How would the NHL receive a NHLPA proposal that..

[Mess]

resembled the NFL model.

I wonder what the NHL would do with a proposal from the NHPA that offered UFA at say age 24, that would eliminate the need for Arbitration and Qualifying offers in the new CBA, which are the 2 biggest systemic problems of the old CBA for escalating Salaries...

If they combined that with a Hard Cap floor at 30 mil min and a 40 mil max Ceiling, and could leave Revenue sharing up to the NHL to decide how to compensate for different markets.

As we know the main trade-off in the NFL Hard Cap world to eliminate anti-trust claims was to not restrict the players within a Hard Cap World..

If the NHL does want a NFL system then they have to take the good with the bad .. NO??

I wonder how the NLRB would rule?? ..

The owners are getting their Hard Cap to become profitable and an offer like that could never be considered Bad Faith bargaining if its based on a present working sports system. It also addresses the on Ice Parity issue if the cap range was say $30 min - 40 mil max.

It does address all the NHL concerns and demands.

Click to read more...

 

[Slats432]

The end to guaranteed contracts...let's not forget that point. Your PA boys wouldn't go for that either.

 

[Mess]

The end to guaranteed contracts...let's not forget that point.

Maybe .... but guaranteed contracts is a way for the NHL teams to keep its talent longer ..

The Franchise tag offer could also appear in a NHL counter proposal offer to keep its one KEY player without losing him .. and each team could build around that Franchise player then.

 

[mackdogs*]

Maybe .... but guaranteed contracts is a way for the NHL teams to keep its talent longer ..

Guaranteed contracts only keep the untalented players on the payroll.

Please explain how guaranteed contracts let's a team keep it's talent longer. By talent I assume you mean talented or useful players.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

resembled the NFL model.

I wonder what the NHL would do with a proposal from the NHPA that offered UFA at say age 24, that would eliminate the need for Arbitration and Qualifying offers in the new CBA, which are the 2 biggest systemic problems of the old CBA for escalating Salaries...

If they combined that with a Hard Cap floor at 30 mil min and a 40 mil max Ceiling, and could leave Revenue sharing up to the NHL to decide how to compensate for different markets.

As we know the main trade-off in the NFL Hard Cap world to eliminate anti-trust claims was to not restrict the players within a Hard Cap World..

If the NHL does want a NFL system then they have to take the good with the bad .. NO??

I wonder how the NLRB would rule?? ..

The owners are getting their Hard Cap to become profitable and an offer like that could never be considered Bad Faith bargaining if its based on a present working sports system. It also addresses the on Ice Parity issue if the cap range was say $30 min - 40 mil max.

It does address all the NHL concerns and demands.

I like it and think it might be received quite well. The one cavet I would have is that free agency is set at 28 (or seven years service), and in return players get to retain guaranteed contracts, for this primary reason. Quite a few NHL teams invest a lot of time and money in player development and they deserve to reap the rewards of that investment. Since a player really doesn't start to contribute consistently until they reach the age of 23-24 (for the most part) I think it only fair that the NHL team get to retain his rights for the first years of his prime. The NFL need not worry about this aspect of the game because they have no minor leagues and no development to speak of outside of the practice roster or warming the bench. This is a big difference between the two and one of the main differences that needs to be respected, by both sides. The players owe just as much to this development system as the teams do, so guaranteeing that time to the team who developed them is more than fair IMO.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

If the PA offered it? Yes, I think that the owners would take it. I would be pretty happy with that agreement too. It solves a few problems, namely what to do if you do end up with a team filled with talent and approach the Cap limit. Imagine the Pens getting Malkin, Fleury and Crosby for instance, if all develope into stars do they get to keep them for the next dozen years along with all the other players such as Orpik, Stone and Whitney that they have coming up? Free agency by 24 and no guanrenteed contracts certainly solves that problem.

 

[Mess]

Guaranteed contracts only keep the untalented players on the payroll.

Please explain how guaranteed contracts let's a team keep it's talent longer. By talent I assume you mean talented or useful players.

Huh??

If the UFA is dropped to a low number say 24 or 25 as my example gives .. Then a team can lock up its Nash's, Staal's, Heatley's well beyond that age group on a longer term contract ..

