You Never Give Me Your Money.. (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part XII

[madhi19]

which is odd to me, I thought they'd at least speak on or compromise on some of the contract issues.

they could ask for a one year advance on UFA's in exchange for contract limits. as well as many other things. Instead they offer a simplistic delinkage proposal again.

I really hope they come back with another proposal, that addresses all matter seriously and actually is linked.

I think they choose to ignore the side issues until they settle the big logjam. When that done the PA will demand that UFA/RFA/ELC remain the same as a condition to accept lower length. The league will bargain and even moan a bit publicly, it not a deal breaker for the NHL but it is for the PA. If I had to guess I say the NHL made these demands to actually compromise on them in exchange for a limit in contract length.

 

[AHockeyGameBrokeOut*]

http://triblive.com/mobile/msports/...ue-labor-oct-agreement-penguins-owners-season

Labor experts see the lockout ending quite soon..

Another great article. Rossi is the man.

My sentiments are the same. It's gonna end soon

 

[LadyStanley]

The latest PA proposals don't even mention UFA/RFA status, it's all about HRR.

I think they choose to ignore the side issues until they settle the big logjam. When that done the PA will demand that UFA/RFA/ELC remain the same as a condition to accept lower length. The league will bargain and even moan a bit publicly, it not a deal breaker for the NHL but it is for the PA. If I had to guess I say the NHL made these demands to actually compromise on them in exchange for a limit in contract length.

Some of the contract issues have been discussed.

But Fehr seems to be pushing for some further concessions from owners in response to union taking less $$s.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Which seems fair in my book.

The real issue is Share of revenue. And the PA is losing.

So I think the PA needs to win on some of the side issues like UFA

 

[madhi19]

Some of the contract issues have been discussed.

But Fehr seems to be pushing for some further concessions from owners in response to union taking less $$s.

As well he should. I wrote it here before if Fehr does not drive a hard bargain he does not do his job properly to protect players interest now and in future CBA talk.

 

[Orrthebest]

They are putting in place mechanisms to put drags on those 2nd contracts - while they are reducing the ELS length by a year (for 18-21 yos), they are pushing back arbitration and UFA eligibility by a year.

For a player who breaks in at 18 yo.

18 yo: ELS
19 yo: ELS
20 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
21 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
22 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
23 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
24 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
25 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
26 yo: UFA eligible

The player would have very little leverage coming off their ELS deal, other than an Offer Sheet or a holdout - and with the 5 year limit on contracts they would still be an RFA at the end of their second contract.

In addition, they are removing the limits on team elected arbitration, allowing the team to take a player to arbitration every year until they hit UFA age if they chose - and those reduced no-leverage second contracts would be the comps.

How are they going to use the no-leverage second contracts for comparison when none exist? If the agents due their job the original contracts will be compared to existing contracts. It is not the 18 year old stars that will be affected it the players who spend time in the AHL who will end up with much lower contracts. For example Brad Marchand's stats after 2 years were 20 games played in the NHL with one assist and a -3. He would have had to sign another contract for a couple season at under a million. In his third year he got 21 goals and 20 assists and was signed to a 2 year 5 million deal.

 

[Lobotomizer*]

As well he should. I wrote it here before if Fehr does not drive a hard bargain he does not do his job properly to protect players interest now and in future CBA talk.

You need to realize that the NHLPA is not fighting for the future...this is all about the present players retaining their current salaries.

I'm sure that in the future 18 year players coming into the league will be happy with a 50/50 split on income.

 

[KPower]

Which seems fair in my book.

The real issue is Share of revenue. And the PA is losing.

So I think the PA needs to win on some of the side issues like UFA

Months ago bill daly was on hockey central and said the NHL doesn't care how the players split up their piece of the pie.

IMO If the league can get 50/50 starting this season they will give up the other stuff very easily.

 

[Riptide]

Within 10 days we will either have a season or a complete cancellation of all remaining games, based on the current situation. No in-betweens.

I think they'll cancel a couple months at a time. So mid Dec. If no progress by early Dec, then end of Jan. If no progress by mid Jan, then there goes the season.

