7 CBA changes NHL executives have discussed (and Players will resist)

[nik-]

I supported the owners in the first lockout and I've supported the players since.

The owners and GMs are morons and this is their mess.

[powderjunkie]

Instead of (or in addition to) #2 they should move to a 100% ceiling 70-75% floor.

It’s already how it works, but more calculations are required.

It might actually go a long way to resolving escrow issues, avoid the imaginary cap inflation, and save GMs from themselves when they plan their future based on cap increases. It should also make them think more about handing out stupid long contracts...10% today is still 10% in 7 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Trying to push all that through would pretty much guarantee a strike I think. I would love to see the salaries flattened though, some of these recent contract structures have been stupid.

Not a fan of a whole bunch of compensatory draft picks being added for different things. Getting a draft pick because a UFA leaves is silly IMO.

The NFL give compensatory picks for lost free agents (based on FAs lost, signed, and contract values), and it's a fantastic benefit to teams that are managed good. Three teams that take advatage of it year after year are the Patriots, Ravens, and Seahawks. I love it in the NFL, and I would 100% support it in the NHL.

As a side note, I would love to see the NHL adopt a Franchise tag too, but I cannot ever see that happening.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by nik-

I supported the owners in the first lockout and I've supported the players since.

The owners and GMs are morons and this is their mess.

I support neither. I hope the salary cap gets cut by 70%, and ticket prices are cut by 70%.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

I support neither. I hope the salary cap gets cut by 70%, and ticket prices are cut by 70%.

Why would that ever happen?

[Poster]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Trying to push all that through would pretty much guarantee a strike ...

You mean an owners lockout.

It’s important that people understand the difference. The players will not strike, they would simply choose to work under current the CBA which is what would happen if the it expires and the players don’t strike. Unless of course the owners lock the players out, which is 100% guaranteed if the players don’t agree to new terms first.

With that said, the owners have themselves to blame if they don’t like the results of the current CBa but that’s not really an issue. They will lockout the players and get what they want.

That’s how it works. That’s how it’s always worked and always will work.

Oh and ticket prices won’t come done unless demand comes down, which is an entirely different subject.

[Geeoff]

#7 would be a good "anti-tanking" measure

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

#7 would be a good "anti-tanking" measure

How so?

Teams that are at the bottom of the standings would still trade pending UFAs at the deadline because they'd likely get a better return than whatever compensation they'd receive would be. Also, like the Flames with Iggy, they'd want to give the player a chance to go somewhere and win the Cup.

The bubble teams that have to decide whether or not to keep a pending UFA aren't the problem when it comes to tanking.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://theathletic.com/1807702/2020...s-will-resist/


Its paywall so here is the gist:

1. Signing bonus limits - limit how much of the player's compensation can be paid out in signing bonuses e.g. maximum 50% of the contract's total value can be signing bonuses

2. Flattening contract annual salaries - players will be paid a flat fee per year with no variance per year. (i.e. no front loading or back loading contracts or low salary lockout protection years)

3. Contract term limits - want 5 year limits. maybe 7 years if re-signing own player

4. Reforming trade protection clauses - want to change when players are eligible for NTC/NMC (e.g. 30 years old). Maybe do a service type model like in the MLB where if a player has spent x amount of time with a club they can veto a trade.

5. Fixing salary arbitration - do baseball style where arbitrator has to choose the player or team's demand instead of being able to split the difference

6. Fixing LTIR - make players who go on LTIR no longer count against the cap to make calculations and system easier to understand.

7. Compensatory draft picks - Compensatory draft picks for 2nd and 3rd round picks that don't sign similar to the current rules for 1st round picks. Also proposed compensatory draft picks for drafted NCAA players that go to UFA and compensatory draft picks for UFAs that leave teams and go for the free market (i.e. would soften the blow for teams that decide not to sell and keep their pending UFAs for a playoff run).

