I believe the team matching the offer sheet is not subject to that.

Edit: I'm incorrect on that. Doesn't make sense to me but that's the rule.
- MJL

It's so they don't do the very thing Oilers fans want them to do - i.e sign Broberg and then trade him for a higher compensation than they would have received if they hadn't matched. It's also so the player isn't seen to be 'punished' for signing an offer with another team.

It's so they don't do the very thing Oilers fans want them to do - i.e sign Broberg and then trade him for a higher compensation than they would have received if they hadn't matched. It's also so the player isn't seen to be 'punished' for signing an offer with another team.
- FoppaForever

Why should a team be limited to the potential compensation they can receive in a trade for a player because the player and another team hooked up in an offer sheet? Trades are a negotiation between two teams. If they can get a team to overpay in a trade, that's part of the game. Happens all the time. Teams all the time sign players to retain their rights and then decide to trade them.

Title of post is misleading

Why should a team be limited to the potential compensation they can receive in a trade for a player because the player and another team hooked up in an offer sheet? Trades are a negotiation between two teams. If they can get a team to overpay in a trade, that's part of the game. Happens all the time. Teams all the time sign players to retain their rights and then decide to trade them.
- MJL

Players are signing a labor contract. No different than a movement clause as it was pre-determined in the union and management negotiations. What industry allows that to be superseded by managerial discretion? Railroad industry in the US is the only one I can think of and that is due to a preposterous command economy flaw dating back to WWII.

Why should a team be limited to the potential compensation they can receive in a trade for a player because the player and another team hooked up in an offer sheet? Trades are a negotiation between two teams. If they can get a team to overpay in a trade, that's part of the game. Happens all the time. Teams all the time sign players to retain their rights and then decide to trade them.
- MJL

Because those are the terms of Restricted Free Agency that have been negotiated by the players and management. The player gets to choose to sign elsewhere and his previous team gets to match the contract and keep him. But you either want the player or you don't, you don't get to prevent him from going to another team and then immediately trade him away. That's what both sides have agreed to, what happens 'all the time' doesn't matter because what happens all the time doesn't involve players who've just had an offer sheet matched. If they wanted to get more than a 2nd they should have traded him before he was offer sheeted. They all know the rules and they all know the risks.

I love how terrible your article is...

It's not on the Oilers to release how much they were signed for. It would be the Blues that tendered the sheets.

Also, the compensation you quoted for both was in the wrong brackets.

But hey keep doing you Ek
- riceroni

E5

Nice headline.

Because those are the terms of Restricted Free Agency that have been negotiated by the players and management. The player gets to choose to sign elsewhere and his previous team gets to match the contract and keep him. But you either want the player or you don't, you don't get to prevent him from going to another team and then immediately trade him away. That's what both sides have agreed to, what happens 'all the time' doesn't matter because what happens all the time doesn't involve players who've just had an offer sheet matched. If they wanted to get more than a 2nd they should have traded him before he was offer sheeted. They all know the rules and they all know the risks.
- FoppaForever

Really, so if a team signs a player who is going to be a RFA and then trades him before the season starts, that's not allowed? I'm not debating that it's not what the rules are. I'm debating that it doesn't make sense that if Edmonton matches, they aren't allowed to trade him for a year. That means that the player and another team, in essence dictated to Edmonton. In my opinion, once they match and the player is their property, they SHOULD be allowed to do anything they want with the player, including trading him.

Kane is likely to start the season on LTIR. Meaning no team is trading for him without a sweetener. That might have been the case even without LTIR. I'd expect Bowman to let Broberg leave for STL.
- jfkst1

just read that about Kane.,
could use his LTIR $$ on the Broberg contract ...

we'll see what shake out of this this time next week.

just read that about Kane.,
could use his LTIR $$ on the Broberg contract ...

we'll what shake out of this this time next week.
- dmnted

That will only work is Kane is out for the entire season. Otherwise, it just delays a move having to be made.

That will only work is Kane is out for the entire season. Otherwise, it just delays a move having to be made.
- MJL

I think most teams will LTIR a player for the entire regular season so long as it benefits them. Kane also might be an overpaid 3rd liner at this point in his career and still has another season on contract to redeem his value so it's possible he agrees to LTIR through the entire regular season.

