Somehow, going after an RFA to me is really low. I mean, what was the thinking when he NHL decided that any team could go offer a contract to a guy you still have a contract with?
And offering a BIG contract to a RFA is forcing this team to equal that number and may put that team in dire financial needs.
I think being a UFA is good enough and that RFA's are superfluous and un-needed.
What do you think?
I completely agree. It just inflates more contracts
Draft pick comp based on offer: $773,442 or below - None
$773,442 to $1,171,882 - 3rd
$1,171,882 to $2,343,765 - 2nd
$2,343,765 to $3,515,647 -1st,3rd
$3,515,647 to $4,687,530 -1st,2nd,3rd
$4,687,530 to $5,859,412 -two 1st, 2nd, 3rd
>$5,859,412 Four 1sts
the playing field has certainly improved for blue chip rfa's
these are the guys benefiting most from the new cba as they are getting their long term deals and ''big money'' probably 4 years earlier than in the past
it remains to be seen if these long term contracts for soon to be blue chip rfa's is the right way to go
Good Luck getting rid of that, wasn't this where the owners had to cave a little to pass some power to the players & get the 2005 CBA ratified.
Exactly. The owners accepted this adapted model of free agency in exchange for instituting a ridiculously low salary cap based on (lied about) revenues. A trade of cash for control, and the owners chose cash.
I wouldn't get too worked up about offer sheets. The Penner deal, IMO, was a good deal for the Ducks anyway. Also, Burke could have avoided the situation by taking (or pretending to take) Penner to arbitration, making him ineligible for an offer sheet. Kesler's deal ended up being perfectly fair (1.9/year), the Canucks weren't hurt at all. Vanek was the most harmfull one, IMO - but the Sabres could have better managed the situation by signing Briere or Drury and letting Vanek go for the picks. It's just a matter of adapting.
Look at Soccer, teams invest alot more money in their players than in hockey. Do they have RFAs? No.
And everyone is trying to change that system because it doesn't make any sense at all.
Teams paying absurd prices for underaged kids, screwing the heads of talented youngsters by offering them way too much money before they are ready for a big team, there are countless reason why everyone should be very very happy that the NHL doesn't have such a stupid system in place.
Apart from that, there is zero similarity between European soccer and the NHL, so why even make a comparison when it's extremely obvious that it doesn't make any sense at all?
And everyone is trying to change that system because it doesn't make any sense at all.
Teams paying absurd prices for underaged kids, screwing the heads of talented youngsters by offering them way too much money before they are ready for a big team, there are countless reason why everyone should be very very happy that the NHL doesn't have such a stupid system in place.
Apart from that, there is zero similarity between European soccer and the NHL, so why even make a comparison when it's extremely obvious that it doesn't make any sense at all?
Exactly, the only reason soccer spends so much money is because there are like a thousand different teams out there, not like the NHL where there are only 30.
Why should they be removed? I don't see how it raises the prices anymore than a regular UFA. One could argue that in UFA terms, the highest bidder doesn't need to be matched, that's true, but just like UFAs, RFAs choose which team they want to sign with should they get an offer. So if a player is with team A, and team B offers him 5 mil, and team C offers him 6 mil...team A doesn't necessarily have to match team C, or either actually, until he signs on the dotted line. Even then, should he sign for some rediculous amount, it's free picks in a era where developing your own players matter. I do not see the problem whatsoever. In the end, there's less pressure to sign your RFA than your UFA in most cases, because you won't lose your RFA for nothing.
