Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Incentives matter?
I'm having a wee bit of difficulty figuring out the Nashville-Philly-Timonen & Hartnell deal. I don't think there's anything dubious or untoward about it: it's a fairly well-established thing (and presumably written into the NHL bylaws and/or the CBA) that Team A can give Team B permission to talk new contract with players already under contract to Team A. The context, though, is usually different: when the Islanders traded for Mike Peca coming off of his holdout season (for example), they had already confirmed (with the Sabres permission) that they could sign Peca to a contract he found amenable.
I see why Nashville did it: they get something for nothing. My puzzlement, I guess, is that I see the advantage to Philly and the advantage to the players as mutually exclusive. That is:
There was no reason at all for Kimo-Timo and Hartnell to sign new deals with the Flyers now if the terms weren't as good as they could get on July 1. Since there's no risk of an injury (or frankly anything) happening in the next two weeks that would devalue them, the standard explanations regarding the time-preference of money (and a general sense of security about the future) are surely irrelevant.
Soassuming stipulating that they're acting rationally, that would have to mean that Philly gave up a 1st-round draft pick for nothing. If Philly was already offering the best possible deals to the two players, then they could have simply offered them on July 1 and they would have been accepted. And they'd still have their 1st-round pick.
So what is it? Were Timonen and Hartnell actually concerned that they might be "left out in the cold" on July 1? This seems preposterous; if it's true, their agents are incompetent. Were the Flyers sufficiently concerned that the players would be offered better deals -- or "better situations" -- on July 1 that they were willing to sacrifice a 1st-round pick to eliminate that risk? If they were truly offering good deals (and the players wanted to play there), then that trade-off seems like bad value, although this is at least comprehensible.
The big question then, I guess, is why did the two players sign now? The story would go (roughly) that the Flyers got permission to talk to them, and the players liked what they heard: not only regarding contract terms, but regarding the direction of the team and whatever other less tangible factors go into these things. Fine. Assuming they really wanted to sign with Philly, why did neither of these things occur to them, or at least influence their behaviour:
Your analysis is sought in the comments.
I see why Nashville did it: they get something for nothing. My puzzlement, I guess, is that I see the advantage to Philly and the advantage to the players as mutually exclusive. That is:
There was no reason at all for Kimo-Timo and Hartnell to sign new deals with the Flyers now if the terms weren't as good as they could get on July 1. Since there's no risk of an injury (or frankly anything) happening in the next two weeks that would devalue them, the standard explanations regarding the time-preference of money (and a general sense of security about the future) are surely irrelevant.
So
So what is it? Were Timonen and Hartnell actually concerned that they might be "left out in the cold" on July 1? This seems preposterous; if it's true, their agents are incompetent. Were the Flyers sufficiently concerned that the players would be offered better deals -- or "better situations" -- on July 1 that they were willing to sacrifice a 1st-round pick to eliminate that risk? If they were truly offering good deals (and the players wanted to play there), then that trade-off seems like bad value, although this is at least comprehensible.
The big question then, I guess, is why did the two players sign now? The story would go (roughly) that the Flyers got permission to talk to them, and the players liked what they heard: not only regarding contract terms, but regarding the direction of the team and whatever other less tangible factors go into these things. Fine. Assuming they really wanted to sign with Philly, why did neither of these things occur to them, or at least influence their behaviour:
- "If I wait until July 1, maybe even bigger offers come in and prod the Flyers to up the ante even further."
- "If I wait until July 1, the Flyers get to retain a 1st-round draft pick: a pick that has a 50/50(?) chance of turning into a contributing player (for cheap) during the course of my new contract, helping my new team be even better."
Your analysis is sought in the comments.
# posted by Matt @ 9:48 am 
Comments:
One thing you neglected to mention, and an idea that has been kicking around the blogs for the last couple days, is that the Flyers wanted to get these guys signed before the deadline in order to better position themselves to make their next acquisition after the deadline.
So in other words, signing these guys turned them from also ran to contender overnight, thereby making them a more attractive destination for the next guy they want to sign.
Most cynical view: the Flyers tampered. Nashville found out and demanded a first round as compensation. Players signed because it was an above market deal. Everybody saves face.
