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

[BattleBorn]

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.

There's nothing I've seen in the CBA that states that he could have released the results. From what I've read, the only disclosure addressed in the CBA is the formatting of the release "Player X has been suspended Y Games for violation of the league's substance abuse program" (or something close to that.) According to what I heard in his interview today, apparently Schmidt got fined for disclosing as much as he has regarding his failure and is under threat of additional fines for disclosing anything else.

I'm fine with the suspension, there are rules (WADA, with consent from a league/PA committee) there's an appeals process, and the remedies for the test failure have come to pass with a suspension being served. I'm willing to accept that he didn't knowingly use the substance and got some supplement or meat that was tainted somehow, but I get why people aren't nearly as willing.

I'm not super in to making people pay more than they're sentenced. He's out 20 games and once the 20 games are served he's paid his debt to the league, as far as I'm concerned. I feel the same way when players commit actual crimes too. Punishments should be prescribed and I'm willing to look beyond the violation once the punishment is served.

 

[LeHab]

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.

MLB has a Luxury tax to limit overspending. There is also revenue sharing to help have-nots. Last off-season MLBPA accused those have-nots of pocketing shared revenues instead of "investing" by signing UFAs to ridiculous contracts like it was the case previously so it not all rosy there either. Teams have to spend those revenues to improve the product but not necessarily on players.

When coming to a bargaining table, one should expect initial offers to be more than what each side is willing to settle for. I wouldn't put too much weight into early proposals.
Back when NHL proposed CBA extension in exchange of Olympics, that revealed some of the cards owners are playing with. NHLPA probably feels they have a good chance for additional concessions.

 

[MNNumbers]

MLB has a Luxury tax to limit overspending. There is also revenue sharing to help have-nots. Last off-season MLBPA accused those have-nots of pocketing shared revenues instead of "investing" by signing UFAs to ridiculous contracts like it was the case previously so it not all rosy there either. Teams have to spend those revenues to improve the product but not necessarily on players.

When coming to a bargaining table, one should expect initial offers to be more than what each side is willing to settle for. I wouldn't put too much weight into early proposals.
Back when NHL proposed CBA extension in exchange of Olympics, that revealed some of the cards owners are playing with. NHLPA probably feels they have a good chance for additional concessions.

LeHab,

You'll have to fill me in on this.....I see the owners offering to extend the CBA in exchange for Olympics as simply an acknowledgement that the owners are very happy with the current CBA. In other words, I don't see anything in there that they want changed. Nor do I see any rights that the players have that the owners want to lessen.

In this way, it seems to me that the owners have what they think is a very strong hand.

The players, on the other hand, have several things they want.
Olympic participation
Less escrow and perhaps more revenue sharing
I'm not sure what else.

The question is, what will the players give up in order to get what they want?

 

[Jumptheshark]

I think we are heading into another lost season

 

[Habs Halifax]

LeHab,

You'll have to fill me in on this.....I see the owners offering to extend the CBA in exchange for Olympics as simply an acknowledgement that the owners are very happy with the current CBA. In other words, I don't see anything in there that they want changed. Nor do I see any rights that the players have that the owners want to lessen.

In this way, it seems to me that the owners have what they think is a very strong hand.

The players, on the other hand, have several things they want.
Olympic participation
Less escrow and perhaps more revenue sharing
I'm not sure what else.

The question is, what will the players give up in order to get what they want?

What is the % of NHL players or number of NHL players that play in the Olympics? I find it hard to believe they will risk valuable parts of the CBA that applies to every player because the superstars want to play in the Olympics. They will push for it but it won't be the sole focus in negotiations IMO.

1) 50/50 split in revenue. Lets hope they don't touch this. If one side does, it's going to be a war.

2) ELC: Players will ask for a bigger ELC AAV and bonus structure. Owners will use this to their leverage.

3) Min 7 years of RFA service: Not sure either side touches this. Use to be 10 years right?

4) Max 7 year contracts for UFA's and 8 years with the same team: Do they touch this? Not sure.

