Low free agency age actually works FOR the owners in one way

[hockeytown9321]

Read all the threads about replacement players. It seems that a lot of people are taking the attitude that "the players don't matter, only the team does". If the players are to be viewed as automobile workers (which is what people like Iconoclast would have you believe) then exchanging one for another shouldn't matter at all.

And if the cap does what its supposed to(let small markets afford to keep their players), why does free agency age matter?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Because you want players who are loyal to the team that 'made' them too?

The players are a part of the team. They are not the show, however.

 

[kdb209]

And if the cap does what its supposed to(let small markets afford to keep their players), why does free agency age matter?

Because continuity of players is desireable from the fan interest and marketing perspective.

Having a cap means the small market teams may have the financial ability to resign their own players, but it doesn't mean that they will be able to if they are UFAs at a young age and decide to accept an offer elsewhere - for monetary or other non-mnetary reasons.

As was pointed out to you in another thread here (and which you chose to ingore) the NBA used to have a much younger UFA age and over time has actually increased it to reduce player movement annd increase fan interest.

 

[Epsilon]

Because you want players who are loyal to the team that 'made' them too?

The players are a part of the team. They are not the show, however.

Loyalty to the team in a cap economic system is nonsense. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too, and that's not going to happen.

 

[Weary]

Because you want players who are loyal to the team that 'made' them too?

The players are a part of the team. They are not the show, however.

Without freedom you cannot have loyalty. A person who is prevented from moving elsewhere isn't loyal -- he's just stuck.

 

[reckoning]

And if the cap does what its supposed to(let small markets afford to keep their players), why does free agency age matter?

It seems the pro-owners side wants to emulate the NFL only on issues that benefit the owners; when it comes to free agency- all of the sudden they don`t want to emulate the NFL anymore. Free agency should be lowered to give players a choice in their career. Let`s say you`re one of the best backup goalies in the league, but the #1 guy on your team is the best goalie in the league so you`re only getting 15-20 starts a year. You know you`re better than a lot of #1 guys out there, and would love to have that chance, but your GM won`t trade you because he wants you as injury insurance or he`s asking for too much in return. What`s that player supposed to do? Watch his career rot until he`s 31, at which point a lot of teams won`t show interest because they want somebody younger?

 

[Weary]

Because continuity of players is desireable from the fan interest and marketing perspective.

Having a cap means the small market teams may have the financial ability to resign their own players, but it doesn't mean that they will be able to if they are UFAs at a young age and decide to accept an offer elsewhere - for monetary or other non-mnetary reasons.

As was pointed out to you in another thread here (and which you chose to ingore) the NBA used to have a much younger UFA age and over time has actually increased it to reduce player movement annd increase fan interest.

So how does a system with a low cap help stop player movement? Teams that are smart enough to acquire a stable of good players will not be able to keep them. They'll even have to let RFAs go. The NBA included the Larry Bird clause and the Early Bird clause to reduce player movement. Not one proposal from the league has indicated that they consider player movement a bad thing.

 

[reckoning]

Because you want players who are loyal to the team that 'made' them too?

The players are a part of the team. They are not the show, however.

So if players under 31 shouldn`t be allowed to become free agents because they owe their teams " loyalty", then teams shouldn`t be allowed to trade players under 31 for the same reason. Loyalty should be a two-way street, right?

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Really...hmm. How long did it take to develope Kovulchuk & Heatley as stars in a southern market, on a losing team?? They developed pretty fast as marketable stars. Some players develope slowly as players, but developing a star into a brand name player isn't any different. 23-24 would be too young, but the suggested 27 is about right.

some types of player develop faster than other types. it is typical of a offensive player to hit their potential earlier than a defenseman or goalie, thus the phrase "Dman takes longer to develop". its not unusual for a goal scorer to start performing well in the nhl at the age of 19/20/21 (ex: heatley, kovalchuk, gaborik, nash, etc), but how many Dman dominate the league at that age?
im not trying to argue whether the UFA age at 27 is too low, im just stating that just because a couple goalscorers are successful at a young age doesnt mean all players should be expected to fully develop at that age.