What would NSH get if the Flyers actually did tamper? If it's more than a first round pick, this fantasy can't be correct, but I still like the idea of Philly doing something bad and getting caught.
So in other words, signing these guys turned them from also ran to contender overnight, thereby making them a more attractive destination for the next guy they want to sign.
Mclea’s point is a really interesting one. But it only makes sense from Philly's perspective, doesn't it? Why would two free agents care about that? They could go to teams that already had solid rosters.
Most cynical view: the Flyers tampered. Nashville found out and demanded a first round as compensation. Players signed because it was an above market deal. Everybody saves face.
This whole thing still seems sketchy to me. Philly couldn't talk to Hartnell or Timonen until July 1. Yet I doubt they traded that #1 pick back before they were totally confident that Hartnell and Timonen would sign with them. It would be a terrible risk to trade that pick unless you knew for pretty damn sure you were getting a return on it, and a return greater than just the chance to talk to someone exclusively for two weeks. And the fact that the signings were announced on the same day as what was essentially a trade makes it look even more dubious. Obviously deals in this league get negotiated before they are supposed to. How else does a team sign a guy on the morning of July 1st? But this seems like a pretty bold, and public, display of such practices.
Was this the real Forsberg deal? Nashville got to rent Big Foppa for a few months, and in return Philly got--not the first round pick--but Timonen and Hartnell once the season was done?
both of these contracts are big overpays - the UFA season is always bananas but both of these contracts are big money and big term
I like the deal for Philly - aggressive ahead of the pack stuff - but man, they paid a lot
I think they asked permission to talk to the players and made their offers; I think they made offers that neither player could refuse - its easy to say that they may have gotten higher offers but I wonder about that - maybe Holmgren said here is what we are offering - if you say no that's fine - we'll make other plans - the agent went to the player and said 'you're likely not going to better - I can try but I'd take it' and so they did
Black Dog is right -- surely this deal has been in the works for some time. Philly would have had permission to talk to these guys before the trade. That's always been allowed. If they could do a deal, Nashville got the first round pick. I don't see anything untoward about that.
I share Matt's curiousity about what was in it for these players to sign without testing the market, but these are pretty top dollar deals. They probably felt they would do no better elsewhere. Why not sign up and then go for a 3 month holiday?
Mclea’s point is a really interesting one. But it only makes sense from Philly's perspective, doesn't it? Why would two free agents care about that?
The fact that Philly jumped through the hoops they did to offer them contracts signals to Timonen and Hartnell that they're serious about building a winner. The money was probably as good as they could have gotten on the market and the length (6 years each) shows that the franchise sees them as a key part of the puzzle for the next half decade.
So Philly wins because now their offers aren't coming from a bottom feeder and the players win because they're getting good money for a long time from a team solidly committed to getting better. And Nashville wins because they get a first round pick for players they weren't going to sign anyway. Improvements in social welfare all around!
I think Black Dog is correct. Philly made the offers time limited with no promise they would ever re-tender them in the future.
I am confused why Nashville could not have got more than a 20 something pick. Wouldn't they call around and say to perhaps the Oilers, "give us your #15 pick" conditional on you signing both players? Perhaps Philly's offer was conditional on Nashville not shopping it or disclosing it to other teams. Perhaps Nashville did shop it, teams talked to the players agents and the players either were not interested or no team wanted to do better than Philly's money.
Barry:
They got the second overall pick ;).
And yes, Black Dog is right. Philly talked "for free" and then once the gentlemen's agreement was in place, Nashville made the trade and the papers were signed.
Andy:
Don't you remember the Pronger trade? When the Oilers brought him in they had him signed for 6.25 a year for 5 years within minutes.
Don't you remember the Pronger trade? When the Oilers brought him in they had him signed for 6.25 a year for 5 years within minutes.
Pronger wasn't a UFA. He was signed to an existing deal already. So there is no problem with speaking with him.
So Philly wins because now their offers aren't coming from a bottom feeder and the players win because they're getting good money for a long time from a team solidly committed to getting better. And Nashville wins because they get a first round pick for players they weren't going to sign anyway. Improvements in social welfare all around!
