Potential CBA negotiation issues (was: Is a lockout actually inevitable?)

[patnyrnyg]

For the owners to give in on escrow or the Olympics, they are going to want something in return. That something will be in the form of American Currency. For those who think those are going to be the biggest issue, what do you think the players will be willing to give up to go to the Olympics?

I think some of you are greatly over-estimating how much of an issue the Olympics will be for the players. I doubt they are going to be willing to give up much, if anything to guarantee participation.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Of the four sports unions excluding MLSPA, NHLPA in my opinion is the weakest of the 4.

Think NFLPA might be weaker. At least the NHLPA still has their contracts guaranteed. With NFL careers being so short, hard for them to give up significant time to benefit future players.

 

[LeHab]

there are too many have not teams to allow a soft cap. IMO

Depends how such system gets implemented. If the soft cap starts at what is today cap midpoint and quickly increases, we may actually have lower discrepancy between the highest and lowest payroll.

 

[MNNumbers]

For the owners to give in on escrow or the Olympics, they are going to want something in return. That something will be in the form of American Currency. For those who think those are going to be the biggest issue, what do you think the players will be willing to give up to go to the Olympics?

I think some of you are greatly over-estimating how much of an issue the Olympics will be for the players. I doubt they are going to be willing to give up much, if anything to guarantee participation.

And been thinking about this on the road today. Last time around the players held out, and the league, who originally offered them 43%, raised that to 50. Had the negotiations been completed early, maybe 46 would been the number. So, they lost 40% of a season, at 46%, to gain 4% for what will be 8 years. For anyone playing 5 years, that was a gain.

Essentially holding out another half season..... How can anything they want be worth that? Owners aren't making noise about paying the players too much. The actual amount of salaries won't change.... That's a not starter, so escrow is worthless as an argument. Etc.

As long as the others are satisfied with the present, the players have no leverage.

 

[LeHab]

Bobby Orr would be surprised if there isn't another lock-out.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/bobby-orr-would-be-surprised-if-there-isn-t-another-nhl-lockout-1.4158760

 

[StreetHawk]

Bobby Orr would be surprised if there isn't another lock-out.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/bobby-orr-would-be-surprised-if-there-isn-t-another-nhl-lockout-1.4158760

I would use the word work stoppage. Owners will lock players out if there is no active cba when the season is set to begin. Not chancing what happened in 1992 again.

 

[Fourier]

Schedules:
If the owners want 84 games, the players will want something in return.
There are many possibilities for schedules.

Soft cap: As LeHab said, it increases escrow, so it may be a non-starter.

Contract levels
ELC/RFA/UFA - I agree.

The players would get something in return for an 84 game schedule. More games means more revenue. But I am not at all sure either side would push this issue.

 

[LadyStanley]

Headlines: Donald Fehr tells players he's staying - Sportsnet.ca

There seems to be some push to expand the playoff pool beyond 16 teams. (Bettman is not one)

With Seattle (assumed) to be in, that would mean half the league makes the playoffs and half don't.

I don't see this as a major issue.

 

[cbcwpg]

NHL collective bargaining talks have already started - Sportsnet.ca

 

[gstommylee]

More teams in playoffs is a bad idea. 16 is enough.

 

[LeHab]

Also not a big fan of adding playoff teams. I wouldn’t mind top 6 teams from each conference as automatic qualifiers. 7 to 10 play a wildcard elimination game mlb style. Losers of the wildcard would still be eligible for 1OA lottery.

 

[Mightygoose]

I'm good with adding sudden death play in games.

Either keep the current system but with 4 wildcards per conference or go top 5 per division with 5 @ 4 sudden death to get to the round of 16.

Expanding eventually to 32 in this case creates more non playoff teams and more meaningless games down the stretch which isn't good either.

 

[Name Nameless]

I'm good with adding sudden death play in games.

Either keep the current system but with 4 wildcards per conference or go top 5 per division with 5 @ 4 sudden death to get to the round of 16.

Expanding eventually to 32 in this case creates more non playoff teams and more meaningless games down the stretch which isn't good either.

