Changes to HFNHL - relating to new CBA

[MatthewFlames]

While we still don't know the actual final details I thought it would be fun to have a conversation about how the HFNHL might be affected by the new CBA details as we know them...

- The players' share of hockey-related revenue will drop from 57 percent to a 50-50 split for all 10 years.

Won't affect us.

- The league coming off their demand for a $60 million cap in Year 2, meeting the NHLPA's request to have it at $64.3 million - which was the upper limit from last year's cap. The salary floor in Year 2 will be $44 million.

- The upper limit on the salary cap in the first year is $60 million, but teams can spend up to $70.2 million (all pro-rated). The cap floor will be $44 million.

So I think that our cap for NEXT season will drop to 60 million to match this. Our present season will remain the same I think.

- The 10-year deal also has an opt-out clause that kicks in after eight years.

Awesome, 8 years before the next lockout. I might even be interested in the NHL again by then.

- Each team will be allowed two amnesty buyouts that can be used to terminate contracts after this season and next season. The buyouts will count against the players' overall share in revenues, but not the team's salary cap.

This one is interesting for us. Here how I think we play it out: I think we could match the 2 amnesty buyouts NEXT off-season, but I can't see us doing it twice since we don't have those long term contracts. So we could differ from the NHL by having only one season of buyouts. I think we have to have this because we need to get ourselves in line with the 60 million cap. I think we have to follow the buyout part - in other words you lose the money out of your bank but don't have it count towards your cap. Player becomes a UFA.

- The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year.

Won't affect us. Our contracts are the same every year.

- A player contract term limit for free agents will be seven years and eight years for a team signing its own player.

Won't affect us. We will keep our 4 year limits.

- The draft lottery selection process will change with all 14 teams fully eligible for the first overall pick. The weighting system for each team may remain, but four-spot move restriction will be eliminated.

This is amazing. Does this mean a team with the 14th pick could move to first. WOW. Love this. We should copy.

- Supplemental discipline for players in on-ice incidents will go through NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan first, followed by an appeal process that would go through Bettman. For suspensions of six or more games, a neutral third party will decide if necessary.

Sim software controls this.

- Revenue sharing among teams will spread to $200 million. Additionally, an NHLPA-initiated growth fund of $60 million is included.

Revenue sharing. Hell yeah! Wooooot. I want some of the Blues endorsement money. Sign me up! Kidding. But maybe not? Lets get the ANNUAL FINANCIAL DEBATE started!

- Teams can only walk away from a player in salary arbitration if the award is at least $3.5 million.

This is probably too much work for agents and holds a possibility for really alienating them. I don't think we need it.

- The NHL had hoped to change opening of free agency to July 10, but the players stood firm and it remains July 1 in the new agreement. But with a later ending to the season, free agency for this summer will start at a later date.

We can copy this.

After all this - the NHL should just have followed our HFNHL CBA and we wouldn't be in this mess.

Click to read more...

 

[Ohio Jones]

Do we know if the entry draft will still go as scheduled?

 

[SPG]

Cap for next season should be 64.3m, correct?

 

[Dryden]

— A pro-rated salary cap of $70.2-million for the shortened 2012-13 season followed by a salary cap of $64.3-million in 2013-14. The salary floor will be set at $44 million for both years.

Doesn't that mean our cap for next year is $70.2 in 2013-14 and $64.3 for 2014-15?

 

[Vagrant]

Entirely against the 14th to 1st in the entry draft, both in the NHL and here. The only leverage that bad teams have is the value of their first round picks. I know I will be in the minority here, as the owner of a hopeless team (yes in large part due to my ownership), but the draft lottery involving four teams is almost four too many. Adding 10 more to that would be.... just horrible. With the discrepancy between the have and havenots in this league.... I see no better way to widen that gap even further than by having a phenom land on a team that had a down year as opposed to a team that flat out sucks.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

If we are doing a full 82 game season, I don't see why we need to do the 1 in 14 deal. If we go 48 games or whatever, probably makes sense. The weighting will protect most teams to a degree, in so much as it becomes highly improbably the worst team drops out of the top 10.