Sure, but why would two guys tied to neither team care about helping either of them?
I think they asked permission to talk to the players and made their offers;
Philly would have had permission to talk to these guys before the trade. That's always been allowed.
Well, obviously they did that. But can they do that? Isn't the whole idea that from Time A to Time B only one team is allowed to talk to impending free agents, and that's they team they are signed with up until Time B? Again, I'm not so naive to think this stuff doesn't happen privately, with discretion, but this seems like a pretty public "Fuck You" by Philly and Nashville to other GM's around the league.
As for why Timonen and Hartnell's reasons for signing before the 1st, I'm not so surprised. Despite the cap increase, there is still a cap. Better to get your chunk early, know where you are going, and enjoy the rest of the summer with your wife, kids and mistresses, no?
Andy, I think that if the team which "owns" the player gives permission then its fine. Even in Pronger's case the Oilers would have had to get the Blues' permission to talk to him and they did. Pronger had one year left on his deal, I believe. No way the Oilers trade Doug Lynch if they don't have a guarantee that they can sign Pronger to a long term deal. :)
Same thing will happen if guys like Redden or Hossa get moved this summer. Unless the team trading for them only want them for one year, they will ask permission to talk - if there is common ground then they will make an agreement with the player and then complete the trade. Its in Ottawa's interest if they want to move Redden to allow this - Redden signed for five years has way more value then Redden signed for one.
Now, what may be fishy is whether this was all decided at the Forsberg deal. We will send you Forsberg but here is what we want to do and we want dibs, maybe exclusive dibs. You'd think the Preds might have pried a first from Edmonton for Hartnell and a first from someone else for Timmonen but maybe that was part of the agreement.
Hence nobody else involved.
Now, is that outside the rules and even if it is, how do you prove it?
Barry:
They got the second overall pick ;).
I thought Nashville got their own #1 pick that they traded to Philly for Forsberg.
bottom line: k-blowe and the rest of your edmonton coilers just blew the chance at getting two of their most covented playears
what a great start for coilerville. this is shaping up to be even more entertaining for a flames guy like me than last year's MELTDOWN was. brb, im just going to grab some popcorn 8-D
Pat,
Pronger, Redden and Hossa are all signed. None of them are UFA's. You are talking apples and oranges here. It doesn't matter how their deals went down. It's totally irrelevant to this conversation. UFA's can't be negotiated with by teams other than the teams they are signed with until July 1st. Philly may have traded a 1st round pick for Hartnell and Timonen--which gave them the chance to sign them--but technically they couldn't have negotiated with the players prior to that point, which raises the question of how they knew that trading the 1st round pick wouldn't be a waste of time.
Yes, Andy, but in the eyes of the league Timmonen and Hartnell are both Preds' property until July 1st - hence the exclusive rights to negotiate.
More like oranges and uh, well I don't know a fruit that is almost an orange but not quite.
Its obvious that the Flyers negotiated the deals before the trade. Now I don't know the exact wording of the CBA or whatever covers this but I think the Preds were able to give the Flyers the ok to negotiate. Those players are not UFAs until July 1st - therefore the same rules apply.
I think. I'm not 100% sure but its so obvious that this was prenegotiated that the league would step in if it was not aboveboard.
Can anyone say exactly what the rule is?
Pronger wasn't a UFA. He was signed to an existing deal already. So there is no problem with speaking with him.
These players were not UFAs until July 1. They were Nashville property until that date.
Yes, Andy, but in the eyes of the league Timmonen and Hartnell are both Preds' property until July 1st - hence the exclusive rights to negotiate.
These players were not UFAs until July 1. They were Nashville property until that date.
Right. But no one could negotiate with Timonen and Hartnell but the team that held their rights. That would be Nashville. Even though they weren't officially UFA's yet, they were in a sort of free agent limbo. Philadelphia gained the right to negotiate with Timonen and Hartnell when they essentially traded a 1st round pick for them. But until the moment they acquired them, the Flyers weren't allowed to talk to Timonen and Hartnell about a deal. So did they give up the 1st round pick just to have a chance at signing them? Or did Timonen and Hartnell come to terms with Philly before the pick and rights had been exchanged, which was a period when technically Philly didn't have the right to bargain with them?
