NHL.com has new proposal posted

[Flames Draft Watcher]

However, with the new hockey system a player like Kovalchuck would be qualified at 75% of his salary.

So? You do realize that how many players didn't take their qualifying offers when they were 100% don't you?

Kovalchuk would reject the qualifying offer. And either Atlanta or another team would pony up more money for his services.

 

[red devil]

...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.

In the proposal offered today, it stated that players must be signed 14 days after training camp starts.

 

[Slats432]

Right you are Ken.

An MXC reference missed by almost everyone.

Kenny: "Do you ever see your ex-wife, Vic?"
Vic: "Yes, but only from the distance specified in the restraining order."
Kenny: "Ever talk to her?"
Vic: "...Not since caller ID.

Well Vic...back to the action.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

In the proposal offered today, it stated that players must be signed 14 days after training camp starts.

I am well aware of that.

 

[speeds]

So? You do realize that how many players didn't take their qualifying offers when they were 100% don't you?

Kovalchuk would reject the qualifying offer. And either Atlanta or another team would pony up more money for his services.

The players need arbitration IMO to allow them to be fairly compensated because they don't control where they play. It's not fair to a player if he is to make less in EDM than in NYR in his first year out of his entry contract simply because his rights happen to be owned by EDM, and for whatever reason they won't give anyone a raise beyond their 75% QO (which I agree as a practical matter wouldn't matter). That was the whole reason arbitration was initially instituted.

If the QO is 75%, then why alter arbitration at all, beyond some small changes perhaps? So the player has a great year while making 700K, goes to arb, and gets 2 mil. If he performs poorly after the raise, then he gets a paycut to 1.5 mil. And if he doesn't perform again the year after, cut to 1.2 mil.

 

[Drake1588]

In the proposal offered today, it stated that players must be signed 14 days after training camp starts.

Exactly. You can't hold out anymore, not the way it used to be done. You can be qualified at 75% of your contract, down to a minimum of $800K; you might not have arbitration as an option anymore, and you have to be signed 14 days after the start of camp.

Under #4: "Players and Clubs obligated to reach agreement on terms of a new contract by no later than fourteen (14) days after the opening of Training Camp; failure to do so results in player ineligibility (and unavailability to Club) for balance of the season."

So you can't hold out indefinitely, only for the duration of full NHL seasons. That emasculates this as an option; it used to be one of the few options a player had to exert leverage on a team if it was playing hardball during negotiations. The change is very significant when coupled with the possibility of arbitration elimination.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The players need arbitration IMO to allow them to be fairly compensated because they don't control where they play. It's not fair to a player if he is to make less in EDM than in NYR in his first year out of his entry contract simply because his rights happen to be owned by EDM, and for whatever reason they won't give anyone a raise beyond their 75% QO (which I agree as a practical matter wouldn't matter). That was the whole reason arbitration was initially instituted.

Well one might wonder if arbitration ever resulted in "fair compensation" at any point.

The Restricted Free Agency mechanism SHOULD do what you are looking for. If it's too restrictive then they should tweak it.

Leaving NHL salaries in the hands of arbitrators is not an ideal solution. It's a total crapshoot as to whether a fair salary is awarded or not.

 

[speeds]

Well one might wonder if arbitration ever resulted in "fair compensation" at any point.

I don't wonder about that at all. Players with good cases filed, but not those players who had REALLY good cases. There are very few arbitration cases one could point at and say "he was clearly awarded WAY too much."

The Restricted Free Agency mechanism SHOULD do what you are looking for. If it's too restrictive then they should tweak it.

Leaving NHL salaries in the hands of arbitrators is not an ideal solution. It's a total crapshoot as to whether a fair salary is awarded or not.

agreed on RFA compensation

and agreed arbitration isn't ideal, but I think it's unfair to call it "a total crapshoot as to whether a fair salary is awarded or not." The arbitrators have done a retty effective job IMO. Yes, the players nearly always get raises, that has nothing to do with the arbitrators wanting to give players a raise though; it's systemic because of who files. You don't file for arb if you have a bad case.

 

[wazee]

Exactly. You can't hold out anymore, not the way it used to be done. You can be qualified at 75% of your contract, down to a minimum of $800K; you might not have arbitration as an option anymore, and you have to be signed 14 days after the start of camp.

Under #4: "Players and Clubs obligated to reach agreement on terms of a new contract by no later than fourteen (14) days after the opening of Training Camp; failure to do so results in player ineligibility (and unavailability to Club) for balance of the season."

So you can't hold out indefinitely, only for the duration of full NHL seasons. That emasculates this as an option; it used to be one of the few options a player had to exert leverage on a team if it was playing hardball during negotiations. The change is very significant when coupled with the possibility of arbitration elimination.

Actually, I think forcing the team and player to come to terms within 14 days after the beginning of training camp applies a lot of pressure to both sides. Before, the player could sit out as long as he wanted...but he was wasn't getting paid for it. That lead to owners waiting until mid-season to negotiate allowing them to pay the player for only part of the year, and still have his services for the playoffs. If the owners knew they had to make a deal or lose the player's services for the whole year, I think they would act sooner to sign the player...or to trade him. Season ticket holders would not be happy if a team let a young star sit out for a year without making a major effort to sign him...

That said, I would look for the final CBA to offer more protection to RFAs than this draft from the owners did. But that is what negotiations are for...

 

[Hockeyfan02]

There are things here the PA can work with in a counter proposal, but I dont see that "carrot" that would get the PA to get this deal voted on or signed. Hopefully the PA on thursday can negotiate and see if theres something they can come up with that will get these sides closer. If not then the two idiots are there to agree on cancelling the season.

 

[wazee]

There are things here the PA can work with in a counter proposal, but I dont see that "carrot" that would get the PA to get this deal voted on or signed. Hopefully the PA on thursday can negotiate and see if theres something they can come up with that will get these sides closer. If not then the two idiots are there to agree on cancelling the season.

50/50 profit sharing after each owner makes as 4M seems like a big carrot to me. And yes, I know it depends on how revenue is defined...which is one of the things the PA should try to negotiate to their favor.

 

[PecaFan]

Not really. The Eastern Conference currently has one player signed to a contract of less than $500K.

What? There are six on Buffalo and Atlanta combined, the first two teams I looked at.

04-05 salary:
T. Rohloff, 450K
A. Peters, 400K
C. Taylor, 350K

K. Brennan, 450K
B. Simon, 425K
T. Kloucek, 400K

And there are *dozens* more around the league.