Replacement Players = No Crosby

[Tom_Benjamin]

If you go back to the last big discussion we had on this, I posted a link to a legal site that had a nice article on case history and sports. One of the key points made was that by the nature of sports leagues, they are not considered to be violating anti-trust laws while they have a CBA in place or are in negotiations on a new CBA.

The existence of a CBA does not make antitrust law go away or allow the teams to act in collusion. All it does is prevent players from claiming antitrust when the union has collectively bargained away their individual rights. Another way to put it is that CBA sanctioned collusion is okay, even when the CBA has expired.

Collusion that is not CBA sanctioned is not okay. It is the reason teams can't just agree among themselves to have a salary cap. They can't do it if there is a CBA in place and they can't do it with an expired CBA.

The entry draft is collusion that is sanctioned in the expired CBA. That does not change simply because the CBA expired. The NHL may be allowed to have a draft in June 2005 to decide who owns the NHL rights to Sidney Crosby. If they do hold a draft, Sidney Crosby would not have a case.

What if they don't hold that draft? Who owns the rights to Sidney Crosby on July 1st? I do not believe the courts will say "Nobody. Sidney Crosby is in limbo until the labour dispute is settled." He is a free agent now and he will be a free agent on July 1st because no one has drafted him. It is the draft that restricts his freedom and it is the draft that was collectively bargained. No draft, no restriction.

If he is a free agent, why won't the Maple Leafs hire him? The NHL teams can't just decide they will not make any offers to this draft class any more than they can just decide to have a salary cap. They can't say "We have decided among ourselves not to hire any of these guys until we get a new CBA." That's collusion.

The distinction is not that subtle. It seems obvious to me, so obvious I raised it as an issue before it hit the media. It is now apparent that it also seems obvious to Crosby's people too and they are rubbing their hands in glee about it. If it was not also obvious to the NHL, Bill Daly would have said exactly what you are saying when he was asked about it. He weaseled instead, saying that Crosby wouldn't necessarily be a free agent.

To be honest, I don't think the NHL really cares. Crosby would probably still be subject to the entry level salary restriction and they would much prefer him to go to New York or Toronto than Buffalo. When Toronto signs him, they will huff and puff and moan and blame it on the courts, but approve the contract. If you haven't figured it out yet, the NHL only pretends to care about small markets.

Tom

 

[djhn579]

The existence of a CBA does not make antitrust law go away or allow the teams to act in collusion. All it does is prevent players from claiming antitrust when the union has collectively bargained away their individual rights. Another way to put it is that CBA sanctioned collusion is okay, even when the CBA has expired.

Collusion that is not CBA sanctioned is not okay. It is the reason teams can't just agree among themselves to have a salary cap. They can't do it if there is a CBA in place and they can't do it with an expired CBA.

The entry draft is collusion that is sanctioned in the expired CBA. That does not change simply because the CBA expired. The NHL may be allowed to have a draft in June 2005 to decide who owns the NHL rights to Sidney Crosby. If they do hold a draft, Sidney Crosby would not have a case.

What if they don't hold that draft? Who owns the rights to Sidney Crosby on July 1st? I do not believe the courts will say "Nobody. Sidney Crosby is in limbo until the labour dispute is settled." He is a free agent now and he will be a free agent on July 1st because no one has drafted him. It is the draft that restricts his freedom and it is the draft that was collectively bargained. No draft, no restriction.

If he is a free agent, why won't the Maple Leafs hire him? The NHL teams can't just decide they will not make any offers to this draft class any more than they can just decide to have a salary cap. They can't say "We have decided among ourselves not to hire any of these guys until we get a new CBA." That's collusion.

The distinction is not that subtle. It seems obvious to me, so obvious I raised it as an issue before it hit the media. It is now apparent that it also seems obvious to Crosby's people too and they are rubbing their hands in glee about it. If it was not also obvious to the NHL, Bill Daly would have said exactly what you are saying when he was asked about it. He weaseled instead, saying that Crosby wouldn't necessarily be a free agent.

To be honest, I don't think the NHL really cares. Crosby would probably still be subject to the entry level salary restriction and they would much prefer him to go to New York or Toronto than Buffalo. When Toronto signs him, they will huff and puff and moan and blame it on the courts, but approve the contract. If you haven't figured it out yet, the NHL only pretends to care about small markets.