Still the same thing though Andy, unless someone can clarify this? Anyone.
You're right - nobody could negotiate with these guys except the Preds.
Similarly though no team can negotiate with a player under contract with another team however they can if they are given permission to do so.
Its so obvious that the deals were in place that if this was outside the rules there would be repercussions. I think the Preds gave Philly permission (can't argue that) and that this is indeed inside the rules. If it were not the league and the media would be all over it.
Even though they weren't officially UFA's yet, they were in a sort of free agent limbo.
Andrew... Andy... And.. A: the Black Dog has been rather patient about explaining this, as have several other commenters. Since they're not officially UFAs yet, they are officially under contract, and as such the same official rules apply to them as to everyone else.
Team B: Hey, we understand Dale Durgeon probably isn't in your future plans.
Team A: Not likely, why?
Team B: We'd like to trade you for him, but only if we can sign him to a contract extension. Can we talk to his agent?
Team A: So long as you're offering at least Francois Boot and a 1stRd pick in return, and will also agree to [Conditions 2 & 3], then sure. Go nuts.
Team B: Thanks buddy. [kiss] You wanna share a room at the GM meetings this winter?
I totally think this goes back to the Forsberg deal. Basically had to do with how far Nashville went in the playoffs. Maybe if they made the 2nd round, Philly would have given them back a 2nd round pick, 3rd round they get a 3rd round pick, finals they get nothing? I'm totally speculating, but that's what it feels like to me.
Bob MacKenzie was on Team 1260 this morning saying the offer to talk to Nashville players was offered to a few teams. And another media head (sorry, can't remember who) said that Timonen liked the idea of playing with his brother Jussi.
Diane
A few more thoughts...
These guys weren't going to be UFA's until 7/1, so they were still under contract and they could therefore be allowed to talk to the Flyers if Nashville gave permission (and probably if the terms of the deal were already arranged between the teams)
I'm not sure about the CBA, but the old one did provide a draft pick as compensation even for a UFA right? I remember oilers traded Jussi to rangers a couple years back for Leetch or Richter or somebody who was due to be a UFA and they knew they could not sign, but would get compensation for. If something like that still exists, then it make sense for Flyers as they would still get a couple lower picks in the event niether player signed.
As for why the players would not want to wait until 7/1... I wonder if Philly gave them bigger numbers for pre-7/1 that post 7/1. Or perhaps no deal for post 7-1. The players probably had an idea of what they would be worth on the open market and realized that Flyers pre-7/1 offer was worth it. I mean 4.2M for a 20 goal scorer and 6.7M for a small 50 pt defensemen? I'd sign either of those.
It does set an interesting precedence though. I did initially wonder why Buffalo wouldn't shop Briere and Drury like this (they could still compete for them as UFA's) but I think the answer is the behind the scenes contractual negotiations that we are discussing here.
There do seem to have been some weird ones like this in the old CBA for UFA's. I remember the caps being all mad when Roenick got signed a couple years ago by the flyers at like the 1st minute of 7/1... because apparently they had an offer all ready for him, but Flyers had been given permission to talk early. Not sure if/how the new CBA addresses this.
I'm not inclined to believe that this had anything to do with the Foppa deal. If this was negotiated, it had have been after the Balsillie mess.
if you're willing to believe that this had anything to do with Foppa, then that means Forsberg is worth Scottie Upshall, Ryan Parent and permission rights to timonen and hartnell after the playoffs.
Which means that Hartnell and timonen were already out of the Predators plans at that point. So, in effect, the Predators were treating them and Forsberg as rental players just for the play-offs. Now that I think about it, that doesn't seem too improbable. Phylly got two decent players and the rights to two other UFAs both of whom Nashville was going to dump anyway. Nashville may have used those rights to ice the Foppa deal. That first round pick was a red herring, probably driving values for other teams.
ok, i suddenly don't know what I knew anymore.
Nashville was unwilling to part with a pick. Philly eyes there two UFAs. "So are you going to sign them? No? Well, let us talk to them. If we can sign them before July 1st, we'll give you the pick back... in exchange for permission rights. If we don't sign them, we'll keep the pick. Bettman would love it."
