|
|
Post by BruinsGM on Feb 19, 2012 9:24:00 GMT -5
When a UFA's contract is extended by his NHL team, does that have any impact on our league? Does he still become a UFA at the end of the season? I couldn't find a clear rule on this
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackhawksGM(Co-Commish) on Feb 19, 2012 9:33:07 GMT -5
If he still has RFA status hen extension is signed, then yes. If it isn't his first time as UfA then no
|
|
|
|
Post by BruinsGM on Feb 19, 2012 18:13:19 GMT -5
What do you mean "if it's his first time as a UFA"?
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackhawksGM(Co-Commish) on Feb 19, 2012 19:00:43 GMT -5
Read the rules. You are under control as RFA for 7 seasons, after that is your first time as a UFA
|
|
|
|
Post by BruinsGM on Feb 19, 2012 19:31:44 GMT -5
I know that, what I meant is, when someone is set to become a UFA after 7 years, and his NHL team resigns him to an extension for another year, does that affect our league at all? I'm confused as to what sam said
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackhawksGM(Co-Commish) on Feb 19, 2012 19:37:21 GMT -5
If he is extended before his 7th season is done then it counts. If it happens in his 10th or 8th or 14th season then no
|
|
|
|
Post by BruinsGM on Feb 19, 2012 21:26:53 GMT -5
ah okay thanks shully
|
|
|
|
Post by BruinsGM on Feb 22, 2012 20:26:44 GMT -5
Wait what if the contract extension happened before this league started?
|
|
|
|
Post by CapitalsGM(Co-Commish) on Feb 22, 2012 20:39:16 GMT -5
anything that happened before feb.1 is what is used
|
|
|
|
Post by BruinsGM on Feb 22, 2012 20:40:35 GMT -5
okay thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by RangersGM on Mar 9, 2012 13:43:01 GMT -5
Can we not just simplify all of this and say:
"If a player is designated on Capgeek as becoming a UFA by July 1st of the current year and signs an extension before July 1st of that year you inherit his real life extended contract. If the player has not signed an extension before the July 1st deadline he must be tagged or is released to free agency"
Do away with the 7 years 27 year old stuff and just make it easier for everyone. This would mean hemsky, bertuzzi etc are no longer considered UFAs as they have signed extensions. I think this will prevent a lot of confusion for people.
Also in doing this we can eliminate the Restricted Tag as it would essentially no longer be needed as many players resign before July 1st and every team has their franchise tag to keep their most important asset.
This would allow teams to maintain their rosters and what they deem to be their most important asset but still allow bottom teams to play catch up thru free agency.
|
|
BluesGM
AHL
Trade Council Member
Posts: 144
|
Post by BluesGM on Mar 9, 2012 14:04:41 GMT -5
I like this thought Rangers if they get resigned by July 1st u take the current contract ...Like Grabovski also he wouldnt be a UFA and wouldnt need a tag cause of his extension..Be alot easier and less confusing...But i do like the restricted tag.. Specially if u have 2 guys that end up being signed for the same year as UFAS..U then atleast get 1 for sure and the 2nd one u have a chance too match if price aint too high
|
|
|
|
Post by KingsGM on Mar 9, 2012 20:11:12 GMT -5
The simplest application of the tags would be to allow both to remain and implemented only on those players whose free agent status actually activates. Otherwise, the UFA designation and thus the power of the Restricted (Offer Match) and Franchise Tags are only binding once the player passes July 1st, without an extension.
Inheriting extensions should remove the necessity of any Tag application given that the Tag would no longer provide utility to a player, whose free agent status is suspended past the upcoming season when the Tags would have been necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackhawksGM(Co-Commish) on Mar 10, 2012 18:40:55 GMT -5
We dont want to change the rules more than we need to.
|
|
|
|
Post by KingsGM on Mar 10, 2012 22:18:39 GMT -5
We dont want to change the rules more than we need to. For sure. The only change that would actually take place, is that the league would honour the life cycle of each player's contract in the same way it honours the activation of the market status. The Tags would remain. All that would happen in essence is that if a player who was set to become a UFA in the following off season but never reaches that point wouldn't require the protection the Tag is designed to provide. The GM simply shifts the Tags to another need. In this way, the league removes an extra date (Feb.1st) that isn't really connected to any NHL contractual date (July 1st) of any importance. Something to think about would be the number of extensions that are completed in the NHL after it's Trade Deadline so as to ensure that the asset traded for remains in the fold to justify the expense spent. Same consideration would have to be given to SCFL GMs who might not want to have to move those newly contracted would be UFAs. Contractually speaking, the time between Feb.1st and July 1st is the most vital period given the time between the NHL trade deadline and the first day of free agency on July 1st. |
|