Tom

The case history I read said that the courts will not get involved in a claims of anti-trust violations concerning sports while a CBA is being negotiated...

{23} Recently, in National Basketball Association v. Williams86, the owners won a declaratory judgment stating that various player restraints (e.g., the college draft and the right of first refusal contract provision) found in the old CBA may be imposed by the owners even after impasse since they are subject to the nonstatutory labor exemption.87 The court held that multi-employer bargaining was legal, relying primarily on NLRB v. Truck Driving Local Union No. 449.88 Additionally, the court stated that the owners, acting jointly, could also unilaterally impose the old CBA terms on the players after negotiations broke down.89 To find otherwise, the court reasoned, would put employers in an impossible position. The court felt it must rule this way because the owners have an obligation under labor law to maintain the status quo in good faith negotiations, but they are placed in a difficult position if, to comply with the labor law, they must impose terms that violate the antitrust laws.90






25} In its decision, the D.C. Circuit held that the nonstatutory labor exemption should protect the entire collective bargaining process, not just the agreement itself.96 The Court thought this view was consonant with the Congressional aims of the NLRA.97 The court stated that it would protect from antitrust liability any steps legally taken within the bounds of the labor laws as long as the restraints imposed "operate primarily in a labor market characterized by collective bargaining."98 The court cited several reasons for its decision. First, it examined the related Supreme Court opinions and derived from them two principles which served to support the decision: 1) "the exemption must be broad enough in scope to shield the entire collective bargaining process" and 2) "the case for applying the exemption is strongest where a restraint on competition operates primarily in the labor market and has no anti-competitive effect on the product market."99 Second, the court noted recent decisions favor broadening the exemption to cover the collective bargaining process and not just the agreement.100 Third, and finally, the court felt that in the collective bargaining context, the labor laws themselves provided a sufficient remedy.



{27} In its resolution of the case, the Brown court set forth the following test: "we conclude that the nonstatutory labor exemption shields from antitrust challenge alleged restraints on competition imposed through the collective bargaining process, so long as the challenged actions are lawful under the labor laws and primarily affect only a labor market organized around a collective bargaining relationship."106 To break this down, the Brown test essentially has four components: 1) the restraints must be imposed through the collective bargaining process, 2) the restraints must be legal under the labor laws, 3) the restraints must primarily affect the labor market and 4) the labor market involved must be "organized around a collective bargaining relationship" (i.e., the dispute must involve only the parties to the collective bargaining relationship).107


http://www.legalbrief.com/formwalt.html

I would say that there are several important points made in there. One of the biggest is that the owners are required to maintain the status quo during good faith negotiations. Starting a free for all bidding war over players would not be considered maintaining a status quo, as I would think would be signing any players.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

You are missing the point. None of this applies. What this stuff does is protect the draft. Just because there is no CBA does not mean the NHL is forbidden to hold a draft. If they had played until January and then locked out the players they probably could hold a draft in June based on the incomplete season.

In the cases that gave rise to the decisions cited, players were attempting to invalidate the draft or various other parts of the expired CBA. An example where these cases would apply is if Jarome Iginla attempted to become a UFA because the CBA had expired. The rules of the old CBA make him restricted and the courts will not allow him to declare that this restriction is an antitrust violation simply because the CBA has expired. The exemption carries forward as long as negotiations are ongoing.

Under the old CBA Sidney Crosby's rights were restricted by the draft and they still are. He is not going to court to invalidate the draft. He doesn't have to. He is not asking the court to invalidate any part of the expired CBA. He doesn't have to. All he has to say is, "They did not hold a draft. What is restricting me?"

The only answer I can see is "Nothing." What would restrict him?

There is absolutely nothing in the old CBA or any CBA ever negotiated that provides restrictions on 18 year old players if there is no draft. He is not a free agent because there is a labour dispute. He is not a free agent because the CBA is expired. He is not a free agent because antitrust law should apply in the middle of a labour dispute. He is a free agent because the only thing that restricts him or ever restricted any 18 year old players is a draft they did not hold.

That's what will make him a free agent. That has nothing to do with antitrust law. Sidney Crosby is not using antitrust law to overturn the draft. The NHL is choosing not to have one. Once Sidney Crosby is a free agent - a free agent under the expired CBA and labour law - there is no way teams can't bid for him. They can't use the labour law shield because they didn't hold a draft.

