2023-24 escrow 6% collected, possible 3% refund

[LadyStanley]

Click to read more...

 

[StreetHawk]

this is what the PA wanted. Keep escrow low so that the net they lose is around 3% of their salary. They were pushing close to 10% in the 2 seasons before covid.

 

[Tawnos]

this is what the PA wanted. Keep escrow low so that the net they lose is around 3% of their salary. They were pushing close to 10% in the 2 seasons before covid.

Exactly. And this is why I was saying in another thread that I'm not seeing the kind of issue that would cause a lockout in 2026. I'm sure they'll look at tweaking the escrow cap and the limit on cap increases, but otherwise...

Of course, the league could decide that 50/50 doesn't work for them anymore and push for 48/52 or 47/53. We'd see a lockout if they did that, but at the moment I'm expecting labor peace.

 

[joestevens29]

Exactly. And this is why I was saying in another thread that I'm not seeing the kind of issue that would cause a lockout in 2026. I'm sure they'll look at tweaking the escrow cap and the limit on cap increases, but otherwise...

Of course, the league could decide that 50/50 doesn't work for them anymore and push for 48/52 or 47/53. We'd see a lockout if they did that, but at the moment I'm expecting labor peace.

I remember after the 04-05 lockout Friedman was saying that the next time the CBA came up the owners would likely be pushing for non-guaranteed contracts.

Now it hasn't gotten to that since, but I wonder if that's something they start floating out there. You know the league is going to push for something, so who knows.

 

[Tawnos]

I remember after the 04-05 lockout Friedman was saying that the next time the CBA came up the owners would likely be pushing for non-guaranteed contracts.

Now it hasn't gotten to that since, but I wonder if that's something they start floating out there. You know the league is going to push for something, so who knows.

The rhetoric coming from the league going into the last CBA negotiation was mostly "we like the way things are"... but we'll see if that's the same this go around.

 

[StreetHawk]

The rhetoric coming from the league going into the last CBA negotiation was mostly "we like the way things are"... but we'll see if that's the same this go around.

There is Owners vs GMs POV. GMs want a get out of jail free or some way to get out of a bad contract that was signed. Owners, more about bottom line and really how much they care about the results. Some care more than others.

Too massive a battle to get into guaranteed contracts. Can protect the team by aiming for shorter term contracts. 8/7 down to 6/5 is going to cost the league something. Or a buyout rate from 2/3 down to 1/3 or something even like 50% (including SB) would also cost the team something.

Most of the time it would be lower UFA age. Probably even arbitration rights for all players coming out of ELC. That shortens a rebuild timeline if the UFA age drops to 25 or 6 NHL seasons from the current 27 years and 7 NHL accrued seasons.

 

[mouser]

I could see the NHL wanting shorter contracts, but one big issue with lowering UFA age down to 6/25 is it would severely hamper the ability to do a bridge contract for players coming off their ELC.

 

[MikeyMike01]

I remember after the 04-05 lockout Friedman was saying that the next time the CBA came up the owners would likely be pushing for non-guaranteed contracts.

Now it hasn't gotten to that since, but I wonder if that's something they start floating out there. You know the league is going to push for something, so who knows.

I hope so. It’s so much better for fans.

 

[eojsmada]

I'd like to see the League try and work the 15% of Cap upper threshold for a single contract, down to 10-12% to try and create a bit more parity and raise the salaries of the "lower level" players.

 

[StreetHawk]

I could see the NHL wanting shorter contracts, but one big issue with lowering UFA age down to 6/25 is it would severely hamper the ability to do a bridge contract for players coming off their ELC.

Don't know what else the NHL could offer the PA to go shorter on contract length down to 6/5 in length. Arbitration rights for all players coming off elc as those who would be under 24 and 4 years of service are not eligible yet. But, I doubt that's a major incentive for the PA. Anyone in that situation is likely talking bridge contract anyways if they and the team can't agree on a long term deal.
Probably not something that the NHL wants to give up for lowering contract terms.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The rhetoric coming from the league going into the last CBA negotiation was mostly "we like the way things are"... but we'll see if that's the same this go around.

Well in 05 the split was 43/57 in player’s favour, after last CBA it became 50/50, that’s not quite, we like the way things are.

 

[mouser]

Well in 05 the split was 43/57 in player’s favour, after last CBA it became 50/50, that’s not quite, we like the way things are.

There have been three CBA negotiations under the salary cap.

2005: 54-57% PA, 43-46% NHL
2013: 50%/50% PA/NHL
2020: Unchanged, 50/50 remains

No reports in 2020 that the NHL made changing the 50/50 split a priority.

