Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 (edited) Quick question, and possibly a stupid one with an obvious answer: Whats the advantage of signing a player to a deal that will make him a UFA vs RFA? Also stupid: How I spell UFA in the title. Edited May 20, 2010 by Echolalia 1 MCleveland89 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newfy 695 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 Quick question, and possibly a stupid one with an obvious answer: Whats the advantage of signing a player to a deal that will make him a UFA vs RFA? Also stupid: How I spell UFA in the title. If a guy is an RFA when his contract is up you will be reembersed with draft picks depending on how big his salary is. If its below 800,000 or something like that there is no compensation. The team that has the rights to the RFA also has the option to match another teams offer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut Report post Posted May 20, 2010 Quick question, and possibly a stupid one with an obvious answer: Whats the advantage of signing a player to a deal that will make him a UFA vs RFA? Also stupid: How I spell UFA in the title. It's an age issue... 27 or 7+ years in NHL allow a player to be termed unrestricted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 It's an age issue... 27 or 7+ years in NHL allow a player to be termed unrestricted. So beyond 27 years or 7 years in the NHL, you can't sign him to a contract that will make him an RFA? I'm just curious why we don't see more RFAs in the world today. It seems like the obvious way to go with GMs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshy207 156 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 The "FA" part of UFA and RFA means Free Agent. So if you sign a player to a contract, he is no longer a free agent... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut Report post Posted May 20, 2010 Yes... so really the best and only play would be to sign the player till the 26th/6th year (as long as keeping them is a priority). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 The "FA" part of UFA and RFA means Free Agent. So if you sign a player to a contract, he is no longer a free agent... Well duh but its a lot easier to just say RFA/UFA contract. I assume you know what I'm talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yzerfan1999 81 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 I may be a retard here, but I don't think we are understanding his question - this judging by his response. A GM can't sign a player to 'become' a UFA or a RFA, the player earns the right to be a UFA over time. Even if a GM signs a rookie, who's entry level deal is up, to a one year contract, he can only do that so many times before that player is a UFA anyways (27 years old, or 7 years pro service). Its better for a GM to lock up these guys long term, so that their ability to become a UFA is delayed. A GM can sign a RFA to a one or two year deal if they are not sure what their value will be long term, or if they can't agree on a number long term. The best case scenario is to give RFA's short term deals until the year before they become a UFA, then hit them with a long term deal so they stay off the market - much like how Zetterberg's contract worked out. Does that make any sense or is that not what your asking? 2 Green Wing and crotty99 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 I may be a retard here, but I don't think we are understanding his question - this judging by his response. A GM can't sign a player to 'become' a UFA or a RFA, the player earns the right to be a UFA over time. Even if a GM signs a rookie, who's entry level deal is up, to a one year contract, he can only do that so many times before that player is a UFA anyways (27 years old, or 7 years pro service). Its better for a GM to lock up these guys long term, so that their ability to become a UFA is delayed. A GM can sign a RFA to a one or two year deal if they are not sure what their value will be long term, or if they can't agree on a number long term. The best case scenario is to give RFA's short term deals until the year before they become a UFA, then hit them with a long term deal so they stay off the market - much like how Zetterberg's contract worked out. Does that make any sense or is that not what your asking? Yes I started picking this out from Cali's post. I didn't realize that restricted/nonrestricted was a status that was determined by the player, not the contract. Thanks to you and him/her for the help Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 UFA - Unrestricted Free Agent - can sign anywhere with no stipulations RFA - Restricted Free Agent - team that owned the players rights has a week to match any offer another team extends, if the teams opts to not match the offer, they are compensated with draft pick(s) depending on salary - the higher the tender sheet signed, the more they lose Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MCleveland89 122 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 Great topic Echolalia. I've been wondering the same myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sprsquirt7 45 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 Is the reason behind the draft pick compensation because of the fact the other team used a draft pick to get the RFA and also kind of raised them into the player they are? And does anyone else find it weird how draft picks can just be given like that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
j.hoop 64 Report post Posted May 20, 2010 ah the age old roofa vs oofa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