That's when antitrust violations occur. There is a nonstatutory exemption against overturning the draft. There is no exemption to antitrust if no draft is held.

Tom

 

[djhn579]

The only answer I can see is "Nothing." What would restrict him?

There is absolutely nothing in the old CBA or any CBA ever negotiated that provides restrictions on 18 year old players if there is no draft. He is not a free agent because there is a labour dispute. He is not a free agent because the CBA is expired. He is not a free agent because antitrust law should apply in the middle of a labour dispute. He is a free agent because the only thing that restricts him or ever restricted any 18 year old players is a draft they did not hold.

That's what will make him a free agent. That has nothing to do with antitrust law. Sidney Crosby is not using antitrust law to overturn the draft. The NHL is choosing not to have one. Once Sidney Crosby is a free agent - a free agent under the expired CBA and labour law - there is no way teams can't bid for him. They can't use the labour law shield because they didn't hold a draft.

That's when antitrust violations occur. There is a nonstatutory exemption against overturning the draft. There is no exemption to antitrust if no draft is held.

Tom

They are not having a draft because they are in the middle of CBA negotiations and the CBA that defines how the draft is held and governs what contracts are valid is no longer valid. Basically everything that is governed by the CBA is on hold as long as negotiations are continuing.

The owners are obligated to maintain the status quo. Crosby can go to court, but so what? The NHL is not signing anyone right now, so any free agent could take them to court right now. Why are they not doing that? I can't see any judge saying that an NHL team (or teams) must be trying to sign any player right now because that would change the status quo. On top of that, Crosby is not "entitled" to a signing bonus from a league that is not playing.

The NHL is not denying him the oportunity to work. He can work anywhere he wants besides the NHL. If a judge does allow him to become a free agent and says he is free to sign with any NHL team, that will be a significant change to the status quo.

On top of that, you are saying it will be collusion if no team tries to sign him. If the NHL has stated to all the teams that no contracts will be approved until a new CBA is signed, it will not be collusion.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

They are not having a draft because they are in the middle of CBA negotiations and the CBA that defines how the draft is held and governs what contracts are valid is no longer valid. Basically everything that is governed by the CBA is on hold as long as negotiations are continuing.

It doesn't matter why they didn't have a draft. They didn't. Period. Where does that leave Crosby?

The owners are obligated to maintain the status quo. Crosby can go to court, but so what?

He probably won't. He'll just announce he considers himself a free agent and announce he will file a collusion suit if he doesn't get offers.

He is good enough to play, he wants to play, he wants to begin negotiations with his team, and nobody knows when a settlement might come. Training camps will open and Crosby doesn't have a camp to attend.

The NHL is not signing anyone right now, so any free agent could take them to court right now.

Every decent free agent had discussions with several teams before the lockout. Once a lockout happens, the employer is not permitted to talk to employees who are locked out. It is hard to sign someone when they are not permitted to talk to them. At some point after the season is over, the NHL is going to lift the lockout anyway. There isn't any point if there aren't any games when they don't pay the players in the offseason.

If they want to get an impasse and use replacement players, they have to have a training camp. Everybody will bring in about 70 players, including NHL players. Just before the season starts they will declare impasse and implement their last, best offer. The players will call a strike and walk. The teams will dress the best 20 players willing to cross. How else do you think they can do it?

Next summer NHL teams will be back to signing players.

On top of that, you are saying it will be collusion if no team tries to sign him. If the NHL has stated to all the teams that no contracts will be approved until a new CBA is signed, it will not be collusion.

I think you are kidding yourself, although I don't really understand why. I think it is a fascinating sidebar to the lockout story. Why do you see it as important to dismiss it? This is going to be the only story worth watching when the season is cancelled.

Anyway, put yourself in John Ferguson's shoes. Or Glen Sather. They are talking to team lawyers. If they think Crosby has an anywhere near decent case, they will try to sign him on July 1st.

Say the Rangers lay an entry level contract on him with $35 million in achievable bonuses. They go after the top five draft picks and try to sign them all. "We didn't want to do it, but if we didn't, the Leafs would." said Glen. "And our lawyers told us he was a free agent and we could get nailed for collusion."