 

[Golden_Jet]

There have been three CBA negotiations under the salary cap.

2005: 54-57% PA, 43-46% NHL
2013: 50%/50% PA/NHL
2020: Unchanged, 50/50 remains

No reports in 2020 that the NHL made changing the 50/50 split a priority.

I wasn’t counting the MoU extension, since no changes to ratio, you obviously realized that though, thanks

 

[Golden_Jet]

Sure the cap could have been higher, but would’ve just meant more escrow.

 

[Spydey629]

Don't know what else the NHL could offer the PA to go shorter on contract length down to 6/5 in length. Arbitration rights for all players coming off elc as those who would be under 24 and 4 years of service are not eligible yet. But, I doubt that's a major incentive for the PA. Anyone in that situation is likely talking bridge contract anyways if they and the team can't agree on a long term deal.
Probably not something that the NHL wants to give up for lowering contract terms.

They need to go to a 6/5 max, but the argument needs to be made by a PR guy, not an owner or the commish.

The rest of the Big 4 all run on shorter terms - or at least seem to. The constant player movement helps foster the 24/7 news cycle, keep the hot stove going all year long. There are rarely any big name free agent "where he go?" debates in the NHL. Superstars are with their teams for upwards of 11 years without any thought of them going anywhere else.

That's great when you're a fan of said player and team, but as a fan of the league as a whole, we need to get more guys moving more often.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

Don't know what else the NHL could offer the PA to go shorter on contract length down to 6/5 in length. Arbitration rights for all players coming off elc as those who would be under 24 and 4 years of service are not eligible yet. But, I doubt that's a major incentive for the PA. Anyone in that situation is likely talking bridge contract anyways if they and the team can't agree on a long term deal.
Probably not something that the NHL wants to give up for lowering contract terms.

Offer player and team opt-out in contacts which benefits both sides imo. It helps player to give leverage over a team to extend or trade him or he can opt-out for a bigger contract or to another team. It benefits team if they want opt-in or opt-out of a player at the end of a contract for a player. Idk why it’s not in already every other league has it

 

[StreetHawk]

Offer player and team opt-out in contacts which benefits both sides imo. It helps player to give leverage over a team to extend or trade him or he can opt-out for a bigger contract or to another team. It benefits team if they want opt-in or opt-out of a player at the end of a contract for a player. Idk why it’s not in already every other league has it

Probably, just the way the NHL calculates the cap charge. It's an average vs getting a cap charge on yearly salary. In the NHL, if you front loaded a player and dealt that player away, the team is not taking another cap charge based on the difference between cash and cap hit taken. Other team will take a higher cap charge than salary paid.
It is possible to do what you suggested, but they'd have to modify how the cap works to accommodate that as each dollar paid to a player has to hit the salary cap.
From a Playe side, I don't see how they benefit much from "option" years if the team has the ability to terminate the deal. Might be better off with just a shorter contract.

NFL, it's a combination of base salary, roster bonus, workout bonus which gets charged in full in the year that is paid. Signing bonus and option bonuses, along with converting base salary into bonuses are spread over multiple years. Cut a player early and it's 1 or 2 years after the cut where the team has to eat the remainder of the unallocated cap charges for the player.

NBA, your base salary is your cap charge. Curry's contract, his cap hit goes up $3-4 mill per season over the 4 years from $48 mill in year 1 to 59.6 mill in year 4.

 

[Tawnos]

Probably, just the way the NHL calculates the cap charge. It's an average vs getting a cap charge on yearly salary. In the NHL, if you front loaded a player and dealt that player away, the team is not taking another cap charge based on the difference between cash and cap hit taken. Other team will take a higher cap charge than salary paid.
It is possible to do what you suggested, but they'd have to modify how the cap works to accommodate that as each dollar paid to a player has to hit the salary cap.
From a Playe side, I don't see how they benefit much from "option" years if the team has the ability to terminate the deal. Might be better off with just a shorter contract.

NFL, it's a combination of base salary, roster bonus, workout bonus which gets charged in full in the year that is paid. Signing bonus and option bonuses, along with converting base salary into bonuses are spread over multiple years. Cut a player early and it's 1 or 2 years after the cut where the team has to eat the remainder of the unallocated cap charges for the player.

NBA, your base salary is your cap charge. Curry's contract, his cap hit goes up $3-4 mill per season over the 4 years from $48 mill in year 1 to 59.6 mill in year 4.

