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

[Jaded-Fan]

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.

Click to read more...

 

[GKJ]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

While I am at it, some further thoughts. What skills and assets will be most valuable under a new CBA? To use the NFL again, draft picks are huge, as it is the only way to have enough talent when it is relatively cheap to win . . . Cap management as well . . . knowing when to throw a FA overboard who has been successful and who to pick up. Will the later age of UFA's and the drafting of NHL prospects at least 2 years older by the NFL than NHL (so the step right in factor is nil in the NHL, and bust factor greater too) make this play out much differently? Just a curious mind trying to picture what this new landscape will look like.

 

[FLYLine27*]

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.

UFA age 24??? No way. 28 the lowest. Teams wouldnt be able to hold onto any of there home grown players for more then 4-5 years if its that low.

 

[HockeyCritter]

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

 

[nyrmessier011]

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.

agreed that should be the way things work...but maybe this is why it's taken so long. The players agreed to a cap in February, so maybe the owners aren't being gracious enough by giving them other things they want. The only thing I have heard through this whole process that favors the players is Bettman asking big market clubs to share revenues. Since then I haven't heard a thing about revenue sharing. Does anybody know what the latest NHL offer is?

 

[GSC2k2*]

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 is a reasonable approach, more akin to the MLB approach (which uses days of service). I have long thought age was a rather arbitrary approach.

Incidentally, I would suggest that the NFL FA approach is a flawed comparison. Football careers are a very short length on average, and are not really comparable to NHL careers. As well, the trajectory of NFL careers are dissimilar, since NHL players often make an immediate impact upon coming into the league - much more so than NHL rookies.

 

[GKJ]

UFA age 24??? No way. 28 the lowest. Teams wouldnt be able to hold onto any of there home grown players for more then 4-5 years if its that low.

I guess that sucks then, doesn't it? The people who know what they are doing will find a way. Ask the Atlanta Braves, Philadelphia Eagles or New England Patroits how it's working out for them.



The owners aren't going to get every single thing here. There is something they will have to give up. And the UFA age is something that is insanely in favor of the owners compared to other leagues. Baseball has no RFAs (although there are other ways to keep young talent). IN the NFL there is putting the franchise tag on a player. In the NBA I beleive it is based on games played, but it isn't a lot and it is also low. The NHL isn't like any of the 3 major sports, and while it wouldn't be popular, at some point it will happen. I mean, MLB, NFL and the NBA are all widly popular sports unlike the NHL. Some of those guys must know what they're doing.

 

[X0ssbar]

Enter "capologists"...

....if a team wants to keep a star player or two I am sure there will be work-arounds. Whether it be front/back loaded contracts, no-trade clauses, signing bonuses, etc. Even though I can't really tell you what the work-arounds will be I am sure there will be some found on both sides of the camp.

...and unfortunately work-arounds like these will lead to another labor stand-off in 10 years no matter how air-tight all parties involved think this CBA will be once its signed. I am, however, hopefull that any future labor standoffs are merely tweaks to this current system more so than the complete overhaul we are going through now which will hopefully lead to quick(er) resolutions.

...Thats pro sports in the 21st century I guess <sigh>.

 

[GSC2k2*]

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

BANG ON!!!!!!!

 

[Mess]

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. They can 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 come into play much sooner, 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 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.

The CBA governs that exact thing .. Those are the system or systemic issues of a CBA that to the NHLPA and players is much more important to then the HARD CAP ceiling that is team based ..

Entry level contracts , Qualifying offers and Arbitration rights and rewards all determine the amount any player can make before UFA kicks in .. That is why the 42.5 mil Final offer was so bad to the NHLPA despite the higher ceiling ..

The situation you are talking about is a team issue and decision on how to handle it .. Even if the Caps paid Crosby and Ovechkin $10 mil each .. The only rule they need to play by is the whole 22 man team must be below the Hard Cap figure combined ..

So the Caps could be comprised of Crosby and Ovechkin and 20 AHLers or players on entry level contracts .. Really not much different then you have now really just without Crosby at this point.

In the NFL you even have teams trading down in the entry draft not to avoided taking the best talent, but avoiding paying them money based on draft position and as a result handicapping your team. So they trade down take the next best player/s at that position in order to play and compete in a hard cap world .. NO NFL team can do like the NHL allows and hover near the bottom and draft early year after year .. It would cripple your team on the field to do so, in no time ..

 

[WC Handy*]

In the NFL you even have teams trading down in the entry draft not to avoided taking the best talent, but avoiding paying them money based on draft position and as a result handicapping your team.

