The Lockout Thread Part I
View Single Post
07-16-2012, 01:23 PM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Originally Posted by
To address your points...
1) UFA status used to not begin until age 31, unless a player fell into Group VI (which still exists) or Group V free agency. Group V was for players who had at least 10 years of NHL experience and made less than the league average. That's how Scott Lachance became a Jacket.
Informational, but doesn't address anything.
2) From a competitive balance standpoint, the salary floor is needed in order to make sure that what happens in MLB doesn't happen here. With MLB, the accusations have been leveled for years that "some teams" (Kansas City) collect revenue sharing checks and pocket it, rather than putting it back into the team.
3) Arbitration is necessary to ensure a player's ability to actually demand and receive a raise. If UFA status began after 10 years, AND there was no salary floor, AND there was no arbitration, there would theoretically be ways to draft a player, sign him to an ELC, and then never give him a raise until he became a free agency...and the player would have no real leverage except the threat of a holdout. That's fine for a few players, but for those who might be later in developing or are marginal, that's a very different story.
Once again, I said that is a owner issue. I understand the link to contracts, but as I said if you remove the RFA penalties to the poacher it's not a concern. If teams would be more willing to offer contracts to RFA's or they become UFA's sooner, that removes the need for arbitration.
If compensation for signing an RFA goes away or is substantially reduced, then what we have is de facto UFA status starting at an early age. That would probably cause the league to revert to what it was in the late-1990s, when there were a clear-cut top-6 or -7 teams, with the rest of the league (especially the smaller markets) acting as a serfdom. Don't get me wrong, I would like nothing better than to have sat up on July 1 and signed Evander Kane to a nice big contract and not had to have paid any real compensation to do so, but it's not good for the league.
No. The team owning his rights has the option to matching. That's where the "restricted" comes from. As I stated I am open to a sliding scale on "compensation" based on age.
I appreciate your response, but as far as I can tell you didn't really address any of it with any satisfaction. At least nothing I hadn't thought of and certainly nothing compelling enough to get me to change my mind.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by blahblah