NHL.com has new proposal posted

[Fish]

If yes, and the hard cap is phased over two years, both at the ceiling and floor then we may have something.

The length of the phase in is important...in fact, I might as the players union also suggest that it is a weighted average over 3-5 years to help counteract the projected dip in revenues after this lockout.

 

[davidwii]

Do any of you think this proposal is actually full & complete and is one the NHL actually intended the PA to sign? Pessimism is obviously sweeping the board but there's no reason to lose common sense. All of these details will be ironed out, I'm referring to profit and revenue sharing. Assuming these bode in favor of one party vs. the other is just letting your bias show through. All of these will be hammered out in lots of fine print and checked over by lawyers to ensure they are legit. Let's not all jump the gun here. No reason for the gloom n' doom attitude.

This is a great proposal IMO by the NHL, one that needs a lot of tweaking but has a lot of starting points. The league has covered the issue of smaller market making the minimum payroll by using playoff revenue sharing. Most players (particularly Chelios) have taken the argument that small market teams will be hurt by the payroll minimum. Apparently not.

I have to wonder if the thought of some of the players signing to play in the UHL crossed the minds of the people involved in making this proposal. It seems ok to me compared to $500/wk

I'm sorry. I agree. Its not like the NHL is saying.....take this in its exact form or leave it.

Everone is sooooooooooooo focused just on whats written in this proposal. You want a better definition of revenue. Then DEFINE IT!!!!!!!! No one is taking take it in its entirety or leave it...

Good lord.......

 

[Wolfpack]

Not really. The Eastern Conference currently has one player signed to a contract of less than $500K. So even with the 24% rollback essentially nobody that currently has a contract will be under $300K.

You are, of course, correct. I was thinking in terms of the future - within a new "system", where a salary cap of some kind would be in place. Many players making a post-rollback salary of $300,000-$600,000 who underperformed or were tendered a 75% qualifying offer might have been worried about making less than $300,000.

 

[Greschner4]

If yes, and the hard cap is phased over two years, both at the ceiling and floor then we may have something.

Then the four-year PA out is out and it's a six-year deal.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Then the four-year PA out is out and it's a six-year deal.

Make it a 10 year deal with outs after 6 and 8 years.

 

[Wolfpack]

It is becoming more and more apparent to me that the NHLPA made a gross miscalculation when they proposed their 24% salary rollback. My guess is they did it initially for two reasons: to get public sentiment on their side, and to win over some of the over-spending owners who would love to trim their bloated payrolls by 24%.

As is turns out, both the owners and the fans have stuck to the idea that it is the system itself that is fatally flawed, and a rollback without a completely re-vamped system will only see salaries continue to escalate. Now, the 24% rollback that the PA hung their hats on has become just another "term" to be negotiated over instead of the homerun they hoped it would be. Can't say it breaks my heart...

 

[Dr Love]

At the end of that 3 years if the Flames wanted to resign Reghr he would be due a significant raise. The 3 year contract Max would benefit the player in this example because his permormance has significantly improved since he signed his previous contract but now he can get his raise 2 years sooner.

That's the tradeoff for the owners. They're getting rid of albatross contracts in exchange for players getting more money sooner in some cases. And if Reghr qualifies for arbitration, he's not getting a huge raise.

Cool Hand Luke?

Right you are Ken.

 

[Greschner4]

It is becoming more and more apparent to me that the NHLPA made a gross miscalculation when they proposed their 24% salary rollback. My guess is they did it initially for two reasons: to get public sentiment on their side, and to win over some of the over-spending owners who would love to trim their bloated payrolls by 24%.

As is turns out, both the owners and the fans have stuck to the idea that it is the system itself that is fatally flawed, and a rollback without a completely re-vamped system will only see salaries continue to escalate. Now, the 24% rollback that the PA hung their hats on has become just another "term" to be negotiated over instead of the homerun they hoped it would be. Can't say it breaks my heart...

It was a horrible mistake for the reasons you say; the PA got taken to the cleaners on that one. For me, it sort of took away any thought I might have that they had a clue what they were doing.

It was also really stupid to have the players play for meager salaries in minor leagues ... all it did was show the public and the owners that the players were perfectly willing to play for a fraction of what they are actually paid. You think the baseball PA would have let its players play in the Caribbean leagues or the minor leagues?