If the NHL wants to invalidate the contracts, they can defend the collusion suits and they can pay off the contracts at maximum if they lose. This is an opportunity for the Rangers or the Leafs to get an 18 year old franchise player for goodness sakes. They will stab the rest of the NHL in the back in a heartbeat to do that.

You don't really think Bure was eligible for the draft the year the Canucks snagged him, do you? This is a great excuse for the Rangers. As things stand, the Leafs have zero chance at Crosby. Think they wouldn't take a shot, too?

This is one point that Stellick made on hockeycentral when he and Kypreos talked about it. Nick wondered if any of the teams would break ranks and sign him. "In a second," said Stellick. "More than one."

I won't mind too much if the Rangers get him - I think that would be great for the league - but it would drive me nuts if he ends up in Toronto. Montreal is probably Crosby's sentimental choice. That's probably okay by me, too.

Tom

 

[mudcrutch79]

At some point after the season is over, the NHL is going to lift the lockout anyway. There isn't any point if there aren't any games when they don't pay the players in the offseason.

If the NHL lifts the lockout after the season is over, there will be a draft. It'll be under the rules of the old CBA, but if they're going to open up, they've gotta follow the rules as set out in the CBA, and that means a draft, no matter what Gary says.

 

[quat]

Boy was I suprised when I heard this from Crosby's, ahem ... "people". I fully expected him to say he was ready and willing to cross any picket line. Was I out to lunch or what?

 

[dawgbone]

He probably won't. He'll just announce he considers himself a free agent and announce he will file a collusion suit if he doesn't get offers.

Then couldn't every other UFA out there?

 

[Epsilon]

Boy was I suprised when I heard this from Crosby's, ahem ... "people". I fully expected him to say he was ready and willing to cross any picket line. Was I out to lunch or what?

Why would he do that? He knows this is going to end eventually and he's probably got a prosperous career ahead of him. Does he really want to paint a bullseye on his chest for NHLPA members by becoming a scab?

 

[me2]

You are missing the point. None of this applies. What this stuff does is protect the draft. Just because there is no CBA does not mean the NHL is forbidden to hold a draft. If they had played until January and then locked out the players they probably could hold a draft in June based on the incomplete season.

In the cases that gave rise to the decisions cited, players were attempting to invalidate the draft or various other parts of the expired CBA. An example where these cases would apply is if Jarome Iginla attempted to become a UFA because the CBA had expired. The rules of the old CBA make him restricted and the courts will not allow him to declare that this restriction is an antitrust violation simply because the CBA has expired. The exemption carries forward as long as negotiations are ongoing.

Under the old CBA Sidney Crosby's rights were restricted by the draft and they still are. He is not going to court to invalidate the draft. He doesn't have to. He is not asking the court to invalidate any part of the expired CBA. He doesn't have to. All he has to say is, "They did not hold a draft. What is restricting me?"

The only answer I can see is "Nothing." What would restrict him?

There is absolutely nothing in the old CBA or any CBA ever negotiated that provides restrictions on 18 year old players if there is no draft.

Tom

CBA

8.9. Eligibility for Play in the League. No player shall be eligible for play in the League unless he:

1. had been claimed in the 1994 Supplemental Draft or in the last Entry Draft, or was ineligible for claim in the 1994 Supplemental Draft or under Section 8.4(a); or

2. had been eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft but was unclaimed, and:

1. had played hockey in North America the prior season and was age 20 or older at the time of the last Entry Draft, and signed a Player Contract which was signed and registered with the League between the conclusion of the Entry Draft and commencement of the next NHL season.

2. had played hockey in North America the prior season and was under age 20 at the time of the last Entry Draft, and signed a Player Contract which was signed and registered with the League between the conclusion of the Entry Draft and commencement of the Canadian Major Junior Hockey League season (except that if such player had signed an NHL Try-Out Form, which was signed and registered with the League during the aforesaid time period, then the deadline for signing and registering with the League a Player Contract with such Try-Out club shall be the commencement of the NHL season).

3. The words "eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft" in subparagraph (b) above mean "eligible for claim in all rounds of the last Entry Draft." The words "the prior season" in subparagraph (i) and (ii) above mean "a full season prior to the last Entry Draft."

 

[djhn579]

He probably won't. He'll just announce he considers himself a free agent and announce he will file a collusion suit if he doesn't get offers.