5) A different concept: Franchise tags. I would like to see them think outside of the box on this one. There are multiple contract negotiations that the GM/Agent fight in trying to predict inflation. How about allowing each team to place a % of salary on franchise players (Maybe 3 per team?). For example, McDavid gets 15% of the yearly cap. This way, the agent and GM don't have to fight each other on trying to predict cap inflation. Some think this complicates management and teams would go over the cap. Well it doesn't. Lets say you are allowed to use 33% of the cap on franchise players. Lets say you use all of it for example on a $79.5M cap. Well, you have $53M left cause you know what the cap is heading into each season. Not rocket science but requires thinking. The point of it is to create a fair contract to the player and team and avoid trying to predict inflation and fighting over it.

6) Differences of Taxes in certain cities: Some think this is not an issue but it is. Radulov ask the Habs to give him more AAV to stay in Montreal vs what the Starts offered. How does Tampa get Stamkos, Hedman, Kucherov on their current deals? Think about it. It's a factor. I'd like to see the geniuses that created the cap/escrow system work at a tax equalization system. The higher the salaries rise, the more there is an issue. Wasn't a huge problem before cause the max AAV were like $9M max and most were well below this. Now that we are going to have multiple contracts above $10M and growing, it's going to become a bigger issue.

 

[BattleBorn]

What is the % of NHL players or number of NHL players that play in the Olympics? I find it hard to believe they will risk valuable parts of the CBA that applies to every player because the superstars want to play in the Olympics. They will push for it but it won't be the sole focus in negotiations IMO.

1) 50/50 split in revenue. Lets hope they don't touch this. If one side does, it's going to be a war.

2) ELC: Players will ask for a bigger ELC AAV and bonus structure. Owners will use this to their leverage.

3) Min 7 years of RFA service: Not sure either side touches this. Use to be 10 years right?

4) Max 7 year contracts for UFA's and 8 years with the same team: Do they touch this? Not sure.

5) A different concept: Franchise tags. I would like to see them think outside of the box on this one. There are multiple contract negotiations that the GM/Agent fight in trying to predict inflation. How about allowing each team to place a % of salary on franchise players (Maybe 3 per team?). For example, McDavid gets 15% of the yearly cap. This way, the agent and GM don't have to fight each other on trying to predict cap inflation. Some think this complicates management and teams would go over the cap. Well it doesn't. Lets say you are allowed to use 33% of the cap on franchise players. Lets say you use all of it for example on a $79.5M cap. Well, you have $53M left cause you know what the cap is heading into each season. Not rocket science but requires thinking. The point of it is to create a fair contract to the player and team and avoid trying to predict inflation and fighting over it.

6) Differences of Taxes in certain cities: Some think this is not an issue but it is. Radulov ask the Habs to give him more AAV to stay in Montreal vs what the Starts offered. How does Tampa get Stamkos, Hedman, Kucherov on their current deals? Think about it. It's a factor. I'd like to see the genius that created the cap/escrow system work at a tax equalization system. The higher the salaries rise, the more there is an issue. Wasn't a huge problem before cause the max AAV were like $9M max and most were well below this. Now that we are going to have multiple contracts above $10M and growing, it's going to become a bigger issue.

I feel like the RFA issue is where this whole thing sets off.

7 years is a fairly insane amount of time for a player to wait to get paid, especially with the game getting younger and already having quicky contracts for the 35-plus due to hitting the performance wall in the mid-30s.

I'd shoot for 4 years if I'm the PA. Settle at 5.

 

[LadyStanley]

(Don't recall where I read/heard this but...)

Change RFA contract limits. IOW ELC (max 3 years), Second deal (bridge 2-3 years//top level performer max), last RFA deal (to UFA//7-8 year max)?

It seems to be of late that the guys with the contract issues/hold outs are the ones without arbitration rights. (So their only recourse is holding out. Face sign-by-12/1-or-don't-play-all-season.) Contentious/difficult contracts for those with arb rights may take time to negotiate, but a player/team heading to arbitration is guaranteed to have a deal for the next season before the first week of August is done.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I feel like the RFA issue is where this whole thing sets off.

