A simple framework on a new CBA.

[Da Game]

Well, I thought I'd give it a shot. It took me 10 minutes to write up. Everyone is more than welcome to adjust it. But I think this proposal or draft is fair for both parties.

http://therink.blogspot.com/

Maybe after we're done, we can email the framework to the freaking league or NHLPA, and get a reply.

BTW, please don't be harsh.

Click to read more...

 

[nomorekids]

gasp! a blog!

I thought they only gave those out to insiders!?

 

[Da Game]

gasp! a blog!

I thought they only gave those out to insiders!?

Eklund isn't the only one who has "sources". :lol

 

[The Fuhr*]

Make the unrestricted free agent age 29 instead of 26 and you have a good cba. 26 is too young d-man dont hit there prime until 27.

 

[Flukeshot]

The NHL would want nothing to do with this. They lose out big time. Really low UFA age. The luxury tax has very little deterence until it goes up to a dollar to dollar amount. And the $35 minimum per team is pretty high as well, 3 mil more than what the league proposed.

 

[Da Game]

Make the unrestricted free agent age 29 instead of 26 and you have a good cba. 26 is too young d-man dont hit there prime until 27.

If we raise the age limit, then the owners would have to offer arbitration to the players.

Can we do something like where, beofre you hit 27, it's 10% increase in salary, but once you hit 27 years of age, that's when a player and team can go to arbitration. So it's basically where a player & team have 2 years of arbitration session during his career.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

]And the $35 minimum per team is pretty high as well, 3 mil more than what the league proposed.

The NHL would reject it, but the salary floor isnt much higher than their proposal in December which was around 34.6 million.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Minimum too high

I agree that the minimum is too high. Some teams would be overpaying less deserving/under-skilled players just to get to that level. That would only bring us back to the same problem of overpriced players. Otherwise, it is a decent proposal but the top end needs more teeth in the luxury tax; start at .75 then dollar for dollar, etc.

 

[The Fuhr*]

If we raise the age limit, then the owners would have to offer arbitration to the players.

Can we do something like where, beofre you hit 27, it's 10% increase in salary, but once you hit 27 years of age, that's when a player and team can go to arbitration. So it's basically where a player & team have 2 years of arbitration session during his career.

That sounds good to me

 

[Da Game]

The NHL would want nothing to do with this. They lose out big time. Really low UFA age. The luxury tax has very little deterence until it goes up to a dollar to dollar amount. And the $35 minimum per team is pretty high as well, 3 mil more than what the league proposed.

Well, there has to be a salary cap floor. You have to make it at least over 30 million. If you don't, some of these owners will just pocket the money, and put out a horrible product.

On the Luxury Tax. I think it's pretty tough. And if teams go over the limit, they can't sign free agents, unless, the free agent is willing to take less money, or a sign and trade can be work-out with a team.

 

[Dr Love]

gasp! a blog!

I thought they only gave those out to insiders!?

What, you don't have a blog? I laugh at you, feeble one!

 

[Da Game]

That sounds good to me

Ok.

So, as soon as the player signs his rookie contract, which has to be a max. at 4 years. After the contract expires, let's say at the age of 24, a player can either work out a long term deal, or the player receive's a raise of 10% each year from his last contract until the age of 27. Then at the age of 27, the player & team go to arbitration for 2 years.

 

[trahans99]

Salary floor at 32 m
Lux tax 1:1 at 40m
Salary cap @ 48m

 

[Da Game]

Salary floor at 32 m
Lux tax 1:1 at 40m
Salary cap @ 48m

The floor can be adjusted if it's over 30 million. So that's not a problem at all.

But the Cap works better at 45 million, and with a Luxury Tax hit after that. There can't be a hard cap, without a TV contract like the NBA or NFL has.

So you're going to need to get the revenue from somewhere. Taxing the teams after 45 million is a good way to go.

 

[trahans99]

a hard cap at 45m would be great, but the players won't sign on that one.

i think if the owners offered cap at 50m they would have to take a long and hard look at it... and with all the pressure on them from public i think they'd sign to it

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Two main problems I would have with it.

1. The numbers on the whole are a little too high. Some teams are losing money on sub-30 million payrolls, making them spend up to $35 million might not be fair. Lower the floor a couple million. Starting the luxury tax at $45 million is also a little high, the average team salary right now is under that and having it that high could still allow teams to "overspend" in certain situations. In my mind, the luxury tax should be at the average team salary for last year, which was I believe $41.6 million. Luxury tax should start at around that.

2. A luxury tax does not work unless there is a limit at which teams are stopped outright. A luxury tax is great in theory, but it results in two major problems. a) big markets continue to spend despite paying the tax, their fiscal advantage remains it just stings them a little more to spend a lot. If you don't stop some owners at a certain point, it is proven that some will keep going. MLB has this problem with the Yankees. And b) if or when some of the big markets spend despite paying the tax, the luxury tax system itself becomes inflationary and has the exact opposite effect of what you want it to do. This is another problem MLB has had. If too much is kicked back, small market teams increase spending and over time, theoretically, even the teams who don't want to pay the tax will be able to spend up to it.

