| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
 Posted - 07/11/2011 : 14:00:06
|
Since the new CBA was signed in 2005, only six teams have received offer sheets for their RFA's. And in this time, only one deal has been made, and that was in 2007 when the Oilers signed Dustin Penner, and the Ducks (with GM Brian Burke at the helm) refused to match the offer.
On the other five occasions, the offer sheets were matched:
2006: Vancouver matched Philadelphia's offer sheet for Ryan Kesler
2007: Buffalo matched Edmonton's offer sheet for Thomas Vanek
2007: Vancouver matched St. Louis's offer sheet for Steve Bernier
2008: St. Louis matched Vancouver's offer sheet for David Backes (Were the Canucks trying to get Back(us) at the Blues?)
2010: Chicago matched San Jose's offer sheet for Niklas Hjalmarsson
With only one deal consummated, one has to wonder what's going on? Are the draft picks too much? Do the GM's have a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" agreement about keeping away from each other's RFA's?
Based on the following salary levels, here's what a team stands to lose when signing an RFA:
$1,034,249 annual cap hit or less: No compensation
$1,034,249 — $1,567,043: Third-round pick
$1,567,043 — $3,134,088: Second-round pick
$3,134,088 — $4,701,131: First and third-round pick
$4,701,131 — $6,268,175: First, second and third-round pick
$6,268,175 — $7,835,219: Two first-round picks, a second and third
$7,835,219 and higher: Four first-round picks
The conventional wisdom is that giving up the draft picks is too much in compensation, and when you add in factors like budget, cap-space, etc., perhaps it should not be overly surprising about the lack of activity with RFA's.
Personally, I think there are rare elite RFA's who are worth four future first round picks, and I've gone on record in another thread suggesting that Steve Stamkos is one of those players. (For teams with the cap space obviously, and also, a team which is poised to be a playoff team the next 3-4 years, so there is no likelihood of giving up an early first round pick over the next four draft years.)
But that point has been well discussed in the other thread. My question is this: with the compensation formula in place, did the NHLPA do a good job in the last CBA in getting the most out of players who are now considered RFA's? Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, because the current system severely limits the likelihood of an RFA being signed, even when you have an elite player like Stamkos available. I'm not crying the blues for Stamkos (or for players like Thomas Vanek who ended up with a big contract), but with only one RFA signing since the lock-out ended, I would have to say that the owners got their way with RFA's in the new CBA. And it's a good thing too. The owners (and GM's) were not always disciplined in the pre-lockout years, so with the salary cap, RFA rules, etc., the owners found a way to keep themselves in check so to speak, and many of them needed that!
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Only one RFA signing in 7 Years! 
