The paradox in UFA compensation
Statistics show restricted free agents tend to be more valuable than UFAs
Earlier this summer, the Buffalo Sabres realized they needed a big push to become a championship-caliber team. Instead of signing just one or two mid-level players, they brought in three highly paid guys whose cap hits total almost $13 million.
Although his original contract was signed when he was a restricted free agent, the Calgary Flames -- his former team -- had to buy out four years of Regehr's UFA years, which cost $4.02 million a season.
In other words, when it comes to all three of these players, the Sabres are probably overpaying them.
But you almost have to pay more for players who are eligible for unrestricted free agency. That is why, for years, analysts have said it's crucial to build through the draft. Because when you draft your own team, your core can be built of young players who are eligible only for entry-level or restricted deals. And those guys can't explore the open market, which lowers their price.
So it's no secret that UFAs are not good values. But exactly how much are teams overpaying for them?
Turns out it's quite a lot.
To read the fully story and see how the typical production of UFAs compares, dollar-for-dollar, with that of RFAs, you must be an ESPN Insider.
MORE NHL HEADLINES
- Tatar agrees to 3-year deal with Red Wings
- Maple Leafs sign Winnik to 1-year contract
- Brassard, Rangers agree on five-year deal
- Bruins add NHL vet Sacco to coaching staff