Friedman: potential CBA modifications as NHL/NHLPA continue negotiations

[Finger Cookin]

The good news is there's no ambiguity in the proposed change.

[getbak]

Really, though, the waiver rule change has much more to do with guys like Nylander, Honka, and Puljujarvi than O'Reilly.

Regardless of what people said after the fact trying to cover their own butts, the O'Reilly thing wasn't some grand plan by Feaster to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the CBA. It was the result of a bunch of people screwing up. Primarily, O'Reilly screwed up by playing those 2 games when he shouldn't have and his agent screwed up by letting him play those 2 games. The Avs screwed up by not knowing he had played those 2 games, or if they did know, they screwed up even more by not making it public knowledge. Any team, including the Flames and Canucks, that negotiated with his agent without knowing he had played those 2 games screwed up by not doing their due diligence. Seemingly, only one person in North America even realized that O'Reilly had played those games, and rather than making it widely known (which would have killed any RFA market for O'Reilly), he decided to hold onto that information hoping to play gotcha if a team did eventually sign him to an offer sheet --- and even that backfired because the Avs matched the offer sheet so quickly, the guy didn't even get to enjoy his day in the sun.


The players who will benefit by the new waiver rules are guys like Nylander, who had to sit around not playing during his hold-out in order to keep an RFA offer sheet as a valid option. That decision ultimately hurt both himself and the Leafs because he never really got his season on track after he signed. It will also benefit guys like Honka and Puljujarvi who lost the leverage of an RFA offer sheet once they played a game in Europe after the start of the NHL season.

[Sylvanfan]

Colorado was right to match. Although the Flames could have been absolutely screwed, most anyone on this site would trade Lindholm and a third or Monahan and a third for ROR in a heartbeat. It's astounding how Buffalo and Colorado had him and were still bad teams.

[TheScorpion]

I don't know if I'd do the Lindholm trade but I'd do Monahan.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I don't know if I'd do the Lindholm trade but I'd do Monahan.

You’d do the Lindholm trade.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Absolutely? I'd like to see you prove that, since it didn't happen that's impossible.

I think the league would have had egg on their face because the wording of the rule was open for interpretation and so now they are changing it avoid THAT from happening again.

I’m not going to prove an opinion based on interpretation of a now-irrelevant rule, and I wouldn’t ask you to prove your opinion that Feaster was right, weirdo. lol.

I think getbak nailed it though, it was pretty much a cluster#### situation with multiple screw ups. It helps players now though, and leaves little to interpretation, so it’s an improvement.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by getbak

Or...

1. Flames sign ROR to offer sheet.
2. Colorado opts not to match.
3. O'Reilly prepares to join the Flames.
4. Media member posts game sheets indicating that O'Reilly played 2 games in Russia after the start of the NHL season.
5. Flames file grievance and NHL launches investigation, suspending the contract.
6. League determines that O'Reilly's agent failed to disclose important information about his client's status and voids the contract.
7. O'Reilly is forced to sign with Colorado for whatever they want to give him, or sit out the rest of the season.

All due respect to the hockey ops peeps at the time but if you don't do your due diligence on a player, it's on you, not the agent. The league had the same interpretation.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Freeway

All due respect to the hockey ops peeps at the time but if you don't do your due diligence on a player, it's on you, not the agent. The league had the same interpretation.

The league's interpretation wasn't revealed at that time though, all everyone had at that time was a MOU that had ambiguous wording. I have very little doubt the Flames would have ended up keeping either the picks or O'Reilly, any half ass lawyer could have won that grievance.

[DoubleK]

Toronto's and Tampa's ugly cap situation just got a whole bunch more uglier.

This is really going to suck for pending UFAs like Hall and Pieterangelo.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is really going to suck for pending UFAs like Hall and Pieterangelo.

I think it will be the next tier down who will not be getting a good salary and the term they would have hoped for. Any player looking for a new contract likely is going to lose out somewhere as there won't be compliance buyouts to create new money, and the cap projects to stay flat.

Is T.J.Brodie going to get another 5 year deal at 4.65 per year? I don't think so. Prior to this I think it was possible.

