Potential UFA's if CBA not settled (2003 draft)

[Roger's Pancreas*]

What's the difference between RFA and UFA?

 

[NYR469]

What's the difference between RFA and UFA?

restricted free agent vs unrestricted free agent...

if a player is a RFA their current team holds their rights and has the right to match and offer or receive compensation. for example, if jarome iginla is a RFA and another team gives him an offer sheet, the flames get 7 days to either match that offer sheet and keep him or take 5 1st round picks as compensation...

on the flipside, at the end of the year when brian leetch becomes a UFA, if he signs with another team, the leafs get nothing in return and can't match the offer.

 

[AH]

How can unsigned 20 year olds, two years removed from being drafted become free agents? What legal leg do they have to stand on when anyone in their situation has to first GO BACK INTO THE DRAFT ?

The only way these guys become free agents is when no one picks them up in the draft the SECOND time around.

More wet dreams from fans of teams that have pissed away their future the last few years.

 

[Debrincat93]

Its amazing how all the fans of teams with no prospect depth actually somehow expect their team sign players during a time where teams are NOT ALLOWED TO SIGN PLAYERS :lol :lol :lol

All you Leafs and Wings fans make me laugh

No prospect depth?

Upfront we got 3 good standouts for 3 countries: Filpulla, who's turning his game around, Grigorenko was a top 15 prospect up till the injury and Hudler had the talent to be a top 10 pick if he was bigger...

Kronwall is leading the AHL in pts amoung defensemen, Quincey made the WHJC, Howard is one of the best NCAA goalies...

no depth, get real

 

[clefty]

How come Peter Hamerlik re-entered the draft two years after being drafted out of Europe?

Because he was drafted out of the OHL.

 

[Juicer]

This list has been made assuming the lockout runs through June 1, these players would become UFA's and would be available for signing once the CBA is settled.

*gasp*

That is not true. Those were terms under the previous and expired CBA, they cannot hold owners to an expired contract.

 

[Juicer]

My only question to those people who are so sure that teams will not be able to lose their picks is why did some teams rush to get their guys signed before the old cba expired (like Clagary with Phaneuf and others) when in fact if they would have waited till the new cba is in place they could have signed these guys to cheaper entry level contracts?

I think it was probably the players and their agents who rushed for the contract. Here is a quote from Phaneuf stating his side was forcing the issue.

"We're pretty fortunate we got the deal done before the CBA expired because we're pretty sure the rookies will take the heat in the new agreement," said Phaneuf to Sun Media.

 

[Sebastien Centomo]

Its amazing how all the fans of teams with no prospect depth actually somehow expect their team sign players during a time where teams are NOT ALLOWED TO SIGN PLAYERS :lol :lol :lol

All you Leafs and Wings fans make me laugh

Who said that? Could you direct me to a quote, or are you poking fun at two groups of fans for something that they never said or implied?

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

How can unsigned 20 year olds, two years removed from being drafted become free agents? What legal leg do they have to stand on when anyone in their situation has to first GO BACK INTO THE DRAFT ?

The only way these guys become free agents is when no one picks them up in the draft the SECOND time around.

More wet dreams from fans of teams that have pissed away their future the last few years.

I think you miss the big picture, [no offense intended]. The problem is that a player, when drafted, signs an agreement with his team stating that he is property of the team for two years [CHL players], IF a player is not signed within the 2 years following his draft, then he is eligible to re-enter the draft, if he so chooses.

A player could argue that he wasn't given an OPPORTUNITY to sign a contract within those 2 years, DUE to the lockout....[and remember that it is a LOCKOUT, the owners "agreed" [or colluded, in my opinion] to NOT sign any players while the lockout was in effect]. And because he was not fully given that opportunity, he may argue that he should be eligible for either full UFA status or some new hybrid created just for the prospects in this specific situation.. I don't believe it's going to happen, as most fellow posters it seems, would agree. But, the fact remains, there will be some basis for their argument.

It won't matter what a NEW CBA says. Those players, having NOT been signed by their team, will NOT be under ANY CBA rules as of yet. They'll look to be granted a "type" of status that no other players' have really ever had before, prior to signing any contract under the new CBA. Whether or not it will actually benefit them is an entirely separate matter. It may or it may not...

 

[AH]

A player could argue that he wasn't given an OPPORTUNITY to sign a contract within those 2 years, DUE to the lockout....[and remember that it is a LOCKOUT, the owners "agreed" [or colluded, in my opinion] to NOT sign any players while the lockout was in effect]. And because he was not fully given that opportunity, he may argue that he should be eligible for either full UFA status or some new hybrid created just for the prospects in this specific situation.. I don't believe it's going to happen, as most fellow posters it seems, would agree. But, the fact remains, there will be some basis for their argument.

