Everyone (perhaps including the league itself) is still trying to figure out what the rules are for Unrestricted Free Agents and the Expansion Draft.
Existing teams get to protect six players, and then Chicago chooses from what remains. UFAs as an initial matter aren't part of that system, because it would violate the CBA to have them drafted and assigned to a team, and in any event, Chicago should just be able to enter the free agent market like anyone else. If it wants a UFA, it (like anyone else) can offer her the best deal.
But it gets complicated because existing teams can "core" a UFA and keep her around. Moreover, an existing team can also reach under-the-table agreements with UFAs like: we know you want to come back, and we want you back, so let's agree that you'll re-sign next year, but don't tell anyone for now.
(It's not unusual for pro teams to have wink-wink deals like that to subvert league rules. Cf. Joe Smith and the Timberwolves.)
By doing something like that, a team could effectively protect more than six players from the Expansion Draft. The league has been trying to figure out what to do about it.
Voepel touched on this a couple weeks ago:
I suspect that the league will do something broader than that to make sure that existing teams don't also re-sign non-cored UFAs without competition. The league has threatened "severe penalties" for teams that try to subvert the Expansion Draft system... but it's unclear exactly what that will mean in practice.
The competition committee meets on Monday prior to the Draft Lottery, and it's likely that this will be one of the issues discussed.
Folks at Rebkell have been debating what this all means. If you are confused, welcome to the club.
Existing teams get to protect six players, and then Chicago chooses from what remains. UFAs as an initial matter aren't part of that system, because it would violate the CBA to have them drafted and assigned to a team, and in any event, Chicago should just be able to enter the free agent market like anyone else. If it wants a UFA, it (like anyone else) can offer her the best deal.
But it gets complicated because existing teams can "core" a UFA and keep her around. Moreover, an existing team can also reach under-the-table agreements with UFAs like: we know you want to come back, and we want you back, so let's agree that you'll re-sign next year, but don't tell anyone for now.
(It's not unusual for pro teams to have wink-wink deals like that to subvert league rules. Cf. Joe Smith and the Timberwolves.)
By doing something like that, a team could effectively protect more than six players from the Expansion Draft. The league has been trying to figure out what to do about it.
Voepel touched on this a couple weeks ago:
The league expects teams to abide by both the spirit and the letter of the collective-bargaining agreement. I was told by league sources that if a team has an unrestricted free agent and protect her because they already it has a "deal" with her to sign her next year, that team is essentially getting away with "protecting" more than six players. Which is something the league will frown upon -- although what it will do besides frown, I'm not sure.Matt Wurst shed a little more light yesterday when he said that "if a team has any intention of designating one of their free agents a core player, they must be kept on the protected list."
I suspect that the league will do something broader than that to make sure that existing teams don't also re-sign non-cored UFAs without competition. The league has threatened "severe penalties" for teams that try to subvert the Expansion Draft system... but it's unclear exactly what that will mean in practice.
The competition committee meets on Monday prior to the Draft Lottery, and it's likely that this will be one of the issues discussed.
Folks at Rebkell have been debating what this all means. If you are confused, welcome to the club.