Yeah, with the top two in each division jumping a round, and eight wildcard-teams in each conference making it- but having to go through one extra round- there will be a fight to the end of the season for so many more teams, and a massive decrease in meaningless games. Do let the "round zero"-losers participate in the draft-lottery.

(This kind of looks like it is meant ironic, but I am sure you agree it is not. )

 

[canuckfan75]

I can see something similar to the NFL . 1 Franchise Player who"s salary would not count against the cap. Unless he gets traded to another team then the acquiring team will have his salary counted against the cap.

 

[mouser]

I can see something similar to the NFL . 1 Franchise Player who"s salary would not count against the cap. Unless he gets traded to another team then the acquiring team will have his salary counted against the cap.

Except that’s not at all how the NFL works. In the NFL the franchise player tag is a form of restricted free agency, has nothing to do with the cap.

 

[cheswick]

I see any sort of move away from cost certainty, ie franchise players, soft cap as non starters for the league. If escrow is an issue they'll have to adjust the calculation of the cap.

 

[MNNumbers]

I see any sort of move away from cost certainty, ie franchise players, soft cap as non starters for the league. If escrow is an issue they'll have to adjust the calculation of the cap.

I agree with this. The impasse seems to be:

Players like a higher cap because it looks like their contract is for more. Players seem to think a higher cap, agreed to by the owners, is a tacit, unspoken contract that the owners will try like everything to market so that the HRR rises to meet the needs of said cap. Players are upset because it doesn't happen that way, and they lose the difference to escrow.

Owners don't really care what the cap is, because they know they will only spend 50%, league wide, of HRR. Lower revenue teams may LIKE a high escrow, because it actually, in the end, decreases their player costs (a floor team pays less than the floor after escrow).

The only answer is that, effectively, the players' salaries have to be lower IN THEIR contracts. Of course, the players won't like that, either.

That's why the idea, put forth here earlier, that the FIGHT AGAINST ESCROW, is not really a fight against escrow at all, but rather is an assault on the cap itself, makes so much sense. Especially since Fehr was PA rep in MLB, and keeps talking about the health of MLB, which is the only league without a cap of any kind.

This is why a big fight may be in the works.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I can see something similar to the NFL . 1 Franchise Player who"s salary would not count against the cap. Unless he gets traded to another team then the acquiring team will have his salary counted against the cap.

Players with a franchise tag count against the cap in the NFL.

 

[LadyStanley]

Repeating here for completeness....

WRT drug testing, set limits on what level is "bad", not just a "positive" test of minute amount = automatic suspension. (See Schmidt who claims that amount of substance registered on test but was so minuscule it could provide no performance improvement.)

 

[cbcwpg]

All I think back to is this comment from Toews...

“I don’t care how much money you make or what you do, you sign a contract, you feel like you’ve earned that and you expect that your employer is going to hold up his end of the deal,” Chicago Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews said. “At the end of each season to be told that they’re going to take back 10 or 12 or 15 or sometimes 20 percent of your contract? I think that’s a kick you-know-where. I don’t agree with that, and I think there’s a lot of things the NHL can do to promote the game and enhance the business side of the game. Their mistakes shouldn’t be coming out of the players’ pockets.”

****

I see this as the players don't really care for the business reasons why, or even understand why there is escrow, but all they want is at the end of the day is.... If player A signs a $8,000,000/year contract, they want their $8,000,000.

JMO, but if escrow becomes the hill the PA is going to die on, then we will not have a season once the CBA expires.

 

[mouser]

Repeating here for completeness....

WRT drug testing, set limits on what level is "bad", not just a "positive" test of minute amount = automatic suspension. (See Schmidt who claims that amount of substance registered on test but was so minuscule it could provide no performance improvement.)

For all we know those limits might already exist.

This really wouldn't be a CBA negotiation issue. The CBA doesn't define what substances are banned, or what the testing limits are. That's up to the committee the oversees the program composed of NHL, PA and independent doctors. If there's a problem the committee can make a change without a new CBA.

 

[LadyStanley]

Not as of Schmidt testing, @mouser.

And no pundit has mentioned discussions on that topic.

 

[mouser]

Not as of Schmidt testing, @mouser.

