What is this about a lockout?

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Yes, two sides notorious for having contested negotiations is far more viable to base it off of instead of just. I don't think it'll happen.

I already mentioned money will be an issue. Players will try to fight for more. Owners will dig in. The biggest factor in the lockout will be how soon the players are willing to cave. This ownership group and pretty much all of the other leagues in recent memory have shown they are more than willing to lose short term money to be able to get a long term deal they feel will get them the most money. So unless you have information on how the players won't fight to alter the split, you are in the same boat as us. Just on the opposite side of the fence.

No no... What I'm saying is NO ONE mentioned altering the split. I was the first one.

They MAY very well argue over that split. I agree with you. I don't believe it will happen... But I DO believe that it would HAVE to happen in order for there to be a work stoppage.

 

[Fenway]

So your position is that there is going to be a lockout, because there has been lockouts in the past.

Noted.

The owners have signalled that they are happy with the status quo and willing to continue this CBA - The NHLPA not so much.

The problem the players have stems from the game itself. The game's superstars are sitting on the bench more than are they playing and while they are commanding big dollars under the salary cap your role players are making less.

Last season McDavid averaged 21:08 minutes a game and that is standard for a top line offensive player. But as teams continue to give big contracts to superstars there is less money for the grunts and as history has shown the teams with the best supporting cast usually wins.

If you look at hockey objectively we should see an Edmonton/Toronto SCF sooner than later but NBC would have a big problem with that.

I think you will see the NHLPA push for a cap on what the top players make to increase what the lower paid players make.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

The owners have signalled that they are happy with the status quo and willing to continue this CBA - The NHLPA not so much.

The problem the players have stems from the game itself. The game's superstars are sitting on the bench more than are they playing and while they are commanding big dollars under the salary cap your role players are making less.

Last season McDavid averaged 21:08 minutes a game and that is standard for a top line offensive player. But as teams continue to give big contracts to superstars there is less money for the grunts and as history has shown the teams with the best supporting cast usually wins.

If you look at hockey objectively we should see an Edmonton/Toronto SCF sooner than later but NBC would have a big problem with that.

I think you will see the NHLPA push for a cap on what the top players make to increase what the lower paid players make.

Interesting post, Fenway.

And i don't believe this is something that the owners would object to either.

Just a note that there already is a max contract, it's just a really high number now so it's mostly irrelevant.

Perhaps instead of capping the upper tier, they may instead ask for an increase in minimum salary?

 

[BruinDust]

Interesting post, Fenway.

And i don't believe this is something that the owners would object to either.

Just a note that there already is a max contract, it's just a really high number now so it's mostly irrelevant.

Perhaps instead of capping the upper tier, they may instead ask for an increase in minimum salary?

I'd be surprised if they don't. How much, I have no idea.

But it will still be the middle-class that takes the hit.

Raise the minimum to say 1.5 million (and I'm just tossing that number out as an example), and it won't be taking away money from the stars, but further erode the wages of the middle-tier players, it will be their jobs and salaries that are chipped away at in order to pay the guys making the now increased minimum.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

...

There's been a lot of good discussion in this thread.

However... No one has come out with a reason there will be a work stoppage. Other than cynicism.

Fighting over Franchise Player exemptions? That's between owners and owners.

Limits on second contracts? Maybe? But is that something worth losing an incredible amount of revenue over? In the end, the NHL makes the same amount of money regardless.

The players going to the Olympics... An issue for 10% of the PA? 15%? Again, is it a hill one dies upon? I'm not convinced.

Players don't like escrow. For sure! Who would? But when your pay is tied directly to the profits of the business, it's either escrow, or you take a pay cut and lower the cap. Escrow sucks, but it's the lesser of these two evils.

The ONE thing that nobody mentioned here is the ONE thing that I think could get us to a work stoppage. And that's another argument about revenue share percentage.

We see the cracks going way back....