The marginal NHL players would only get short term deals and the last NHL prosposal offered the NHLPA 1 - 3 year max contracts .. with only the Stars getting the 3 year deals .. 1 year deals and almost non-guaranteed contracts anyways .. 2 year deals are short enough that they could be bought out easily at 2/3 rds like current contracts for unproductive players ..

 

[Mess]

If the PA offered it? Yes, I think that the owners would take it. I would be pretty happy with that agreement too. It solves a few problems, namely what to do if you do end up with a team filled with talent and approach the Cap limit. Imagine the Pens getting Malkin, Fleury and Crosby for instance, if all develope into stars do they get to keep them for the next dozen years along with all the other players such as Orpik, Stone and Whitney that they have coming up? Free agency by 24 and no guanrenteed contracts certainly solves that problem.

It certainly eliminates the IMPASSE situation we are heading towards ..

An offer like that would certainly avoid replacement players and NLRB ruling Impasse ..

However you touched on the core of my post .. .Much younger UFA gives all 30 teams the ability to build teams within a Hard Cap world and that the same teams that remain near the bottom year after year like you pointed out risk losing some of that talent they accumulated, really not making that as big an advantage in the future.

All teams would never really have to go through true rebuilding years which is great for fans in all cities as they have the ability to snap up younger players and build teams ..

With a $30 - $40 mil Hard Cap range All 30 teams do not have $$$ power or Big City power advantage and all teams would really need to wise in its own contracts to make sure it is prepared for players on the market all the time ..

We all know that the more players on the market at any time keeps bidding wars down and Salaries in check ..

Can you imagine from a Fans point of view when UFA season July 1st opens up each year .. and the ability for some markets to go after that special player that they feel will sell tickets at the gates ..

Lots of advantages ..

 

[Buffaloed]

I'm sure the owners would take that offer. The free agency system of the last CBA benefits the players far more than owners by creating an artificial supply/demand situation that drives up salaries more than anything. In effect the players are making a concession to accept a cap they can have without making that concession. The NLPA realizes that. That's why they've never made free agency an issue.

 

[Frenzy31]

It certainly eliminates the IMPASSE situation we are heading towards ..

An offer like that would certainly avoid replacement players and NLRB ruling Impasse ..

However you touched on the core of my post .. .Much younger UFA gives all 30 teams the ability to build teams within a Hard Cap world and that the same teams that remain near the bottom year after year like you pointed out risk losing some of that talent they accumulated, really not making that as big an advantage in the future.

All teams would never really have to go through true rebuilding years which is great for fans in all cities as they have the ability to snap up younger players and build teams ..

With a $30 - $40 mil Hard Cap range All 30 teams do not have $$$ power or Big City power advantage and all teams would really need to wise in its own contracts to make sure it is prepared for players on the market all the time ..

We all know that the more players on the market at any time keeps bidding wars down and Salaries in check ..

Can you imagine from a Fans point of view when UFA season July 1st opens up each year .. and the ability for some markets to go after that special player that they feel will sell tickets at the gates ..

Lots of advantages ..

Raise the UFA age to 26 and add a franchise player tag. I think teams should be given 4 years with a player since, IMO most don't really get NHL time until 22 anyways. Or move the draft and set the age minimum to 20.

I am pro owner in some ways, but like guarenteed contracts. I don't think owners should be able to shed poor contracts or dump injured players.

I like your ideas and think that the $$ are fair.

 

[thinkwild]

resembled the NFL model.

It would be ironic eh. Your proposal scares me, for although i support the players, and this would be a a way they could win and events seem to be unfolding towards, in my opinion as a fan, i think we fans lose. Imagine if Pittsburgh has Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury. They would have a chance of keeping of them if they became good when they receive 29 other UFA offers each July 1st? Not a chance. The minute they become a better than average team, they will lose one to a worse than average team because thatteam will have more cap room. No way is Havlat staying in Ottawa on 3rd liner salary. He is free to go where he gets the most. The Free Agent and Trade board is the most popular anyway.

eliminate the need for Arbitration and Qualifying offers in the new CBA, which are the 2 biggest systemic problems of the old CBA for escalating Salaries...

I dont believe this correct. QO's are only inflationary if you are building with bad young players and have no development system. Arbitration isnt exactly inflationary. If anything is inflationary, it is that some players arent forced into arbitration. If every player could be forced into arbitration, then there is no inflationary escalator. The PA's proposal addressed these concerns. Whether the team gets 1 or 9 cracks at taking a player to arbitration is a tweak already adopted in the NHLs proposals.