 

[Riptide]

What gets me is how shady the owners have been. The players have been straight up from the get go, they will accept a significant reduction in revenue percentage as long as their current contracts are honored. The owners signed a ton of players to contracts that were huge $$ and to term that exceeds what they say they want now and mere hours later say they can't afford them and need as much as a 24% reduction. If the owners were on the up and up they would have imposed a contract freeze until a new CBA was signed. I guess the price of fuel for their 200 million dollar yachts, their 80 million dollar private jets has gotten so high they need to partially re-neg on approved legal contracts. I know posters say that contracts are governed by the CBA but if that's the case all previous contracts would or could be considered null and void.

Wow. Lots of crap in here. Owners haven't asked for a 24% reduction since their first offer - which everyone know was absolutely meaningless. Secondly, you can't impose a contract freeze... the last CBA was still in effect right up until Sept 15th. And how is it that it's only the owners who are shady for signing these deals? It takes two to tango and the players also signed them.

Thirdly, the players are not just asking for their old contracts to be guaranteed. They're asking for the FULL dollar amount (something that wasn't even guaranteed under the old CBA, as it was always subject to escrow), and they're asking for FIXED raises.

 

[Riptide]

The goofy thing is that none of the three PA proposals actually "honor their current contracts". They just potentially cut them by different amounts than the NHL proposal would.

How so? Other than the 3rd one which devalues the contracts (13% guaranteed, and 87% subject to escrow at 50/50), the other two are fixed figures over the first 2-5 years. The 3rd proposal might not honor the contracts (although with growth, it realistically will), but the first two certainly do. Fixed dollar amounts with fixed raises. How does that not honor the contracts?

 

[Riptide]

One aspect on the NHL latest proposal that really concerns me is the attempt to limit the 2nd contract. I listened to the Kevin Westgarth interview posted earlier and I can see a major issue stemming from imposing limits on 2nd contracts. It is true how most of the players winning the awards and the best players are in that 2nd contract area. Soo lets rewind a few years-present and pretend that 2nd contracts are limited to a max of 2-3 mil/yr well kiss your elite talent good bye.

Please go and show where in the NHL's offer they limited the 2nd contract... they didn't. Their offer limited the term of that contract, and ensured that the player was A) still an RFA at the end of it, and B removed/changed arbitration rights (5 years not 4), but there was no dollar cap on it other than the 20% individual player cap.

Really... before calling out the owners, at least be sure of the facts.

 

[Riptide]

From what I gather the NHL wants to have 2nd contracts around a max of 2-3 mil.

Completely false.

 

[Riptide]

They are putting in place mechanisms to put drags on those 2nd contracts - while they are reducing the ELS length by a year (for 18-21 yos), they are pushing back arbitration and UFA eligibility by a year.

For a player who breaks in at 18 yo.

18 yo: ELS
19 yo: ELS
20 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
21 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
22 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
23 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
24 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
25 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
26 yo: UFA eligible

The player would have very little leverage coming off their ELS deal, other than an Offer Sheet or a holdout - and with the 5 year limit on contracts they would still be an RFA at the end of their second contract.

In addition, they are removing the limits on team elected arbitration, allowing the team to take a player to arbitration every year until they hit UFA age if they chose - and those reduced no-leverage second contracts would be the comps.

That's still not any limits on the individual contracts. Player can still say **** off I'm not signing that and sit. So while it's certainly a drag on that contract, it's not a limit, and teams are still able to sign that player to whatever the two can agree upon.

 

[Hanson Brothers]

One thing which really irritates me about the NHLPA is the whining about the last CBA and 24 per cent salary cut. I guess memory is really short, but wasn't it the PLAYERS in late-2004, who PROPOSED this 24 per cent cut to the owners.

Also, the players were offered 42,5 million cap plus over 2 million in benefits in early 2005, which they rejected. This lead to the whole season being cancelled and ALL player salary lost for that season. Later in July they agreed to 39 million cap...

So, this "terrible" deal in 2005 in my opinion was mainly due to NHLPA's OWN actions, which still resulted in better FA terms and average salary increases of nearly 1 million per player in the following 7 years.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[madhi19]

That's still not any limits on the individual contracts. Player can still say **** off I'm not signing that and sit. So while it's certainly a drag on that contract, it's not a limit, and teams are still able to sign that player to whatever the two can agree upon.

It not be a big issue for North American players. But we will have more Emelin cases of talented Russian players who don't sign with the NHL teams who draft them. Because they can go the KHL way until they get closer to late RFA status.

 

[Riptide]

Question. Does anyone have the info as to how much the players lost each season (% wise) that went back to the NHL in escrow?