Somebody please shoot a hole in my theory. It's getting more plausible the more minutes I think about it.
Since they're not officially UFAs yet, they are officially under contract, and as such the same official rules apply to them as to everyone else.
I honestly thought there was a difference, and since none of us have actually provided quotes from the CBA, I don't think I can be entirely blamed for the confusion. I thought there were different rules for those under contract who weren't impending UFA's, as compared to those who were.
Oh I'm totally blaming you Grabia! :)
Haven't you read the CBA?
Honest mistake but it was above board. Apparently the Preds did talk to other teams as well which means that there was no chicanery at all.
Cagey move by Holmgren. Completely insane overpay on the contracts but when 13 goal scorer Scott Gomez gets 7M a year in ten days it will seem like chicken feed in comparison.
There is the possibility that this deal has been in place (unofficially of course) since the trade deadline. The Predators, a playoff team which at the end of the season was likely to be sold (and needed to have it's roster trimmed at that time) got Forsberg, and the First round pick was always intended to return to the predators once they finished their playoff run, in exchange for two UFAs which the predators, anticipating they wouldn't be resigned. Since the organization had already lost tens of millions of dollars over the last few years, they got one last kick at the can to see if it would work in Nashville, and the flyers lost Forsberg in a season they werent going anywhere, for two impact players in a season where they might. Just my two (disorganized) cents.
Post a Comment
<< Home
One thing you neglected to mention, and an idea that has been kicking around the blogs for the last couple days, is that the Flyers wanted to get these guys signed before the deadline in order to better position themselves to make their next acquisition after the deadline.
So in other words, signing these guys turned them from also ran to contender overnight, thereby making them a more attractive destination for the next guy they want to sign.
Most cynical view: the Flyers tampered. Nashville found out and demanded a first round as compensation. Players signed because it was an above market deal. Everybody saves face.
What would NSH get if the Flyers actually did tamper? If it's more than a first round pick, this fantasy can't be correct, but I still like the idea of Philly doing something bad and getting caught.
# posted by 
: June 19, 2007 1:02 pm
: June 19, 2007 1:02 pm So in other words, signing these guys turned them from also ran to contender overnight, thereby making them a more attractive destination for the next guy they want to sign.
Mclea’s point is a really interesting one. But it only makes sense from Philly's perspective, doesn't it? Why would two free agents care about that? They could go to teams that already had solid rosters.
Most cynical view: the Flyers tampered. Nashville found out and demanded a first round as compensation. Players signed because it was an above market deal. Everybody saves face.
This whole thing still seems sketchy to me. Philly couldn't talk to Hartnell or Timonen until July 1. Yet I doubt they traded that #1 pick back before they were totally confident that Hartnell and Timonen would sign with them. It would be a terrible risk to trade that pick unless you knew for pretty damn sure you were getting a return on it, and a return greater than just the chance to talk to someone exclusively for two weeks. And the fact that the signings were announced on the same day as what was essentially a trade makes it look even more dubious. Obviously deals in this league get negotiated before they are supposed to. How else does a team sign a guy on the morning of July 1st? But this seems like a pretty bold, and public, display of such practices.
Was this the real Forsberg deal? Nashville got to rent Big Foppa for a few months, and in return Philly got--not the first round pick--but Timonen and Hartnell once the season was done?
both of these contracts are big overpays - the UFA season is always bananas but both of these contracts are big money and big term
I like the deal for Philly - aggressive ahead of the pack stuff - but man, they paid a lot
I think they asked permission to talk to the players and made their offers; I think they made offers that neither player could refuse - its easy to say that they may have gotten higher offers but I wonder about that - maybe Holmgren said here is what we are offering - if you say no that's fine - we'll make other plans - the agent went to the player and said 'you're likely not going to better - I can try but I'd take it' and so they did
Black Dog is right -- surely this deal has been in the works for some time. Philly would have had permission to talk to these guys before the trade. That's always been allowed. If they could do a deal, Nashville got the first round pick. I don't see anything untoward about that.