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

That's the tradeoff for the owners. They're getting rid of albatross contracts in exchange for players getting more money sooner in some cases. And if Reghr qualifies for arbitration, he's not getting a huge raise.

So now there's a "tradeoff" for the owners?

That's basically what I was arguing. It's not a point that would always be better for the owners as some have suggested. There's positives and drawbacks.

 

[Greschner4]

Make it a 10 year deal with outs after 6 and 8 years.

Deal.

I actually agree with you that a cap should be phased in ... the immediate dispersal draft idea is terrible, and unfair.

 

[Drake1588]

So according to this proposal, the owners...

...can qualify a player at 75% of his salary;
...can eliminate arbitration in return for dropping the UFA age to 28; and
...players are no longer able to hold out.

That's a non-starter right there.

A young player making $1M who scores 45 goals can be qualified at $750K in the off-season, and that player has no recourse whatsoever. He can no longer hold out, and can no longer seek redress in arbitration. The next off-season he can be qualified at $562,500, no matter how many points he scores.

 

[Greschner4]

So according to this proposal, the owners...

...can qualify a player at 75% of his salary;
...can eliminate arbitration in return for dropping the UFA age to 28; and
...players are no longer able to hold out.

That's a non-starter right there.

A young player making $1M who scores 45 goals can be qualified at $750K in the off-season, and that player has no recourse whatsoever. He can no longer hold out, and can no longer seek redress in arbitration. The next off-season he can be qualified at $562,500, no matter how many points he scores.

I agree in principle that that's too harsh (but the people subject to this would be RFAs, so they'd have some redress).

However, the young 45-goal scorer not being paid to the full level of his performance would not be unique to hockey. It happens in all 3 of the other sports: baseball players can be unilaterally renewed by the club for three years before they're eligible for arbitration (with a few that can arbitrate after 2 years), so Albert Pujols made squat compared to what he produced; football players are on capped entry-contracts for several years; and basketball players are on low fixed-rate contracts for 3 years, RFAs after year 4, UFAs after year 5.

 

[Balk]

At the end of that 3 years if the Flames wanted to resign Reghr he would be due a significant raise. The 3 year contract Max would benefit the player in this example because his permormance has significantly improved since he signed his previous contract but now he can get his raise 2 years sooner.

No it benefits the owners. It prevents the albatross contracts. Also when Regher signed he signed through the years without arbitration, so at the begining he makes more but at the end he makes less. His agent knew this and it was a risk he was willing to take for 10.5 million dollars of guaranteed money.

 

[Dr Love]

So now there's a "tradeoff" for the owners?

That's basically what I was arguing. It's not a point that would always be better for the owners as some have suggested. There's positives and drawbacks.

Yes, but it's a tradeoff that favors the owners. It gives them an upper hand in negotiating, it levels the field a bit, and it prevents mistake contracts.

 

[red devil]

So according to this proposal, the owners...

...can qualify a player at 75% of his salary;
...can eliminate arbitration in return for dropping the UFA age to 28; and
...players are no longer able to hold out.

That's a non-starter right there.

A young player making $1M who scores 45 goals can be qualified at $750K in the off-season, and that player has no recourse whatsoever. He can no longer hold out, and can no longer seek redress in arbitration. The next off-season he can be qualified at $562,500, no matter how many points he scores.

Actually the proposal states that a player is to be qualified at 75% or $800,000, which ever is more. The player would not receive less than $800,000 per year. This needs to be changed a bit, but the owners at least put arbitration on the table this time.

 

[Drake1588]

I agree in principle that that's too harsh (but the people subject to this would be RFAs, so they'd have some redress).

However, the young 45-goal scorer not being paid to the full level of his performance would not be unique to hockey. It happens in all 3 of the other sports: baseball players can be unilaterally renewed by the club for three years before they're eligible for arbitration (with a few that can arbitrate after 2 years), so Albert Pujols made squat compared to what he produced; football players are on capped entry-contracts for several years; and basketball players are on low fixed-rate contracts for 3 years, RFAs after year 4, UFAs after year 5.

Those leagues balance out the fact that the kids bend over and take it by giving them UFA status at 24/25. The NHL is not proposing to do that. Age 28 is a long time for a superstar to wait, coming into the league at age 18.

