The Plot Thickens (Or Perhaps It’s Still A Load of B.S.)
July 10th, 2008 by SteveOk so here’s the deal on the Jonas Frögren contract issue. According to an article posted today by Kevin McGran in the Toronto Star, the problem centers on whether Frögren is considered a 28 year old European Free Agent entering into his first contract in the NHL, or whether he has “Defected Player” status due to his situation of being drafted by an NHL franchise in 1998 (Calgary) and continuing to play with an “unaffiliated club” in Europe.
According to the NHL he has “Defected Player” status, and the issue is as follows according to the 2005 CBA:
“Group 4 Player” means a Player who has never signed an SPC and who becomes a Free Agent after having met the conditions for a Defected Player in Section 10.2(b)(i) of this Agreement.
The key part of Section 10.2(b)(i) is the following:
Definition of “Defected Player.” For purposes of this Agreement, “Defected Player” means any Player not unconditionally released: (B) who, never having been under contract to any Club, but as to who the NHL negotiation rights now or at any time hereafter shall reside in any Club, has contracted or shall contract with such an unaffiliated club.
Which brings us to the Free Agent status described in section (ii):
(ii) Free Agent Status. (A) Any such Defected Player shall be deemed to have become a free agent within the meaning of this Agreement, when one of the following conditions (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) and condition (6) have occurred.
As far as I can tell, condition (5) has been met when it’s read as follows:
(5) the Player, having become a Defected Player pursuant to Section 10.2(b)(i)(B) and having played more than two (2) full seasons with an unaffiliated club(s), has become free of any obligation to such unaffiliated club(s);
Frögren reportedly paid $400,000 to buy out his contract with his Swedish club, of his own money. This brings us to the last requirement (6):
(6) the Commissioner makes a determination (which shall be made as promptly as feasible) that he has reason to believe that the conditions described in subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) have occurred, that he has ascertained the date upon which such Player became free of obligation (last week Gary), and that the Player falls within category (A) or (B) of Section 10.2(b)(i) above, by placing such a Player’s name on the Free Agent List (Defected Players) issued as of such time or any amendment of such List, which List, except for the date thereof and except for its application to Defected Players, as defined herein, shall otherwise be issued substantially in accordance with Exhibit 3.
Stop me if you see ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER REGARDING ENTRY LEVEL CONTRACT STATUS. (I don’t).
(B) Upon the occurrence of the conditions prescribed by subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Section 10.2(b)(ii)(A), the provisions of this Article 10, as applicable, shall then apply to any such Defected Player as if he had become a free agent at the expiration of his SPC, including, without limitation, the rights and obligations which would be imposed or conferred by the provisions of Sections 10.3 through 10.4 upon a Club signing such a Player and upon a Club with whom a free agent was last under SPC or who owned the NHL rights to negotiate with such Player.
The idea that Frögren could somehow be relegated to Entry Level Group 1 status is pretty preposterous. He played 8 years in an unaffiliated league. He never set foot in the NHL. He never signed a contract with an NHL franchise. According to the previous sub-section (B), the issue that will arise out of this is that for all intents and purposes, Frögren is an RFA. His negotiation rights are controlled by the Calgary Flames, who originally drafted him. Thus they may have to be compensated… that is if the league decides to seriously make an issue out of this.
We’ll see in coming days where the Defected Player status thing goes, and whether it seriously messes up the Leafs plans for Frögren.
Posted in Uncategorized
5 Responses to “The Plot Thickens (Or Perhaps It’s Still A Load of B.S.)”
By Down Goes Brown on Jul 11, 2008
Steve,
Thanks for once again digging into this stuff and doing the kind of background work and thinking that we don’t seem to get from today’s sports reporters.
By Gerald Norton on Jul 11, 2008
I still fail to see why Frogren could possibly be worth the trouble, not to mention the risk it poses in inter-league raiding. It seems very stupid on the part of the Leafs, for little or no gain.
By bkblades on Jul 11, 2008
Actually, I fail to see why the league feels this contract situation is worth the trouble and have really little to gain from strong-arming the Leafs here. There really isn’t any inter-league raiding considering the said player bought himself out of his contract with his own money. Even Frogren’s club team was satisfied with the compensation.
The league seems to be taking a very stretched view of a specific aspect of the CBA where no actual mention of entry-level contract exists. Whether the media jumped the gun and reported it as such, I don’t know for sure. But this situation does look like an act from NHL headquarters to show they can flex their muscle, rather than a serious tampering/illegal series of operation by the Leafs. I wonder if this isn’t a PR move for the NHL more than anything else due to the transfer agreement issues.
By eyebleaf on Jul 12, 2008
thanks steve.
now my head hurts.
let me know when this guy signs!
By LeaferSutherland on Jul 12, 2008
If anyone is deserving of being relegated to Entry Level Group 1 status, it would be a guy like Scott Niedermayer who took half a season off before living up to his contract in Anaheim.
But if a guy like Fabian Brunnstrom can get by without all the red tape, I don’t see the reasoning behind taking on a player that was drafted 8 years ago, who never stepped foot unto the NHL.