Yeah, opt-out does not work for the NHL's strict AAV charge.

Now... opt-in options would be a pretty fun mechanism to add to the league, but it's so vastly different than what we have now that it's hard to imagine. The option years would have to function as essentially separate contracts. That way, they don't really change the AAV of the guaranteed years.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I remember after the 04-05 lockout Friedman was saying that the next time the CBA came up the owners would likely be pushing for non-guaranteed contracts.

Now it hasn't gotten to that since, but I wonder if that's something they start floating out there. You know the league is going to push for something, so who knows.

So non-guaranteed contracts...

Assuming the salary cap remains otherwise unchanged, and the 50/50 revenue sharing is unchanged, it in one way wouldn't really affect the players. They still receive the same amount of money in total - it just changes which specific players receive the money.

That being said - it's always worth remembering that while the NHLPA represents all players present and future in theory, in practice they represent the interests of players presently in the league. They've shown that a couple of times: when they agreed to a rookie salary cap (since rookies in the future aren't in the NHLPA), and during the Covid shutdown when they insisted on receiving 100% of their salaries (even though that meant huge escrow payments in the future).

So I suspect the NHLPA would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent contracts from being non-guaranteed - because that would be against the interests of players currently in the league.

 

[rsteen]

So I suspect the NHLPA would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent contracts from being non-guaranteed - because that would be against the interests of players currently in the league.

Yeah, I'd expect at least another lost season like 2005.

 

[Ciao]

I remember after the 04-05 lockout Friedman was saying that the next time the CBA came up the owners would likely be pushing for non-guaranteed contracts.

Now it hasn't gotten to that since, but I wonder if that's something they start floating out there. You know the league is going to push for something, so who knows.

I hope so. It’s so much better for fans.

So non-guaranteed contracts...

Assuming the salary cap remains otherwise unchanged, and the 50/50 revenue sharing is unchanged, it in one way wouldn't really affect the players. They still receive the same amount of money in total - it just changes which specific players receive the money.

That being said - it's always worth remembering that while the NHLPA represents all players present and future in theory, in practice they represent the interests of players presently in the league. They've shown that a couple of times: when they agreed to a rookie salary cap (since rookies in the future aren't in the NHLPA), and during the Covid shutdown when they insisted on receiving 100% of their salaries (even though that meant huge escrow payments in the future).

So I suspect the NHLPA would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent contracts from being non-guaranteed - because that would be against the interests of players currently in the league.

Why not give both the player and the team the right to terminate a player's contract at any time? That's how it works in most work places.

If the owners were to have the right to terminate a player's contract, then the player should have the same right too.

 

[Tawnos]

So non-guaranteed contracts...

Assuming the salary cap remains otherwise unchanged, and the 50/50 revenue sharing is unchanged, it in one way wouldn't really affect the players. They still receive the same amount of money in total - it just changes which specific players receive the money.

That being said - it's always worth remembering that while the NHLPA represents all players present and future in theory, in practice they represent the interests of players presently in the league. They've shown that a couple of times: when they agreed to a rookie salary cap (since rookies in the future aren't in the NHLPA), and during the Covid shutdown when they insisted on receiving 100% of their salaries (even though that meant huge escrow payments in the future).

So I suspect the NHLPA would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent contracts from being non-guaranteed - because that would be against the interests of players currently in the league.

They would and if both sides really dug in, there would be a lost season. It's not going to happen, though. Why do I say that? Because it doesn't matter to the owners. They're getting their 50% share either way. They're paying the players 50% either way.

GMs might want it, but how long will the owners tolerate losing revenue for something that won't affect their bottom line if they were able to get it?

 

[mouser]

The NHL hasn't made a lot of noise about non-guaranteed contracts, and I wouldn't expect that to change. If anything I think they'd be more likely to push for 33% to 50% buyouts, lowered down from the current 67% buyouts.

 

[StreetHawk]

The NHL hasn't made a lot of noise about non-guaranteed contracts, and I wouldn't expect that to change. If anything I think they'd be more likely to push for 33% to 50% buyouts, lowered down from the current 67% buyouts.

When teams buy players out, they typically spend the cap savings on another player. So, it really is a transfer of money from one player to another at the end of the day. I wonder what the PA would ask to lower the buyout to 1/3 for everyone, not just those under 26?

 

[mouser]

With the player share fixed at 50% of HRR, pretty much every contract change, from term limit, to min/max salary, to guaranteed/non-guaranteed/partial-guaranteed is reshuffling money from some group of players to another group of players.