a year's wages to do so. They will want Goodenow to be the scapegoat (as he should be). If they do not, Goodenow will come back sometime, somewhere in the next negotiation loaded for bear, and the owners will have sown dragon's teeth. If Goodenow goes, the players can at least say "well, we got screwed by bad advice" and maybe move forward.

It works both ways. The players want a partnership also, but not with Gary Buttman. They hate him and see how he has transformed the sport into something it is not in the last 10 years. But this is the way it has to be: If the owners want a partnership with the PA, well tough ****, Bob Goodenow is the PA boss. Likewise, if the players want a relationship with the owners, well tough ****, Gary Bettman is the commissioner and the chosen leader of the owners. Saying the owners want a relationship with the players and not Bob Goodenow is an oxymoron or some crazy english term i learned in the 7th grade.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Mine was the readers digest version based on what would be realistic to expect in the final result The agent could ask for the moon as you say and the owner starts at old cotract + qualifier .. However it really comes down eventually to player age, years of service in the NHL and players of similar ilk to him in comparison statistically etc .. Simon Gagne agent might use Marty Havlett and Alex Tanquay for example for contract comparisons .. Comparing him to Jagr is not going to move the proceedings along .. Biggest catch though is that the player has ZERO options but withhold services and a hard line owner is not obligated to go 1 cent over old contract plus qualifier.. Million dollar question how do you resolve that .. The NHLPA would suggest set him free and let the market decide based on supply and demand, where he could come crawling back with no takers, but it would make sure the owners offer was fair or he risks losing him ..

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think that's a whole lot different from how it has been, except before with the 110% qualifier the owners were obligated to give a player a rather nice raise, whether he deserved it or not. Only choice the owner has had is basically the same, let the RFA go & see what happens. The Bolts have done it more than once -- they've let Nolan Pratt go once (he re-signed for far less than his QO but was rewarded with a very nice contract the next year), Stan Neckar twice and just this off season they let Ben Clymer go, letting him know they'd re-sign him a la Pratt at a lower salary. Remains to be seen what happens there, of course.

And not quite "zero" options, when eligible the players had the arbitration route, while the owners did not. They are still trying to keep the arbitration card tilted significantly in their favor -- another thing only time will determine.

 

[GSC2k2*]

It works both ways. The players want a partnership also, but not with Gary Buttman. They hate him and see how he has transformed the sport into something it is not in the last 10 years. But this is the way it has to be: If the owners want a partnership with the PA, well tough ****, Bob Goodenow is the PA boss. Likewise, if the players want a relationship with the owners, well tough ****, Gary Bettman is the commissioner and the chosen leader of the owners. Saying the owners want a relationship with the players and not Bob Goodenow is an oxymoron or some crazy english term i learned in the 7th grade.

Not in my view, and apparently not in the league's view either (based on their apparent strategy). Goodenow and the players are not synonymous. THe players are the players. Goodenow is replaceable, even though he sets the tone and the strategy. Much as he might like to believe, he is not the Great Emancipator of the players a la Marvin Miller. He will be gone, rest assured.

He is the wrong man for the union at a time when the union needs someone to strike a hard bargain in a partnership format. Neither he nor the union recognized that, and he drove thme off a cliff. He did not do so intentionally, in the same sense that snakes don't bite people intentionally; it's just what snakes do. And no, I am not saying Goodenow is a snake; I am making an analogy. A good negotiator with a lot of game is a lot like a good hockey team. He can play with finesse and rough it up as well when appropriate. Goodenow seemingly has but one strategy that he felt comfortable with.

All preferences aside, surely you would concede that the League has set up Goodenow for a fall.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by WC Handy
I'd rather see UFA status based on the games a player has played (with an age maximum).

Maybe 600 games played or turning 29, whichever happens first.

That not fair to players on the fringe in their organization, who, infact might be able to start on some other team. The only way it works, same for all players.

On the contrary, I think a MLB style # of games or # of seasons (by some definition on min # of games) is a much fairer way to go on the whole than a one size fits all age approach.

Why should the player who makes the NHL at 18 or 19 have to play a greater # of years before coming a UFA than one who comes up at 22 or 23?

The fringe player issues can be dealt with through other mechanisms - waiver draft and a group V type FA.

One of the arguments you frequently hear to justify the needs for RFA type restrictions (and against a low UFA age) is that teams need a return on their investment in player development. The current age-based system actually runs counter to that. The players a team spends the most time and $'s developing are the one's whose rights they own for the fewest seasons, and the ones they have invested the least in (zero or 1 minor league season) are the ones whose rights they own the longest.

The one downside to a # games/seasons approach (vs an age based UFA system) is that teams will be much less likely to bring up an 18 or 19 yo and use up a year of restricted rights unless they are sure he will be able to contribute - the same way teams currently face a 10 game decision on a rookie before the clock starts ticking on the ELS clock.