1. Seems like an accounting matter, should be no big deal.

2. Players have given enough on this.

3. Can't see this going ahead.

4. This will be a huge sticking point. Having a service model add a clause or veto for players who didn't negotiate one may soften this.

5. NHL arbitration is better IMO for arriving at dollars, though perhaps more adversarial during hearings.

6. Seems like an accounting issue, should be no big deal.

7. Compensatory picks for unsigned 2nd and 3rd rounders is reasonable, as are compensatory picks for unsigned NCAA players who walk. Compensation for unrestricted free agents makes no sense by definition.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

7. Compensatory picks for unsigned 2nd and 3rd rounders is reasonable, as are compensatory picks for unsigned NCAA players who walk. Compensation for unrestricted free agents makes no sense by definition.

Couldn't the league implement this if they wanted to with or without the NHLPA being involved?

I would also add compensatory picks for Russian players that don't want to sign.

I hate seeing clubs like the Rangers and other eastern teams getting Russians that fall in the draft order because of this risk.

I also wouldn't mind a supplemental draft for only players that re-enter the draft after not signing rather than them going back into the main entry draft.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

1. Seems like an accounting matter, should be no big deal.

2. Players have given enough on this.

3. Can't see this going ahead.

4. This will be a huge sticking point. Having a service model add a clause or veto for players who didn't negotiate one may soften this.

5. NHL arbitration is better IMO for arriving at dollars, though perhaps more adversarial during hearings.

6. Seems like an accounting issue, should be no big deal.

7. Compensatory picks for unsigned 2nd and 3rd rounders is reasonable, as are compensatory picks for unsigned NCAA players who walk. Compensation for unrestricted free agents makes no sense by definition.

This is why we rule The Earth.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://theathletic.com/1807702/2020...s-will-resist/


Its paywall so here is the gist:

1. Signing bonus limits - limit how much of the player's compensation can be paid out in signing bonuses e.g. maximum 50% of the contract's total value can be signing bonuses

Even the crazy rich Leafs must be shating their pants about next year if there's no season

Singing bonuses owed July 1 2020

Matthews - $15.2m
Marner - $14.3m
Tavares - $11.7m
Anderson - $4.0m
Nylander - $3.5m
Keerfoot - $1.0m
Kapanen - $1.0m

$50.7 million without even playing, brutal without a season with fans in the seats.... looks good on them.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Even the crazy rich Leafs must be shating their pants about next year if there's no season

Singing bonuses owed July 1 2020

Matthews - $15.2m
Marner - $14.3m
Tavares - $11.7m
Anderson - $4.0m
Nylander - $3.5m
Keerfoot - $1.0m
Kapanen - $1.0m

$50.7 million without even playing, brutal without a season with fans in the seats.... looks good on them.

Bonuses are still subject to escrow (which will presumably be significantly increased this summer). Those players could still end up owing money back to the league if they don’t manage to generate enough revenue. I don’t think the Leafs would be any worse off than any other team spending to the cap - most teams just don’t want to give up a few % of NPV by frontloading so many costs

This is why I favour a base 100% cap (as opposed to imaginary dollar value that are actually just percentages dependent on two totals that are unknown until a later date. Players might be better able to understand the escrow concept if they weren’t signing contracts stating dollar figures that were never going to be the true figure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ReinhartonD]

I like most of these--I don't see #7 working though. Teams could grab a bunch of expiring free agents they have no chance of signing at the trade deadline just to score more draft picks. Plus how watered down would the draft picks be if there 40 of these spread around the league each year?

I feel bad when a team like Columbus loses three stars who don't want to sign there, but their compensation is now they don't have Bobrovsky on the worst contract in the league.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by ReinhartonD

I like most of these--I don't see #7 working though. Teams could grab a bunch of expiring free agents they have no chance of signing at the trade deadline just to score more draft picks. Plus how watered down would the draft picks be if there 40 of these spread around the league each year?

I feel bad when a team like Columbus loses three stars who don't want to sign there, but their compensation is now they don't have Bobrovsky on the worst contract in the league.