Not that the NHL ever expected the union to agree to this, but this is a total non-starter just the same. The union would never agree to 1) less than 100% qualifier, 2) no holdouts clause, and 3) the possibility of arbitration elimination.

Frankly I doubt they would give up holdouts or arbitration just on their own, much less the combination of the two.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

A young player making $1M who scores 45 goals can be qualified at $750K in the off-season, and that player has no recourse whatsoever. He can no longer hold out, and can no longer seek redress in arbitration. The next off-season he can be qualified at $562,500, no matter how many points he scores.

And do you seriously believe that would happen? You think the team wouldn't want said player on the ice? Obviously he wouldn't sign that qualifying offer.

And do you seriously believe that no one would offer a 45 goal scorer at least a million dollars or two as an RFA?

Not a very realistic scenario. As I've pointed out before, you can do it in today's NHL if the player rejects the qualifying offer. The Flames can now offer Iginla 300,000 and he can't do anything about it. So what? Obviously he's worth more than that and the Flames would be willing to pay him several million because he's worth it.

Quite the hypothetical situation, however not one that is likely to happen or be relevant.

 

[Slewfoot]

Do any of you think this proposal is actually full & complete and is one the NHL actually intended the PA to sign? Pessimism is obviously sweeping the board but there's no reason to lose common sense. All of these details will be ironed out, I'm referring to profit and revenue sharing. Assuming these bode in favor of one party vs. the other is just letting your bias show through. All of these will be hammered out in lots of fine print and checked over by lawyers to ensure they are legit. Let's not all jump the gun here. No reason for the gloom n' doom attitude.

Is it too much to ask that either side submit a proposal that is 'full + complete' at this time ?? Why is there still no urgency to get a deal done even though it is February ?? The details should already be ironed out IMO....

 

[Greschner4]

Those leagues balance out the fact that the kids bend over and take it by giving them UFA status at 24/25. The NHL is not proposing to do that. Age 28 is a long time for a superstar to wait, coming into the league at age 18.

Not that the NHL ever expected the union to agree to this, but this is a total non-starter just the same. The union would never agree to 1) less than 100% qualifier, 2) no holdouts clause, and 3) the possibility of arbitration elimination.

Frankly I doubt they would give up holdouts or arbitration just on their own, much less the combination of the two.

Not in all cases ... an NBA player who plays 4 years of college comes into the league at 22 or 23 isn't a UFA until 27 or 28. First round NFL draft choices are usually 21-23 and usually sign 4-6 year deals. For a baseball player, it depends on how old he is when he hits The Show. If he's 24/25, as a bunch are, he's arb eligible at 27/28 and a UFA at 30/31.

I totally agree with you that a stud youngster should not be able to be qualified at 75%. I assume that's negotiable.

 

[Levitate]

A young player making $1M who scores 45 goals can be qualified at $750K in the off-season, and that player has no recourse whatsoever. He can no longer hold out, and can no longer seek redress in arbitration. The next off-season he can be qualified at $562,500, no matter how many points he scores.

actually if he's making under $800k he has to be qualified at 100%

 

[Greschner4]

And do you seriously believe that would happen? You think the team wouldn't want said player on the ice? Obviously he wouldn't sign that qualifying offer.

And do you seriously believe that no one would offer a 45 goal scorer at least a million dollars or two as an RFA?

Not a very realistic scenario. As I've pointed out before, you can do it in today's NHL if the player rejects the qualifying offer. The Flames can now offer Iginla 300,000 and he can't do anything about it. So what? Obviously he's worth more than that and the Flames would be willing to pay him several million because he's worth it.

Quite the hypothetical situation, however not one that is likely to happen or be relevant.

And being an RFA will be a lot better in a capped system, because in a lot of cases your team won't be able to match because they'll be capped out. Thus, you'll see a lot more RFA offer sheets than you do now, where nobody gives them because they think the current team will just match.

 

[Drake1588]

And do you seriously believe that would happen? You think the team wouldn't want said player on the ice? Obviously he wouldn't sign that qualifying offer.

And do you seriously believe that no one would offer a 45 goal scorer at least a million dollars or two as an RFA?

Not a very realistic scenario. As I've pointed out before, you can do it in today's NHL if the player rejects the qualifying offer. The Flames can now offer Iginla 300,000 and he can't do anything about it. So what? Obviously he's worth more than that and the Flames would be willing to pay him several million because he's worth it.

