Way back when I first started writing this site, the Oilers traded for Dwayne Roloson. While this was initially a good thing that subsequently went bad, it also gave me an interesting post about whether or not the CBA permitted the Wild to make the type of trade that they made. The objection that I had to the deal, from a CBA perspective, was that the Wild were getting something that they didn’t have the right to. Specifically, the deal gave the Wild a pick that was conditional on the Oilers resigning Dwayne Roloson. My take was as follows:
Roloson is supposed to be unrestricted free agent but he’s effectively had a restraint put on that status by the deal made by the Wild and Oilers. Minnesota managed to do what the CBA otherwise prohibits and will collect compensation in certain circumstances. They had no interest in Roloson’s rights following this season but somehow managed to create a compensable interest, albeit a limited one. Theoretically, this will depress the market for those players services. To take Dwayne Roloson as an example, the Oilers are presumably now willing to pay slightly less than they otherwise would have been. This affects not only Roloson’s value but the value of every other goalie on the market.
A second post on the topic was here. Vic Ferrari made what I think was the best counter-argument to my position but it was one based on practicalities rather than the terms of the CBA: in Roloson’s specific case, it made sense to roll the dice on altering the market with going to Edmonton, so that he could get a chance to start instead of backup. Tough to argue with that, particularly with how it’s played out.
The Wild have just done another of these trades, as reported by Michael Russo of the Star-Tribune. Brian Rolston has been traded to Tampa Bay and if he signs, at any time, with the Lightning, the Wild get a pick from them. I don’t know how this can possibly comply with the CBA. Rolston’s supposed to be unrestricted and the Wild and Lightning have come to an agreement whereby he isn’t. I’m puzzled by the NHLPA’s refusal to address this, particularly with the increasing popularity of these types of move.
Rolston’s supposed to be unrestricted and the Wild and Lightning have come to an agreement whereby he isn’t.
But surely he’s not a Free Agent until july 1, is he?
No, but even once he’s a free agent, if TB signs him, the Wild get a conditional pick. That’s what’s objectionable.
I think all that matters is that Rolston himself isn’t restricted from going anywhere. Once July 1st hits, he has the ability to go any place he chooses. Whether a team gets compensation or not for that decision doesn’t in any way limit Rolston’s options. Unless the NHL were to make it an issue, I don’t see why the PA would care.
Richard: Let’s say that you can buy product A or product B. They’re the exact same product and cost the same. If you buy product A, you have to give me a dollar. If you buy product B, you don’t.
Which product are you going to buy? Why? How much would the price on product A have to change before you were willing to buy it?
(That’s why the NHLPA should care)
Yeah, the conditional picks for negotiating rights should only be valid until 12am July 1, after which the player becomes truly unrestricted (and in theory can sign with the original team). The obvious problem this scenario would introduce, though, is that TB could iron out a contract and coutersign it at 12:05 to avoid losing the pick. So it’s not at all clear how to allow the swapping of UFAs without running into the problem you identify or the one I do. Hmm.
So it’s not at all clear how to allow the swapping of UFAs without running into the problem you identify or the one I do.
Agreed. I think, however, that my concern is more important, because the CBA provides that players will be unrestricted, not that teams will be able to make these types of trades.
I’d buy product A and give you a dollar but that’s just because you’re a swell guy.
MC- Oh, totally. I was just trying to think of a logical way to bring the practice into line with the CBA. I remember a vigorous debate about this when Roli was re-signed. Not sure an adequate explanation was ever given, though.
But would you give Jacques Lemaire a dollar Pat? He’s responsible for making a large part of the NHL unwatchable for five years.
And he isn’t a pleasant looking fellow, like me.
Richard: Let’s say that you can buy product A or product B. They’re the exact same product and cost the same. If you buy product A, you have to give me a dollar. If you buy product B, you don’t.
Response:
That is not the case. Only one team (example: Tampa) has to give up a dollar, and that team is compensated with a window to have exclusive negotiating rights with that player. They simply give up something to get something. Once July 1 hits, unless that team who traded for exclusive rights signs that player (say Rolston) then Rolston is signed by any of the other 29 teams with no compensation at all.
Let’s say that you can buy product A or product B. They’re the exact same product and cost the same. If you buy product A, you have to give me a dollar. If you buy product B, you don’t.
Which product are you going to buy? Why? How much would the price on product A have to change before you were willing to buy it?