Owners vrs owners... all owners want their franchise value to go up... having weak sisters going out of business is bad. Some teams are now worth billion dollars and make obscene profits. Others like arizona need a 25 mill handout from local taxes to operate.

Make no mistake the owners are not united front... the haves made concesions in the last 2 cba to appease the havenots. But the havenots wanted even more. Now the haves are going to get squeezed by the effects of these concesions. By the time the next cba rolls around toronto and edmonton will both be in trouble... likely winnipeg too. When canada repersents such a huge amount of hrr for the league this will be a problem. It was just 2 seasons ago NO CANADIAN TEAM MADE PLAYOFFS... this is very bad for hrr. Canadian markets and powerful american markets like ny, chicago, la, philly, detroit all have alot of reasons not to be happy... but markets like islanders, florida, arizona, carolina continue to complain they cant make it without more revenue share

As for escrow... i think its obvious better forecasting of the true cap MUST BE ADOPTED. Players are in a bind here. This effects the players who already have a deal. If they say fix escrow, the players without a contract will be screwed. For a union this is bad. It is civil war. Players have reluctant accepted the escalator despite it killing escrow because... peace within the union demanded it...

Now players will want nhl to do the dirty work. The players themselves csnt suggest throwing the kids under the bus... they must appear to get forced into it

Remember unions are politics.

I personally doubt theres a huge battle between majority of owners and majority of players but theres certainly problems between pockets and in both camps internally

If someone does decide to bring up bigger issues then all bets are off. The nhl model is much differnt then other sports leagues. Some last second issue might jump up and escalate things. Not everyone speaks their mind publically and we may not know all problems yet

Personally im not sure who would drive a lockout/strike. My gut says look for toronto to be one of the driviving forces on the owners side... the small markets too

On the players side theres lots of rumblings chris chelious is grabbing power and he hates owners. He has agendas going back 20 years and more.

Would i bet my house on a lockout... no

But would i bet 100 on it... i think so

 

[JAD]

Slightly off topic but if I remember correctly last CBA negotiations the owners wanted a max term limit of 5 years on all contracts, players wanted 10 years, a compromise was reached 7 years for a player changing teams; 8 years resigning with current club.
Do people think they will try to reach a compromise on second contract's term and dollar amounts? As well as a restructuring of escrow payments?
There are other lesser areas of contention, but these seem to be the two areas of greatest discontent at the moment.

 

[Pia8988]

I'd be surprised if they don't. How much, I have no idea.

But it will still be the middle-class that takes the hit.

Raise the minimum to say 1.5 million (and I'm just tossing that number out as an example), and it won't be taking away money from the stars, but further erode the wages of the middle-tier players, it will be their jobs and salaries that are chipped away at in order to pay the guys making the now increased minimum.

I agree. On top of that, it would cost vets jobs to much cheaper ELCs because they won't vote to give non-current members more money and teams will in turn use those to fill out spots.

 

[darcyRegier]

Why are 7-8 year term contracts an issue? They give a GM/owner a better long term picture for their team as far as salary-cap wise and marketability wise, they give the fans someone to love and cheer for long-term, they give the player financial security, and the player can settle down locally near their team and be comfortable/relaxed and focus more on hockey knowing they won't be constantly moving around, which I'm sure players with families can attest to.

Another question...Stamkos receives ~8-9 million a year in signing bonuses...what happens if say he has a medical career ending injury this year? What happens with the ~$60 mil in signing bonuses?

 

[Gee Wally]

Why are 7-8 year term contracts an issue? They give a GM/owner a better long term picture for their team as far as salary-cap wise and marketability wise, they give the fans someone to love and cheer for long-term, they give the player financial security, and the player can settle down locally near their team and be comfortable/relaxed and focus more on hockey knowing they won't be constantly moving around, which I'm sure players with families can attest to.

Another question...Stamkos receives ~8-9 million a year in signing bonuses...what happens if say he has a medical career ending injury this year? What happens with the ~$60 mil in signing bonuses?

