Speculation: New NHL CBA: No compliance buyouts..max 5 year deals

[Habaneros]

Any team hoping to get rid a bad one , sounds like you're out of luck.....also possible ,no more 7-8 years deals which is interesting as this will have major implications on team salary caps.

Click here for full story...>Milan Lucic related news: Don't expect compliance buy-out in Collective Bargaining negotiations, says NHL insider

Click to read more...

 

[BLONG7]

I like the 5 yr deals idea............too many crazy deals being made on July 1st when GM's act like they are 10 yrs old and are given the keys to the candy store to take whatever they want.

The PA will not like this at all...

 

[Habaneros]

I like the 5 yr deals idea............too many crazy deals being made on July 1st when GM's act like they are 10 yrs old and are given the keys to the candy store to take whatever they want.

The PA will not like this at all...

the reason these 7-8 year deals,is to get the team salary cap hits down

example: Price's cap hit on a 8 yr deal is 10.5 million ...imagine what it would look like on a 5 year deal...

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Remove limits, and make contracts not guaranteed. That's the key to get a good show.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Any team hoping to get rid a bad one , sounds like you're out of luck.....also possible ,no more 7-8 years deals which is interesting as this will have major implications on team salary caps.

Click here for full story...>Milan Lucic related news: Don't expect compliance buy-out in Collective Bargaining negotiations, says NHL insider

This goes hand in hand with what i had been saying in the last few years. That the next battle wouldn't be over revenues because it's a partnership and 50/50 is fair for both although they'll probably have minor squabbles over some marginal HRRs and NHRRs, but the cap fixations will be the same, so no need for compliance buyouts over a reduced or stagnating cap.

Ive been saying that the battle would be over garanteed contracts and reducing the cap to 5 years is exactly that.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

This goes hand in hand with what i had been saying in the last few years. That the next battle wouldn't be over revenues because it's a partnership and 50/50 is fair for both although they'll probably have minor squabbles over some marginal HRRs and NHRRs, but the cap fixations will be the same, so no need for compliance buyouts over a reduced or stagnating cap.

Ive been saying that the battle would be over garanteed contracts and reducing the cap to 5 years is exactly that.

Reducing the max length of contracts is not the same thing as eliminating guaranteed contracts. The NHL will never take on guaranteed contracts as it would be a complete non-starter for the NHLPA. Way more than the salary cap was.

 

[CapSpace]

Remove limits, and make contracts not guaranteed. That's the key to get a good show.

This. A thousand times this.

 

[ahmedou]

Less long contracts. More short contracts. Allow us a flexibility. Allow our players a flexibility too.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Reducing the max length of contracts is not the same thing as eliminating guaranteed contracts. The NHL will never take on guaranteed contracts as it would be a complete non-starter for the NHLPA. Way more than the salary cap was.

Did I say eliminate?? Please point to me where I said that.

Maybe re-read before replying?

You do realize reducing the cap on years directly affects guaranteed contracts?? Their lenght, that is?

 

[scrubadam]

Been on the 5 year bandwagon since the last CBA.

Most contracts don't work out in the long term. It will also allow for more player movement and it will be easier for teams to turn things around quickly which means more parity.

Its going to be a tough one to get the players to agree too so NHL might have to give something in return.

 

[Toene]

Been on the 5 year bandwagon since the last CBA.

Most contracts don't work out in the long term. It will also allow for more player movement and it will be easier for teams to turn things around quickly which means more parity.

Its going to be a tough one to get the players to agree too so NHL might have to give something in return.

Olympic participation maybe.

 

[the valiant effort]

I want compliance buyouts!!!!!

 

[angusyoung]

I want compliance buyouts!!!!!

Shouldn't be needed if top is 5 years. Can't see the NHLPA agreeing to this.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Did I say eliminate?? Please point to me where I said that.

Maybe re-read before replying?

You do realize reducing the cap on years directly affects guaranteed contracts?? Their lenght, that is?

Contract length has nothing to do with guaranteed contracts. It's not like existing contracts will be rolled back to 5 years.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Remove limits, and make contracts not guaranteed. That's the key to get a good show.

Non guaranteed contracts would never be agreed on with the PA, I guess. And the fair thing to do, assuming it was, would also be to allow players to file for salary renegociation using an independent arbitrator to judge the validity of the claim (if the arbitrator judges the player is worth more, the team either has to pay up or the player can become a FA)

 

[BLONG7]

the reason these 7-8 year deals,is to get the team salary cap hits down

example: Price's cap hit on a 8 yr deal is 10.5 million ...imagine what it would look like on a 5 year deal...

PA and the teams will adjust accordingly. Could get interesting.

 

[26Mats]

Remove limits, and make contracts not guaranteed. That's the key to get a good show.

So they're not guaranteed on both sides - meaning the players can opt out if they don't like their work environment, what their gm is doing to the team, their pay for their production, Etc..?

Otherwise, how is it fair for owners to be able to opt out, but not players?

 

[Tyson]

NFL has always thrived with non guaranteed contracts. A team takes all the risks while a player (like Lucic, Alzner) can all of a sudden become very mediocre and can sit back and collect their money.
I agreed to a certain wage at work based on my experience and past performance...my company can show me the door if I don’t deliver with no “guaranteed money”

 

[Tuggy]

Remove limits, and make contracts not guaranteed. That's the key to get a good show.

Yeah, I'm sure the NHLPA would love to sign that deal...

 

[Habs Halifax]

I like the 5 yr deals idea............too many crazy deals being made on July 1st when GM's act like they are 10 yrs old and are given the keys to the candy store to take whatever they want.

The PA will not like this at all...

I'm not so so sure the NHLPA won't like the 5 year deals. I think they will be more popular as guys like Matthews want to be UFA sooner and on the right side of 30 so they can cash in on the 2nd contract as well. For the elite level stars it's ELC (18-20) and then a 5 year deal (21-25) and then another 5 year deal (26-30).

If the cap keeps growing like is has in the past two seasons, I think they would prefer the 5 year contract so they are not stuck in the last 3 year of a 8 year deal when the cap is substantially higher

 

[habsfan891]

This is going to hilariously screw over a few teams desperately waiting for compliance buyouts if it's accurate lol.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Remove limits, and make contracts not guaranteed. That's the key to get a good show.

Needs to be a two sided approach. NHLPA will want nothing to do with this.

 

[Habs Halifax]

This is going to hilariously screw over a few teams desperately waiting for compliance buyouts if it's accurate lol.

The compliance buyouts happened when the % of the share the players got went from a no cap to 56% and then from 56% to 50% in the last two CBA's. They needed to open up things for GM to get rid of very bad contracts in order to fit into the new cap.

I don't see the 50/50 share being touched this time around so why would they allow the compliance buyout? I don't see a reason for it

 

[habsfan891]

The compliance buyouts happened when the % of the share the players got went from a no cap to 56% and then from 56% to 50% in the last two CBA's. They needed to open up things for GM to get rid of very bad contracts in order to fit into the new cap.

I don't see the 50/50 share being touched this time around so why would they allow the compliance buyout? I don't see a reason for it

I agree there's no reason to give compliance buyouts I'm just saying that's not stopping a few teams from hoping for them and getting screwed over when there aren't any.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I agree there's no reason to give compliance buyouts I'm just saying that's not stopping a few teams from hoping for them and getting screwed over when there aren't any.

If I was a GM on a team that didn't sign bad contracts, I'd be pissed off if they opened this up for the desperate GM's to get out of those deals. No doubt about it, I say there is about 5-10 teams that would want the compliance buyout. This would mess around with the management strategy in a cap world and I'm sure the GM's who are smart about this would not be happy