He is a free agent. But toplay in the NHL, he will have to join the NHL according to whatever rules are spelled out in the CBA, whether it is agreed to by the NHLPA or impossed by the NHL.

He is good enough to play, he wants to play, he wants to begin negotiations with his team, and nobody knows when a settlement might come. Training camps will open and Crosby doesn't have a camp to attend.

It's great that he wants to play, but no one is playing in the NHL right now and he has already announced he will not cross the picket line if NHL players are not playing.

Every decent free agent had discussions with several teams before the lockout. Once a lockout happens, the employer is not permitted to talk to employees who are locked out. It is hard to sign someone when they are not permitted to talk to them. At some point after the season is over, the NHL is going to lift the lockout anyway. There isn't any point if there aren't any games when they don't pay the players in the offseason.

I could be wrong, but I thought free agents were... free. They are not signed by any team, so they are not employees. The only difference is that they had at one point followed the rules spelled out for entry in to the NHL.

If they want to get an impasse and use replacement players, they have to have a training camp. Everybody will bring in about 70 players, including NHL players. Just before the season starts they will declare impasse and implement their last, best offer. The players will call a strike and walk. The teams will dress the best 20 players willing to cross. How else do you think they can do it?

Next summer NHL teams will be back to signing players.

If I were the NHL, I would be making an offer to the NHLPA on a complete CBA as soon as the season is cancelled. Then try again 2 or three times, and by April, declare an impasse and start planning for the next season using replacement players. It will take time to get enough players signed before you can hold a training camp.

I think you are kidding yourself, although I don't really understand why. I think it is a fascinating sidebar to the lockout story. Why do you see it as important to dismiss it? This is going to be the only story worth watching when the season is cancelled.

Anyway, put yourself in John Ferguson's shoes. Or Glen Sather. They are talking to team lawyers. If they think Crosby has an anywhere near decent case, they will try to sign him on July 1st.

Say the Rangers lay an entry level contract on him with $35 million in achievable bonuses. They go after the top five draft picks and try to sign them all. "We didn't want to do it, but if we didn't, the Leafs would." said Glen. "And our lawyers told us he was a free agent and we could get nailed for collusion."

If the NHL wants to invalidate the contracts, they can defend the collusion suits and they can pay off the contracts at maximum if they lose. This is an opportunity for the Rangers or the Leafs to get an 18 year old franchise player for goodness sakes. They will stab the rest of the NHL in the back in a heartbeat to do that.

You don't really think Bure was eligible for the draft the year the Canucks snagged him, do you? This is a great excuse for the Rangers. As things stand, the Leafs have zero chance at Crosby. Think they wouldn't take a shot, too?

This is one point that Stellick made on hockeycentral when he and Kypreos talked about it. Nick wondered if any of the teams would break ranks and sign him. "In a second," said Stellick. "More than one."

I won't mind too much if the Rangers get him - I think that would be great for the league - but it would drive me nuts if he ends up in Toronto. Montreal is probably Crosby's sentimental choice. That's probably okay by me, too.

Tom

For some reason, I'm not interested in Toronto or New York being able to sign the best player available just because there is no draft. Keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons behind this lockout is because big market teams have a financial advantage over small market teams and use that advanatage to increase salaries, which results in small market teams being able to sign free agents or keep the best players on thier team. Why then would they allow what your suggesting to occur?

Not to mention that the case history I posted put a lot of emphasis on status quo. That can mean a lot of things, but can easily apply to how players are allowed to enter the league. Status quo would mean they have to be drafted under the rules of a CBA because that is how it has been done for the last 20 + years. If players are now alowed to enter the league without a draft, regardless of the reason, that is a major change to the status quo and the NHLPA can launch a complaint of unfair labor practice - the NHL is unilaterally changing things that are governed by the CBA.

Personnally, I think it is wishful thinking on some peoples part, but lawyers will take it to court anyway. Anything to suck the money out of people. But even if Crosby wins the first case, it will be back in court for years. He may even be bared from playing until it is resolved.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

He is a free agent. But toplay in the NHL, he will have to join the NHL according to whatever rules are spelled out in the CBA, whether it is agreed to by the NHLPA or impossed by the NHL.

Yes but the problem is the rules spelled out are all dependent on the draft being held. Article 8 is inoperative with no draft. No draft, no entry rules.