7 years is a fairly insane amount of time for a player to wait to get paid, especially with the game getting younger and already having quicky contracts for the 35-plus due to hitting the performance wall in the mid-30s.

I'd shoot for 4 years if I'm the PA. Settle at 5.

They were able to trade revenue split from 57/43 to 50/50 and 10 year RFA years of service to 7 in the last CBA. If the players want less than 7 years, the owners will target the 50/50 split or something else that pinches a nerve in negotiations for the players.

It would be smarter to target the ELC from the players. It's too low at the moment if you ask me. Maybe they open up the bonus structure.

If any side goes after major changes, the other side will target something else they want. The owners are happy but it don't mean they won't push back if the players push with certain things they want.

 

[MNNumbers]

What's the effect on the owners to change ELC and RFA rules?

Is it only hanging on to home grown talent and thus keeping your fans happy? Or, is there something else in play?

I'm not seeing a direct financial effect, because the 50/50 split protects that.

So, could it not be said that anything besides the revenue split is a minor issue for the owners?

 

[mouser]

They were able to trade revenue split from 57/43 to 50/50 and 10 year RFA years of service to 7 in the last CBA. If the players want less than 7 years, the owners will target the 50/50 split or something else that pinches a nerve in negotiations for the players.

It would be smarter to target the ELC from the players. It's too low at the moment if you ask me. Maybe they open up the bonus structure.

If any side goes after major changes, the other side will target something else they want. The owners are happy but it don't mean they won't push back if the players push with certain things they want.

The RFA change was made in the 2005 CBA when the salary cap was implemented.

 

[justafan22]

The Nylander situation being a massive distraction and media story might have it become a priority in 21 months time

 

[Habs Halifax]

The Nylander situation being a massive distraction and media story might have it become a priority in 21 months time

The Leafs put themselves in the Nylander situation cause they signed Tavares. I'm not saying signing Tavares was a bad move but it's not Nylander's fault that the Leafs are up against the cap. He is worth $6-$8M AAV. Problem is the Leafs want a team friendly deal cause they need it.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The RFA change was made in the 2005 CBA when the salary cap was implemented.

I don't remember but I think you are right now that I think about it more. Boy, did the NHL players ever take a beating in the last two CBA's. Lets hope the Owners are done with their push for more. If they are not, we are in for a major battle

 

[Habs Halifax]

(Don't recall where I read/heard this but...)

Change RFA contract limits. IOW ELC (max 3 years), Second deal (bridge 2-3 years//top level performer max), last RFA deal (to UFA//7-8 year max)?

It seems to be of late that the guys with the contract issues/hold outs are the ones without arbitration rights. (So their only recourse is holding out. Face sign-by-12/1-or-don't-play-all-season.) Contentious/difficult contracts for those with arb rights may take time to negotiate, but a player/team heading to arbitration is guaranteed to have a deal for the next season before the first week of August is done.

Allow the ELC (Elite level talent) to be higher with better bonus structure and it might help. The issue is some players that produce in their ELC are underpaid by a lot. Then when they try to get their next contract where they are paid for today and factoring in inflation, the team has the advantage cause the player has no arbitration rights.

One way or another, the players will be targeting certain parts of how the current CBA works. Do they go after major changes or minor tweaks? Who knows.

 

[Habs Halifax]

What's the effect on the owners to change ELC and RFA rules?

Is it only hanging on to home grown talent and thus keeping your fans happy? Or, is there something else in play?

I'm not seeing a direct financial effect, because the 50/50 split protects that.

So, could it not be said that anything besides the revenue split is a minor issue for the owners?

There is no effect on overall revenue splitting but there is an effect on GM management and having players under team control. NHL GM's will want team controlled assets structured in (ELC and RFA rules) and the players will want RFA rules to be shorten so they reach UFA sooner.

The top elite level players want freedom earlier and the NHL GM's don't. 50/50 split but what players get the biggest piece of that 50%? This affects the ability of how the GM manages within their cap.

