Spicing up free agency
Apr 6, 2016 9:20:56 GMT -5
Post by blny on Apr 6, 2016 9:20:56 GMT -5
This topic comes from discussion elsewhere about Dreger's comments on KHL defender Kempny being targeted by some NHL teams.
1. Teams clamor for NHL-caliber talent that is cost effect. Even more so in a world where the Canadian dollar is down and the cap isn't rising.
2. The UFA market isn't as much a source for players as it used to be. Stamkos aside, we're seeing the UFA talent pool dwindle more and more. When you look at the defenders that will be available on July 1, there isn't much after Yandle and Goligoski. These guys aren't exactly elite either. Good second tier guys, but not marquee. The drop off after them is significant which means they could bring in a huge pay day from a desperate team.
3. Teams just don't want to fork over a laundry list of picks to sign away an RFA player from another team. If you look at the RFA list of defenders this summer, there are some intriguing names. Krug, Gudbranson, Barrie, Vatanen, Ristolainen. The two Finns are blossoming for sure.
4. The result is teams are now looking overseas for KHL talent. They can sign these players to 2 year deals. They're low risk, high reward scenarios.
This brings me to my point.
With fewer marquee ufa's hitting the market, how do you spice things up for free agency? Good, bad, or indifferent, it does drive news/coverage for the league during the summer. It generates revenue for teams through ticket sales to see the new player and merchandise.
I'd like to see the league look at reducing the "penalty" for signing an RFA to an offer sheet. Four first round picks is ridiculous (if you sign the player to a deal for $9.1 million or more). Should a team be compensated that heavily because they can't sign their assets? I'd like to see the compensation for each price bracket cut in half. The flip side, to even things out, would be that the team potentially losing the player would have the option to match at 80% instead of 100%. Maybe you also stipulate that the player can't be coming off his ELC. It means that the bridge deal becomes more serious. You've got two years to decide whether or not you want to lock down the player long term, or you know other teams will come calling.
You're one piece away, that piece is an RFA on another team. His age fits nicely into your core group. You'd like to pouch him, but giving up 4 assets just doesn't make sense.
1. Teams clamor for NHL-caliber talent that is cost effect. Even more so in a world where the Canadian dollar is down and the cap isn't rising.
2. The UFA market isn't as much a source for players as it used to be. Stamkos aside, we're seeing the UFA talent pool dwindle more and more. When you look at the defenders that will be available on July 1, there isn't much after Yandle and Goligoski. These guys aren't exactly elite either. Good second tier guys, but not marquee. The drop off after them is significant which means they could bring in a huge pay day from a desperate team.
3. Teams just don't want to fork over a laundry list of picks to sign away an RFA player from another team. If you look at the RFA list of defenders this summer, there are some intriguing names. Krug, Gudbranson, Barrie, Vatanen, Ristolainen. The two Finns are blossoming for sure.
4. The result is teams are now looking overseas for KHL talent. They can sign these players to 2 year deals. They're low risk, high reward scenarios.
This brings me to my point.
With fewer marquee ufa's hitting the market, how do you spice things up for free agency? Good, bad, or indifferent, it does drive news/coverage for the league during the summer. It generates revenue for teams through ticket sales to see the new player and merchandise.
I'd like to see the league look at reducing the "penalty" for signing an RFA to an offer sheet. Four first round picks is ridiculous (if you sign the player to a deal for $9.1 million or more). Should a team be compensated that heavily because they can't sign their assets? I'd like to see the compensation for each price bracket cut in half. The flip side, to even things out, would be that the team potentially losing the player would have the option to match at 80% instead of 100%. Maybe you also stipulate that the player can't be coming off his ELC. It means that the bridge deal becomes more serious. You've got two years to decide whether or not you want to lock down the player long term, or you know other teams will come calling.
You're one piece away, that piece is an RFA on another team. His age fits nicely into your core group. You'd like to pouch him, but giving up 4 assets just doesn't make sense.
