The Lockout Thread Part I
View Single Post
07-16-2012, 01:08 PM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by
Informational, but doesn't address anything.
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.
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.
I'm starting from the fact that I don't know how much you remember of the pre-1995 CBA (in which players could be moved as compensation) or the 1995-2004 landscape.
What we saw starting in 1996 (or 1990, if you're the Blues) was a movement that threatened to divide the league in two: the well-heeled and the serfs. We saw the Rangers offer Joe Sakic a 3-year, $21 million offer sheet, which contained only $6 million in salary and a $15 million signing bonus. That meant $17 million the first year for an ownership group that was barely breaking even. The compensation due would be 5 first-rounders, and the Rangers didn't care because they figured that Sakic would push the team into the bottom-five of every first round for about 10 years or so. Philadelphia signed Chris Gratton to a massive offer sheet, and thought nothing of losing 4 first-rounders in the process.
But it wasn't just with RFAs that that happened. The trade of Teemu Selanne, Joe Nieuwendyk, Theo Fleury, and several other players based in Canada are all directly traced to the divide that occurred...their teams couldn't compete with UFA salaries when that day came, but they also couldn't match a large offer sheet either. It was better to trade the player and get something now (usually picks and prospects) rather than spread out the compensation over multiple years. Calgary got lucky with getting Jarome Iginla rather than Todd Harvey in the Nieuwendyk trade, and Winnipeg whiffed badly with Tverdovsky and Kilger for Selanne.
In my opinion, heavy RFA compensations are needed. If there's a heavy penalty for signing a 22-year-old, but not a 25-year-old, then the team that develops and endures the growing pains with a young player will lose him for nothing or close to nothing just as he's really beginning to produce at a high level. We can look no further than MLB to see a system that is largely structured around that very idea.
View Public Profile
Mayor Bee's albums
Find More Posts by Mayor Bee