I share Matt's curiousity about what was in it for these players to sign without testing the market, but these are pretty top dollar deals. They probably felt they would do no better elsewhere. Why not sign up and then go for a 3 month holiday?
# posted by : June 19, 2007 2:22 pm
: June 19, 2007 2:22 pm Mclea’s point is a really interesting one. But it only makes sense from Philly's perspective, doesn't it? Why would two free agents care about that?
The fact that Philly jumped through the hoops they did to offer them contracts signals to Timonen and Hartnell that they're serious about building a winner. The money was probably as good as they could have gotten on the market and the length (6 years each) shows that the franchise sees them as a key part of the puzzle for the next half decade.
So Philly wins because now their offers aren't coming from a bottom feeder and the players win because they're getting good money for a long time from a team solidly committed to getting better. And Nashville wins because they get a first round pick for players they weren't going to sign anyway. Improvements in social welfare all around!
I think Black Dog is correct. Philly made the offers time limited with no promise they would ever re-tender them in the future.
I am confused why Nashville could not have got more than a 20 something pick. Wouldn't they call around and say to perhaps the Oilers, "give us your #15 pick" conditional on you signing both players? Perhaps Philly's offer was conditional on Nashville not shopping it or disclosing it to other teams. Perhaps Nashville did shop it, teams talked to the players agents and the players either were not interested or no team wanted to do better than Philly's money.
Barry:
They got the second overall pick ;).
And yes, Black Dog is right. Philly talked "for free" and then once the gentlemen's agreement was in place, Nashville made the trade and the papers were signed.
Andy:
Don't you remember the Pronger trade? When the Oilers brought him in they had him signed for 6.25 a year for 5 years within minutes.
Don't you remember the Pronger trade? When the Oilers brought him in they had him signed for 6.25 a year for 5 years within minutes.
Pronger wasn't a UFA. He was signed to an existing deal already. So there is no problem with speaking with him.
So Philly wins because now their offers aren't coming from a bottom feeder and the players win because they're getting good money for a long time from a team solidly committed to getting better. And Nashville wins because they get a first round pick for players they weren't going to sign anyway. Improvements in social welfare all around!
Sure, but why would two guys tied to neither team care about helping either of them?
I think they asked permission to talk to the players and made their offers;
Philly would have had permission to talk to these guys before the trade. That's always been allowed.
Well, obviously they did that. But can they do that? Isn't the whole idea that from Time A to Time B only one team is allowed to talk to impending free agents, and that's they team they are signed with up until Time B? Again, I'm not so naive to think this stuff doesn't happen privately, with discretion, but this seems like a pretty public "Fuck You" by Philly and Nashville to other GM's around the league.
As for why Timonen and Hartnell's reasons for signing before the 1st, I'm not so surprised. Despite the cap increase, there is still a cap. Better to get your chunk early, know where you are going, and enjoy the rest of the summer with your wife, kids and mistresses, no?
Andy, I think that if the team which "owns" the player gives permission then its fine. Even in Pronger's case the Oilers would have had to get the Blues' permission to talk to him and they did. Pronger had one year left on his deal, I believe. No way the Oilers trade Doug Lynch if they don't have a guarantee that they can sign Pronger to a long term deal. :)
Same thing will happen if guys like Redden or Hossa get moved this summer. Unless the team trading for them only want them for one year, they will ask permission to talk - if there is common ground then they will make an agreement with the player and then complete the trade. Its in Ottawa's interest if they want to move Redden to allow this - Redden signed for five years has way more value then Redden signed for one.
Now, what may be fishy is whether this was all decided at the Forsberg deal. We will send you Forsberg but here is what we want to do and we want dibs, maybe exclusive dibs. You'd think the Preds might have pried a first from Edmonton for Hartnell and a first from someone else for Timmonen but maybe that was part of the agreement.
Hence nobody else involved.
Now, is that outside the rules and even if it is, how do you prove it?
Barry:
They got the second overall pick ;).
