Hfnhl Rule Changes: 2005-2006

[Dr.Sens(e)]

HFNHL RULE CHANGES: 2005-2006

1. Unrestricted Free Agency:
2006: 31 (player’s age after this year, so all players currently 30 or older on the player vital pages)
2007: 30
2008: 29 (and stays there after)

2. Player Minimum salary: $450,000
All salaries lower than $450,000 this season will survive. However, after this year, all contracts will immediately jump to $450,000. If a team does not wish to keep a player making less than $450,000 at this price, they will be given the opportunity to buy-out the player at a cost of 100% of the players’ annual salary (this will not count towards the cap). The player will then become a UFA. The minimum to sign a player going forward is $450,000.

3. Player Maximum salary: $8 million.
All those currently earning more than $8 million will be exempt from this rule.

4. Qualifying offers:
Players earning $450,000-$1,000,000 will be entitled to QO at 110% of prior year's salary;
Players earning >$1,000,000 will be entitled to QO at 100% of their prior year's salary.

5. Rookie Cap:
Entry Level players will be subject to a maximum annual salary as follows:
Drafted 2003-2006: $850,000
Drafted 2007-2008: $875,000
Drafted 2009-2010: $900,000
Drafted 2011: $925,000

6. Signing Bonuses:
There will be no more signing bonuses. All player contracts will purely be on an annual basis, which simplifies adherence to the salary cap and player comparisons.
This rule will be re-visited next off-season.

7. Salary Cap:
As has been previously announced, this season there is a $40 million soft cap with luxury tax applied up to $45 million, and a hard cap at $45 million (see message board for full details)

Next year, there will be a $40 million hard cap, with draft pick penalties for those exceeding the hard cap as follows:
$0-1 million: a 4th round draft pick
$1-2 million: a 3rd round draft pick
$2-3 million: a 2nd round draft pick
$3-4 million: a 1st round draft pick
$4-5 million: a 1st & 3rd round draft pick
$5-7.5 million: a 1st & 2nd round draft pick
$7.5-10 million: two 1st round draft picks
* All picks will be first available

If a team exceeds the cap by more than $10 million, it is grounds for the franchise being revoked.

8. Market value:
In determining a pending RFA or UFA’s value, the current market climate in the NHL will be used in combination with the player’s rating and current play in the NHL (so if the player is having a great year, and there rating is likely to increase, naturally their market value and demands increase).

For pending UFA’s, a randomizer is applied to determine the player’s likelihood and loyalty of re-signing. Keep in mind that in attempting to re-sign your players, you are only given the opportunity to make three bonafide offers to the player before they break off negotiations and commit to testing free agency. This is meant to dissuade GM’s from continuously making marginal offers for players. Also, insulting offers are also grounds for increasing the demands of the player (Reggie is after all, vindictive, if nothing else).

Long-term loyalty factor: All players who have played with a franchise for 5 years or more will automatically reduce their demands by 10% (but still be subject to the loyalty randomizer).

Reggie Swingstein will continue to handle all player negotiations.

9. WAIVER DRAFT/WAIVERS/TEAM SIZE
Waiver Draft: Like the NHL, we will no longer have a waiver draft.
Waivers: This has been simplified - all players 25 and younger will be exempt from waivers. All those 26 and older must clear waivers. This will be reviewed next season.
Team Size: After this season, teams will be required to reduce their total team size (signed players and prospects) to 90 players. This must be done by August 1st, 2006. The following season, this will be reduced to 80. Teams will be given a one-time opportunity to buy-out any signed players this off-season at a cost of 100% of the player’s annual salary (which will not count towards their cap). There will continue to be no limit of how long you can hold a prospect, although there will continue to be a $50,000 annual fee to hold a prospect beyond the first two years of holding their rights. Keep in mind this is putting us more in line with the NHL – which has a team limit – and is meant to reduce some of the marginal signings that take place in our league.

11. RATINGS
We will look at how we rate players next off-season, although no major changes are anticipated.

12. Euros
Players in Europe as of October 1st will be pulled off their respective roster and placed on the prospect list (at a $50,000 annual price). However, any player who returns to the NHL by December 1st, will be allowed back in the HFNHL on the same date as their return to the NHL (i.e. Kovalchuk this year). It is up to the GM owning this player to send a notice of reinstatement with a link to verify the player has in fact returned to a professional hockey team in North America.

13. Compensation picks:
There will no longer be compensation picks for players lost via unrestricted free agency. RFA compensation will remain the same.

14. Signing pending UFA’s
Any team signing a player who is a pending UFA will not be able to trade the player until all-star break of the following year without paying 100% of the player’s salary, which is essentially the cost of buying out the no-trade clause.

Click to read more...

 

[kasper11]

Please keep in mind also, although this is not a rule change, that if you resign a pending UFA before he hits the market, you may not trade that player before the following all-star game without paying a penalty of 1 year salary for that player.

 

[Hossa]

Please keep in mind also, although this is not a rule change, that if you resign a pending UFA before he hits the market, you may not trade that player before the following all-star game without paying a penalty of 1 year salary for that player.

I've never been an advocate of more rules, but I'm curious as to why this rule applies only to impending UFAs, not UFAs signed to a new team. I understand the logic for the current rule, but not sure why it wasn't extended.

