Right's trading vs arbitration

[BlackHawk Down (Seb)]

May I know the purpose of that rule ? Well, at least the idea behind it.

Why would a player who gets his rights traded go through arbitration and not become a UFA/RFA or count as one of the 3 UFAs of a team ?

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

Adam could speak better about the original intent of the rule, especially since we used to do arbitration's all UFAs-to-be of a certain age. Now that we only do arbs for goalies (and for rights trades), it may be time to revisit the rule.

[BlackHawk Down (Seb)]

From what I understand, a team could retain 3 UFAs and have 10 players who they have acquired their rights and keep all 10 after arbitration without losing any to UFA ?

I think indeed this rule needs to be revisited. A player who is set to be UFA should either be kept in the 3 possible sports we have, or test the market.

Just a thought....

[Buffalo LEPS]

I share the same opinion

[Calgary.Flames]

We can certainly discuss certain things here but for one it doesn't make more sense to only be allowed to retain a certain number of guys every year. Right off the top of my head, this rule helps create more player movement in the offseason. It also affects the value of guys going into unrestricted free agency where teams are motivated to move expiring contracts for minimal returns.
Only a few players will want to test the market (110+ greed guys) compared to what it's like in real life.
Also, it's not guaranteed that teams will be able to sign the guys whose rights they acquired.

I get that a team can retain more UFAs this way, but players are moving and I don't see a problem with that as of now.

[Jets GM]

I was under the impression it was 3 keepers maximum and any UFA rights acquired through trade counted towards the 3.

I agree that more player movement is better. The new UFA bidding system is going to make things interesting.

[Calgary.Flames]

You can keep up to 3 of your own UFAs. Players' rights, you can have as many as you want.

Yes, the new bidding system will sure be interesting. It will change the approach entirely. The league needs to find a spot for its veteran players and I think this system will help achieve that.

[BlackHawk Down (Seb)]

With the number of trades we have seen so far, I think player movement is not an issue in this league.

I believe it is a non-sense that an actual player can go 7 years into a new contract, than 7 more without getting calculator money that he deserves at some point in his career. So basically, a player can actually never become a UFA and get paid.

I guess 2 teams could just swap identical or so players who are becoming UFAs, and both keep them since they dont go UFA ? Again, non-sense.

[BlackHawk Down (Seb)]

Also, if the new UFA bidding system is great, why prevent more players to become UFAs ? This is also, player movement.

[MartyFromOTTAWA]

Like Seb and Justin, I thought too that rights' acquisitions on pending UFAs count towards the number of UFAs that a team can resign.

I mean, it doesn't make sense that a team could sign up to 10 pending UFAs in the offseason....

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

So should we let all expiring contracts for age 27+ players go UFA? Or should we let you sign everyone you can without limit? I'm not being snarky, I'm legitimately asking. We're always open to revisiting league rules, especially if done in a thoughtful, make-your-case way.

The rule limiting the number of pending--older--UFAs you could re-sign was indeed put in place to get more player movement, to try to simulate one of the real-life aspects of the NHL, free agency. Or, getting something for cash only, and not having to give up assets like you do in trades. For a GM of a team with not many trade-able assets, free agency is a way to build up a better team without having to sacrifice your limited player resources.

It's also an additional wrinkle in managing your team, given that we also use a salary cap, and our salary bracket system means a lot of guys on their second contracts are getting PAID. And since we sign so many young guys early, their first contracts are often almost up by the time they're regular contributors in the league. As for long contracts, with the new rule adding 10% to contracts that extend beyond 4 years, we may see more shorter contracts and possibly more player movement.

Perhaps one option is to limit the number of expiring contracts you can acquire after the season is complete. Remember also, that the thing about rights trades is that--unlike re-signing your own guys--there's no guarantee you'll be able to sign the guy you just acquired. That's the reason why so many rights trades seem somewhat imbalanced: You're giving something for potentially nothing.

Maybe with next year's draft class I'll just give the top 30 prospects extremely high greed.

[Jets GM]

After reading what Bub said re:low to middle skill level teams, I've changed my mind. I think this sounds better....

Perhaps one option is to limit the number of expiring contracts you can acquire after the season is complete.

3 internal UFA's, and maybe 1 or 2 rights acquired guys. If you have extra internal UFA slots open, you could use rights that have been acquired towards the 3.

[Calgary.Flames]

After reading this again and thinking about it, we probably don't need a limit on the number of guys we can keep.
As mentionned, player movement is no longer a problem in today's EHEC.

That being said, the way we're doing it now doesn't favor/penalize anyone, it only probably increases the number of trades which we don't need since trading is at an all-time high.