If the NHL does want a NFL system then they have to take the good with the bad .. NO??

I wonder how the NLRB would rule?? ..

The owners are getting their Hard Cap to become profitable and an offer like that could never be considered Bad Faith bargaining if its based on a present working sports system. It also addresses the on Ice Parity issue if the cap range was say $30 min - 40 mil max.

It does address all the NHL concerns and demands.

Dont you think the PAs proposals have already addressed every concern the leagues. Lowered entry level contracts, slower esclation, more controls at each trigger point (although the owners refuse to negotiate the triggers), luxury taxes designed to reduce payroll disparity, and revenue sharing to give every team an equal shot. Even the Cap concept, never before negotiated. If they were to further go as you suggest, what benefit do they get from NLRB? they are pronouncing only the process i thought.

I fear the owners are pushing to this system of lower free agency and a cap you are suggesting, which will drastically change the way teams are developed. There will be no long term development like Ottawa and Tampa Bay did. Rather it will likely be year over year mass changes and UFA free for alls. Trade deadline day expanded upon each summer, as that is what fans really want: exciting new players to take us over the top and give us new hope after a few weeks of losing. 30 minute attention spans and fear of losing lest their owner move their team driving the process. No long term develpoment or investment in players.

The NHL will become as mediocre as the NFL without the hype to give it its perceived success.

 

[Mess]

I'm sure the owners would take that offer. The free agency system of the last CBA benefits the players far more than owners by creating an artificial supply/demand situation that drives up salaries more than anything. In effect the players are making a concession to accept a cap they can have without making that concession. The NLPA realizes that. That's why they've never made free agency an issue.

I agree ..

However before the NHLPA wanted nothing to do with a Hard Cap .. If that is now a forgone conclusion and unavoidable by either the NLRB or the NHL at IMPASSE .. then UFA age becomes the biggest card to the NHLPA to play ..

This can be viewed as a WIN WIN for both sides .. The owners get their Hard Cap and that controlls overspending and run away teams using their markets and the Players have the Freedom to chose the Cities and teams they want to play in and the MIN - MAX keeps all 30 teams at the Stanely Cup parity level fairly equal..

The last NHL offer is at 22 min - 37.5 max .. So a 30 - 40 max is certainly in their range they are looking for .. and they claim its not the players that make the game so the UFA market Supply being greater then Demand will assist them in better spending on contracts an not as much concern on who they are losing but who they are bringing in ..

It allows this CBA and next 6 years to work on the Trust and Linkage and owners books issues and solutions so that the future Hard Cap range can be based on LEAGUE REVENUE ,and defining revenue and allow the Market to heal again..

 

[thinkwild]

The end to guaranteed contracts...let's not forget that point. Your PA boys wouldn't go for that either.

My PA boys no doubt include some of your favourite players, who want to play and work out a fair deal.

Where does this idea come from that a free market equals the end to guaranteed contracts? Isnt calling a contract "Guaranteed" somewhat redundant? It costs money to break contracts, even in the NFL, except they do it up front.

I imagine the NHL is going to make some big changes to the standard players contract, but remember, as so many proclaimed earlier in the year, Bettman has no intention of not guaranteeing contracts.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

However you touched on the core of my post .. .Much younger UFA gives all 30 teams the ability to build teams within a Hard Cap world and that the same teams that remain near the bottom year after year like you pointed out risk losing some of that talent they accumulated, really not making that as big an advantage in the future.

etc, etc..

To be honest making the game about whose front office could sniff out the best contracts, what star to keep and who to let go, and when, makes for some pretty exciting off seasons, doesn't it? Hockey would be big news in the summer as well. Imagine the headlines, such as 'When he hits free agency, at 24, Habs offer Crosby $12 million per year contract, Pens deciding whether to match.' How would this be bad for the sport at all?

 

[IdiotsPickedMyName*]

That sounds reasonable to me, If the NHLPA were to accept a cap this is how i would picture it. I imagine the NHLPA would start with higher numbers thought like maybe a floor of 35 mil and a ceiling of 47 mil

 

[mackdogs*]

Huh??

If the UFA is dropped to a low number say 24 or 25 as my example gives .. Then a team can lock up its Nash's, Staal's, Heatley's well beyond that age group on a longer term contract ..