 

[MNNumbers]

There is no effect on overall revenue splitting but there is an effect on GM management and having players under team control. NHL GM's will want team controlled assets structured in (ELC and RFA rules) and the players will want RFA rules to be shorten so they reach UFA sooner.

The top elite level players want freedom earlier and the NHL GM's don't. 50/50 split but what players get the biggest piece of that 50%? This affects the ability of how the GM manages within their cap.

OK. I think that's what I thought, only phrased in a different way. Thanks.

 

[LadyStanley]

COLA update for ELC minimum from $925k makes sense. There's a minimum contract $$ too, which should also rise based on COLA.

BUT, do unproven rookies deserve more than $1m in base salary?

 

[LeHab]

LeHab,

You'll have to fill me in on this.....I see the owners offering to extend the CBA in exchange for Olympics as simply an acknowledgement that the owners are very happy with the current CBA. In other words, I don't see anything in there that they want changed. Nor do I see any rights that the players have that the owners want to lessen.

In this way, it seems to me that the owners have what they think is a very strong hand.

What I mean is owners are happy with status quo, even making a concession for Olympics. From NHLPA side, you have to wonder to what extent owners are willing to make further concession to maintain peace and still be "happy". When coming to the negotiation table typically initial offers are more than what you are ultimately willing to settle for (anchoring). As negotiations progress, concessions are made from both sides so everyone can claim bargaining in good faith and ultimately feel like they got a good deal.

 

[LeHab]

I feel like the RFA issue is where this whole thing sets off.

7 years is a fairly insane amount of time for a player to wait to get paid, especially with the game getting younger and already having quicky contracts for the 35-plus due to hitting the performance wall in the mid-30s.

I'd shoot for 4 years if I'm the PA. Settle at 5.

Also feel RFA status will be raised especially as the league trends towards youth. Another option to tackle this would be to progressively reduce offer sheet compensation as a player accumulates RFA years until no compensation is required (UFA).

 

[mouser]

Also feel RFA status will be raised especially as the league trends towards youth. Another option to tackle this would be to progressively reduce offer sheet compensation as a player accumulates RFA years until no compensation is required (UFA).

If the PA is going to pursue any argument on RFA’s I’d suggest the simplest and most effective one is reducing the RFA age/accrued seasons.

 

[Ernie]

There's nothing I've seen in the CBA that states that he could have released the results. From what I've read, the only disclosure addressed in the CBA is the formatting of the release "Player X has been suspended Y Games for violation of the league's substance abuse program" (or something close to that.) According to what I heard in his interview today, apparently Schmidt got fined for disclosing as much as he has regarding his failure and is under threat of additional fines for disclosing anything else.

I'm fine with the suspension, there are rules (WADA, with consent from a league/PA committee) there's an appeals process, and the remedies for the test failure have come to pass with a suspension being served. I'm willing to accept that he didn't knowingly use the substance and got some supplement or meat that was tainted somehow, but I get why people aren't nearly as willing.

I'm not super in to making people pay more than they're sentenced. He's out 20 games and once the 20 games are served he's paid his debt to the league, as far as I'm concerned. I feel the same way when players commit actual crimes too. Punishments should be prescribed and I'm willing to look beyond the violation once the punishment is served.

That's interesting. Could you link to his comments that you cited?

I really don't understand the secrecy. It seems like a process that would very much benefit from transparency.

 

[LeHab]

That's interesting. Could you link to his comments that you cited?

I really don't understand the secrecy. It seems like a process that would very much benefit from transparency.

Article 47 in CBA deals with this

47.11 Confidentiality; Player Status Pending Appeal. Other than disclosures contemplated by this Article 47, test results will be kept confidential, subject to the following limited exceptions:

(a) Once a positive test has been confirmed by the Impartial Arbitrator, or if no Grievance has been filed, the Player suspended will be identified, and it will be announced that the Player "has been suspended [for twenty (20) or sixty (60) NHL Games, or permanently] for violating the terms of the NHL/NHLPA Performance Enhancing Substances Program."