It won't matter what a NEW CBA says. Those players, having NOT been signed by their team, will NOT be under ANY CBA rules as of yet. They'll look to be granted a "type" of status that no other players' have really ever had before, prior to signing any contract under the new CBA. Whether or not it will actually benefit them is an entirely separate matter. It may or it may not...

First off, there are way to many assumptions in your post. It may or may not even go to court, and if it does, it will likely take months for the court proceedings to complete. So where is the player at the end of this if he is not granted free agency? Back where it all started.

Soem posters on HF just assumes outright that Free Agency WILL be granted to these players, when we know that its not even clear if there is basis for free agency in these cases.

IMO, by the time June 1st rolls around, there will be a new CBA, either negitiated or imposed via impasse. If imposed, the ensuing court proceedings and challenges from the PA in front of the NLRB will get underway. While the new CBA is being fought over (which itself will take most of the off-season), the draft this June and status of the unsigned 2003 picks will be taken care of by the new CBA. If the new CBA is declared illegal, then everyone is back to square one and we can have this discussion then (which is a long time away). Just claiming that these guys will automatically become free agents once June 1st rolls around shows a lot of ignorance.

 

[Sting]

Patrick Eaves wasn't drafted out of the CHL.

Right..forgive me, I'm an idiot.

 

[hawksfan50]

I don't think it is all that clear--but it does seem to me that IF these drafted 20 year olds missed their opportunity to sign or re-enter the draft because of the lock-out ,they could go to court to request total unrestricted free agent status in preparation for when the labour market for the NHL does re-open under a new CBA--nor do I think any new CBA can retroactively extend what was in the former deadline for signing or re-entry...perhaps the new CBA can word the salary CAP for "rookies" entering the NHL so that it matters not whether a "first year under contract player" comes from either of the last 2 held drafts or from prior drafts if played entirely in Europe prior to age 31 or the UFA age limit,OR from the pool of 2003 draftees unsinged and now free agents--this would therefore affect ONLY the salary status of these free agent "rookies" --BUT NOT THEIR RIGHT TO FREE AGENCY...therefore it does seem that if no draft is held ,some agents might want to get the courts to declare their clients of this type (unsigned 2003 draftees) FREE to sign with any team --ALBEIT the maximum allowable monetary incentive WILL BE NO BETTER--so why would any of these guys want free agency since they cannot benefit monetarily above the "rookie cap" scale?
(By the way,the 2005 draft class might also argue for this type of free agency,if no draft in June as scheduled--ALTHOUGH ,they might have to wait until the calendar year is over --because if a new CBA is signed by fall 2005,the NHL could still hold their 2005 draft delayed--OR--even might need to wait till June 2006 before going to court over this,because NHL could hold delayed 2005 draft anytime before the June 2006 draft if a CBA not in place until that time---so it could be a tougher road to free agency for 2005 draft eligibles denied by lock-out to sign nHl contracts--it may depend on how long the CBA takes --OR they MIGHT gain an easier road if the
NHL declares impasse and goes to "replacement players"--here at least the 2005 draft eligibles---since denied their draft under the old CBA rules due to lock-out-- probably would get immediate free agency).

Getting back to the question of why the 2003 draftees (some of them) might still opt for free agency even if still subject to impasse imposed NHL rookie cap (from their NHl's last offer on the table,as the NLRB would impose if it agreed with the NHL):

1. Personal preference ---have favourite org would rather play for/like certain cities or regions or countries better =climate/,taxes/night life/cultural amenities/family+friends if they want to play closer to home/fan themselves of a certain team =so lots of personal reasons ...


2. Possible monetary gain IF free agency (even if limited by a max rookie CAP) means getting away from the SCALE of a rookie's salary based on his draft round
--ie. suppose a 2nd rounder from 2003 could expect only "X" dollars under this CAP if a new CBA was signed in time for the '05 draft and he chose not to re-enter,but with this new free agency because no draft due to lockout,vhe now feels he can negotiate to the max for a 1st rounder of his draft crop if his play since the draft justified enough interest from other teams now free to negotiate with him...admittedly not a lot would be in this position --but perhaps a few.


3. The opportunity to play in the same org with other 2003 drafted but unsigned players who are their friends or who they have a chemistry having played together on certain teams in the past or maybe on the national JR.team.
An example here might be Clarke McArthur and Colin Fraser who played so well together on that energy line for Canada at the WJC-U20 --or perhaps Richards and Carter want to be together --but maybe not in PHI?


4. Personal grudge---to punish the NHL team that drafted them but refused to rush to sign them before the lock-out...



Therefore for any or all the above reasons --it may be desireable for at least some of unsigned 2003 draftees to try for free agency should they get the chance due to this lock-out continuing or impasse/last offer imposed...they would then be free to sign with any team as a "replacement player" albeit subject to the imposed or negotiated (under a new CBA that came too late to prevent their FA status) rookie CAP limit...