If I were the NHL, I would be making an offer to the NHLPA on a complete CBA as soon as the season is cancelled. Then try again 2 or three times, and by April, declare an impasse and start planning for the next season using replacement players.

This will work. If they successfully do this, they can have a draft. End of story.

The only downside is the NHL will have to get serious about negotiating right after they cancel the season. That will look terrible PR wise. Surely the question will arise: "Why didn't they do this in September?"

Keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons behind this lockout is because big market teams have a financial advantage over small market teams and use that advanatage to increase salaries, which results in small market teams being able to sign free agents or keep the best players on thier team. Why then would they allow what your suggesting to occur?

Because the lockout has everything to do with money and nothing to do with protecting small market teams. The biggest loser under the old deal was the New York Rangers. If they really cared about small markets, the obvious solution is extensive revenue sharing.

Tom

 

[djhn579]

Yes but the problem is the rules spelled out are all dependent on the draft being held. Article 8 is inoperative with no draft. No draft, no entry rules.

All players must be members of the NHLPA to play in the NHL
All contracts signed must meet the requirements spelled out in the CBA and approved by the NHL
The NHL can not do anything differently than what is spelled out in the previous CBA while negotiations are continuing (status quo, don't you know...)
The requirements for players entering the NHL are dictated by a CBA, while there will be no draft if there is no season, new rules for the players not drafted will be negotiated with the NHLPA in the new CBA
The NHL can not unilaterally change how anything done that is spelled out in the CBA. Signing undrafted players as free agents would be a unilateral change to a negotiated part of the CBA.


With the above being said, he will probably be allowed to sign with any team if he wants to play as a replacement player, but I would think he would have to go through the draft once the strike is resolved.

I could be wrong, but we will let the blood sucking lawyers work it out.

This will work. If they successfully do this, they can have a draft. End of story.

The only downside is the NHL will have to get serious about negotiating right after they cancel the season. That will look terrible PR wise. Surely the question will arise: "Why didn't they do this in September?"

The NHL will just say that we gave the NHLPA every opportunity to negotiate a new CBA. They refused to do that and we can not afford to lose another season. Therefore, we are submitting to the NHLPA the CBA we would like to work under. We will negotiate with them on this, but we will submit our best final offer on XXX if no agreement is reached before then.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The NHL can not unilaterally change how anything done that is spelled out in the CBA.

If this was true, they must hold a draft. The CBA does not make it optional.

The NHL will just say that we gave the NHLPA every opportunity to negotiate a new CBA. They refused to do that and we can not afford to lose another season. Therefore, we are submitting to the NHLPA the CBA we would like to work under. We will negotiate with them on this, but we will submit our best final offer on XXX if no agreement is reached before then.

Are you talking about convincing Bettman fans with this tripe? I think you are probably right because they will swallow anything. So they will probably even swallow "We can't afford to lose another season" and swallow "The league loses less when they are shut down" at the same time.

On the other hand, the NLRB will laugh it out of court. The NHL will not get an impasse declared without honest negotiating. Major league baseball did a lot more negotiating than what you imagine trying to get a salary cap and lost when they tried to claim impasse. Why do you think hockey will do better?

The owners can't win this dispute unless the players give in, and the players aren't going to give in.

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

If I were the NHL, I would be making an offer to the NHLPA on a complete CBA as soon as the season is cancelled. Then try again 2 or three times, and by April, declare an impasse and start planning for the next season using replacement players. It will take time to get enough players signed before you can hold a training camp.

It's obvious that this has been the NHL's plan the whole time.

It renders the draft question moot and gives the GM's a whole summer to recruit players willing to play under the imposed CBA.

The players best bet is to attempt to disrupt things by waiting until just before the season before going on strike or decertifying, but it would weaken their position to spend a chunk of time working under the imposed CBA.

This will end up in the courts. I'll put my money on the billionaire's lawyers taking the millionaire's lawyers to school.

 

[thinkwild]

Boy was I suprised when I heard this from Crosby's, ahem ... "people". I fully expected him to say he was ready and willing to cross any picket line. Was I out to lunch or what?

I hear him saying he wants his status determined so he can negotiate a contract and determine which team legally holds his rights once a real season is started. Just because a team has signed him, doesnt mean he will then cross the picket line. He is more likely to wait until the process is over. He got his money and his rights assigned.