I know in the summer of 2004, I offered an identical offer as a superior team (around 4 million) to a big name center as a free agent. Because my Canucks are not quite destroying the league yet, the player understandably opted for the superior team. Maybe a month later (before the season at the least), the player was dealt to one of the few teams that was actually worse than me.

Now considering that big name players can command no-trade clauses as UFAs, particularly ones in their late 30s, this is something that would never happen. If it did, the team that signed this big name player would never be taken seriously again by the big name agents....err....Reggie.

So my question, out of is why does this rule tackle one issue, and ignore the other?

And yes, I'm probably only bringing this up being cranky because of term papers.

 

[kasper11]

There are 2 reasons for the rules:
1) Not enough quality FAs were hitting the market. Too many teams were resigning players instead of losing them for nothing, confident in the ability to trade the players later.
2) Teams will sometimes get the player at a discount. There is a randomness to it, and if a player accepts less to stay with a team he shouldn't be traded after.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I've never been an advocate of more rules, but I'm curious as to why this rule applies only to impending UFAs, not UFAs signed to a new team. I understand the logic for the current rule, but not sure why it wasn't extended.

I know in the summer of 2004, I offered an identical offer as a superior team (around 4 million) to a big name center as a free agent. Because my Canucks are not quite destroying the league yet, the player understandably opted for the superior team. Maybe a month later (before the season at the least), the player was dealt to one of the few teams that was actually worse than me.

Now considering that big name players can command no-trade clauses as UFAs, particularly ones in their late 30s, this is something that would never happen. If it did, the team that signed this big name player would never be taken seriously again by the big name agents....err....Reggie.

So my question, out of is why does this rule tackle one issue, and ignore the other?

And yes, I'm probably only bringing this up being cranky because of term papers.

Well, I certainly know which player you are referring too, because the Blues also made an offer to that player of what I thought was more lucrative, and clearly, Zubov...er, that player...would have enjoyed a cup run or two in St. Louis.

But that decision not withstanding, when a player signs as a UFA, they get their market value and have maximized their compensation to a degree. On the other hand, when a pending UFA resigns with his existing team, he is GIVING UP that opportunity to maximize his value - to an extent out of loyalty - and as such, expects to get some loyalty back from the team he is committing to. By avoiding UFA status, the player is demonstrating a desire to stay with that team, and as such, would likely include a no trade clause as part of the negotiations. UFA's aren't showing loyalty - they are signing with the highest bidder.

To be honest, I would prefer the rule be in place for one year AND apply to UFA's as well (in terms of applying the penalty), because I don't think signing a player as a tradeable asset should be rewarded. But I've been over-ruled on this before, and I do respect the counter argument enough that it isn't too big of a deal to me. It is after all, the same rules for all of us.

 

[Ville Isopaa]

I think it would be good to have the same rule of a No-trade clause apply for all UFA's. Re-signed by the old team or signed by a new team. If it's for one year or until the all-star break, that's not as important, as long as the rules are the same for all UFA's. It would make things easier and also block signing players to gain tradeable assets.

 

[Hossa]

Well, I certainly know which player you are referring too, because the Blues also made an offer to that player of what I thought was more lucrative, and clearly, Zubov...er, that player...would have enjoyed a cup run or two in St. Louis.

But that decision not withstanding, when a player signs as a UFA, they get their market value and have maximized their compensation to a degree. On the other hand, when a pending UFA resigns with his existing team, he is GIVING UP that opportunity to maximize his value - to an extent out of loyalty - and as such, expects to get some loyalty back from the team he is committing to. By avoiding UFA status, the player is demonstrating a desire to stay with that team, and as such, would likely include a no trade clause as part of the negotiations. UFA's aren't showing loyalty - they are signing with the highest bidder.

To be honest, I would prefer the rule be in place for one year AND apply to UFA's as well (in terms of applying the penalty), because I don't think signing a player as a tradeable asset should be rewarded. But I've been over-ruled on this before, and I do respect the counter argument enough that it isn't too big of a deal to me. It is after all, the same rules for all of us.

Actually it wasn't Zubov. Apparently there's a lot of you trying to screw me over. Me and my buddy Eric Staal don't like that.

As long as it was discussed, that's what is important in my mind. I trust you guys up top to make the decisions, and I see the type of counter argument that would be made against it. I guess at the end of the day, as long as I can use it as leverage when trying to swing a bidding war for a certain player my way, it'll all even out in the end.

 

[Wildman]

Minimum Team Salary

Are we going to implement Minimum Team Salary. I know NHL has something like $24 MM.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Are we going to implement Minimum Team Salary. I know NHL has something like $24 MM.

We feel that the minimum OV requirement accomplishes much the same thing as a minimum salary is supposed to, i.e. ensure a reasonable amount of parity within the league. In fact, the OV requirement is actually more effective (although in its defence the NHL doesn't have players walking around with a set of season-defining numbers stapled to their foreheads), and doesn't penalize teams who are smart with their money.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

For those teams considering offering extensions to their players, keep in mind the following is the RFA offer sheet compensation if you sign a qualified player from another team:

Up to $660,000 - No compensation
$660,000 to $1 million - One 3rd round draft pick
$1 to $2 million - One second round pick
$2 to $3 million - One 1st and one 3rd round pick
$3 to $4 million - One 1st, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
$4 to $5 million - Two 1sts, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
Over $5 million - Four 1st round picks