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

[DAChampion]

It looks like the Habs will be stuck with Price until 2026.

 

[Tuggy]

It looks like the Habs will be stuck with Price until 2026.

Good.

 

[Lshap]

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

That was the first thing I thought of. 5-year contracts would benefit the younger players who'd have access to a second UFA payoff. Teams would be happy because they'd no longer be paying for aging players past their prime. The only group that takes a hit is players around 30 who can no longer rely on a paycheque into their mid-late 30s.

The PA will put up a fight on behalf of its veteran members, but this might be a negotiating card they ultimately agree to in exchange for something else.

 

[Perrah]

I suspect there will be discussion about signing bonuses as well. I think the players did well to pro-actively make a lost season kick the owners in the balls with the amount of signing bonus money to be paid out that year. Even Karl f***ing Alzner has signing bonus money due July 2020.

 

[Montreal Impact FC]

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

sure good show and a handful of competitive teams.. even montreal would be eating alive in this market. since most likely no more salarial cap.

 

[DAChampion]

Five year contracts doesn't necessarily mean reducing the age for UFA. Those are separate variables.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It looks like the Habs will be stuck with Price until 2026.

Good.

 

[Hansman]

Keep the 7-8 year contracts but allow teams to construct the last 2-3 years to be performance related.

 

[the valiant effort]

Five year contracts doesn't necessarily mean reducing the age for UFA. Those are separate variables.

Doesn’t reduce the UFA age, but opens the door to another bigger payday, possibly before age 30.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I'd like to see performance based contracts and get rid of guaranteed contracts altogether. I don't see that happening, but one can dream.

 

[loudi94]

The idea of guaranteed contracts will most likely be a non-starter for the PA if you go 5 yr max. Unless, as was mentioned, the player also had an opt out clause and/or, money was owed to the player in order to cancel the contract. There would have to be benefit to the players. At first blush, I think these ideas will cause further disparity between smaller and larger markets.

 

[DAChampion]

Why would the players agree to not get paid if they suffer a career-ending concussion?

And I'm surprised to see fans wanting to see this risk imposed on the players.

 

[Tabarouette]

idk how I feel about 5 years, 7-8 years isn't an issue for me because on paper it should force GMs to be creative, i'd probably keep it at 7-8 years but definitely no compliance buyouts (with exceptions for corner cases). You live with your mistakes, you sign some dumb Lucic-type deal? deal with it you did this to yourself

my main wishlist point is the removal of RFA compensations, kinda like how the NBA does it. Your team can match the highest offer but if they don't it's bye bye, you just lost that player. The current format is horrible and holds player hostage and you end up with a guy like Nylander not playing for half a season, potentially harming the players progression and career. I don't think changing the UFA age is the solution, but changing the broken RFA rules seem like a better alternative to me

also makes it way more interesting for everyone instead of the boring unwritten laws that we have right now

 

[Help]

Don't get the rallying behind non-guaranteed contracts

Players have more at stake, and have their careers ended in the blink of an eye due to a freak accident beyond their control. They ought to have the protection of guaranteed money

If owners don't want to pay guys on bad contracts, they shouldn't have filled their front office with idiots

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

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

Dude.. if you remove a number of guaranteed years on a contract, you're reducing the lenght of that maximum guarantee.

8 years max of GUARANTEED revenues on contract

Vs

5 years max of GUARANTEED revenues on contract

Which is better for a guaranteed contract?

Are you purposely obtuse because you can't admit you're wrong and you kneejerked my first post?

Grow-up. This is so obvious that if you keep denying it i'll report you for trolling.

 

[scrubadam]

Olympic participation maybe.

I think a good compromise would be to lower UFA age to 25.

Players can get 2 contracts (25-30 and 30-35) that would cover their prime earning years.

With shorter contracts it would make sense.

If I was the NHLPA I would ask to eleminate RFA but I don't think that would ever fly. But I could see 5 year contracts, but UFA at 25 as a deal both sides would go for.

 

[LeHab]

Owners have already revealed what they are happy with when they offered current CBA extension in exchange of 2018 Olympics. They will come to the table with more demands than what they are willing to settle for as any negotiator should but I don't expect to see significant new demands to die on.

Surprised the article isn't referencing anything regarding escrow which is often reported to be the major point of contention.

 

[nhlfan9191]

The NHLPA will never agree to this.

 

[nhlfan9191]

It looks like the Habs will be stuck with Price until 2026.

They weren’t buying him out anyways.

 

[Gabriiel40]

Does anyone know when the new CBA must be completed by?

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Dude.. if you remove a number of guaranteed years on a contract, you're reducing the lenght of that maximum guarantee.

8 years max of GUARANTEED revenues on contract

Vs

5 years max of GUARANTEED revenues on contract

Which is better for a guaranteed contract?

Are you purposely obtuse because you can't admit you're wrong and you kneejerked my first post?

Grow-up. This is so obvious that if you keep denying it i'll report you for trolling.

You are using a very strange definition of guaranteed contract. Usually when one says guaranteed contract they are referring to NFL style contracts where players can be released without being paid the remainder of their contract.

You are arguing a limitation on what can actually be guaranteed in a contract.

That's a bizarre way of referring to guaranteed in contracts, but if that's how you want to define it, then go ahead.

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

I dont care about contract lenghts but please dont pull a NBA type of thing. This is so dumb.

 

[NORiculous]

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.

With Bettman, never say never...

Very unlikely, sure.

 

[WG]

Don't get the rallying behind non-guaranteed contracts

Players have more at stake, and have their careers ended in the blink of an eye due to a freak accident beyond their control. They ought to have the protection of guaranteed money

If owners don't want to pay guys on bad contracts, they shouldn't have filled their front office with idiots

I don't get it either. The NFL system allows teams to cut guys for any reason, including injury. Blow out your knee and come back half a step slow? Cut. We just drafted a guy who plays your position and will get rookie rate to play? You're cut.

The players are the show. People pay hundreds of dollars for tickets and pay $15 beer and $8 gourmet hot dogs to watch the players play, not to watch owners own. The players have the God-given talent and have made the sacrifices necessary to make it to the top pro league in the world. But if Gallagher blows a knee or Shaw suffers another concussion, I guess we'd rather cut them and send them home empty handed so that Molson can bank a few more million.

 

[sharks9]

If they try and move to non-guaranteed contracts then we won't have hockey that year. With how many concessions the players have given up over the years, there's no chance that they'll let the league f*** them over like that without a massive fight.