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

 

[Jaded-Fan]

The CBA governs that exact thing .. Those are the system or systemic issues of a CBA that to the NHLPA and players is much more important to then the HARD CAP ceiling that is team based ..

Entry level contracts , Qualifying offers and Arbitration rights and rewards all determine the amount any player can make before UFA kicks in .. That is why the 42.5 mil Final offer was so bad to the NHLPA despite the higher ceiling ..

The situation you are talking about is a team issue and decision on how to handle it .. Even if the Caps paid Crosby and Ovechkin $10 mil each .. The only rule they need to play by is the whole 22 man team must be below the Hard Cap figure combined ..

So the Caps could be comprised of Crosby and Ovechkin and 20 AHLers or players on entry level contracts .. Really not much different then you have now really just without Crosby at this point.

In the NFL you even have teams trading down in the entry draft not to avoided taking the best talent, but avoiding paying them money based on draft position and as a result handicapping your team. So they trade down take the next best player/s at that position in order to play and compete in a hard cap world .. NO NFL team can do like the NHL allows and hover near the bottom and draft early year after year .. It would cripple your team on the field to do so, in no time ..

Let me play this out so you see what I mean. Use the Caps argument. Assuption one, for this purpose, they get AO and Crosby. Assumption two, AO and Crosby develope into this eras Mario and Gretz. Now they will be limited by the rookie cap, likely for 3 years, as to what they can make. Assumption 3 is that UFA comes at 28, as is widely reported. Ok, so they start their NHL careers at age 19 and 20. Three years pass and they are now 22 and 23. Crosby still has 6 years until he can cash in as an UFA. AO has 5 years. Both say, look at me, I am by far above anyone else. If an UFA the money that I would get would be enormous, I want close. Next year Crosby says the same. Caps say . . .no way, we will give you this (this being a fraction of what they are worth) or you can be a restricted FA and we get five first round draft picks. How am I wrong about this scenerio?

 

[GSC2k2*]

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.

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.

 

[HockeyCritter]

That is a reasonable approach, more akin to the MLB approach (which uses days of service). I have long thought age was a rather arbitrary approach.

Incidentally, I would suggest that the NFL FA approach is a flawed comparison. Football careers are a very short length on average, and are not really comparable to NHL careers. As well, the trajectory of NFL careers are dissimilar, since NHL players often make an immediate impact upon coming into the league - much more so than NHL rookies.

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.

 

[Mess]

Let me play this out so you see what I mean. Use the Caps argument. Assuption one, for this purpose, they get AO and Crosby. Assumption two, AO and Crosby develope into this eras Mario and Gretz. Now they will be limited by the rookie cap, likely for 3 years, as to what they can make. Assumption 3 is that UFA comes at 28, as is widely reported. Ok, so they start their NHL careers at age 19 and 20. Three years pass and they are now 22 and 23. Crosby still has 6 years until he can cash in as an UFA. AO has 5 years. Both say, look at me, I am by far above anyone else. If an UFA the money that I would get would be enormous, I want close. Next year Crosby says the same. Caps say . . .no way, we will give you this (this being a fraction of what they are worth) or you can be a restricted FA and we get five first round draft picks. How am I wrong about this scenerio?

You not wrong at all .. Your spot on ..

Look no further then Kovalchuk and Heatley in Atlanta .. They just finished their entry level contracts of 3 years ( 1.25 mil base plus bonuses).. Now Atlanta is only obligated to offer them what the Qualifying rules say in the new CBA .. Old CBA it was 110% of your last deal (basically giving you a 10% raise) .. Numbers being offered by owners started at 75% for the "FINAL OFFER" and have gone up to 85% in last proposals ..

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 .. Only option withhold services to get the best deal he can. Sitting out for nothing is not a great option for either side, particularly the player so he takes the best deal he can get .. With his Salary being used for comparison to every other player ie Nash etc in the future it is in the best interest of all owners to keep that Salary are low as you can go to get player on the ice and FAIR market barely enters into to the discussion ..

The owners will not duplicate the mistakes of the last CBA and offer RFA big contracts.. That is what started this whole mess when the NYR offered Sakic and Carolina offered Fedorov big front loaded contracts to steal them away .. Those times are over because if someone does it to you then you will do it back again to someone else ..

The only other option is Arbitration rights .. Taking your salary to be heard by an independent person to rule in favour of player or team for your Salary, that again was highly responsible for player salary increases and the NHL would love nothing better the to have it abolished as a tool to the player.. That is not going to happen though, but they can try to cap increases rewarded etc.. Not all players have this option anyways. Even if you did your Salary would still be influenced by your age and years of NHL service.

