Unrestricted free agent to remain at 31 in first year

[MojoJojo]

The rollback has no affect on Pronger.

He doesn't have a contract... the rollback is on existing contracts.

Yes, but it effects how much he needs to be qualified for. I assume if he isnt offered a certain percentage of what his last contract is worth he becomes a UFA. It could well work out that the Blues need to offer him 7.7 mil or lose him to free agency. Look on the bright side, its better than a buyout, since if he becomes a UFA you still have the option of signing him which could wind up saving the Blues some money.

 

[Mess]

Yup, and there's going to be three consecutive years of that, plus the glut of extra UFA's this year. Are the players winning any concessions at all? It seems like every CBA rumor that comes out looks like it's straight off the owners' wish list.

Are you sure you are not mis-reading the intention .. Players always want lower UFA so they have freedom to move if they want and the market albiet more flooded in years 4 5 & 6 of the deal still lets them test to see what they are worth ..

The 31 in year one would be something the NHLPA would support, perhaps even recommended itself .. as you pointed out the more you flood the market the lower prices stay on players ..

Because of the lockout approaching lots of UFA remained going into it.. Now if they keep the UFA at 31 they the UFA are now going to be able to find NHL jobs and with less players joining the mix will have less competition for those jobs .. If you have 10 players on the market in the 60 point range or 15 in that range that will alter offers if you can just move on to the next guy .. ALL about Supply and demand here ..

In the future as the UFA drops you are going to see teams locking away players longer term so that when they do turn 28 they will still have a few years remaining on a contract .. So they are not really free at 28 after all but 30. For signing this deal the player will be able to stay with his team and will be conpensated in $$$ in his contract to allow the team to keep his services beyond UFA age .. It forces Owners to pay fair market prices or lose the player and not just stick to the rules of Qualifying offers etc.

 

[AH]

A lower UFA age is bad news for the players in real dollars. It will drive salaries down, although it will give players an option to go to a place they really want at an earlier age.

 

[WC Handy*]

good luck qualifying him

Lucky for me, it won't be a problem at all.

 

[WC Handy*]

Yes, but it effects how much he needs to be qualified for. I assume if he isnt offered a certain percentage of what his last contract is worth he becomes a UFA. It could well work out that the Blues need to offer him 7.7 mil or lose him to free agency. Look on the bright side, its better than a buyout, since if he becomes a UFA you still have the option of signing him which could wind up saving the Blues some money.

Try $7.22M.

 

[Mess]

A lower UFA age is bad news for the players in real dollars. It will drive salaries down, although it will give players an option to go to a place they really want at an earlier age.

The Old CBA was broken because of escalating Salaries .. Flooding the UFA market at earlier ages is a benefit for both sides ..

The owners feel as you say it will keep Salaries lower to a point anyways .. and players themselves by letting the FREE MARKET determine there prices is the best way to determine their value to the NHL and as such can use multiple offers as bargaining power to get the best contract they can in the city of choice ..

Its a win win .. and it works fine in the NFL ..

Finally fans gain as UFA movement is exciting when your team lands a new player that entices you to pay to go see, thus helping the league grow in all markets ..

 

[Mess]

Try $7.22M.

And with Weight and Tkachuk under contract even with 24% less via the rollback have you considered how much Cap room those 3 players alone would consume ??

How much is left for the 20 remaining players on the Blues?.

 

[PecaFan]

Hmm, can't say I'm too happy about this. Under the old system, up and coming teams in mid to small markets lost their players to the big spending Cup winning teams because of money, not being able to afford to keep them, etc. So, we've fixed the money aspect of things.

But, we've simply changed the reason teams will be busted up. Guys will now be leaving for other reasons, right in their primes. Some guys will leave because they want to play in their home towns, some will want the nice weather of a California, Texas, or a Florida, some will choose cities based on taxes, some will want to go to teams with better Cup winning chances, etc.

I think we're pretty much going to see the exact same thing as we had before, the few teams that win all the Cups, and the rest of the league that struggle to get there, but never quite make it because they lose key players right as the team is on the cusp of greatness.

If the Cup champs and Buffalo, Columbus, Pittsburgh are all offering the same money, where are you going to sign?

 

[WC Handy*]

And with Weight and Tkachuk under contract even with 24% less via the rollback have you considered how much Cap room those 3 players alone would consume ??

How much is left for the 20 remaining players on the Blues?.

Not enough to be contending for the Cup, but enough to fill out the roster.

 

[WC Handy*]

If the Cup champs and Buffalo, Columbus, Pittsburgh are all offering the same money, where are you going to sign?

Whichever team is going to be the best for the next few years, which often times wont be the champ.

