[News] Subject to ratification CBA reached until 2030

[indes]

Shorter contracts are not good for the Flames or other less desirable locations. Saving GMs from themselves is just going to cost us our stars sooner.

[HitterD]

Playoff salary cap structure, IMO, is a huge improvement and something I’ve been looking to see for a long time. Really happy to see this addressed, and I’m curious to see the details

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

I wonder if there are any limitations on the EBUG? Could you just hire a former NHL goalie for example? Or a very good AHL goalie who might rather live the NHL lifestyle for the same amount of money rather than continue their career.

Also, the draft rights is interesting. Teams will often draft players who don't start college until 19 or 20 now. You're really going to need to convince those players to leave college and many of those types of players probably need the full four years.

[BigFlameDog]

Maybe they can now pay the EBUG's so they can make a living and be full time employees. More reliable?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

Maybe they can now pay the EBUG's so they can make a living and be full time employees. More reliable?

Yes, I believe that's the plan. They'd be paid well (six figures), but below NHL minimum.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Gern Blankston

I would really like to see the CBA limit the number of no trade clauses. It makes it more difficult for some teams to compete. The less desirable locations are already at a disadvantaged in signing free agents, so it would be better to have an even playing field for trades. I would imagine players would object, but you could limit trade clauses to over 30 years old or number of years in the league. Or limit how many players per team can get clauses.

I like that idea but I wonder if it would also help prevent player movement or put too much power into the teams than the players would like.

Player A has a NMC and can list 8 teams he'd be willing to go to. The team's situation changes and they're no longer a contender and Player A wants to go to a contender. What if those 8 teams have met their limit of players with NMC/NTCs? "Sorry we can't trade you because we're Winnipeg and those 8 teams are full of NMC & NTCs. We can't trade you for a player with a clause either because players on those 8 teams that have clauses won't waive to come here".

This works out for the teams more than the players as they can force the player to go to a place they don't want to go and I think having movement/trade clauses are to protect the players from having to uproot their families mid season and/or just being traded somewhere they'd rather not be.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Yes, I believe that's the plan. They'd be paid well (six figures), but below NHL minimum.

Sign me up! I'm willing to learn a new position.

[Shazam]

Do I need to know how to skate to be an EBUG?

[Shazam]

Landmark player benefit improvements (health insurance and post-playing health insurance stipends), plus movement of player payroll taxes and worker’s compensation premiums to be paid out of owner’s share.

Somebody explain this, in Canada CPP/EI would be paid by both player and employer, and income tax is deducted from their pay. Is there something different in the USA?

[calculoso]

I wonder if the Playoff salary cap will have an impact on trade deadline deals and teams loading up for the playoffs. Teams used to be able to accrue unused cap space in order to fit an expensive player under the cap for the rest of the season and playoffs. Depending on the rules and/or how this is calculated, players on LTIR might not be the only ones impacted.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Seravalli reporting new CBA framework will be announced Friday:

I assume players who sign contracts over the next year that start in 2026 will still be able to sign 8 year max deals.

[TheIronMaiden]

Really not a fan of adding more games. I think it is a slippery slope and will lead to more teams doing what the Oilers did and sitting their star players to end the season.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Really not a fan of adding more games. I think it is a slippery slope and will lead to more teams doing what the Oilers did and sitting their star players to end the season.

Teams have been doing that for years, though.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Somebody explain this, in Canada CPP/EI would be paid by both player and employer, and income tax is deducted from their pay. Is there something different in the USA?

The US has Social Security and Medicare (FICA) - not unlike Canadian payroll taxes.

Agreed - CPP/EI/WCB seems like peanuts on a $10M salary. But when you read the CBA it goes into excruciating detail over seemingly minor points.

[memphusk]

Oh no! No more dress code is sure to end with sweatpants with good shoes. Gross.

[Toonage]

Not going to lie, the details are great but even greater is that the days of lost seasons and prolonged lockouts and BS are gone.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

The US has Social Security and Medicare (FICA) - not unlike Canadian payroll taxes.

Agreed - CPP/EI/WCB seems like peanuts on a $10M salary. But when you read the CBA it goes into excruciating detail over seemingly minor points.

Yeah I know what they have. Wouldn't that stuff just be deducted at source like here?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by indes

Shorter contracts are not good for the Flames or other less desirable locations. Saving GMs from themselves is just going to cost us our stars sooner.

It will certainly help the Flames. They won't be forced to dish out 8 or 7 year deals to retain or attract players that should otherwise be getting 5/6 year deals due to their age or mileage.

The Flames have been getting in trouble be too often signing players to deals that are too long. I don't see any negative to this whatsoever.

Dislike the 84 game change. Two more useless games down the stretch sounds like it will be awful. I'd much rather have had it reduced to 80 games.

[Shazam]

I dunno if it'll help the Flames, or any Canadian teams for that matter. I think the biggest issue are estate taxes, and there's no way any Canadian gov't will ever change those rules.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It will certainly help the Flames. They won't be forced to dish out 8 or 7 year deals to retain or attract players that should otherwise be getting 5/6 year deals due to their age or mileage.

The Flames have been getting in trouble be too often signing players to deals that are too long. I don't see any negative to this whatsoever.

Dislike the 84 game change. Two more useless games down the stretch sounds like it will be awful. I'd much rather have had it reduced to 80 games.

It isn't 2 useless games down the stretch, it's turning the last 2 pre-season games into league games. For STHs, this is a great change - we pay for those games anyway, so regular season beats pre-season.