I don't actually trust most teams to not LTIR a player for the entire regular season so long as it benefits them. Kane also might be an overpaid 3rd liner at this point in his career and still has another season on contract to redeem his value so it's possible he agrees to LTIR through the entire regular season.
- jfkst1

That's not how it works. A team must provide medical documentation to the league to keep a player on LTIR. A team doctor must provide that documentation. He is not going to put his medical license in jeopardy to provide fraudulent documentation. There is some grey area but not to the point where it's an agreement between player and team to fraudulently keep a player on LTIR.

Really, so if a team signs a player who is going to be a RFA and then trades him before the season starts, that's not allowed? I'm not debating that it's not what the rules are. I'm debating that it doesn't make sense that if Edmonton matches, they aren't allowed to trade him for a year. That means that the player and another team, in essence dictated to Edmonton. In my opinion, once they match and the player is their property, they SHOULD be allowed to do anything they want with the player, including trading him.
- MJL

When did anyone say that if a team signs a player who is going to be an RFA and then trades him before the season starts that it's not allowed?

You should probably take this up with the NHLPA and whomever negotiated the current CBA for them (probably Donald Fehr) and Gary Bettman and the NHL Board of Governors or whomever negotiated for them and let them know your concerns. The restriction from trading a player within a year of being offer-sheeted is well known and has been around for years. If you weren't aware of it or don't agree with it I'm not sure what to do for you. They all agreed to it and all seem to think it's the best way to handle the process.

That will only work is Kane is out for the entire season. Otherwise, it just delays a move having to be made.
- MJL

exactly,
buys the Oilers time to move him depending how bad his hip is.
Murray got a free year of pay because of his hip issue.

When did anyone say that if a team signs a player who is going to be an RFA and then trades him before the season starts that it's not allowed?

You should probably take this up with the NHLPA and whomever negotiated the current CBA for them (probably Donald Fehr) and Gary Bettman and the NHL Board of Governors or whomever negotiated for them and let them know your concerns. The restriction from trading a player within a year of being offer-sheeted is well known and has been around for years. If you weren't aware of it or don't agree with it I'm not sure what to do for you. They all agreed to it and all seem to think it's the best way to handle the process.
- FoppaForever

I mean, he disagrees with a rule that's in place and he presented his argument clearly and in a normal manner, without insulting anyone who might disagree with him. I don't see why that warrants a response like this.

When did anyone say that if a team signs a player who is going to be an RFA and then trades him before the season starts that it's not allowed?


- FoppaForever

Nobody but you did make this statement.

"you don't get to prevent him from going to another team and then immediately trade him away"

In some situations you can prevent a player from going to another team and then immediately trade him.

You should probably take this up with the NHLPA and whomever negotiated the current CBA for them (probably Donald Fehr) and Gary Bettman and the NHL Board of Governors or whomever negotiated for them and let them know your concerns. The restriction from trading a player within a year of being offer-sheeted is well known and has been around for years. If you weren't aware of it or don't agree with it I'm not sure what to do for you. They all agreed to it and all seem to think it's the best way to handle the process.
- FoppaForever

Obviously but that is not my point. My point is that I personally don't think it makes sense to prevent the team matching the offer sheet from trading the player when they want to.

I mean, he disagrees with a rule that's in place and he presented his argument clearly and in a normal manner, without insulting anyone who might disagree with him. I don't see why that warrants a response like this.
- eichiefs9

You may want to go back and read his responses to me.

Why should a team be limited to the potential compensation they can receive in a trade for a player because the player and another team hooked up in an offer sheet? Trades are a negotiation between two teams. If they can get a team to overpay in a trade, that's part of the game. Happens all the time. Teams all the time sign players to retain their rights and then decide to trade them.

...

Really, so if a team signs a player who is going to be a RFA and then trades him before the season starts, that's not allowed? I'm not debating that it's not what the rules are. I'm debating that it doesn't make sense that if Edmonton matches, they aren't allowed to trade him for a year. That means that the player and another team, in essence dictated to Edmonton. In my opinion, once they match and the player is their property, they SHOULD be allowed to do anything they want with the player, including trading him.

I didn't create the fuc$ing rule.

You may want to go back and read his responses to me.