 

[Mess]

Not enough to be contending for the Cup, but enough to fill out the roster.

Isn't the point to win the Cup ??

The Blues have historically according to Forbes over spent the budget in order to win the cup .. so

What purpose does it serve in your own words "to fill out the roster" and then just lose Pronger next year as a UFA?.

I don't believe the new CBA's intention is to provide the NHL with a landscape that promotes filling out the roster as a high priority ..

 

[HabsoluteFate]

Hmm, can't say I'm too happy about this. Under the old system, up and coming teams in mid to small markets lost their players to the big spending Cup winning teams because of money, not being able to afford to keep them, etc. So, we've fixed the money aspect of things.

But, we've simply changed the reason teams will be busted up. Guys will now be leaving for other reasons, right in their primes. Some guys will leave because they want to play in their home towns, some will want the nice weather of a California, Texas, or a Florida, some will choose cities based on taxes, some will want to go to teams with better Cup winning chances, etc.

I think we're pretty much going to see the exact same thing as we had before, the few teams that win all the Cups, and the rest of the league that struggle to get there, but never quite make it because they lose key players right as the team is on the cusp of greatness.

If the Cup champs and Buffalo, Columbus, Pittsburgh are all offering the same money, where are you going to sign?

odds are if your contending for the cup or you are the champs your salary is already close enough to the cap amount that you wouldn't be able to sign one of those free agents anyways so I don't think that is going to be an issue
Unless your team is really badly run we shouldn't see many Buffalo , Columbus, and Pittsburgh anymore because everyone should in theory be much more alike in terms of talent

 

[WC Handy*]

No, the point for the Blues is to retain Pronger. Whether they do so or not they're not going to be winning the Cup in 2006. Thier #1 priority is getting Pronger signed long term.

 

[Mess]

No, the point for the Blues is to retain Pronger. Whether they do so or not they're not going to be winning the Cup in 2006. Thier #1 priority is getting Pronger signed long term.

That is strictly up to Pronger though .. He becomes a UFA the following year and will likely test the market ..

With the state of the team unknown as its up for Sale and the financial situation .. Pronger may want to leave the Blues .. There was talk before the lockout he was not very happy with Blues management and wanted out ..

 

[WC Handy*]

That is strictly up to Pronger though .. He becomes a UFA the following year and will likely test the market ..

With the state of the team unknown as its up for Sale and the financial situation .. Pronger may want to leave the Blues .. There was talk before the lockout he was not very happy with Blues management and wanted out ..

Maybe you can point out to me where I said that it was up to the Blues? I believe what I said, quite clearly, was that the Blues' #1 priority was getting Pronger signed long term. And I'm quite sure that I didn't say that Pronger's #1 priority was signing with the Blues.

As for his 'talk'. Exactly what he said before the lockout was that he wanted to stay in St Louis and would even stay through a rebuilding process but it needed to start soon. During the lockout, he had some comments suggesting he would test the market.

Now that we got that cleared up, if the Blues want to retain Pronger (as they clearly do) what do you think is the best way going about that?

Should they not qualify him now and hand him UFA status now?

Or

Should they qualify him so they have a year to discuss a contract with him?

 

[Mess]

Maybe you can point out to me where I said that it was up to the Blues? I believe what I said, quite clearly, was that the Blues' #1 priority was getting Pronger signed long term. And I'm quite sure that I didn't say that Pronger's #1 priority was signing with the Blues.

As for his 'talk'. Exactly what he said before the lockout was that he wanted to stay in St Louis and would even stay through a rebuilding process but it needed to start soon. During the lockout, he had some comments suggesting he would test the market.

Now that we got that cleared up, if the Blues want to retain Pronger (as they clearly do) what do you think is the best way going about that?

Should they not qualify him now and hand him UFA status now?

Or

Should they qualify him so they have a year to discuss a contract with him?

I told you my answer before but you jumped up and down and called me names in the process ..

In Pronger's on words from this interview ..

Allegiance on the line

Player pride over paycheque might highlight the league's new landscape when the lockout finally ends and play resumes.

Pronger: "It is, but I've got to do what's good for my career. At this stage, a lot of time it's not about the money. I've made a lot of money over my career. I want to go somewhere and win! In our league it's very tough to pick who's going to win because you never know, but you can give yourself a good opportunity and whether that's in St Louis, whether that's somewhere else we'll see when the time comes to make that decision."

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20041021_143026_5624

If the blues do as you say and just fill out the roster and that leads to a bad season then I know full well which way Pronger is leading ..

 

[LadyByngJeanRatelle]

Pronger: $10 million - 24% = 7.7 million qualifying offer.

Blues will qualify him and then trade him at the deadline to get some young assets.