Place a hard cap beyond your luxury tax threshold and your system could work.

 

[Da Game]

a hard cap at 45m would be great, but the players won't sign on that one.

i think if the owners offered cap at 50m they would have to take a long and hard look at it... and with all the pressure on them from public i think they'd sign to it

Well, you know what. The players would be idiots if they didn't go for an offer like this, or use a framework similar to this one. The superstars of the league still get to make their money, and maybe more, and the 2nd tier players get their salaries adjusted to the range they belong in.

 

[Da Game]

Two main problems I would have with it.

1. The numbers on the whole are a little too high. Some teams are losing money on sub-30 million payrolls, making them spend up to $35 million might not be fair. Lower the floor a couple million. Starting the luxury tax at $45 million is also a little high, the average team salary right now is under that and having it that high could still allow teams to "overspend" in certain situations. In my mind, the luxury tax should be at the average team salary for last year, which was I believe $41.6 million. Luxury tax should start at around that.

2. A luxury tax does not work unless there is a limit at which teams are stopped outright. A luxury tax is great in theory, but it results in two major problems. a) big markets continue to spend despite paying the tax, their fiscal advantage remains it just stings them a little more to spend a lot. If you don't stop some owners at a certain point, it is proven that some will keep going. MLB has this problem with the Yankees. And b) if or when some of the big markets spend despite paying the tax, the luxury tax system itself becomes inflationary and has the exact opposite effect of what you want it to do. This is another problem MLB has had. If too much is kicked back, small market teams increase spending and over time, theoretically, even the teams who don't want to pay the tax will be able to spend up to it.

Place a hard cap beyond your luxury tax threshold and your system could work.

I like your first point. That can be adjust.

But the second point. I have to say that the Tax will make the high spending teams think twice before going over the limit.

It's worked in Baseball. Since the addition of the TAX, the average in salaries has dropped. The Yankees for example, could have added Carlos Beltran for less than what the Mets gave him, but the Yankees said they couldnt afford the hit, since they are already paying 60 million in revenue.

The NHLPA isn't going to go for a hard cap. The only cap that I see them signing off on is a soft cap, like the one the NBA has.

 

[PecaFan]

Well, you know what. The players would be idiots if they didn't go for an offer like this, or use a framework similar to this one.

Well, yeah. That's because this CBA is so blatantly one sided towards the players. :lol A huge floor causing an immediate rise in salaries of probably $100 million bucks, a meaningless tax, and free agency at 26.

Frankly, it's easy to make a CBA that either side will accept. In all the proposals put forward, no one has ever made one that both sides would like. Personally, I don't think it's possible. The two sides have core beliefs that are polar opposites. There is no middle ground.

A deal only happens once one side caves.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I like your first point. That can be adjust.

But the second point. I have to say that the Tax will make the high spending teams think twice before going over the limit.

It's worked in Baseball. Since the addition of the TAX, the average in salaries has dropped. The Yankees for example, could have added Carlos Beltran for less than what the Mets gave him, but the Yankees said they couldnt afford the hit, since they are already paying 60 million in revenue.

The NHLPA isn't going to go for a hard cap. The only cap that I see them signing off on is a soft cap, like the one the NBA has.

I don't think it has worked in baseball. The Yanks are spending even more than they were before the luxury tax was put into place. Now no hockey team is going to spend the ridiculous amounts that the Yanks would, but I don't see that a luxury tax would stop spending completely. I can name 6-8 teams off the top of my head that would spend a lot more than $40-$45 million even if they were being taxed. There are teams that could still spend $60 million on player salaries, which is almost double what most small markets would be spending. And as I said, if enough teams do spend over the tax limit and too much is kicked back than the teams under it are going to increase spending as well.

As for the PA not going for a hard cap... they have continually refused a hard cap as a system the league would run by. They don't want spending fixed at a certain amount by a hard cap. However, this would be more of a luxury tax system, the hard cap would be there simply to solve problems the system may cause. In that case, I think the PA would accept something like that.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I like your first point. That can be adjust.

But the second point. I have to say that the Tax will make the high spending teams think twice before going over the limit.

It's worked in Baseball. Since the addition of the TAX, the average in salaries has dropped. The Yankees for example, could have added Carlos Beltran for less than what the Mets gave him, but the Yankees said they couldnt afford the hit, since they are already paying 60 million in revenue.

The NHLPA isn't going to go for a hard cap. The only cap that I see them signing off on is a soft cap, like the one the NBA has.

:lol

oh my gut, oh my gut . . . please stop, you're killing me.

The Yankees as an example of how a luxury tax is working? They are spending a quarter of a billion dollars on salaries next year, twice as much as number 2 hog Boston and 10 times the lowest spenders and it is working . . .

:lol . . . you should go on tour.

 

[red devil]

Are these numbers related to revenues, because if they aren't the NHL would never sign this type of deal. This is the NHL's main goal, and they are not going to give this up.

 

[SENSible1*]

A non-starter for the NHL.