If the UFA age is dropped to 24 or 25 the players you mentioned would not be stupid enough to be locked into long term contracts. They would make sure they are free agents at the year they go unrestricted. This seems to be the goal of almost every player - maximize revenues. Sounds kinda familiar to what the owners are trying to do, but I digress.

Let's just say I disagree with your statement 'guaranteed contracts is a way for the NHL teams to keep its talent longer' and your reply sure didn't change my view.

 

[Mess]

If the UFA age is dropped to 24 or 25 the players you mentioned would not be stupid enough to be locked into long term contracts. They would make sure they are free agents at the year they go unrestricted. This seems to be the goal of almost every player - maximize revenues. Sounds kinda familiar to what the owners are trying to do, but I digress.

Let's just say I disagree with your statement 'guaranteed contracts is a way for the NHL teams to keep its talent longer' and your reply sure didn't change my view.

Your biggest flaw is that you are assuming that the player wants to leave the team that he has spent his career with to date ...

It also does not prevent a team like Columbus offering NASH as he reaches 24 a large contract estimated at what the UFA market may pay him and then Nash can decide if he wants to relocate his family .. but if he is a part of the community and and feels the offer is fair then why does he have to move anywhere . UFA does not mean you have to move just you have a choice which is what employees have in other professions as well ..

In the NFL players often resign with their current teams .. The Mannings, Favre's, Jerry Rices don't run away just because they can.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Your biggest flaw is that you are assuming that the player wants to leave the team that he has spent his career with to date ...

It also does not prevent a team like Columbus offering NASH as he reaches 24 a large contract estimated at what the UFA market may pay him and then Nash can decide if he wants to relocate his family .. but if he is a part of the community and and feels the offer is fair then why does he have to move anywhere . UFA does not mean you have to move just you have a choice which is what employees have in other professions as well ..

In the NHL players often resign with their teams .. The Mannings, Favre's, Jerry Rices don't run away just because they can.

And big markets will STILL hold an advantage even under this system, though one I can live with. Remember that the big stage of NY, LA, and yes Montreal in Canada, will always be a draw as it will make the player who is a star an international star, which brings in advertising dollars. Face it, even filming 'My name is Sid Crosby, Come oooooooooooon down to Big Al's Ford' will get you much better scratch in LA than it will get you in Pittsburgh. Shaq was very overshadowed in Orlando but began making (bad) movies and McDonalds commercials when he hit LA.

 

[Jester]

okay... i haven't read through all this, but lets get something straight. the NHL would LOVE to recieve an offer built on the model of the NFL's deal.

1. non-guaranteed contracts.
2. linkage based salary cap.
3. no minimum.
4. no arbitration. (right about this?)
5. franchise tag.

the only thing in the NFL that the owners -- specifically the rich owners -- wouldn't necessarily go for is that the NFL has heavy revenue sharing from ticket sales on down the line.

 

[Mess]

And big markets will STILL hold an advantage even under this system, though one I can live with. Remember that the big stage of NY, LA, and yes Montreal in Canada, will always be a draw as it will make the player who is a star an international star, which brings in advertising dollars. Face it, even filming 'My name is Sid Crosby, Come oooooooooooon down to Big Al's Ford' will get you much better scratch in LA than it will get you in Pittsburgh. Shaq was very overshadowed in Orlando but began making (bad) movies and McDonalds commercials when he hit LA.

I agree BIG city lights will be an advantage but not one you can take away .. but and Hard Cap prevents anyone or everyone from having that options ..

NY will only have so much cap room and if two players want to be the player of choice then can you imagine the type of year the current team would get in a contract year for a player .. The player has to make him the choice to the other team then ..and even the Alex Yashin would not be able to coast in a contract year as his old team would not want him back with 100 players to chose from to replace him and if no other NHL team wants to give him his Money then he has no one but himselft to blame ..

but the key is if Crosby feels he can make more money in another city so be it .. If he goes and plays for his team Mointreal then think of the $$$$ to the Habs that could bring in..

How could Hockey players not be happy in a free market even with a team cap on it and the owners called the palyers factor workers , meaning easily replacable, lots of players on the market for the team losing Crosby to fill the bill with .. Once Montreal has secured Crosby then then will be limited in what they can do when Vincent Lecavalier or Marty Brodeur wants to return home ..