Quite the hypothetical situation, however not one that is likely to happen or be relevant.

So what you're basically saying is that the players should not be worried, not because the CBA protects them and gives them options, but simply because the owners would never behave that way... just trust us to pay you what you're worth.

C'mon now. GMs play hardball with their players all the time whenever they have them against the ropes, and this gives players no options. He can't hold out any more. He has to be on the ice.

Would you really want to be a young player holding this CBA going into a negotiation with Lou Lamoriello?


I have a hard time believing that RFAs will be signed any more often than at present, unless the penalties for doing so are slated to decrease significantly.

 

[Balk]

I am pro-owner for the most part in this debate but some of their ideas are rediculous.

Their QO system and total player control is what bothers me the most. I agree that the old QO system was inflationary but this new system prevents players from getting a raise. The system should be that if a player improves on his previous years stats, then he is qualified at 110%. If his totals go down then he is qualified at 90%.

The old qualifying system worked if you didn't hand out absurd contracts to young players whose rights were yours (a la Paul Karyia) and then you were stuck qualifying them at that rate.

As well, the proposed system for arbitration is absurd. A player can walk away for 90% of is qualifying offer. That equals to 67.8%. So I a player made a million dollars and doesn't like his arbitration ruling he can accept $678 000. Meanwhile the owners can just cut a player loose. For those who claim the new arbitration system is equal....IT CLEARLY ISN'T. Make the system a high-low system and still give the owners the ability to walk away. If a player is going to make more than you want to pay...then you lose to player.

This idea that a player can't hold out is the last part of the deal that disgusts me. If a player wants to hold out, let him...because he isn't getting paid while he is sitting. Forcing a player to sign before a certain date leaves the player no negotiating power. He already has huge restrictions on signing with other teams because of the compensation for group II free agents.

I am all for a salary cap, and for the owners ability to make a profit, but the way the owners are going about it is disgusting. They are a bunch who rich people who have set out to break the union. They don't care about hockey.

 

[Balk]

I agree in principle that that's too harsh (but the people subject to this would be RFAs, so they'd have some redress).

However, the young 45-goal scorer not being paid to the full level of his performance would not be unique to hockey. It happens in all 3 of the other sports: baseball players can be unilaterally renewed by the club for three years before they're eligible for arbitration (with a few that can arbitrate after 2 years), so Albert Pujols made squat compared to what he produced; football players are on capped entry-contracts for several years; and basketball players are on low fixed-rate contracts for 3 years, RFAs after year 4, UFAs after year 5.

That is the same as the entry-level system. But once Pujols was past his three years, he signed that monster contract. However, with the new hockey system a player like Kovalchuck would be qualified at 75% of his salary.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

So what you're basically saying is that the players should not be worried, not because the CBA protects them and gives them options, but simply because the owners would never behave that way... just trust us to pay you what you're worth.

C'mon now. GMs play hardball with their players all the time whenever they have them against the ropes, and this gives players no options. He can't hold out any more. He has to be on the ice.

Would you really want to be a young player holding this CBA going into a negotiation with Lou Lamoriello?


I have a hard time believing that RFAs will be signed any more often than at present, unless the penalties for doing so are slated to decrease significantly.

RFA's become more attractive under the new system because salaries will drop. The compensation is directly based on salary. We could see a lot more offers like the one Toronto made to Mattias Ohlund that Vancouver matched. It's understanble that no team wants to give up 5 first round picks for a player. But what about 1? Or 2? Suddenly that doesn't look so bad now does it?

I guess it really depends on how much you think players SHOULD be making. I have no problem with a young star player making only a million dollars a year until UFA at age 28. But as I've said, the scenario you've outlined is EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE. You find me a team that would be happy to have a 45 goal scorer sitting out for an entire season because they lowballed him with a qualifying offer that they knew he wasn't going to sign. And if that extremely improbable case happened, I'm pretty sure there would be several teams willing to sign said 45 goal scorer to a 2 or 3 million dollar deal as an RFA and give up a couple first rounders. There's also the possibility of a trade to a team that is more willing to pay the player.

As for your statement, "he can't hold out anymore", it isn't true. A player could hold out much like before. Both Peca and Kovalev sat out an entire year under the old system in order to make more money.