Simple CBA proposal

[Volchenkov]

Change the number of skaters on the ice to 4 instead of 5. I enjoy watching 4 on 4 far more than 5 on 5 and I'm interested in a good product then the integrity of a sport which may or may not exist in its current state in 10 years. I'm not sure if the owners need the PA to accept the rule change, though I don't see why they should.

Some Benefits of switching full time to 4-on-4:

1) 4 Less players reuqired means an average saving of 5 million per team. This wouldn't be an immediate gain, as you'd have to wait for somke contracts to expire.

2) Players get far less bargaining power, as there are far fewer positions available.

3) Goaltending will become more important. Right now its only important in the playoffs and is damn streaky at best. If more goalies had to actually be damn good to get a very good save% and gaa, you'd have less Lalimes and Gigueres making millions of dollars.

4) Hockey will be much more exciting. I'm not a fan of having too many goals scored, but more chances is always fun.

5) Give more talent to the AHL. The better the talent level in the AHL, the more europeans will come over sooner. Not to mention that it spreads hockey to all parts of NA and increases its popularity while also developing its talent.

6) Allows for more creative line arrangements - i.e players can be made into groups of 4, perhaps bringing back the offensive defensemen to be that versatile player who can play both forward and defense.

Click to read more...

 

[Limey FK]

I've flip flopped sides on who I support in this conflict more times than I can count. That's a testament to how difficult this situation is.

I do honestly see players making quite reasonable concessions. That coupled with the recent success of smaller payroll teams and the owner's apparent more sane fiscal responsibilities, has given me the idea of a "stop-gap CBA." What I mean is a CBA that is modeled after the NHLPA's proposal, no salary cap, but to have it signed for only 2-3 yrs. After that period both sides can reasess the situation. If salaries continue to inflate at an astronomical level, then it's apparent to EVERYONE that a salary cap is necessary. If the market corrects itself economically and signs show that the situations are improving then renew it for a few yrs.

Basically, I just want to see some damn hockey being played.

 

[capman29]

Changes like you propose must come thru collective brgaining agreement . Wont happen

 

[GKJ]

Change the number of skaters on the ice to 4 instead of 5. I enjoy watching 4 on 4 far more than 5 on 5 and I'm interested in a good product then the integrity of a sport which may or may not exist in its current state in 10 years. I'm not sure if the owners need the PA to accept the rule change, though I don't see why they should.

Some Benefits of switching full time to 4-on-4:

1) 4 Less players reuqired means an average saving of 5 million per team. This wouldn't be an immediate gain, as you'd have to wait for somke contracts to expire.

2) Players get far less bargaining power, as there are far fewer positions available.

3) Goaltending will become more important. Right now its only important in the playoffs and is damn streaky at best. If more goalies had to actually be damn good to get a very good save% and gaa, you'd have less Lalimes and Gigueres making millions of dollars.

4) Hockey will be much more exciting. I'm not a fan of having too many goals scored, but more chances is always fun.

5) Give more talent to the AHL. The better the talent level in the AHL, the more europeans will come over sooner. Not to mention that it spreads hockey to all parts of NA and increases its popularity while also developing its talent.

6) Allows for more creative line arrangements - i.e players can be made into groups of 4, perhaps bringing back the offensive defensemen to be that versatile player who can play both forward and defense.

Good luck getting the union to accept this.

I think this is too drastic of a change. This might have worked in 1920, not in 2004.

 

[me2]

I've flip flopped sides on who I support in this conflict more times than I can count. That's a testament to how difficult this situation is.

I do honestly see players making quite reasonable concessions. That coupled with the recent success of smaller payroll teams and the owner's apparent more sane fiscal responsibilities, has given me the idea of a "stop-gap CBA." What I mean is a CBA that is modeled after the NHLPA's proposal, no salary cap, but to have it signed for only 2-3 yrs. After that period both sides can reasess the situation. If salaries continue to inflate at an astronomical level, then it's apparent to EVERYONE that a salary cap is necessary. If the market corrects itself economically and signs show that the situations are improving then renew it for a few yrs.

Basically, I just want to see some damn hockey being played.

The problem with the players offer is that it includes no way of correcting salaries. I think there needs to be a way of getting a 30% correction. The current CBA and the players CBA offer no means to do that. It is designed as a one-way system, at best salaries go no where or but more likely up. There is no going back, there is no deflation.

In order for a team to lower salaries it must let RFAs walk for nothing and then attempt to resign them to lower contracts. This favours the rich who would dump the overpriced UFAs and take all of the best RFAs instead. Teams like Calgary would dump Igilnas, Rehgers and Kippers over $1m because they took a stand and all they would get back would be LeClairs, Roenicks and Sean Burkes (cheaps UFAs now out of a job). Either that RFAs would just end up going to arbitration to get the amount they want, no helping deflation.

When the NHLPA comes back with serious deflationary aspects of the CBA you'll know its serious. The 5% rollback is not a means for teams to deflate salaries, its a one off followed by a return to a one-way street.

 

[thinkwild]

Change the number of skaters on the ice to 4 instead of 5. I enjoy watching 4 on 4 far more than 5 on 5 and I'm interested in a good product

you know I've been hearing this suggested from more and more people lately, sometimes the ones proposing it surprise me.

I've always dimissed it as is the shootoutm but I admit my curiosity is piqued. The OSHL will be interesting to monitor.

Some Benefits of switching full time to 4-on-4:

1) 4 Less players reuqired means an average saving of 5 million per team. This wouldn't be an immediate gain, as you'd have to wait for somke contracts to expire.

2) Players get far less bargaining power, as there are far fewer positions available.

I worry you're proposing this more out of anger than the good of the game