I guess he could go to training camp, but it seems likely he would walk out with everyone else. You'd think the team would ensure any signing bonuses are paid once he starts playing and not before.

Then couldn't every other UFA out there?

Like when baseball players sued for collusion because NO UFAs were being signed? Not every UFA will get an offer, that is normal, but if none are made offers it is suspicious. Especially if none are made for Crosby.

What about players who are 30 and on the last year of their contract? Do they come back under their old contract, or are they now UFA's? What if the unilaterally implemented CBA has a lower UFA age? Is Iginla eligible to now say he's on the market?

He is good enough to play, he wants to play, he wants to begin negotiations with his team, and nobody knows when a settlement might come. Training camps will open and Crosby doesn't have a camp to attend.

This would seem to leave the the league in quite a predicament. It makes you wonder why they said, No season - No draft.

But if Crosby did want to play, it now looks like he'll need a new agent. Maybe he can get a special one just for the pretend league and its replacement games.

This case does seem like a fascinating one to watch for.

he will probably be allowed to sign with any team if he wants to play as a replacement player, but I would think he would have to go through the draft once the strike is resolved

This is a pretty slippery slope. Maybe all teams could sign anyone they want just for fun as replacement players. Perhaps Hossa, Gaborik, Demitra will all play for Ottawa just for fun. After all its not serious, records arent counting, if in mid season the strike is resolved, all players go back to their real team. Crosby stops playing until the draft at the end of the year.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If the NHL lifts the lockout after the season is over, there will be a draft. It'll be under the rules of the old CBA, but if they're going to open up, they've gotta follow the rules as set out in the CBA, and that means a draft, no matter what Gary says.

I think this is a real possibility too. The problem is they have to change the draft order and it isn't exactly clear they can do that without the NHLPA approval. They have to submit material changes by March 1st, to give the NHLPA the opportunity to confer.

I don't understand why they don't do it and eliminate any possibility of a Crosby free agency frenzy. This is the route I would take the issue. They may be having difficulty deciding on the draft order.

A wide open lottery? A weighted lottery based on last season's standings? What's fair? Can 30 teams agree on a fair way to decide who gets Sidney Crosby?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

CBA

8.9. Eligibility for Play in the League. No player shall be eligible for play in the League unless he:

You have to start at the beginning of Article 8.

8.1. General. Commencing with the 1995 Entry Draft and with respect to the Entry Draft to be held each League Year thereafter, the provisions of this Article 8 shall apply. Each Entry Draft will be held in June (or July in the case of the 1995 Entry Draft), on a date which shall be determined by the Commissioner.

The provision in 8.9 that you quoted applies with respect to the entry draft to be held each year. If there is no draft, thwere is no provision 8.9 applied.

Tom

 

[djhn579]

This is a pretty slippery slope. Maybe all teams could sign anyone they want just for fun as replacement players. Perhaps Hossa, Gaborik, Demitra will all play for Ottawa just for fun. After all its not serious, records arent counting, if in mid season the strike is resolved, all players go back to their real team. Crosby stops playing until the draft at the end of the year.

Yes, it could be kind of tricky. It depends upon how the NHL goes about getting replacement players. If they allow anyone to show up and try out, then Crosby can go to the team of his choice and try out.

Most likely, the NHL will specify that players that have been drafted must report to their respective teams if they want to play. Undrafted players like Crosby would still be an issue, but that can be resolved if the NHL states how they will handle this draft when they decide to declare an impasse.

But replacement players themselves will still be an issue. Do they declare themselves as wanting to play and the league holds a draft, or do they just allow them to walk on to the team of their choice?

It could be interesting. I just don't believe that a judge will interfere with how a league does business when all dealings between that league and it's players has to be covered by a CBA.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I think this is a real possibility too. The problem is they have to change the draft order and it isn't exactly clear they can do that without the NHLPA approval. They have to submit material changes by March 1st, to give the NHLPA the opportunity to confer.

I don't understand why they don't do it and eliminate any possibility of a Crosby free agency frenzy. This is the route I would take the issue. They may be having difficulty deciding on the draft order.

A wide open lottery? A weighted lottery based on last season's standings? What's fair? Can 30 teams agree on a fair way to decide who gets Sidney Crosby?

