There's the question of "what could each side go after" and then "what should each side go after." Fans are typically much more interested in the "could" part because it fulfills their interests, whether it's actually relevant to the two sides in question or not.
Without going through the CBA in detail, and without providing an exhaustive list of items [which this clearly isn't] my gut feeling is that the following items should be among those in play:
Players
1. Escrow. Already noted above, I've given my $.02 on it.
2. Scheduling. I'm really surprised the players didn't go after this in the last negotiation; I guess getting high quality bath towels was more important. The players need to push for limits on 3-in-4 scheduling, allowing 4-in-6 scheduling only with NHLPA approval [and a strict limit on # of times per team and some kind of guarantee for off days after], and prohibiting 5-in-7 scheduling. [The players also need to realize "mandatory 5 days off at some point in the season" only compresses the rest of the schedule and makes 3-in-4s, 4-in-6s and 5-in-7s more likely; whether they will, who knows. They haven't figured out escrow yet, I'm not holding my breath on this one.]
3. Reductions on compensation for offer sheets. If you want to facilitate player movement, compensation for guys you might actually want to go after is still far too stiff. Also, the players might push for allowing picks of other teams to be used as compensation provided that such pick is held at the time the offer sheet is signed. [More to elaborate on here, but start with this basic concept.]
4. Removing the limit on player contract lengths. I had an idea back in the last discussion 7 years ago; it still lets teams offer long contracts to some guys, but puts a fairly reasonable cap on how long those can go out. [Yes, it prevents the "sign the guy for 12 years until he's age 43" kind of deals.]
5. Removal of limits on how contracts can vary. [More of a return to the 2005 guidelines, but manipulation possibilities gets fixed with "both sides #2" below; see that disclaimer.] The variation between years isn't the problem per se, it's how deferred cap charges can [don't] get applied to the signing team and how that gets massaged when guys aren't in the NHL.
6. Changing definition of "RFA" to protect entry-level guys whose ELC expires and they don't have the required number of professional years to be RFA in the current definition, thus leaving them in limbo. With that, expanding raises for qualifying offers - because what's there is ... well, I'm shocked the NHLPA let that go through, but then I remembered it was more worried about standardized workout equipment and specifying what equipment had to be provided and the shelf lives of some of those pieces of equipment.
Owners
1. I can see where they will push to get rid of arbitration. [Again.] And fail. [Again.] They might settle for expanded walkaway rights or limits in how much a player's salary can increase from the prior year. [That last one, I expect will be a much bigger push.] I also wouldn't be shocked to see them push for greater reductions in player salary in team-elected arbitration.
2. Elimination of the defined benefit plan. [Which I still cannot believe the NHLPA got the owners to agree to.] In the absence of that, elimination of [or strict limits on] any owners' duty to match defined contribution payments.
3. A cap on "player salaries + player benefits" as a total percentage of HRR. [How the players want to get their slice of the pie is up to them, but in the end it only takes up a set %.]
4. A cap on minimum player salary. [If anything, maybe even a push to get it back toward $650K or so.]
5. Elimination on the provision that requires free agent college players to be added to the NHL roster immediately without right of assignment. [I probably need to go into much more detail here.]
6. Expansion of time allowed to exercise buyouts. Perhaps a set number of buyouts that don't count against the cap, with limits on what contracts can go in there. [I have a number of ideas here, but I haven't settled on a "final" one.]
7. Going way out on a limb, asking for minor league salaries on NHL contracts to be considered in #3 above. [But that's going way out on the limb.]
Both sides
1. Indexing a number of values to "average league salary" for general consistency.
2. Fixing "buried" contracts in general, and fixing the calculation "cap advantage recapture" penalty both retrospectively and prospectively. [And please, change that term; it's one of the more stupid things I've ever seen. Just call it "deferred cap charge" which is what it really is, and makes much more sense.] This needs further explanation, because what I think should be done is fairly involved, but is a much more simple solution.
3. Clean up definition of "age" in the CBA to generally reference September 15 for entry-level and draft purposes, and June 30 for free agency and otherwise. The way it's defined in 8.10 is better than in the past, but still hangs a handful of guys each year.
4. 8.3(b)(iii). "Dies" was such a brutally simple insert, but still missed the broader picture. That needs to be reworded to be more general. [Hint: someone gets drafted, gets signed to a contract, and between then and training camp gets into some accident and becomes a quadraplegic.]
5. The Olympics. The players will push for automatic inclusion; the owners will want some kind of protection on player contracts for injuries, and scheduling will be an issue. I think it's in the interests of both sides, though, so I'll drop it here and worry about specifics later.