Who are the other players who are NOT UFA because of this? Saku Koivu comes to mind from a Hab perspective ... Jeff O'Neill is another one, as well as Jason Arnott.

Basically, this affects players in the 1993 draft class. The only way they become free is if their teams dont present QO to these guys. Pavol Demitra is one guy from the 1993 draft currently free because he was unqualified by the Blues last summer.

O'Neill's only 29 and isn't 30 until February 2006. If the UFA age was going to be 30 like it was rumored to be, O'Neill wasn't one anyway.

 

[WC Handy*]

I told you my answer before but you jumped up and down and called me names in the process ..

Where did I "jump up and down and call you names"?

In Pronger's on words from this interview ..

Yes, those are his words DURING the lockout.

If the blues do as you say and just fill out the roster and that leads to a bad season then I know full well which way Pronger is leading ..

Oh you know now do you? I think it's safe to say you know nothing...

 

[Jag68Sid87]

I think teams will want to avoid qualifying players at salaries such as the $7.22 million St. Louis would need to retain Pronger. It sets a bad precedent, one that teams are trying to get rid of as part of the new CBA. Throw in the fact that they already have Tkachuk and Weight under contract for large sums of money, and the fact that the ownership situation will probably preclude the team from buying out either of those two big-ticket players, and you have a real quandary where Pronger is concerned.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the team will not qualify him.

 

[Sens#1]

Here is one thing I thoink about. Let's talk about someone really great like Forsberg or Naslund. How is their market value going to be determined? Who will be the first GM to offer something and what range would it be around? Seems as though the first offer will set the standard.

 

[WC Handy*]

I think teams will want to avoid qualifying players at salaries such as the $7.22 million St. Louis would need to retain Pronger. It sets a bad precedent, one that teams are trying to get rid of as part of the new CBA. Throw in the fact that they already have Tkachuk and Weight under contract for large sums of money, and the fact that the ownership situation will probably preclude the team from buying out either of those two big-ticket players, and you have a real quandary where Pronger is concerned.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the team will not qualify him.

If you were a betting man, you'd at least take the 30 seconds it would take to investigate the Blues cap situation and figure out that there's no chance in hell Chris Pronger isn't qualified if he's an RFA.

Since everyone who think they're an expert on it wont even do the research, I'll lay out as simply as possible for you...

If 04-05 contracts are honored...

The Blues will have 19 players under contract, including Tkachuk, Weight, and Pronger for $33.4M.

If 04-05 contracts are not honored...

The Blues will have 13 players under contract for $23.8M. They'd have 5 restricted free agents whose QO's total $9.9M after the rollback. Obviously this assumes QO's are the same as before (and they'd only go down, not up). That would put the Blues at 18 players and $33.7M with Pronger, Tkachuk, and Weight all under contract.

 

[Shane]

This is actually beneficial to the players and the owners. If the age was lowered to 28 this season, the market would be flooded with hundreds of free agents which would drive player salaries way down. However, it also gives the owners a chance to get their players under contract.

 

[Guy Legend]

If you were a betting man, you'd at least take the 30 seconds it would take to investigate the Blues cap situation and figure out that there's no chance in hell Chris Pronger isn't qualified if he's an RFA.

Since everyone who think they're an expert on it wont even do the research, I'll lay out as simply as possible for you...

If 04-05 contracts are honored...

The Blues will have 19 players under contract, including Tkachuk, Weight, and Pronger for $33.4M.

If 04-05 contracts are not honored...

The Blues will have 13 players under contract for $23.8M. They'd have 5 restricted free agents whose QO's total $9.9M after the rollback. Obviously this assumes QO's are the same as before (and they'd only go down, not up). That would put the Blues at 18 players and $33.7M with Pronger, Tkachuk, and Weight all under contract.

Well said.

The Blues will qualify Pronger 100% if he is a RFA. If he goes, he will be traded during the season. He could fetch a decent return from another team going into the playoffs.

However, it is still very possible that they resign him to a long term deal. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on this scenario.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Not very sure about this. I'm not a fan of the ridiculous amounts of player movements that you get in the NFL. It's hard to feel loyal to the players on your team when they change so often, players you dislike turn up on your team and your favorite players shuttle around the league.

Also wont this cut down enormously on trading? Why trade something away when you can just wait for the next flood of free agents?

 

[tom_servo]

This is actually beneficial to the players and the owners. If the age was lowered to 28 this season, the market would be flooded with hundreds of free agents which would drive player salaries way down. However, it also gives the owners a chance to get their players under contract.

I'm not so sure that a flooded UFA market will necessarily drive down salaries, because there are that many roster spots that teams need to fill. What this means is plenty of turnover, but demand will still keep up with supply.