 

[Hossa]

— A pro-rated salary cap of $70.2-million for the shortened 2012-13 season followed by a salary cap of $64.3-million in 2013-14. The salary floor will be set at $44 million for both years.

Doesn't that mean our cap for next year is $70.2 in 2013-14 and $64.3 for 2014-15?

Would seem so.

 

[MatthewFlames]

If we are doing a full 82 game season, I don't see why we need to do the 1 in 14 deal. If we go 48 games or whatever, probably makes sense. The weighting will protect most teams to a degree, in so much as it becomes highly improbably the worst team drops out of the top 10.

But it sounds like the NHL has adopted this permanently not just this season. Teams who don't win only fall a single spot so that's not a big deal. If anything doesn't it protect even more against tanking?

 

[Hossa]

Entirely against the 14th to 1st in the entry draft, both in the NHL and here. The only leverage that bad teams have is the value of their first round picks. I know I will be in the minority here, as the owner of a hopeless team (yes in large part due to my ownership), but the draft lottery involving four teams is almost four too many. Adding 10 more to that would be.... just horrible. With the discrepancy between the have and havenots in this league.... I see no better way to widen that gap even further than by having a phenom land on a team that had a down year as opposed to a team that flat out sucks.

This happens already in our league. Last year the first six picks were all made by teams holding another team's pick. The year before 3 through 8 were the same. In 2010 it was 2nd and 3rd. If we're going to deviate from the NHL on this, the argument has to be sound, and history contradicts yours I think.

 

[Vagrant]

This happens already in our league. Last year the first six picks were all made by teams holding another team's pick. The year before 3 through 8 were the same. In 2010 it was 2nd and 3rd. If we're going to deviate from the NHL on this, the argument has to be sound, and history contradicts yours I think.

So be it, I just thought I would voice my concern on the issue. Provided it was done in a similar way with each team represented according to an algorithm predetermined, I wouldn't complain about it too much.

 

[HFNHLOilers]

If anything the 1 to 14 adds value to your first round picks given they could be 1st overall if you think ur a bubble team

 

[Ohio Jones]

Teams 1-14 still have a sliding scale of likelihood of being drawn, so the last place team is still the most likely to draw first overall... But with this change that's no longer more than 50% of the time.

 

[Circulartheory]

Entirely against the 14th to 1st in the entry draft, both in the NHL and here. The only leverage that bad teams have is the value of their first round picks. I know I will be in the minority here, as the owner of a hopeless team (yes in large part due to my ownership), but the draft lottery involving four teams is almost four too many. Adding 10 more to that would be.... just horrible. With the discrepancy between the have and havenots in this league.... I see no better way to widen that gap even further than by having a phenom land on a team that had a down year as opposed to a team that flat out sucks.

As one of those hopeless teams, I'm all for it. It adds interest but still skews the draft towards the bad teams.

 

[SPG]

— A pro-rated salary cap of $70.2-million for the shortened 2012-13 season followed by a salary cap of $64.3-million in 2013-14. The salary floor will be set at $44 million for both years.

Doesn't that mean our cap for next year is $70.2 in 2013-14 and $64.3 for 2014-15?

If we go by the book, that would be correct.

I don't really see the point in switching to the $70.2 cap next year though... From what I gather, the point in that 70.2 was because teams hadn't had the chance to adjust their cap strategies. For us, we would have a full year to plan for a lower cap.

Just my 2 cents on the matter... I'm ok with either way, but the 64.3 for next year makes more sense to me.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Upon further consideration (and review of these comments) I think following the NHL makes sense given this is what we have always done and it maintains our objectivity. It also will prevent some of the subtle tanking, or at least reduce it.

 

[Canuck09]

If we go by the book, that would be correct.

I don't really see the point in switching to the $70.2 cap next year though... From what I gather, the point in that 70.2 was because teams hadn't had the chance to adjust their cap strategies. For us, we would have a full year to plan for a lower cap.

Just my 2 cents on the matter... I'm ok with either way, but the 64.3 for next year makes more sense to me.