 

[mooseOAK*]

I hate to inject any hockey reality in all of this but in the NHL, with very few exceptions, a goalie or defencemen hasn't even reached his prime by the age of 24.

So, a team invests in a prospect for a few years to get him to a certain point and then he can get free agency before anyone knows how good he can be.

 

[Slats432]

My PA boys no doubt include some of your favourite players, who want to play and work out a fair deal.

Where does this idea come from that a free market equals the end to guaranteed contracts? Isnt calling a contract "Guaranteed" somewhat redundant? It costs money to break contracts, even in the NFL, except they do it up front.

I imagine the NHL is going to make some big changes to the standard players contract, but remember, as so many proclaimed earlier in the year, Bettman has no intention of not guaranteeing contracts.

Actually, I don't have any favourite players for the most part. There are players I enjoy watching more than others but I wouldn't go and buy a jersey with a player's name on the back. Been that way for about 10 years now.(Cujo leaving Edmonton pretty much signalled the end of my allegience to any player.)

Have to say I enjoy prospects more than NHLers as well.

As far as the guaranteed contract issue, the original poster suggested that if the NHLPA came with a NFL CBA offer would it fly. I said to remember that they don't have guaranteed contracts and that the PA wouldn't go for that.

The Messenger, who although extremely intelligent, is heavily PA biased. I figured it was a planned omission.

 

[Mess]

I hate to inject any hockey reality in all of this but in the NHL, with very few exceptions, a goalie or defencemen hasn't even reached his prime by the age of 24.

So, a team invests in a prospect for a few years to get him to a certain point and then he can get free agency before anyone knows how good he can be.

So What ??

The owners are all making money in the New NHL with a Cap and they called players Auto workers and interchangeable ..

So teams develope young players then others ... If a team loses a young player then that they spent time on then they can go an replace him with another that someone else has ..

Not all teams will make the big a deal out of that .. Joe Sakic and Nik Lidstrom and Jerome Iginla to build around will be just as likely as a 24 year old player. If a team choses to go after the younger player and give him the big money then they are passing up other players and NHL STARS that can just as easily make them money which really this is all about ..

 

[thinkwild]

The NHL contracts arent guaranteed either. They can be bought out. Two way contracts allow greater flexibility

 

[Mess]

The Messenger, who although extremely intelligent, is heavily PA biased. I figured it was a planned omission.

Thank you for the compliment .. but in all fairness why is this an issue ..

The Owners are getting :

A Hard Cap which they wanted and needed for Financial security..
One ice Parity as all 30 teams are bound by the Min - Max of the Hard Cap System, which gives all markets a fair opportunity at the Cup ..

No Salary Arbitration - Something early NHL proposals had ..

No Qualifying offers .. No need to reward players with raises they did not earn ,,

and by the NHL own admission the players are Auto Workers ..

So other then UFA at a lower age what is the NHLPA getting out of this offer ??

For the owners its all about the $$ bottom line and many of the Pro-owner posters here say the greedy players have to give in here, which they have and the only benefit to them is the opportunity to play in the NHL city they chose ??

I think my proposal really gets the posters here on BOTH SIDES a chance to look inside themselves and what they are supporting .. Many want Replacements and would support that, is this really any different then replacements at the NHL level but just with PRO players at the NHL level ..

What better way to bring fans back to the NHL then the July 1st UFA season possibilities and bottom line ..

DOWNSIDE : If the NHL pushes too hard and forces the NHLPA to decertify the union .. you get the same result TOTAL UFA for all 700 members .. This solution gives the Owners a negotiated CBA and all the young players still under the UFA the property of the current team..

I think this thread has done what it set out to do .. Its a mater of having your Cake and eating it too for many posters when posters reflect on their feelings on this work stoppage ..

My personal opinion is that if the NHLPA offered this .. The NHL would hardly be able to control itself to get this CBA signed and in place ..

So what does that say for Pro-owner supporters that even if the NHLPA gave the NHL

• LOW HARD CAP ( High CAP at $ 40 mil below FINAL OFFER 42.5 mil)
• NO SALARY ARBITRATION
• NO QUALIFYING OFFERS
• NO FORCED REVENUE SHARING (Let the owners themselves become partners)
• 30 TEAM ON ICE PARITY
• FRANCHISE VALUES TO GO UP AS A RESULT

Still it would be no deal ...

So then how do you see a conclusion to this dispute ??