The problem with that analogy is that the Lightning have clearly indicated, by making the deal in the first place, that they’re really not interested in whatever compensation they have to give up when they sign him, and that it’s not going to affect their offer(s). Otherwise, why would they bother? They’d be unnecessarily undermining their own position, by your logic. Furthermore, it doesn’t affect Rolston’s final value or “restrictedness” in any way, because the 28 teams not involved in the deal have no stake in the arrangement, unless someone is particularly desparate to see the Lightning get screwed out of a fourth-rounder or whatever the hell it is, which I can’t fathom in the slightest, and even if that were the case, it’d only inflate Rolston’s value.
Bottom line: Rolston gets “market value,” regardless of this arrangement. As Richard stated, the only thing the Lightning are paying for here is an extra two or three days to talk to his agent. Regardless of when they sign him, that extra couple of days is worth it to them in the end if they ultimately do sign him. I can’t see how any of that is anything that the Lightning, the Wild, Rolston, his agent, the NHL, or the NHLPA can possibly get upset about.
Only one team (example: Tampa) has to give up a dollar, and that team is compensated with a window to have exclusive negotiating rights with that player.
You’re missing the point. Rolston is entitled to “…be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with such Player, without penalty or restriction, or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft Choice Compensation or any other compensation or equalization obligation of any kind.”
On a plain reading of that language, this violates that. If Tampa signs him, they have to give up a better pick than they otherwise would.
Tampa opts to self-inflict that penalty. If you look at the wording compared to a RFA, then you see the distinction. Under RFA rules, there is a penalty or restriction for signing a player (draft picks) and that deal not being matched–even if you don’t opt to self-inflict that penalty.
So, a RFA can be signed by any team, but each and everyone of those teams has to pay a price (draft picks). Whereas, a UFA can be signed by any team, but each and everyone of those teams (aside from ones that have OPTED to give up something: draft pick) doesn’t have to give up anything aside from money.
There is no restriction on anyone except for Tampa and Tampa has decided to inflict that restriction upon themselves in exchange for exclusive negotiating time.
Rolston doesn’t owe anybody anything. He is free to choose where he wants to play and for how much.
I’m not really sure which side would have a problem with that.
Whereas, a UFA can be signed by any team, but each and everyone of those teams (aside from ones that have OPTED to give up something: draft pick) doesn’t have to give up anything aside from money.
Would you have a problem with Minnesota making a trade with Montreal whereby they give MTL a 2009 7th round pick in exchange for a conditional 3rd round 2009 pick? Say that they did this and then the Wild trade Rolston to the Lightning with the current restrictions?
The problem, as I see it, is that the Wild have no rights in Rolston beyond July 1. How can they create rights in him by way of a private agreement between them and the Lightning?
Is the CBA clear that there are no pick compensations etc., period, or only that there are no NHL-imposed ones (as in RFAs)? I think that’s a fairly important distinction. In the former case, it’s obviously illegal, and the NHL and/or PA should have stepped on the Roloson deal two years ago, never mind this one. In the other case, I grant that it’s a bit odd to receive compensation if someone’s signed after July 1, but if it’s repayment for negotiation rights, that’s an asset that I think can be exchanged, even if the fruits aren’t necessarily borne until after the UFA date passes. That, again, depends on if you think that said compensation unfairly colours the market, which as I’ve argued above, I don’t.
Would you have a problem with Minnesota making a trade with Montreal whereby they give MTL a 2009 7th round pick in exchange for a conditional 3rd round 2009 pick? Say that they did this and then the Wild trade Rolston to the Lightning with the current restrictions?
This scenario makes no sense. What does Montreal gain from this deal, realistically speaking? Never mind the question of whether this is a “proper” three-way trade, what the hell does Bob Gainey make this deal for? And how would that enter into the original deal with Tampa Bay?
How the hell did you imbed a photo in the comments?
Excellent blog. The Roloson and Rolston situations are unique because they happened so close to July 1. Are you saying a team should never be allowed to trade a soon-to-be UFA for conditional compensation? The only benefit to such a rule in my view is that it might have prevented the Wings from acquiring Bertuzzi at the 2007 deadline. I don’t know when the cutoff point would be for such a rule, but, to me, it would ultimately limit the marketability of soon-to-be UFAs thus limiting player mobility and, hence, compensation.