I didn't create the fuc$ing rule.
- FoppaForever

From my point of view, the discussion is not about who created the rule but if that aspect of the rule makes sense. In my opinion, it does not.

From my point of view, the discussion is not about who created the rule but if that aspect of the rule makes sense. In my opinion, it does not.
- MJL

Yep and in a rare moment of accord the two major constituencies of the NHL, both players and management, seem to disagree with you. Likely, (I'm guessing but you'd have to ask them) because they feel there is enough discouragement to the offer sheet process that they don't need to add more. Namely that a player can sign with another team only to have his contract matched and then be traded away to a third team. Yeah, I know, teams get to manage their assets however they want. Except they don't in this particular case because both sides seem to think it would be unfair to the player and detrimental to the process (as rare as it occurs). Just as there are special rules that restrict asset management in regards to waivers and the expansion draft and several other special cases.

I mean, he disagrees with a rule that's in place and he presented his argument clearly and in a normal manner, without insulting anyone who might disagree with him. I don't see why that warrants a response like this.
- eichiefs9

Don’t defend that douche nozzle MJL, it’s bad for business

So.

Is Swayman the next offer sheet?
9,100,000 offer for 5 years?
Compensation a 1st, 2nd, 3rd.


Step right up Detroit Redwings.
Cap space.
picks
savvy GM...who's a bit of a dooche.

Of course the player still has to sign it.
- Octavarium

9 million for a guy who is good but looked better than he was behind the well.defensive playing Bruins? And that pick Haul too? eesh I hope Detroit goes it.

Scary price to pay for almost any goalie, especially in today's game where even 60 games played is thought by many to be too much.

man you really avoid putting in the work these days

sell the damn site
- homiedclown

Not to mention only 21/32 teams even have bloggers and only maybe seven teams out of those 21 get consistent articles.

Kane has full no move, so he's going nowhere. Oilers will match Holloway and lose Broberg for a 2nd.
Serves them right for mishandling him the past 2 seasons, though that falls on the past regime of Woodcroft and Holland unfortunately.

Yep and in a rare moment of accord the two major constituencies of the NHL, both players and management, seem to disagree with you. Likely, (I'm guessing but you'd have to ask them) because they feel there is enough discouragement to the offer sheet process that they don't need to add more. Namely that a player can sign with another team only to have his contract matched and then be traded away to a third team. Yeah, I know, teams get to manage their assets however they want. Except they don't in this particular case because both sides seem to think it would be unfair to the player and detrimental to the process (as rare as it occurs). Just as there are special rules that restrict asset management in regards to waivers and the expansion draft and several other special cases.
- FoppaForever

There are no rules that I'm aware that prevent a team from trading a player, in their control for one year with regards to the waiver process. There may or may not be in regards to the expansion draft. I don't know. That the rule is in place and agreed upon by the two parties, has not been disputed by me. Not sure why you keep pushing that angle.

There are no rules that I'm aware that prevent a team from trading a player, in their control for one year with regards to the waiver process. There may or may not be in regards to the expansion draft. I don't know. That the rule is in place and agreed upon by the two parties, has not been disputed by me. Not sure why you keep pushing that angle.
- MJL

I didn't say there are rules that prevent a team from trading a player in their control for one year with regards to the waiver process. I said there are special rules that restrict asset management in regards to waivers. Namely, the entire process which dictates that you have a limited period of time to develop a prospect into an NHL player. At a certain point, if he is capable of playing in the NHL, you have to put him on your NHL roster or give him away to another team. And all the other teams (in the form of the waiver wire) get to decide whether he's capable of playing in the NHL. And you get nothing in return. Seems like BS.

But why can't I just shuttle guys back and forth between the AHL and the NHL as much as I want and stockpile an entire NHL team on my AHL roster? They're my assets, why can't I do what I want with them? Because management thinks it would unfairly affect competitive balance and players believe that guys capable of playing in the NHL should, after a certain period of time, be on an NHL roster.

It's simply meant to be an example where seemingly something unfair happens (a team has to give away a player getting nothing in return) because both players and management think it's the proper thing to do in the overall scheme of things. And it happens much more often than a player having an offer sheet matched and the matching team not being allowed to trade him for a year.