 

[nyrmessier011]

All preferences aside, surely you would concede that the League has set up Goodenow for a fall.

Sure they have. But did they concentrate more on that task, or on making a "partnership." And you can't opt to tell me that shoving Goodenow out of the picture ensures that partnership

 

[GSC2k2*]

Sure they have. But did they concentrate more on that task, or on making a "partnership." And you can't opt to tell me that shoving Goodenow out of the picture ensures that partnership

Without knowing, I would say it probably was a two-track thing.

"Ensure" a partnership? Not at all. But it sure as shootin' would never happen on Goodenow's watch. I know people will say, "Well, it IS going to happen on his watch". Well, my unsupported instinct tells me that he is a dead man walking, and the union is keeping him there until the negotiations conclude (to avoid a perception of weakness).

 

[FrozenPond]

Just because a player is a restricted FA until whatever age the new CBA brings into play, does that necessarily mean that you will be able to hold onto him. Say by some miracle the Caps land Crosby as well as AO, and say further both become the next great thing, number 1 and 2 in the league by far talent wise. Can they tie them up, and afford under the cap to pay them, until they turn 28 (or older as determined by the new CBA). In the NFL the Cap effects of a player come into play much sooner as they are not tied up until age 28, 29, 30, so this is not so much an issue there, but in hockey, how will this play out? Will those two in my example just have to take less, perhaps far less, than their market value as both todether would blow a teams Cap all to hell and back, until they turn 28? I may feel entirely stupid after asking this and seeing some of the answers but for the life of me I can not yet picture how this will work.

NFL players have UFA status after 4 years, NBA players after 5. That’s where the NHL is headed.

The PA is still clinging to the dream of a high cap, and if they get it they know a bunch of teams will spend the max. Under that scenario, the PA would be more than willing to keep the UFA age high.

Problem is, the PA ain’t going to get the high cap. The only real alternative is a UFA structure that resembles the 2-capped leagues. I don’t see any way of avoiding it.

The league has already proposed a 4-year entry-level system capped at $850K with about $200K in potential bonuses. I think UFA status will directly follow, or maybe a year or two of RFA status prior to UFA. Washington won’t have to worry; Ovechkin and Crosby would likely be gone before they have to pay them the big bucks.

 

[McDonald19]

I think the UFA age will be lower. If the PA agrees to a cap, the owners have to give something.


I would say it would be around 24. Yes, there still will be a salary cap, but there will still be an onus on the owners to make a decision instead of having it made for them.

no way not 24. Its going to drop a little 27-29 yrs for UFA something in there.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

The NHL is not played in a vacuum you know that each individual item is independent of everything else ..

In the New CBA big market teams Det, Tor, Philly, Col, Dal, NYR, StL all have massive big $$ dollar contracts on the payroll and still maybe looking to buyout the LeClairs, Nolan's and Holiks rather then adding to adjust to the Hard Cap ..

This makes no sense. Why do you consider Colorado and St. Louis big markets? They are 2.5 million. That is not a big market. St. Louis, last I checked, isn't exactly a rich afluent city, at least no more affluent than the average American metro area... As for Colorado, although I do agree that it has a wealth(ier) fan base, it also has 4 major pro teams, and several lower ranked teams /college teams in the area. Its extremely saturated with Pro teams.

If you are arguing based solely on Colorado's and St. Louis' payroll, it is misleading seeing as

a)St. Louis' payroll did not lead them to have much success, at least not relative ot the amount they spent.

b) Colorado's payroll has been high simply because they have had an elite team for 10 years.

This BS about these 2 mid market teams, at best, being large markets is one of the obvious fallacies being peddled around by the media over the last few years.

That said, I do agree with most of your points, Messenger.

 

[me2]

no way not 24. Its going to drop a little 27-29 yrs for UFA something in there.

With UFA at the early age of 24 you might as well drop the draft and RFA status from the next CBA all together. If you drop the draft and UFA then you don't really need a CBA with the NHL management involved. And if you don't have NHL management involved then that frees up the NHL to just run/promote the competition and implement competition entry rules (ie max spending on players per team).

 

[FrozenPond]

My biggest concern is not UFA age but arbitration and qualifying offers (in my opinion the real culprits of salary escalation).

Arbitration and qualifying offers are a concession for maintaining a high UFA age.

If the UFA age is low, arbitration becomes obsolete; there is nothing to arbitrate.

Qualifying offers are only significant if you have a lot of restrictions on free agency. A low UFA age eliminates the problem.

Players in the 2-capped leagues quickly achieve UFA status if they choose to do so. That’s the way it will be in the NHL. The only way to avoid this is for the owners to offer a cap at a level that is higher than they can afford.

 

[syc]

You can't actually believe that Demitra is just going to stop playing in the NHL because he's ONLY going to be able to make $3.5M, can you?

I would if a rich russian offered him 5M.