(b) If a Player is subject to a transaction that results in a change to his status (e.g., Trade, Assignment, Loan, Recall, salary arbitration, SPC extension, etc.), and such transaction was completed between the date on which he was informed of an Adverse Analytical Finding and the date upon which a suspension is announced based on a positive test result, a Club alleging that it is adversely affected as a result of the nondisclosure by the Player of the pending proceeding under this Article may file a Grievance within two (2) days from the date the suspension is announced. Such Grievance will be heard by the Impartial Arbitrator on an expedited basis. If the Grievance is upheld, the Arbitrator shall have full authority to fashion an appropriate remedy pursuant to traditional standards of contract law, including the authority to void the transaction.

Even teams are kept in the dark until an actual statement is made. Interesting that a transaction could be voided if a trade occurred between initial discovery and announcement. Innocent until proven guilty..

 

[StreetHawk]

I feel like the RFA issue is where this whole thing sets off.

7 years is a fairly insane amount of time for a player to wait to get paid, especially with the game getting younger and already having quicky contracts for the 35-plus due to hitting the performance wall in the mid-30s.

I'd shoot for 4 years if I'm the PA. Settle at 5.

I think what happens with the rfa comes down to how players feel management wants to pay players.

leBrun was on a Vancouver morning show and he said that with so many quality RFA coming due in 2019, the nylander fight might be seen in these cases as well, like aho and co.

From a fan POV, if we look at last years top 30-40 in scoring the majority were guys on elc or in their 2nd nhl contracts. Fewer guys in the Crosby, Malkin, E. Staal, group who are on deals that began when they were in their ufa years.

So, does the nhl want to pay guys when they are the most productive kind of like the nfl where the top paid guys at any position save QB and K, are on their post rookie contract thus in the 25-30 age range.

Or do they continue to pay guys like they did with Ladd, eriksson, backes big salaries but are not as productive because the have teams can move them near the end of their contracts. Backes could be paid $25 million by Boston if they dea him after July 1, and have some other team cover the final $5 million and 2 years on his deal.

So the B’s pay Backes $8.33 million cash while Pasta get $6.67 cause they only take a $6 million cap for him. Doesn’t make sense in a cap world does it? Why doesn’t the top players make the most? Seems only the elite do that. I mean right now too guys coming off elc are landing 6 year dea in the mid $6 million range. Top Dmen landing in the low $5 million range.

I’d rather see the nhl pay their best players when they are performing. And pay the 30 something guys less or shorter term.

But that’s my preference.

Do the players give a longer elc to cut time off until they hit ufa? But at least lad the ex contract so guys can be paid if they hit them. Make schedule B bonuses standard rather than letting the team negotiate them.

You will likely see players ask for arbitration rights for all rfa guys to avoid a Ritchie situation and a stalemate like nylander.

Contract term can be an issue but see on that.

 

[StreetHawk]

What I mean is owners are happy with status quo, even making a concession for Olympics. From NHLPA side, you have to wonder to what extent owners are willing to make further concession to maintain peace and still be "happy". When coming to the negotiation table typically initial offers are more than what you are ultimately willing to settle for (anchoring). As negotiations progress, concessions are made from both sides so everyone can claim bargaining in good faith and ultimately feel like they got a good deal.

As long as the owners have their hard cap everything else is operational. Basically deciding which players to pay the most money to.

Do you pay the guys between 22-28 the most which covers their 2nd contract? Or do you pay the 28-37 years of the player the most because they are ufa? Which group is the most productive? Do you reward production or do you reward ufa status?

I mean, the owners really have nothing to lose so long as their is a hard cap and the split is acceptable to them.

 

[BattleBorn]

That's interesting. Could you link to his comments that you cited?

I really don't understand the secrecy. It seems like a process that would very much benefit from transparency.

I don't think there's a transcript that I can link, but here's the interview:


ETA: Sportnet's guy's question and Schmidt's response is at :50.