2013 NHL-NHLPA CBA

[Zusammenhalt]

What happens to the agent's percentage in a buy out? Is it in their interest to negotiate that for their client?

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Hey All,

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask this question, but will the NHL adjust its cap for post-tax dollars? Is that even feasible? Can it be easily countable?

It seems currently the cap benefits teams in low tax states. Might the NHL adjust the cap to reflect salaries the players receive after taxes?

 

[royals119]

Hey All,

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask this question, but will the NHL adjust its cap for post-tax dollars? Is that even feasible? Can it be easily countable?

It seems currently the cap benefits teams in low tax states. Might the NHL adjust the cap to reflect salaries the players receive after taxes?

It would have to be written into the CBA, so a majority of the owners and players would have to agree. I would say it is unlikely. They have a hard time agreeing on anything - making it more complicated just makes more opportunities to disagree. Also, if you are going to do it you probably have to take into account the "jock tax" that a lot of cites have, where they are charging tax on the visiting teams' players earnings. It would make negotiating contracts, and staying compliant very difficult, especially as the number of games in each city varies from team to team.

Should they also adjust the cap based on the cost of living? It costs more to rent an apartment in NYC than it does in Minneapolis, shouldn't the cap reflect that too? How about a weather adjustment? It is warmer in Florida than Winnipeg, shouldn't that be accounted for in the cap so the Jets can be on a level ground in attracting free agents vs Florida or Arizona?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Hey All,

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask this question, but will the NHL adjust its cap for post-tax dollars? Is that even feasible? Can it be easily countable?

It seems currently the cap benefits teams in low tax states. Might the NHL adjust the cap to reflect salaries the players receive after taxes?

There's an entire thread on this in the NHL talk forum. Short answer: no.

Longer answer: No, because trying to do so would mean trying to equalize for all the taxes that get levied across all the applicable jurisdictions - and that quickly becomes a nightmare.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

What happens to the agent's percentage in a buy out? Is it in their interest to negotiate that for their client?

The buyout terms are fixed in the Standard Player Contract, the only real flexibility in our is whether the player takes a lump sum or takes it over time. The agent's percentage is typically a set percentage of salary and collected based on salary received each year.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

It would have to be written into the CBA, so a majority of the owners and players would have to agree. I would say it is unlikely. They have a hard time agreeing on anything - making it more complicated just makes more opportunities to disagree. Also, if you are going to do it you probably have to take into account the "jock tax" that a lot of cites have, where they are charging tax on the visiting teams' players earnings. It would make negotiating contracts, and staying compliant very difficult, especially as the number of games in each city varies from team to team.

Should they also adjust the cap based on the cost of living? It costs more to rent an apartment in NYC than it does in Minneapolis, shouldn't the cap reflect that too? How about a weather adjustment? It is warmer in Florida than Winnipeg, shouldn't that be accounted for in the cap so the Jets can be on a level ground in attracting free agents vs Florida or Arizona?

There's an entire thread on this in the NHL talk forum. Short answer: no.

Longer answer: No, because trying to do so would mean trying to equalize for all the taxes that get levied across all the applicable jurisdictions - and that quickly becomes a nightmare.

Thanks guys!

 

[LadyStanley]

CBA "tagging" bump coming

31 Thoughts: How Golden Knights won the Mark Stone sweepstakes - Sportsnet.ca

Friday is a big day, with teams allowed a 10 per cent bump on “tagging room” for the 2019–20 season on March 1. (Basically, no NHL club is allowed to have more than this year’s salary cap — $79.5 million — in commitments for next year. That rises to $87.45 million on that date.) That gives room for some business to get done, including extensions for Anaheim’s Jakob Silfverberg (five years, approximately $26.25 million) and Stone in Vegas (eight years, $76 million).

 

[mouser]

For the curious this 10% increase in the cap on March 1st for Tagging purposes was introduced in the 2013 CBA.

At least a few contract extensions have been delayed this year while teams waited for the March 1st bump.

 

[LadyStanley]

Even so, this seems like the first year I'm hearing about the tagging bump.

 

[mouser]

Even so, this seems like the first year I'm hearing about the tagging bump.

Most of the time it's not an issue, as teams typically have enough contracts they can tag to create the space, or they just sign these players after March 1st with no one explaining that tagging was involved in the delay.

I'm pretty certain LTIR plays a role in this as well since using an LTIR Exception doesn't create Payroll Room--teams using a LTIR Exception to exceed the cap have zero Payroll Room. This is why Performance Bonuses will carry over to the next year for teams using the LTIR Exception. The language on Tagging also uses Payroll Room as the measure of free space. What's not completely explained in the CBA is the intersection between the Tagging Rules and LTIR zero Payroll Room. Can you simply Tag contracts for the needed free space? Or do you need to Tag contracts in the amount of the free space PLUS the LTIR cap overage? I suspect it may be the later, as I think Vegas would have had the necessary room to extend Stone immediately if it was the former. Note, it's possible there were other complications involved like Vegas planning to make some other deadline roster moves, or even temporarily recall one or more players for playoff eligibility reasons.