 

[thinkwild]

I would of thought as fans we would be lobbying for the UFA age to remain as high as possible in order to get trade return on players as long as possible. With a UFA age of 27, a Hossa or Chara at 26 have much less trade value. Really, maintaining a 31 yr old UFA age is an outstanding player concession for the sake of the league that I feel we casually dismiss at our peril.

If you are willing to lower the UFA age, thinking it will make UFAs cheaper, then everybody a UFA at all times, a true market, should be the ideal. But I dont believe this thought that dropping the UFA age will lower UFA costs because of increased supply. If you lower the UFA age to 27, your own players attain UFA earlier so you will also increase the demand by the same amount. This argument is highly questionable.

 

[bcrt2000]

low free agency age creates unrecognizable teams

 

[hockeytown9321]

Because continuity of players is desireable from the fan interest and marketing perspective.

Having a cap means the small market teams may have the financial ability to resign their own players, but it doesn't mean that they will be able to if they are UFAs at a young age and decide to accept an offer elsewhere - for monetary or other non-mnetary reasons.

That still doesn't explain why age would be a factor. If they leave for money, whether at 26 or 30, the cap has failed. If they leave for non monetary reasons, the cap has no affect.

You can cite your NBA example all you want. Maybe they had more movement because of their cap? Maybe, just maybe, its the cap's fault.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

So if players under 31 shouldn`t be allowed to become free agents because they owe their teams " loyalty", then teams shouldn`t be allowed to trade players under 31 for the same reason. Loyalty should be a two-way street, right?

You just throw non sequitur after non sequitur out and hope something randomly sticks. I never said players under 31 shouldn't be allowed to become free agents.

I wonder if Goodenow uses "logic" like you guys in the meetings. Would probably explain why there is no deal and no one respects the player position...

 

[Crazy_Ike]

If you are willing to lower the UFA age, thinking it will make UFAs cheaper, then everybody a UFA at all times, a true market, should be the ideal. But I dont believe this thought that dropping the UFA age will lower UFA costs because of increased supply. If you lower the UFA age to 27, your own players attain UFA earlier so you will also increase the demand by the same amount. This argument is highly questionable.

Not so. Every team is already trying to help themselves as much as they can, so the demand doesn't change. What changes is the supply available to all 30 teams.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Not so. Every team is already trying to help themselves as much as they can, so the demand doesn't change. What changes is the supply available to all 30 teams.

If anything, there's more 25 and 26 year olds than 30. That should drive their price down even more than the cap already does.

 

[Frank Finnigan]

If UFA starts at age 31, and say there`s only one quality goalie available, then that guy`s agent starts playing the teams against one another ( i.e. my guy wants to sign with your team, but you`re only offering $5M while this other team is offering $6M), it becomes a bidding war and the goalie ends up with more than he`s worth. That`s what`s happened the past few seasons.

If UFA starts at age 27, there`s likely to be more than a few quality goalies available any given year, then the teams start playing the goalies against each other (i.e. "why should we pay you $5M when this other guy is just as good and we can sign him for $4M.")

Anyone with half a brain can figure this out. Of course, since the average NHL owner has less than that, it`s taken them a lot longer. Lowering the age for UFAs benefits players who want to get out of the city they`re playing in, other than that it benefits the owners. So the owners, even though they won`t mind lowering it for the above reasons; will act like it`s a huge concession and demand something huge in return. The NHLPA won`t fall for it.

I think you are over-estimating the increase in the number of players that would be free agents as a result of the age limit decrease.

I agree that there would be a TEMPORARY large increase in the number of free agents when the age is initially lowered. All the players between 27 and 31 would become free agents. After a few years though, the number of players will stabilize.

