The 2012-13 NHL-NHLPA CBA

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by RangerBoy, Jun 6, 2013.

  1. LadyStanley

    LadyStanley Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    81,613
    Likes Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Sin City
    NHLN talking about the cap recapture (~$3m x 3 for Canucks, ~$1m for Panthers) and mentioned that if he waited a couple of years, the cap recapture to Vancouver would be ~$9m.




    Closer figure to cap recapture.
     
  2. sawchuk1971

    sawchuk1971 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    71
    don't understand about the statement of fehr wanting to do away of a hard cap...

    TRAIKOS: Fallout from small cap increase could come July 1

     
  3. uncleben

    uncleben Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    9,486
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Occupation:
    My face is my mask.
    Location:
    Erin, Ontario
  4. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,364
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    Ideally, Fehr wants to go to the pre-2005 system where there was no cap, no restrictions on team spending, and no restrictions on salaries to individual players. There's no way in hell the owners are agreeing to that.

    He'd settle for a luxury tax system, with no cap and no restrictions and such. The players tried that in the 2004 discussions; the owners rejected it almost instantly. I don't see that having any more success now.

    What he should ask for is a provision on the 50/50 split that if the owners overspend, the players don't have to bear the brunt of it; the flip side being if the owners underspend, the players don't get extra money to get them to the 50/50 mark. I think the owners still say 'no' but I think it's a discussion point that can be worked into something that eliminates or strongly reduces escrow.

    What he'll probably end up asking for and getting is personalized terrycloth robes for the players and specified items on the team meals.
     
  5. Vujtek

    Vujtek Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,422
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    124


    Anyone here able to point out the exact CBA article referenced there (that was posted after Merzlikins signing to give Columbus those three goalies under contract for next season)?

    Reason I'm asking is because Tampa Bay Lightning have only had two goalies signed for next season (Vasi and Domingue) since they traded Ingram to Nashville. So are they required to sign one of their prospect goalies or make a trade for a goalie before Monday, or do they meet the requirement by signing a goalie on Monday via FA? Having the exact CBA language would help determine that. NOTE: they have two UFA goalies, Pasquale and recently acquired Mazanec, but both of them are already signed to Europe for next season so they aren't options.
     
  6. LeHab

    LeHab Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    13,012
    Likes Received:
    2,634
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Article 1 of CBA has:

    Not sure when exactly teams have to be compliant with these rules but assume reported "any given time" in twitter is accurate.
     
  7. Vujtek

    Vujtek Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,422
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Thanks. I had read that article but was trying to see if there's more accurately laid out rule out there.

    Going with that "any given time", it means Tampa HAS to either sign a goalie or trade for a goalie under contract before free agency begins to meet the requirement at all times. Considering their two UFA goalies have already signed overseas for next season, and two of their prospect goalies are NCAA goalies (unlikely to sign), that basically means they have three options: 1) sign one of their two Swedish prospect goalies to ELC 2) sign some goalie they're able to before Monday (e.g. unsigned player from Europe or 3) make a trade for a goalie under contract for next season (or sign him after acquiring that goalie).

    I guess we'll find out the exact rule based on what Tampa does over the weekend.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2019
  8. LeHab

    LeHab Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    13,012
    Likes Received:
    2,634
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Indeed we will find out on Monday or someone else can confirm. Penalty for non-compliance is "Any Club violating this provision shall be liable to loss of draft choices as determined by the Commissioner."

    I'm somehow surprised there is no tolerance for off-season.
     
  9. uncleben

    uncleben Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    9,486
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Occupation:
    My face is my mask.
    Location:
    Erin, Ontario
    I wonder if there's any immediate penalty though... I kinda doubt it...
    Like, July 1 might come and the League may just say, "Hey! Don't do that!" and then Tampa will say, "Oops..!" and sign a goalie in free agency.
     
  10. Vujtek

    Vujtek Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,422
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Yeah, that was pretty much the basis of my query here. I mean Tampa is much guaranteed to sign a #3 goalie for next season via FA at this point (unless they make a trade for that goalie) and likely to do it on Monday as FA opens up, but whether or not that's enough or too late to meet the requirement of this rule is the question. And another question, as you pointed out, is will the league then care to implement the rule and even go as far as issue sanctions if the requirement is not met on exactly at noon Monday when the 2019-20 league year officially begins.
     
  11. mouser

    mouser Business of Hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    23,380
    Likes Received:
    3,866
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Location:
    South Mountain
    If I were designing the rule I'd count qualified RFA Goalkeepers towards the requirement.

    And it's certainly possible there's some offseason flexibility that isn't spelled out in the CBA.
     
    uncleben likes this.
  12. uncleben

    uncleben Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    9,486
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Occupation:
    My face is my mask.
    Location:
    Erin, Ontario
    I agree, though in this case it still wouldn't help, as Tampa doesn't even have an RFA goalies.
     
  13. LeHab

    LeHab Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    13,012
    Likes Received:
    2,634
    Trophy Points:
    186
    I wonder if a Player could be temporarily reclassified into a Goaltender position?
     
    uncleben likes this.
  14. Vujtek

    Vujtek Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,422
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    124
    With Florida buying out Scott Darling (to be finalized tomorrow at noon once waivers are cleared), they too now have only two goalies signed for 2019-20 season. They have one RFA, Samuel Montembeault, and obviously they'll sign a goalie tomorrow (Bob?) but they'll shortly be in the same boat as Tampa with having just two goalies signed at noon as how things are shaping up to be right now. So we'll see about the rule with how both Florida area teams handle the situations.
     
  15. uncleben

    uncleben Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    9,486
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Occupation:
    My face is my mask.
    Location:
    Erin, Ontario
    Well Tampa certainly addressed the problem today...
    McElhinney, Wedgewood, and Martin all signed today
    Plus, Syracuse signed Fucale!
     
  16. uncleben

    uncleben Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    9,486
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Occupation:
    My face is my mask.
    Location:
    Erin, Ontario
    One thing I haven't seen mentioned regarding offer sheets is this:

    I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

    Using the example of Aho,
    If the Habs decided to offer an extra year at the same AAV cap hit, 8,454,000, that would have put the contract at a total compensation of $50,724,000. Dividing that by 6 years of course gets you back to 8,454,000, and his cap hit, but for the sake of OS compensation, we would take that $50,72,000 and divide by the lesser number, 5.

    This would yield an average annual value of compensation of $10,144,800..., bumping MTL up a compensation bracket (Two first-round picks and a second- and third-round pick)!

    If they wanted to add a sixth year and stay within the same compensation bracket, they would have needed to offer Aho $7,045,000 per year instead, right around (slightly below) what CAR was reportedly offering, and a number he surely would've rejected.

    So Montreal, if they wanted to entice Aho and not pay any higher compensation, was effectively forced to offer a 5 year deal - which means they do not buy any UFA years (which is a double-edged sword, as that is sub-optimal negotiating for CAR too, and increases the chance they do not match).


    An interesting tidbit, and I wonder if we do see any other OSs, if we see any over 5 years.

    And again, I hope I understand that correctly; please correct me if I am misunderstanding.
     
  17. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,364
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    Looks about right. The "divide by 5 max" piece certainly doesn't preclude teams from offering more years on an offer sheet; Edmonton did this with Vanek years ago. It really just comes down to "how badly do you want the guy" and "what are you willing to give up for him?" Everything else is just filling in blanks on the paper.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"