 

[LadyStanley]

Vegas does have Clarkson and his $5m on LTIR.

 

[uncleben]

This isn't really a question or really even a commentary, it was just a small tidbit of CBA that I learned and thought was odd/intereting...

Nick Ritchie was fined for his cross-check on Folin the other night:
Ritchie fined for actions in Ducks game against Canadiens

And the article lists Ritchie's fine as $4,121.86...

CBA 18.7 (b) lays out how to calculate fines pretty nicely:

A fine may be in an amount up to fifty percent (50%) of the Player's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary and Bonuses, but not including Performance Bonuses, divided by the number of days in the Regular Season, but in no event shall it exceed $10,000 for the first fine and $15,000 119 ARTICLE 18 18.8-18.9 for any subsequent fine imposed in any rolling twelve (12) month calendar period. Player Salary and Bonuses forfeited due to a fine will be calculated based on a Player's Averaged Amount.

The bold is my emphasis, but I as trying to figure out why Ritchie was fined $4,121.86 I couldn't get it to line up, and I had never paid attention to that bolded part before.

Ritchie signed late this year, after the season started, meaning his AAV for the year is skewed due to proration and all that mumbo, giving him an AAV of $1,640,000.

Well, his fine then should be calculated as (1,640,000/186)/2 = $4,408.60.
It was driving me crazy why this number didn't line up. I was thinking, "okay, maybe I need to divide by the number of days in his prorated season (170)... nope, that doesn't work... well what would the fine be for the AAV in the rest of the contract... nope... maybe nhl.com has the wrong number... those article writers usually are simply just writers, not privy to info, or necessarily well versed..."

I finally went back to 18.7, a section I thought I knew pretty well to catch that last line..!

Instead of using the current AAV, or taking the average of the AAVs over the contract, they use the Total Contract Value divided by the Contract Length, aka the same Average that you normally use to calculate caphit duhh

Anyway, curious why they specify using the Average instead of the season appropriate AAV?
Is this to potentially cover the possibility of fines in the offseason??

 

[LadyStanley]

Interesting that there's even an appeal for a 2 game suspension. (Guess the Flyers feel strongly there shouldn't be a suspension at all)

 

[mouser]

The Voracek appeal will be heard by Bettman. And because the suspension is less then 6 games the PA cannot appeal to the independent arbitrator afterward if Bettman doesn't reduce the suspension.

 

[LadyStanley]

OK then

 

[LadyStanley]

31 Thoughts: Oilers GM search leaving no stone unturned - Sportsnet.ca

Whatever the result, Philadelphia’s appeal of Jakub Voracek’s suspension goes down as one of the more interesting chapters in supplemental discipline history. Two-game punishments almost never get challenged, partially because anything below six cannot go to an independent arbitrator. In these cases, Commissioner Gary Bettman has the final say.

The last eight appeals this decade involved only one that ended up being fewer than 10 games. (That was Dan Carcillo’s 2014 playoff punishment for physical abuse of an official, shortened to six by Bettman.) I can find only one try for anything as low as Voracek’s two. That was Joe Thornton in November 2010, also trying to lift a two-game suspension — for a hit to the head of David Perron. He failed to move the needle, as Bettman upheld the original decision. So this is rare. In some ways, it is fitting the Flyers would be the ones to charge at the status quo.

FTR, Bettman upheld the two game suspension.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Anyway, curious why they specify using the Average instead of the season appropriate AAV?
Is this to potentially cover the possibility of fines in the offseason??

Convenience. Typically the season-appropriate AAV is the contract AAV; it's only in weird situations like this where they're different, but it's not common enough to worry about writing something specifically to handle it.

 

[mouser]

Anyway, curious why they specify using the Average instead of the season appropriate AAV?
Is this to potentially cover the possibility of fines in the offseason??

For the purposes of calculating fines the Averaged Amount is going to be a more appropriate figure to use then the late-signing adjusted AAV in my opinion.

When a player signs a mid-season multi year deal the sum of the adjusted AAVs is going to be higher then the Averaged Amount. e.g. For Ritchie his face value contract total is $4.6m, but the sum of the AAV's is $4.638m. Ritchie isn't actually being paid more money, the first year AAV is inflated to cancel out any potential cap space benefit of signing mid-season. It wouldn't be "fair" imo to fine Ritchie based on his inflated 2018-19 AAV.

Using the Averaged Amount is more reflective of the actual salary Ritchie is making. One could make the point that Ritchie isn't really getting $4.6m either--because he misses out on a portion of that year 1 salary when signing late. However Ritchie is being paid at the same daily rate whether he signed before the season, a week late, or a month late. And the fines are based on the daily pay rate.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Can someone explain to me why the contract of Schmaltz is able to have year 1 at 3M with later years at as much as 8.5M?

Isn't the rule supposed to be that the most expensive year of the contract cannot be more than double the lowest salary year? Meaning, if Schmaltz makes 3M in year 1, he cannot have a year exceeding 6M?