Assuming that every birth year produces the same number of NHL players, then you will only get a year's worth of NEW free agents - a fixed number.

 

[Weary]

I think you are over-estimating the increase in the number of players that would be free agents as a result of the age limit decrease.

I agree that there would be a TEMPORARY large increase in the number of free agents when the age is initially lowered. All the players between 27 and 31 would become free agents. After a few years though, the number of players will stabilize.

Assuming that every birth year produces the same number of NHL players, then you will only get a year's worth of NEW free agents - a fixed number.

The number of new ones might be steady, but the overall pool would be larger. There would be more second-time, third-time, etc. free agents.

If the owners really wanted to fix the most inflationary aspect of the last CBA, they would've asked for a significantly lower UFA age.

 

[thinkwild]

Well if you operate on the theory that teams establish their overall budget first, then UFA prices may come down, (for 31 year olds not so helpful), and 27 year old prices would go up by the same amount, as players in their prime will now get their true value, rather than their RFA depressed value. In a trade-off, I would rather Hossa and Chara at less than market value till 31, then less than market value after 31.

Sure it will help us get Guerin and Turgeon cheaper on the UFA market, but Heatley and Kovalchuk would get more in their primes. For teams that build rather than buy, this cant be a good incentive for a system to provide.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Loyalty to the team in a cap economic system is nonsense. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too, and that's not going to happen.

Loyalty to the team has been non existant for about 10-15 years. You migh notice that now when you see a player interviewed, he is wearing NHLPA apparel not his NHL team apparel.

BTW, it is good to see someone finally say what I have been saying all along: The NHL needs to correct its supply and demand problem. Make them all unrestricted free agents.

 

[mooseOAK*]

It seems the pro-owners side wants to emulate the NFL only on issues that benefit the owners; when it comes to free agency- all of the sudden they don`t want to emulate the NFL anymore. Free agency should be lowered to give players a choice in their career. Let`s say you`re one of the best backup goalies in the league, but the #1 guy on your team is the best goalie in the league so you`re only getting 15-20 starts a year. You know you`re better than a lot of #1 guys out there, and would love to have that chance, but your GM won`t trade you because he wants you as injury insurance or he`s asking for too much in return. What`s that player supposed to do? Watch his career rot until he`s 31, at which point a lot of teams won`t show interest because they want somebody younger?

Welcome to the life of a pro sports athlete.

 

[Weary]

Welcome to the life of a pro sports athlete.

I think you mean welocme to the life of an NHL player. I don't think in any other sport an athlete has to wait until age 31 for unrestricted free agency.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I think you mean welocme to the life of an NHL player. I don't think in any other sport an athlete has to wait until age 31 for unrestricted free agency.

Despite all of their suffering the players have been making out very well financially, thank you very much.

Actually I have not seen the free agency age mentioned in any NHLPA proposals so it can't be worrying them too much. I think that they liked the limited supply on the market because it created more competition for the guys there and their salaries increased accordingly.

 

[SENSible1*]

So how does a system with a low cap help stop player movement? Teams that are smart enough to acquire a stable of good players will not be able to keep them. They'll even have to let RFAs go. The NBA included the Larry Bird clause and the Early Bird clause to reduce player movement. Not one proposal from the league has indicated that they consider player movement a bad thing.

Why would the league consider player movement a bad thing?

The problem is not that free agents move around, but that the same fat hogs were always first at the trough in the old system.

Teams with the most cap room will be able to offer UFA's more money. Frankly, it will be refreshing to see the top free agents spread around the league.

 

[spokedB44]

In the NFL players move around more then any other proffesional league and it makes pretty exciting in my opinion. I love how teams have to scramble to get under the salary cap because teams that arre run well, like the Pats, gobble up the good players.

 

[bcrt2000]

under the old system i know younger free agency would definately mean the rangers, leafs & red wings could become the yankees & red sox of hockey, under a cap though, as long as the cap is reasonable i guess it will ensure a faster development cycle