Because regardless of the business one is in it is very difficult to forecast out the economic climate over that span. A safer and usually more pragmatic horizon is 5 years.

The further the horizon the higher the risk being taken. Just business.

 

[Lobster57]

Why are 7-8 year term contracts an issue? They give a GM/owner a better long term picture for their team as far as salary-cap wise and marketability wise, they give the fans someone to love and cheer for long-term, they give the player financial security, and the player can settle down locally near their team and be comfortable/relaxed and focus more on hockey knowing they won't be constantly moving around, which I'm sure players with families can attest to.

Another question...Stamkos receives ~8-9 million a year in signing bonuses...what happens if say he has a medical career ending injury this year? What happens with the ~$60 mil in signing bonuses?

NHL contracts are basically guaranteed, so if a player signs a 7 year deal, and after 3 years he starts to suck, the team is on the hook for his salary and cap hit unless they can move him.

Players want their contracts to be as long as possible because it gives them security. they will give up a bit of money each year to increase the term (7 years at 6M vs 5 years at 7.5M or whatever)

the problem for GMs (and therefore owners) is that they compete against each other, and they aren't allowed to make agreements among themselves to limit what they sign guys for. So if i'm a GM and my guy is a UFA, i want to sign him for 4 years because i think that's all he has left at his highest level and i think he's worth 5M a year. But another GM offers him 6 years at 4.5. My contract pays 20M over its life, the other guys pays 27. I can either increase the length of my offer and take chance on having a pylon for the last couple years, increase the AAV of my offer and possible put myself into some cap trouble, or let the guy go. If i let him go, i need to replace him and i'm still competing against the other GMs.

The GMs, in theory, could have enough discipline to avoid long term deals, but all it takes is a handful of deals to set the precedent for the contracts that follow. So they try to use the CBA as buffer against themselves.

 

[riverhawkey91]

NHL contracts are basically guaranteed, so if a player signs a 7 year deal, and after 3 years he starts to suck, the team is on the hook for his salary and cap hit unless they can move him.

Players want their contracts to be as long as possible because it gives them security. they will give up a bit of money each year to increase the term (7 years at 6M vs 5 years at 7.5M or whatever)

the problem for GMs (and therefore owners) is that they compete against each other, and they aren't allowed to make agreements among themselves to limit what they sign guys for. So if i'm a GM and my guy is a UFA, i want to sign him for 4 years because i think that's all he has left at his highest level and i think he's worth 5M a year. But another GM offers him 6 years at 4.5. My contract pays 20M over its life, the other guys pays 27. I can either increase the length of my offer and take chance on having a pylon for the last couple years, increase the AAV of my offer and possible put myself into some cap trouble, or let the guy go. If i let him go, i need to replace him and i'm still competing against the other GMs.

The GMs, in theory, could have enough discipline to avoid long term deals, but all it takes is a handful of deals to set the precedent for the contracts that follow. So they try to use the CBA as buffer against themselves.

Long term deals are just as much about security for the team as they are for the player though. IMO that's one of the big things that has changed in the last 5 or so years -- players started to realize this and actually use it as leverage now.

Look at a player like Seguin. He was underpaid pretty much from the moment he signed his long-term contract, and ultimately produced at a consistent rate that would have gotten a player paid $8M+ in any of the last 3 offseasons. Look at Jonathan Drouin...Montreal just locked him in for 6 years at $5.5M based off of his production on the PP and as a 3rd liner last year...if he puts up 30+G/40+A on their first line this year, that contract will be a huge steal. There are a ton of instances (like with this very team and Marchand) where if a team waited even one more year to sign their player, the number they signed for would be drastically different...so short-term deals carry a large amount of risk with them too.

Long term deals can work great for both sides, especially when we're talking about young players. Once you get to UFA, it's straight business...teams will pay what they feel a player is worth, and sometimes another team might just value a player more. They'll never be able to fix that one, because that's just basic economics.