2013 NHL-NHLPA CBA

[LadyStanley]

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.

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.

 

[sawchuk1971]

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

HARD CAP UNLIKELY

Could the NHLPA try to negotiate a hard cap in the next CBA? Not a chance, said Fehr, although it would be ideal.

“I lived without a cap for a long, long time,” he said. “And in a perfect world, that’s what you would likely see. Obviously, that is not something the NHL owners have indicated an interest in.”

 

[uncleben]

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

Am I misreading that? Doesn't the NHL already have a hard cap..?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

 

[Vujtek]

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.

 

[LeHab]

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.

Article 1 of CBA has:

(a) Not more than 50 Players signed to an SPC and not less than 24 Players and 3
goalkeepers under an SPC. Age 18 and age 19 Players who were returned to Juniors, and who
have not played 11 NHL Games in one season, shall be exempt from inclusion in the 50 Player
limit.

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

 

[Vujtek]

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.

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.

 

[LeHab]

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 (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.

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.

 

[uncleben]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Vujtek]

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.

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.

 

[mouser]

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]

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.

I agree, though in this case it still wouldn't help, as Tampa doesn't even have an RFA goalies.

 

[LeHab]

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.

I wonder if a Player could be temporarily reclassified into a Goaltender position?

 

[Vujtek]

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.

 

[uncleben]

I agree, though in this case it still wouldn't help, as Tampa doesn't even have an RFA goalies.

Well Tampa certainly addressed the problem today...
McElhinney, Wedgewood, and Martin all signed today
Plus, Syracuse signed Fucale!

 

[uncleben]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned regarding offer sheets is this:

The number and quality of draft choices due to the Prior Club shall be based on the average annual value of the compensation contained in the Principal Terms (as defined in Section 10.3(e) hereof) of the New Club's Offer Sheet (determined by dividing such compensation by the lesser of the number of years of the Offer Sheet or five)

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.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

 

[LeHab]

Are players on 1-way SPC playing in AHL really not subject to Escrow withholding? Had a quick glance at the CBA but can't find anything relevant.

 

[mouser]

Are players on 1-way SPC playing in AHL really not subject to Escrow withholding? Had a quick glance at the CBA but can't find anything relevant.

The current understanding is players assigned to the AHL are not subject to escrow.

 

[LadyStanley]

I haven't (yet) seen the specifics of why contract was rejected.

 

[LadyStanley]

And the explanation. And planned next steps

 

[mouser]

I haven't (yet) seen the specifics of why contract was rejected.

Free Agents (UFA and RFA) who have played in the NHL before are not allowed to sign contracts that do not include the current season. A Grigorenko contract for 2020-21 cannot be signed and filed until the 2020-21 season starts, which would normally be on July 1st. Subject of course to potential change if the season is extended.