It's been a while since I went to bat directly for Tom Benjamin's side in an argument, but I feel like chiming in here. The discussion was prompted by James Mirtle excerpting Eric Duhatschek, and the key graf is this:

"Managing a team these days is still about asset management, but the premium now is going to be on drafting well and keeping those draft choices until they get to unrestricted free agency, even if you have to take them to arbitration." - Brian Burke

Tom thinks Burke is being, ahem, disingenous here, and so do I. TB gets to the nuts down in the comments:

The issue is whether that premium [on drafting well] is now bigger or smaller than it was. It is very obviously smaller.

That's correct, period. I'm not interested (today) in determining whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, or whether Bettman has sold hockey fans a bill of goods, or whatever. But it is very obviously correct to say that when free agency is less restrictive, then in the grand relative scheme of things, pro scouting (good trades, FA signings, etc.) becomes more important and amateur scouting (good drafting etc.) becomes less important.

The key to a GM's success in all sports leagues, but especially where there is a salary cap, is simply to underpay as many of your players as possible by as much as possible. That's a bit glib, but it's another way of saying this: you need players who will outperform their contracts. Ideally, you sign young players to 2/3/4 year contracts just before they make The Leap; you sign experienced players after abnormally poor seasons when their market value is depressed; etc.

Restricted free agents help your team accomplish this, as the restrictions allow you to sign them to contracts for below their market value. Let's say I'm Kevin Lowe, in negotiations with Ales Hemsky, and that every GM in the league agrees that Hemsky's performance will be worth $4M next season. I can pay Hemsky up to $4M and be getting a "fair deal". John Ferguson Jr., however, cannot. For him to be getting a fair deal, he can only offer Hemsky a contract for [($4M) - (the $$ value of the draft picks he has to surrender to me)]. There is a ton of room for argument on what that "$$ value" should be, but it is some number greater than zero.

For the sake of this example, say it's $0.5M. JFJ can thus only offer Hemsky a $3.5M contract, or he's overpaying. I, then, can offer Hemsky $3.6M: it's the best deal he's going to get, and I'm getting a $4M performance for only $3.6M (everyone's happy!).

There are two rewards for drafting well in the NHL:

1. Under the rookie salary structure, you underpay by a ton (in their 1st contracts) for excellent rookie performances (remember that Crosby & the Ocho are making ~$1M/yr)
2. Having the rights to the good players you draft means that you can continue (in their 2nd/3rd contracts) to underpay them (per the JFJ example above) until they reach Unrestricted free agency

Item 2 is less of a reward now, because players reach UFA status sooner & younger. Hence, there's less of a premium on drafting well.

To wrap up, let me just reiterate once again that this does not mean that hockey as we know it is going to hell in a handbasket... if your team has the best amateur scouting department in the league, you are in great shape, because you'll have a constant stream of guys turning in multimillion dollar performances while being paid $0.5M-$1M. But this was also the case before, and now you have less of an advantage trying to re-sign your own draft picks: (A) because the compensation figure (# & Round of draft picks) for RFAs is smaller, and (B) because they become UFAs at a younger age.