I thought Nashville got their own #1 pick that they traded to Philly for Forsberg.
bottom line: k-blowe and the rest of your edmonton coilers just blew the chance at getting two of their most covented playears
what a great start for coilerville. this is shaping up to be even more entertaining for a flames guy like me than last year's MELTDOWN was. brb, im just going to grab some popcorn 8-D
# posted by : June 19, 2007 8:09 pm
: June 19, 2007 8:09 pm Pat,
Pronger, Redden and Hossa are all signed. None of them are UFA's. You are talking apples and oranges here. It doesn't matter how their deals went down. It's totally irrelevant to this conversation. UFA's can't be negotiated with by teams other than the teams they are signed with until July 1st. Philly may have traded a 1st round pick for Hartnell and Timonen--which gave them the chance to sign them--but technically they couldn't have negotiated with the players prior to that point, which raises the question of how they knew that trading the 1st round pick wouldn't be a waste of time.
Yes, Andy, but in the eyes of the league Timmonen and Hartnell are both Preds' property until July 1st - hence the exclusive rights to negotiate.
More like oranges and uh, well I don't know a fruit that is almost an orange but not quite.
Its obvious that the Flyers negotiated the deals before the trade. Now I don't know the exact wording of the CBA or whatever covers this but I think the Preds were able to give the Flyers the ok to negotiate. Those players are not UFAs until July 1st - therefore the same rules apply.
I think. I'm not 100% sure but its so obvious that this was prenegotiated that the league would step in if it was not aboveboard.
Can anyone say exactly what the rule is?
Pronger wasn't a UFA. He was signed to an existing deal already. So there is no problem with speaking with him.
These players were not UFAs until July 1. They were Nashville property until that date.
Yes, Andy, but in the eyes of the league Timmonen and Hartnell are both Preds' property until July 1st - hence the exclusive rights to negotiate.
These players were not UFAs until July 1. They were Nashville property until that date.
Right. But no one could negotiate with Timonen and Hartnell but the team that held their rights. That would be Nashville. Even though they weren't officially UFA's yet, they were in a sort of free agent limbo. Philadelphia gained the right to negotiate with Timonen and Hartnell when they essentially traded a 1st round pick for them. But until the moment they acquired them, the Flyers weren't allowed to talk to Timonen and Hartnell about a deal. So did they give up the 1st round pick just to have a chance at signing them? Or did Timonen and Hartnell come to terms with Philly before the pick and rights had been exchanged, which was a period when technically Philly didn't have the right to bargain with them?
Still the same thing though Andy, unless someone can clarify this? Anyone.
You're right - nobody could negotiate with these guys except the Preds.
Similarly though no team can negotiate with a player under contract with another team however they can if they are given permission to do so.
Its so obvious that the deals were in place that if this was outside the rules there would be repercussions. I think the Preds gave Philly permission (can't argue that) and that this is indeed inside the rules. If it were not the league and the media would be all over it.
Even though they weren't officially UFA's yet, they were in a sort of free agent limbo.
Andrew... Andy... And.. A: the Black Dog has been rather patient about explaining this, as have several other commenters. Since they're not officially UFAs yet, they are officially under contract, and as such the same official rules apply to them as to everyone else.
Team B: Hey, we understand Dale Durgeon probably isn't in your future plans.
Team A: Not likely, why?
Team B: We'd like to trade you for him, but only if we can sign him to a contract extension. Can we talk to his agent?
Team A: So long as you're offering at least Francois Boot and a 1stRd pick in return, and will also agree to [Conditions 2 & 3], then sure. Go nuts.
Team B: Thanks buddy. [kiss] You wanna share a room at the GM meetings this winter?
I totally think this goes back to the Forsberg deal. Basically had to do with how far Nashville went in the playoffs. Maybe if they made the 2nd round, Philly would have given them back a 2nd round pick, 3rd round they get a 3rd round pick, finals they get nothing? I'm totally speculating, but that's what it feels like to me.
Bob MacKenzie was on Team 1260 this morning saying the offer to talk to Nashville players was offered to a few teams. And another media head (sorry, can't remember who) said that Timonen liked the idea of playing with his brother Jussi.
Diane
# posted by : June 20, 2007 8:19 am
: June 20, 2007 8:19 am A few more thoughts...