Have a misunderstood this rule? Or is there some sort of exception for RFAs or a certain type of contract?

For reference, here is the contract from capfriendly.com.

Thanks.

SEASON	CLAUSE	CAP HIT	AAV	P. BONUSES	S. BONUSES	BASE SALARY	TOTAL SALARY	MINORS SALARY
2019-20		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$500,000	$2,500,000	$3,000,000	$3,000,000
2020-21		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$3,000,000	$3,000,000	$3,000,000
2021-22		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$1,000,000	$5,000,000	$6,000,000	$6,500,000
2022-23		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$4,500,000	$4,500,000	$4,500,000
2023-24	Modified NTC	$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$7,500,000	$7,500,000	$7,500,000
2024-25	Modified NTC	$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$1,500,000	$6,950,000	$8,450,000	$8,450,000
2025-26	Modified NTC	$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$8,500,000	$8,500,000	$8,500,000
TOTAL		$40,950,000	$40,950,000	$0	$3,000,000	$37,950,000	$40,950,000	$41,450,000

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[LeHab]

Can someone explain to me why the contract of Schmaltz is able to have year 1 at 3M with later years at as much as 8.5M?

Isn't the rule supposed to be that the most expensive year of the contract cannot be more than double the lowest salary year? Meaning, if Schmaltz makes 3M in year 1, he cannot have a year exceeding 6M?

Have a misunderstood this rule? Or is there some sort of exception for RFAs or a certain type of contract?

For reference, here is the contract from capfriendly.com.

Thanks.

SEASON	CLAUSE	CAP HIT	AAV	P. BONUSES	S. BONUSES	BASE SALARY	TOTAL SALARY	MINORS SALARY
2019-20		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$500,000	$2,500,000	$3,000,000	$3,000,000
2020-21		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$3,000,000	$3,000,000	$3,000,000
2021-22		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$1,000,000	$5,000,000	$6,000,000	$6,500,000
2022-23		$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$4,500,000	$4,500,000	$4,500,000
2023-24	Modified NTC	$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$7,500,000	$7,500,000	$7,500,000
2024-25	Modified NTC	$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$1,500,000	$6,950,000	$8,450,000	$8,450,000
2025-26	Modified NTC	$5,850,000	$5,850,000	$0	$0	$8,500,000	$8,500,000	$8,500,000
TOTAL		$40,950,000	$40,950,000	$0	$3,000,000	$37,950,000	$40,950,000	$41,450,000

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You can refer to rule 50.7 of CBA so called Variability Rule. Since your example is not a front loaded contract:

(b) "The 100 Percent Rule" for Multi-Year SPCs. For any SPC that is not a Front-
Loaded SPC, the difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the first two League
Years of an SPC cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two League Years. Thereafter, in
all subsequent League Years of the SPC, (i) any increase in Player Salary and Bonuses from one
League Year to another may not exceed the amount of the lower of the first two League Years of
the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, that same amount); and (ii) any decrease in Player
Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed fifty (50) percent of the
Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such
amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount).
Illustration #1: An SPC provides for $2 million in stated Player Salary and Bonuses in
Year 1 and $3 million in stated Player Salary and Bonuses in Year 2. If such SPC is not a
Front-Loaded SPC, in Year 3, such SPC may not provide for less than $2 million in
stated Player Salary and Bonuses, or provide for more than $5 million in stated Player
Salary and Bonuses. Any increase in stated Player Salary and Bonuses between
consecutive League Years of the SPC may not exceed $2 million (the lower of the first
two League Years of the SPC) and any decrease in stated Player Salary and Bonuses
between consecutive League Years of the SPC may not exceed $1 million (fifty percent
of the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the lower of the first two League Years of the
SPC).

They also explain front loaded if you want to see the difference.

Perhaps a more user-friendly explanation -> NHL Contract Calculator: Salary Variability Rules>

[edit]just noticed in one of years his minors salary is actually higher than NHL. Assuming contract on CG is accurate, I was always curious if a team could offer a higher minor salary vs NHL. Potentially as a workaround to lack of NTC/NMC in early years. This is a fairly mild increase but interesting neverthless.

 

[LadyStanley]

Hmmm. The more you know

 

[LadyStanley]

For posterity, the 2019 NHL draft lottery draw.

 

[LadyStanley]

Would be interesting if cap recapture imposed, for CBA in action. But Vancouver would hate the reduced cap.

 

[StreetHawk]

Would be interesting if cap recapture imposed, for CBA in action. But Vancouver would hate the reduced cap.

It finally did occur. Surprised initially but clearly Lu is loyal to the panthers who will undoubtedly take care of him with a job in the organization.

 

[justafan22]

From Friedman:

The NHL and NHLPA did the expected last weekend, announcing a ceiling of $81.5 million — $1.5 million below mid-season projections. As the league and players quietly work towards extending/renegotiating the CBA, word was the majority of players would vote for a minimal increase to the cap. (Players can bump it up to five per cent. They chose 0.5 per cent.) A similar maneuver is expected for 2020-21. The hope of a new US television deal means a more significant rise for 2021-22.