This is why the lockout is so long and bitter, and the players are waiting for the Owners to toss them a bone and the only one they can is earlier UFA. If they need a cap and linkage for profiability then they have to allow players the freedom to move around more in the system and let the HARD CAP ceiling keep salaries in check, while competition via bidding from several teams get the player the best deal he can.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

You not wrong at all .. Your spot on ..

.............

In that case, draft pick values are enormous, especially high draft picks. True they are hit and miss, but your chance at a top player will almost exlusive be draft based, and you keep them for 2/3 of their career and their most productive years at that. Hell, if you hit, it could mean that you will be good for years to come, especially if the league does finally crack down on clutch and grab. Filling in the gaps, especially if you have a top goalie too will not be hard even if it is with middling players for the most part. It certainly changes how the league will be run.

As a ps . . . thank you for answering, I am trying to work out in my mind how the new league would be run (granting that we only know very broad frameworks of what a new CBA might be like). My only reference really if the NFL and how people scramble over draft picks and FA signings year to year. The later UFA seems to me to tie players down much longer so therefore as said above, I think that draft picks will be the premium way to get good, especially high draft picks, even granting the bust potential of trying to peg talent levels of 18 year olds. I just do not see how you can get a franchise player type talent otherwise, certainly not through trade unless you are very lucky (Markus Nasland an example of a late bloomer).

 

[Mess]

In that case, draft pick values are enormous, especially high draft picks. True they are hit and miss, but your chance at a top player will almost exlusive be draft based, and you keep them for 2/3 of their career and their most productive years at that. Hell, if you hit, it could mean that you will be good for years to come, especially if the league does finally crack down on clutch and grab. Filling in the gaps, especially if you have a top goalie too will not be hard even if it is with middling players for the most part. It certainly changes how the league will be run.

Right you are again and why all teams big market and small are fighting bitterly for Crosby rights .. that is what is the underlying cause .. All teams would love to have his services under the new CBA that starts with a 4 year entry level contract at 850K max base followed by Qualifying offers for the next years until you reach UFA .. So it would not be unrealistic to expect for a player like Crosby ages 18-22 (850k) , 23-25 (1.5-2.0 mil) and 26-28 ( 3 mil per ).. before you reach UFA say at 28 in the new CBA .. Add that all together and a player like Holik, or Guerin who cashed in at UFA make more in a couple of years then Crosby or Ovechkin will for the first 10 years (18 -28 years old) of NHL service.

Draft picks and cheap talented players become like gold in a Hard Cap world and the jobs of established vets and Stars fall by the way side in cost cutting moves .. Unless the Palffy's, Kovalev's, Demitra's are willing to take 3.5 mil (1/2 of what they used to make and where offered post old CBA expiring) then you may have seen the last of them in the NHL .. That is Hard Cap reality particularly in transition as the big market teams take a few years to get out from under OLD CBA contracts and the rebuilding teams hover near the bottom and can't afford their services ..

 

[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?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Let me play this out so you see what I mean. Use the Caps argument. Assuption one, for this purpose, they get AO and Crosby. Assumption two, AO and Crosby develope into this eras Mario and Gretz. Now they will be limited by the rookie cap, likely for 3 years, as to what they can make. Assumption 3 is that UFA comes at 28, as is widely reported. Ok, so they start their NHL careers at age 19 and 20. Three years pass and they are now 22 and 23. Crosby still has 6 years until he can cash in as an UFA. AO has 5 years. Both say, look at me, I am by far above anyone else. If an UFA the money that I would get would be enormous, I want close. Next year Crosby says the same. Caps say . . .no way, we will give you this (this being a fraction of what they are worth) or you can be a restricted FA and we get five first round draft picks. How am I wrong about this scenerio?

Your not wrong, why do you think the players didn't want a cap?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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

It does happen in the NFL and it is extreme in baseball. In MLB however, you can't trade picks so teams end up taking cheap players a lot higher than they should be taken, simply because they don't have the $$ to pay a better player. It's kind of stupid actually.

However, I don't think either situation would happen in the NHL because teams don't pay players when they are drafted. In the NFL, not having a 1st round pick can be a good thing in most years because you can spend that money on FA's. In the NHL you wouldn't be paying that draft pick for about another 3 years anyway.

 

[shakes]

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

It happens in the NBA.... a lot!

 

[GKJ]

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.

I think we're all pretty confident Goodenow will get canned unless the owners for whatever reason accept a luxury tax.

 

[Epsilon]

It happens in the NBA.... a lot!

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.