[Toonage]

Things seem to have gone quiet this weekend when it comes to the CBA and RTP ratification. Was this not supposed to have gone to a vote by now?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Things seem to have gone quiet this weekend when it comes to the CBA and RTP ratification. Was this not supposed to have gone to a vote by now?

Players had 72 hours to vote starting yesterday i believe.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Players had 72 hours to vote starting yesterday i believe.

https://www.tsn.ca/details-emerge-on...ment-1.1492091

According to this if they announced it yesterday that vote could begin on Monday and would need 72 hours. So no official announcement yet. IIRC it was later in the day Thursday where they pushed training camps back 3 days due to no deal. So if nothing by Monday it might push back a couple more days.

[Fire]

I would be shocked if the players didn't vote to ratify it. They came out pretty well with the changes.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Fire

I would be shocked if the players didn't vote to ratify it. They came out pretty well with the changes.

You'd be down with a 30% paycut?

I don't think this is as much of a slam dunk as people think it is.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

You'd be down with a 30% paycut?

I don't think this is as much of a slam dunk as people think it is.

30% is a hell of a lot better than nothing, especially when the lowest paid player is still a 1%er.
They know what the Covid reality is. They'll lose more by voting no.

And yes. I'd love a 30% paycut. Know why? Covid cost me my job and. 70%of my salary sounds pretty sweet.
Would be even sweeter if I was making millions like most players are.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

30% is a hell of a lot better than nothing, especially when the lowest paid player is still a 1%er.
They know what the Covid reality is. They'll lose more by voting no.

And yes. I'd love a 30% paycut. Know why? Covid cost me my job and. 70%of my salary sounds pretty sweet.
Would be even sweeter if I was making millions like most players are.

And the NHL might be particularly badly hit in terms of overall-revenue.

Its going to be a giant #### sandwich and everyone's gonna have a take a bite.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

30% is a hell of a lot better than nothing, especially when the lowest paid player is still a 1%er.
They know what the Covid reality is. They'll lose more by voting no.

And yes. I'd love a 30% paycut. Know why? Covid cost me my job and. 70%of my salary sounds pretty sweet.
Would be even sweeter if I was making millions like most players are.

Not that it helps, but as someone who is on a reduced salary but kept their job, I do feel quite lucky, and people like yourself have my genuine sympathies. I’m sorry you lost your job and I hope you’re doing alright.

I certainly don’t think people so selfish that they’re complaining about a wage reduction in this economy are the norm. And I would expect even NHL players are not that selfish. As Locke said, this is a #### sandwich, and most of us have had a bite. 30% reduction is nothing to complain about.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not that it helps, but as someone who is on a reduced salary but kept their job, I do feel quite lucky, and people like yourself have my genuine sympathies. I’m sorry you lost your job and I hope you’re doing alright.

I certainly don’t think people so selfish that they’re complaining about a wage reduction in this economy are the norm. And I would expect even NHL players are not that selfish. As Locke said, this is a #### sandwich, and most of us have had a bite. 30% reduction is nothing to complain about.

Exactly. where doublek is coming from is speaking from a different world than the one we're in now.

Nobody wants a paycut, but like you guys have said, most everyone's had a taste of the #### sandeich.and they have to make the best of a bad situation.

I think the vast majority of players understand that and the vote will easily pass. Player and owners are in the same boat, and I'm glad the union and NHL management gets that, unlike MLB.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by getbak

Regardless of what people said after the fact trying to cover their own butts, the O'Reilly thing wasn't some grand plan by Feaster to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the CBA. It was the result of a bunch of people screwing up. Primarily, O'Reilly screwed up by playing those 2 games when he shouldn't have and his agent screwed up by letting him play those 2 games. The Avs screwed up by not knowing he had played those 2 games, or if they did know, they screwed up even more by not making it public knowledge. Any team, including the Flames and Canucks, that negotiated with his agent without knowing he had played those 2 games screwed up by not doing their due diligence. Seemingly, only one person in North America even realized that O'Reilly had played those games, and rather than making it widely known (which would have killed any RFA market for O'Reilly), he decided to hold onto that information hoping to play gotcha if a team did eventually sign him to an offer sheet --- and even that backfired because the Avs matched the offer sheet so quickly, the guy didn't even get to enjoy his day in the sun.

I seem to remember also that O'Reilly's name was spelled differently on the game sheets when he played.