These guys weren't going to be UFA's until 7/1, so they were still under contract and they could therefore be allowed to talk to the Flyers if Nashville gave permission (and probably if the terms of the deal were already arranged between the teams)
I'm not sure about the CBA, but the old one did provide a draft pick as compensation even for a UFA right? I remember oilers traded Jussi to rangers a couple years back for Leetch or Richter or somebody who was due to be a UFA and they knew they could not sign, but would get compensation for. If something like that still exists, then it make sense for Flyers as they would still get a couple lower picks in the event niether player signed.
As for why the players would not want to wait until 7/1... I wonder if Philly gave them bigger numbers for pre-7/1 that post 7/1. Or perhaps no deal for post 7-1. The players probably had an idea of what they would be worth on the open market and realized that Flyers pre-7/1 offer was worth it. I mean 4.2M for a 20 goal scorer and 6.7M for a small 50 pt defensemen? I'd sign either of those.
It does set an interesting precedence though. I did initially wonder why Buffalo wouldn't shop Briere and Drury like this (they could still compete for them as UFA's) but I think the answer is the behind the scenes contractual negotiations that we are discussing here.
There do seem to have been some weird ones like this in the old CBA for UFA's. I remember the caps being all mad when Roenick got signed a couple years ago by the flyers at like the 1st minute of 7/1... because apparently they had an offer all ready for him, but Flyers had been given permission to talk early. Not sure if/how the new CBA addresses this.
# posted by : June 20, 2007 9:19 am
: June 20, 2007 9:19 am I'm not inclined to believe that this had anything to do with the Foppa deal. If this was negotiated, it had have been after the Balsillie mess.
# posted by : June 20, 2007 12:09 pm
: June 20, 2007 12:09 pm if you're willing to believe that this had anything to do with Foppa, then that means Forsberg is worth Scottie Upshall, Ryan Parent and permission rights to timonen and hartnell after the playoffs.
Which means that Hartnell and timonen were already out of the Predators plans at that point. So, in effect, the Predators were treating them and Forsberg as rental players just for the play-offs. Now that I think about it, that doesn't seem too improbable. Phylly got two decent players and the rights to two other UFAs both of whom Nashville was going to dump anyway. Nashville may have used those rights to ice the Foppa deal. That first round pick was a red herring, probably driving values for other teams.
ok, i suddenly don't know what I knew anymore.
# posted by : June 20, 2007 12:30 pm
: June 20, 2007 12:30 pm Nashville was unwilling to part with a pick. Philly eyes there two UFAs. "So are you going to sign them? No? Well, let us talk to them. If we can sign them before July 1st, we'll give you the pick back... in exchange for permission rights. If we don't sign them, we'll keep the pick. Bettman would love it."
Somebody please shoot a hole in my theory. It's getting more plausible the more minutes I think about it.
# posted by : June 20, 2007 1:01 pm
: June 20, 2007 1:01 pm Since they're not officially UFAs yet, they are officially under contract, and as such the same official rules apply to them as to everyone else.
I honestly thought there was a difference, and since none of us have actually provided quotes from the CBA, I don't think I can be entirely blamed for the confusion. I thought there were different rules for those under contract who weren't impending UFA's, as compared to those who were.
Oh I'm totally blaming you Grabia! :)
Haven't you read the CBA?
Honest mistake but it was above board. Apparently the Preds did talk to other teams as well which means that there was no chicanery at all.
Cagey move by Holmgren. Completely insane overpay on the contracts but when 13 goal scorer Scott Gomez gets 7M a year in ten days it will seem like chicken feed in comparison.
There is the possibility that this deal has been in place (unofficially of course) since the trade deadline. The Predators, a playoff team which at the end of the season was likely to be sold (and needed to have it's roster trimmed at that time) got Forsberg, and the First round pick was always intended to return to the predators once they finished their playoff run, in exchange for two UFAs which the predators, anticipating they wouldn't be resigned. Since the organization had already lost tens of millions of dollars over the last few years, they got one last kick at the can to see if it would work in Nashville, and the flyers lost Forsberg in a season they werent going anywhere, for two impact players in a season where they might. Just my two (disorganized) cents.
# posted by : June 24, 2007 7:40 pm
: June 24, 2007 7:40 pm Post a Comment
<< Home