Article 8.5 seems to be the one you're referring to. My reading of it seems to be that the league sets out the order, providing that it doesn't affect rights of Clubs in relation to selected players and that it isn't inconsistent with anything else in the agreement. It seems to me that the NHLPA has to be given at most the opportunity to comment on the changes, and offer suggestions. Nothing says that the NHL has to agree to them.

 

[me2]

For some reason, I'm not interested in Toronto or New York being able to sign the best player available just because there is no draft. Keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons behind this lockout is because big market teams have a financial advantage over small market teams and use that advanatage to increase salaries, which results in small market teams being able to sign free agents or keep the best players on thier team. Why then would they allow what your suggesting to occur?

This would be a blow to the NHLPA more than a bonus. If TO, Philly and NYR (especially older teams like Philly and TO) were allowed to restock with young cheap talent then there is much less reason for them to oppose any cap. Bettman could let these teams run riot and sign Crosby, Brule and others in return for support for a cap. This would be a plus for the NHL. The weaker teams like the Pengs would miss out, but they'd rather have a cap than have a shot at Crosby/Brule.

 

[me2]

You have to start at the beginning of Article 8.

8.1. General. Commencing with the 1995 Entry Draft and with respect to the Entry Draft to be held each League Year thereafter, the provisions of this Article 8 shall apply. Each Entry Draft will be held in June (or July in the case of the 1995 Entry Draft), on a date which shall be determined by the Commissioner.

The provision in 8.9 that you quoted applies with respect to the entry draft to be held each year. If there is no draft, thwere is no provision 8.9 applied.

Tom

That is your opinion, the NHL might feel otherwise. Crosby's lawyers will have to prove that 8.9 doesn't apply because there was no draft if the NHL uses 8.9 as a defense.

Section 10 lists the free agents. Under what group in section 10 does Crosby fit? Is Crosby going to have to challenge section 10 as well?

Crosby might have to argue against the old CBA. You have said he doesn't, the fact is the NHL can oppose him using the CBA. They may or may not win but it could stall him for months.

Assuming Crosby does win this battle he then is free to go sign a contract. How long is he forced to wait before he can argue collusion? Then another court case. And if he wins, how much in damages? Rookie max?

Of course the NHL wouldn't oppose TO getting him. Why would they since it means TO are free to dump expensive talent for kids and would be much happier to be under a cap as a rebuilding team. Support Bettman, and he'll turn a blind eye to poaching Crosby and the other kids.

 

[YellHockey*]

This would be a blow to the NHLPA more than a bonus. If TO, Philly and NYR (especially older teams like Philly and TO) were allowed to restock with young cheap talent then there is much less reason for them to oppose any cap. Bettman could let these teams run riot and sign Crosby, Brule and others in return for support for a cap. This would be a plus for the NHL. The weaker teams like the Pengs would miss out, but they'd rather have a cap than have a shot at Crosby/Brule.

I doubt that.

Do you really think that Pittsburgh or Washington would still fight for a cap if it means missing out on Crosby?

How much would missing out on Crosby cost them? They'd lose millions because even a losing team with Crosby would still sell like a winning team if Crosby comes close to delivering on his promise.

Ted Leonsis attacked one of his own fans. What do you think he'll do if someone tries to deprive him of getting Crosby?

Toronto, New York and Philly are probably indifferent towards the CBA either way. If they get the hard cap, profits zoom but if they are forced to go back to the old system, they'll still be doing well.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

Do you really think that Pittsburgh or Washington would still fight for a cap if it means missing out on Crosby?

How much would missing out on Crosby cost them? They'd lose millions because even a losing team with Crosby would still sell like a winning team if Crosby comes close to delivering on his promise.

Well you'd hope that Crosby would make that team a winning team in the process of "delivering on his promise", rather than becoming a player with great individual success but no success for the team.

 

[YellHockey*]

Well you'd hope that Crosby would make that team a winning team in the process of "delivering on his promise", rather than becoming a player with great individual success but no success for the team.

Even the greatest player can't turn a loser into a winner by himself. Look at Mario in Pittsburgh. It took a supporting cast around him to make the Penguins a Cup champion.

But if Crosby can come into the NHL and put up Kovalchuk type rookie numbers, then whatever team he plays for will significantly improve its drawing power.