I agree here. I don't think we should go to $70.2M next year because we have a full year to deal with the change. The few well off teams would probably benefit from a year of increased spending but many of the cash strapped teams would be left behind for another year.

Upon further consideration (and review of these comments) I think following the NHL makes sense given this is what we have always done and it maintains our objectivity. It also will prevent some of the subtle tanking, or at least reduce it.

I also agree here. I think we should stick with the NHL format, and if at all possible, continue using the NHL lottery results for our own lottery results, assuming our seasons are done on time.

 

[MatthewFlames]

I agree here. I don't think we should go to $70.2M next year because we have a full year to deal with the change. The few well off teams would probably benefit from a year of increased spending but many of the cash strapped teams would be left behind for another year.

I'll add a third voice of support for not jumping to the 70 million cap.

 

[Ville Isopaa]

I'd say it seems like a good idea to keep the cap at 64,3m for 2012-13, 13-14 and 14-15 and then we see where it goes after that. No point in adding 6m in cap space for one season, just to go back to 64,3m again. As long as the agents also remember this in the demands when we're re-signing players for next season (especially in the case of 1-year NHL deals).

I'm all for the new lottery. We should stick as close as possible to the NHL in the rules.
Assuming the %'s stay the same, it lowers the chance of the 30th team in the league keeping the 1st OV from 48,2% to 25% and drafting 2nd go up from 51,8% to 75%. There's a similar change for the rest of the lottery teams. The chances of the 29th team to draft 1st are 18,8%, 25% to stay 2nd (down from 42%) and 56,2% to draft 3rd (up from 39,2%), etc.

 

[Hossa]

So be it, I just thought I would voice my concern on the issue. Provided it was done in a similar way with each team represented according to an algorithm predetermined, I wouldn't complain about it too much.

I actually kind of agree with you - I'm not sure I support the NHL's decision to change the lottery system either. However, I don't see a strong reason why the HFNHL should deviate from the NHL here. We typically try to follow their lead and adapt based on the practicalities of an imaginary league run by volunteers.

 

[TorontoGM]

Is there a reason why we lag the NHL in terms of salary cap?

 

[Fooladelfia]

We need to follow NHL format In all what they do.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Is there a reason why we lag the NHL in terms of salary cap?

I think originally it was because our ratings lagged NHL performance by a year. They still do, but our contracts often don't. So now I think it's primarily to give people good notice to plan towards.

 

[Wildman]

Upon further consideration (and review of these comments) I think following the NHL makes sense given this is what we have always done and it maintains our objectivity. It also will prevent some of the subtle tanking, or at least reduce it.

So are we bringing in minimum cap in order to maintain our objectivity.

 

[Ohio Jones]

So are we bringing in minimum cap in order to maintain our objectivity.

The reason we've avoided this in the past is the inflation it causes with regard to player salaries (wit middling players receiving top dollar contracts just to met the floor) and the inevitable struggles of low-revenue teams to maintain a healthy bank balance in the face of a high spending floor.

I think those risks are still very much present, but it would do away with the awkward "minimum OV business". Basically, I'm on the fence about this.

The biggest reason to do it, I think, would simply be to comply with our doctrine to match the NHL where possible.

 

[Wildman]

The reason we've avoided this in the past is the inflation it causes with regard to player salaries (wit middling players receiving top dollar contracts just to met the floor) and the inevitable struggles of low-revenue teams to maintain a healthy bank balance in the face of a high spending floor.

I think those risks are still very much present, but it would do away with the awkward "minimum OV business". Basically, I'm on the fence about this.

The biggest reason to do it, I think, would simply be to comply with our doctrine to match the NHL where possible.

There is not much difference in attendance revenue between a good team and a bad team. The difference is the additional revenue via playoffs and incentive. As far as bad contract goes, I don't think there is any correlation between minimum cap and salaries. Over the summar we saw plenty of bad contract by mediocre team. I think bringing minimum and max cap will bring parity among teams and we should also address $8M max because it makes no sense that teams are allowed to carry few superstars and be allowed with NHL cap but benefit $8M ceiling on salary. If we want to mimic the NHL than we need to follow all the NHL cap rules.