Franchise Tag Rule Question

[SharksGM (Trade Council)]

RFA's


All players listed as being RFA's at the end of their current contract according to CAPGEEK.COM are automatically resigned by the team in this league that owns their rights when the contract is signed. Unless that teams GM chooses to release the pending RFA player to Free Agency which is only available during off-season.

Upon resigning of the RFA the team that owns that players rights inherits that players real life contract and it must be counted accordingly as per the rules listed above

Question about this. I read this to mean that all RFAs were yours to keep and didnt need franchise tags. G. Latendresse is now listed as UFA in this league. But he was a RFA. He became UFA since Minnesota didnt extend a qualifying offer. But I didnt think this mattered. I traded for him even knowing he was not getting an offer. After that I traded for another UFA and tagged him - Ponikarovsky.

My understanding of the rules dictated my actions.

I have a request then, since the rules were written in a way I couldnt understand - I request to keep Latendresse and not lose him.

If that is not granted then I request to go back and tag him INSTEAD of Ponikarovsky. I think I should be granted the first request but would settle for the second one.

If neither request can be granted I find that terribly unfair.

Thanks for your consideration!!!

[panthersgm]

I agree that is not fair to you.

Lattendresse signed a one-year deal with the Senators, you should enherit that because he was a RFA when Rosters were locked. The Wild choose not to resign him and you shouldn't be penalized for that.

Latendresse is a unique situation as most RFA's will resign.

[SharksGM (Trade Council)]

Jul 4, 2012 13:12:53 GMT -5 @panthersgm said:

I agree that is not fair to you.

Lattendresse signed a one-year deal with the Senators, you should enherit that because he was a RFA when Rosters were locked. The Wild choose not to resign him and you shouldn't be penalized for that.

Latendresse is a unique situation as most RFA's will resign.

Thanks. I agree. I thought that the rule meant that unless I chose to let him go, Id get to keep all my RFAs. I want to see how the commishes rule on this. If Im supposed to tag him, Id like to be able to but thought I didnt need to so didnt. =)

I def double checked the rule first and thought this was how it would go with me getting to keep him.

[panthersgm]

I doubt the commishes will rule against you.

1) You will be mad
2) It is more of a hassle to reverse trades
3) You were acting in good faith based on what the rules said about RFAs.
4) Technically, Latendresse was not scheduled to become a UFA. His status changed from RFA to UFA two days before free agnecy. June 29th he notified the Wild of his intentions not to resign. read here:
www.thefourthperiod.com/news/min120629.html
You shouldn't have to be accountable for that.

[PenguinsGM (Admin)]

RFA's

Upon resigning of the RFA the team that owns that players rights inherits that players real life contract and it must be counted accordingly as per the rules listed above

Latendresse wasn't resigned, he became a UFA when Minnesota didn't qualify him.

I had a similar siuation with Peter Mueller and used my TAG on him.

In the same section of the rules it states

All players that remain listed as being UFA's according to CAPGEEK.COM when Free Agency period begins July 1st must be Franchise Tagged by their teams GM or they will automatically become Unrestricted Free Agents in this league and are subject to being made offers to by all other GMs in this league (see rule 9).

I would consider him a UFA but I will consult with the other commish's on this.

[FlyersGM (Commish)]

My vote is that Latendresse should be counted as whatever his status was when rosters were submitted. As long as he was an RFA he should maintain that status for our purposes. We will have to see what PIT & CHI say though.

[PenguinsGM (Admin)]

There wasn't anything specifically mentioned in the rules about qualifying offers so I do understand where you're coming from

[BlackhawksGM (Admin)]

I agree with flyers

[FlyersGM (Commish)]

Ok, so for Sharks sake so that she can have some clarity, we will leave Latendresse as RFA status.

[PenguinsGM (Admin)]

I propose we let unqualified RFA's remain RFA for this year since it wasn't clear , but in following years, unqualified RFA's become UFA.

[SharksGM (Trade Council)]

Jul 4, 2012 22:23:25 GMT -5 FlyersGM (Commish) said:

Ok, so for Sharks sake so that she can have some clarity, we will leave Latendresse as RFA status.

Thanks you!!!

[FlyersGM (Commish)]

Jul 4, 2012 22:28:42 GMT -5 PenguinsGM (Admin) said:

I propose we let unqualified RFA's remain RFA for this year since it wasn't clear , but in following years, unqualified RFA's become UFA.

I think that is a fair compromise Pens. It is near impossible to work every scenario into the rules so I think compromises like this will keep this a fair and fun league to participate in.