I know there were 2 years where the players received more than 100% of contracts, and that last year the player received 99.something% of their contracts. What about the other 4 years?

 

[Riptide]

It not be a big issue for North American players. But we will have more Emelin cases of talented Russian players who don't sign with the NHL teams who draft them. Because they can go the KHL way until they get closer to late RFA status.

Potentially yes. However the big money will always be (at least over the next couple decades) in the NHL. A ELC (played in the NHL) is still more than what most Russians make in the KHL.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Months ago bill daly was on hockey central and said the NHL doesn't care how the players split up their piece of the pie.

IMO If the league can get 50/50 starting this season they will give up the other stuff very easily.

I concur, especially seeing cap circumventing contracts can be dealt with simply by altering the contract structure as it is counted against the cap. Make it so the dollar amount is the cap hit and you have your balance without removing twelve year deals.

One thing which really irritates me about the NHLPA is the whining about the last CBA and 24 per cent salary cut. I guess memory is really short, but wasn't it the PLAYERS in late-2004, who PROPOSED this 24 per cent cut to the owners.

Also, the players were offered 42,5 million cap plus over 2 million in benefits in early 2005, which they rejected. This lead to the whole season being cancelled and ALL player salary lost for that season. Later in July they agreed to 39 million cap...

So, this "terrible" deal in 2005 in my opinion was mainly due to NHLPA's OWN actions, which still resulted in better FA terms and average salary increases of nearly 1 million per player in the following 7 years.

Just my 2 cents.

They did indeed, hence the belief among the majority here that a prolonged lockout is trivial. The PA has much more to lose than the owners, thus this is a losing battle.

 

[The Shrike]

One thing which really irritates me about the NHLPA is the whining about the last CBA and 24 per cent salary cut. I guess memory is really short, but wasn't it the PLAYERS in late-2004, who PROPOSED this 24 per cent cut to the owners....

Wasn't that without the cap though?

 

[The Shrike]

They are putting in place mechanisms to put drags on those 2nd contracts - while they are reducing the ELS length by a year (for 18-21 yos), they are pushing back arbitration and UFA eligibility by a year.

For a player who breaks in at 18 yo.

18 yo: ELS
19 yo: ELS
20 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
21 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
22 yo: RFA, no arbitration rights
23 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
24 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
25 yo: RFA, arbitration eligible
26 yo: UFA eligible

The player would have very little leverage coming off their ELS deal, other than an Offer Sheet or a holdout - and with the 5 year limit on contracts they would still be an RFA at the end of their second contract.

In addition, they are removing the limits on team elected arbitration, allowing the team to take a player to arbitration every year until they hit UFA age if they chose - and those reduced no-leverage second contracts would be the comps.

The NHLPA should counter offer with:

18 yo: ELS
19 yo: ELS
20 yo: ELS
21 yo: ELS
22 yo: ELS
23 yo: UFA eligible

NHL gets players locked in for their first five years, and a complete elimination of arbitration.

Players get to play for whoever they want at only 23 years of age.

I know the NHLPA loves arbitration and how that mechanism drives up salaries, but in the end the hard cap basically nullifies whatever inflationary effect it could have had in an otherwise unfettered market.

This is combined with the NHLPA accepting the 50/50 split of course.

 

[free0717]

If the players agree to 50/50, Bettman would agree to going back to the old way.

 

[TkachuksMouthguard]

Ovechkin whining again about having his salary cut and threatening to stay in KHL... well I kinda hope he does stay there. Seems like he would use this as a fake excuse to stay there when his production and image was taking a big hit in NA. Now he can stay there and look like a rebel instead of coming back to NA and continue to have his production decline.

 

[The Shrike]

Ovechkin whining again about having his salary cut and threatening to stay in KHL... well I kinda hope he does stay there. Seems like he would use this as a fake excuse to stay there when his production and image was taking a big hit in NA. Now he can stay there and look like a rebel instead of coming back to NA and continue to have his production decline.

Ovie is boxing himself into a corner, what does he do if the players accept it.

 

[The Shrike]

If the players agree to 50/50, Bettman would agree to going back to the old way.

I was thinking maybe the players should accept the 50/50, but drive hard to get as many concessions on the side issues as possible. Earlier UFA status when the NHL wants later would be a start.

How the owners respond to that would be a good indicator as to whether this is just about the money split, or if they're complete control freaks who want players to be their chattel for their entire careers.