I think it would likely only be for players signing their first UFA deals. Whether that eligibility survives through trades would be an interesting question, and add another dynamic to the trade deadline.

[albertGQ]

Teams used to get draft picks for UFAs so it wouldn’t be that big of a change.

If I recall, that’s why sharks traded for Messier when he was UFA, Oilers did the same with Brian Leetch. And even us when we traded for Cujo the first time

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

I supported the owners in the first lockout and I've supported the players since.

The owners and GMs are morons and this is their mess.

I have to disagree.

The owners and GMs are doing exactly what is in their nature and leveraging anything and everything the can to their advantage.

In the Boardroom these guys are all on the same team. Once they step out of that boardroom however they are competing against each other all the time.

You can bitch and moan about the GM and owners handing out stupid contracts, and thats very valid, but those people feel thats the best thing to do for their team at that moment in accordance with their own particular criteria. We're all very aware that each team and manager has a different set of directives from their ownership.

In that respect it makes a lot of sense to level the playing field from a managerial standpoint and remove certain incentives that offer unfair advantages to some franchises depending on their unique circumstances.

Its really not much different than making laws to save some people from themselves.

Personally, I really like the structure that the NHL has. Out of all the sports it seems like the most thorough and orderly especially when compared to the sheer anarchy that is World Soccer.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Locke

I have to disagree.

The owners and GMs are doing exactly what is in their nature and leveraging anything and everything the can to their advantage.

In the Boardroom these guys are all on the same team. Once they step out of that boardroom however they are competing against each other all the time.

You can bitch and moan about the GM and owners handing out stupid contracts, and thats very valid, but those people feel thats the best thing to do for their team at that moment in accordance with their own particular criteria. We're all very aware that each team and manager has a different set of directives from their ownership.

In that respect it makes a lot of sense to level the playing field from a managerial standpoint and remove certain incentives that offer unfair advantages to some franchises depending on their unique circumstances.

Its really not much different than making laws to save some people from themselves.

Personally, I really like the structure that the NHL has. Out of all the sports it seems like the most thorough and orderly especially when compared to the sheer anarchy that is World Soccer.

The system has also evolved to a point where the incremental costs of spending right up to the cap aren't as high as it may have been imagined when designed to a middle point.

There is also more real money to be saved by staying near the floor, but competitiveness becomes even more hopeless.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Locke

I have to disagree.

The owners and GMs are doing exactly what is in their nature and leveraging anything and everything the can to their advantage.

In the Boardroom these guys are all on the same team. Once they step out of that boardroom however they are competing against each other all the time.

You can bitch and moan about the GM and owners handing out stupid contracts, and thats very valid, but those people feel thats the best thing to do for their team at that moment in accordance with their own particular criteria. We're all very aware that each team and manager has a different set of directives from their ownership.

In that respect it makes a lot of sense to level the playing field from a managerial standpoint and remove certain incentives that offer unfair advantages to some franchises depending on their unique circumstances.

Its really not much different than making laws to save some people from themselves.

Personally, I really like the structure that the NHL has. Out of all the sports it seems like the most thorough and orderly especially when compared to the sheer anarchy that is World Soccer.

Yes soccer is insane.


But taking the 4 NA sports, i still prefer the baseball system. You can build a team however you want and not give players absolutely everything. Why can they control themselves but NHL owners can't? Why can they have a FA sit for months and lower their demands. I know it sounds crazy but when Bryce Harper signed for $330 mill, he originally wanted over $400 mill. NHL would sign him July 1st for anything AND give them no trade clauses!

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Completely impossible without league-wide collusion.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

That only works if everyone agrees. They are negotiation advantages.

That was kind of the point of my 2nd statement. If the league didn't have such a vast history of cap circumvention, then the GM's wouldn't always have the money to throw at these players and the problems could take care of themselves. Because teams are constantly given get out of jail free cards they are always able to spend with no discretion. To me, that is the root cause and things like signing bonuses or years of contract are the result.