And no pundit has mentioned discussions on that topic.

I'm sure whatever substances they are testing for at worst they're using the WADA limits. It's really difficult to speculate on whether the banned substance schedule is reasonable or not without knowing what Schmidt tested positive for.

 

[Ernie]

If Schmidt really wanted to prove his innocence he could have opted to make his test results public. Without that his denials seem like more of a PR exercise. If a guy in any other sport had a huge performance jump and then tested for PED's there wouldn't be much of an argument.

With that said I'd rather there be some middle ground for a guy who could have just been careless as opposed to someone exposed as a blatant cheater. An automatic 20 game suspension regardless of the situation seems pretty imperious.

 

[MNNumbers]

All I think back to is this comment from Toews...

“I don’t care how much money you make or what you do, you sign a contract, you feel like you’ve earned that and you expect that your employer is going to hold up his end of the deal,” Chicago Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews said. “At the end of each season to be told that they’re going to take back 10 or 12 or 15 or sometimes 20 percent of your contract? I think that’s a kick you-know-where. I don’t agree with that, and I think there’s a lot of things the NHL can do to promote the game and enhance the business side of the game. Their mistakes shouldn’t be coming out of the players’ pockets.”

****

I see this as the players don't really care for the business reasons why, or even understand why there is escrow, but all they want is at the end of the day is.... If player A signs a $8,000,000/year contract, they want their $8,000,000.

JMO, but if escrow becomes the hill the PA is going to die on, then we will not have a season once the CBA expires.

This is what I was referring to earlier, @cbcwpg.

How do you describe this????
#1 - The growth in HRR is already built into the estimate from which the players can decide whether to use an escalator or not. Toews' quote seems to suggest that the owners are obligated to grow even MORE revenue..... That's the comment of a person who is willingly ignorant of the situation.

#2 - Every player, if he is paying attention AT ALL, already knows, when he signs the contract, about how the CBA works. Not realizing that is again, willingly ignorant.

#3 - He is blaming the owners and accusing them of some sort of cheating going on. Escrow is NOT the owners taking money. For him to assume that, and blame the owners, is again willingly ignorant.

I get it that the players don't like to see less than their contract says. But, if there is going to be a cost certainty of 50/50 split of HRR, it is a necessary matter.

So, I can only come to one of 2 conclusions....

1- The players are collectively ignorant of the system they have been laboring under for that last 2 CBAs. And, if they choose to argue about it now, it's going to cost them MORE, not LESS, because the owners are going to demand something in return for giving up cost certainty, and it's going to be $$$.

or....

2- The players all really already realize this, but they are negotiating in the press. And, what Fehr has convinced them is possible is the end of a cap system in total. If this is what they want, they had better be prepared to lose the entire season, because it won't happen.

Extra: To avoid escrow.....
1- Find the 5-yr running average of increase in HRR, and apply this to last season's in order to get next year's estimate of HRR. Multiply by 50% for the players' share. Divide by 31 for each team's share.
2- Find the 5-yr running average of how much of the CAP CEILING was spent on player salaries (cap numbers). This will something like 94%, for example. Divide the number found at the end of #1 by this number (so it increases), and the resulting number is your CAP CEILING for each team. No escrow. The number on your contract is your salary.
3- Decide how low you want the floor to be.
RESULT: Next year's players' costs will be near to 50% of HRR, within 2% or close to it, if the estimates are good.

WIGGLE ROOM: Since cap hit and salary paid are 2 different things, there may be hidden costs in this - LTIR, insurance, etc.... The rules would have to be defined, since we can't just use escrow to make everything right, we have to do it ahead.....
For example, the rule has to be: ALL Bonuses and all NHL salary dollars, no matter how spent, count against the cap. This would complicate GMs lives, because they would have to leave themselves cap room for call ups in the event of injuries, etc.

2ND RESULT: Salaries would DECREASE, because the amount lost in scrow would now be counted in the cap cost itself - in other words, the cap would be LOWER.

3RD RESULT; Since cost certainty is lost, the owners will demand something. Probably 2% more of HRR.

CONCLUSION: The players fighting about this is NOT going to come out the way they want. It simply can't.