07-03-2020, 02:42 PM
|
#1
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Friedman: potential CBA modifications as NHL/NHLPA continue negotiations
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...-negotiations/
Quote:
The updated rules will carry through 2025-26, although there is a provision for a one-year extension if more than $125 million in escrow is owed to the league. The salary cap for 2020-21 is $81.5 million. The NHL/NHLPA are talking about keeping it there until revenues hit $4.8 billion. At that point, they will use the two years prior to calculate the cap number — meaning the 2022-23 ceiling will be based on 2020-21 revenues. That will give more certainty and planning.
Cap on escrow is 20 per cent next season. Somewhere between 14-18 per cent in 2021-22, depending on 2020-21 revenue. Then we go 10 per cent in 2022-23, with a maximum of six per cent over the remaining term (if there is an extra year, the escrow cap will be at nine per cent). There will be a 10 per cent salary deferral next season. It will be repaid during the final three years of this CBA.
Olympic participation for 2022 and 2026 is guaranteed pending agreement with the IOC. This year’s playoff fund (a bonus pool of money players earn the longer their team plays) will be doubled to $32 million. It is much higher this year since more teams are eligible and players are coming into a bubble during a pandemic. It will go to $20 million next season. The minimum salary will rise to $750,000 next season and reach $800,000 by the end of this deal.
There are some interesting modifications:
• No-move and no-trade clauses now travel with a player who has agreed to lift one, even if they haven’t kicked in (previously, the acquiring team had to agree).
• Players aged 35 and over can sign multi-year deals that are flat or ascending and there will be no cap hit if they retire before the deal is up (previously, the cap hit stayed no matter what).
• Year-by-year variability: six-year contracts that are front-loaded and worth at least 7.5 per cent of the cap cannot exceed 35 per cent between the highest and lowest salary amounts. Rules for other contracts remain the same (I’ve heard players and teams will consider back-loading new contracts because escrow is capped at a lower number and cash flow should improve for clubs).
• No changes to signing bonuses
*There are no more conditional picks in trades based on a player re-signing with the acquiring team. For example, the New Jersey Devils’ current third-rounder from Arizona in the Taylor Hall deal upgrades if he re-signs with the Coyotes. Agents and NHLPA staff felt it hurt players’ value.
|
Also on RTP: any player can opt out without penalty and other safety measures in the article
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-03-2020, 02:45 PM
|
#2
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
*There are no more conditional picks in trades based on a player re-signing with the acquiring team. For example, the New Jersey Devils’ current third-rounder from Arizona in the Taylor Hall deal upgrades if he re-signs with the Coyotes. Agents and NHLPA staff felt it hurt players’ value.
|
I like that one.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-03-2020, 03:11 PM
|
#3
|
Franchise Player
|
just get it done...a lockout or strike will not be tolerated in this new world we live in
__________________
GFG
Last edited by dino7c; 07-03-2020 at 03:13 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-03-2020, 03:15 PM
|
#4
|
Franchise Player
|
I like all those modifications. In particular, if a player finds a fit with a team at the deadline, if there's a conditional pick, it discourages the team from signing that player, so it's really bad for both sides
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 03:23 PM
|
#5
|
Franchise Player
|
If you cap escrow, what’s the mechanism if HRR fall below the threshold amount? Do player salaries simply exceed 50% at that point?
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 03:33 PM
|
#6
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
If you cap escrow, what’s the mechanism if HRR fall below the threshold amount? Do player salaries simply exceed 50% at that point?
|
Obviously, neither side could predict empty arena games when they signed the CBA. I imagine that suddenly having to give back half their salary would bankrupt a lot of players, plus with the danger of playing in the pandemic, I think the players has a lot of leverage in this negotiation
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 03:41 PM
|
#7
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
No 35+ contracts will make it a lot easier for the Flames to extend Giordano after his current deal expires. He'll be 38 when it expires and I expect the Flames will probably look at a 2- or 3-year deal to take him to 40 or 41.
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 04:40 PM
|
#8
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
If you cap escrow, what’s the mechanism if HRR fall below the threshold amount? Do player salaries simply exceed 50% at that point?
|
If I'm understanding right they would exceed 50% temporarily but would have to pay back that difference over the next few years.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-03-2020, 07:57 PM
|
#9
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
No 35+ contracts will make it a lot easier for the Flames to extend Giordano after his current deal expires. He'll be 38 when it expires and I expect the Flames will probably look at a 2- or 3-year deal to take him to 40 or 41.
|
I don't think that would have been an issue for the Flames and Giordano. Both sides would probably be happy to do 1 year deals until Gio retires, assuming the current relationship continues through the years.
Where this will make a difference is for the Kovalchuk type UFAs, making it a lot less riskier committing term to them.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-03-2020, 08:02 PM
|
#10
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Oct 2009
Exp: ![](images/calpuck/pip.gif) ![](images/calpuck/pip.gif)
|
Report: Blues cancel practices due to 'multiple' positive COVID-19 tests
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 08:19 PM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Van Island
|
The conditional pick on resigning definitely hurts the players value with the team he is traded to. Good for them to put that rule in.
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 09:05 PM
|
#12
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane
|
I wonder if this change will result in more sign and trades like the Stone trade? If you can’t get compensation for a traded player signing on the new team then GMs can at least try to get an extension signed to increase the trade value.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 09:33 PM
|
#13
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CGY
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMike
The conditional pick on resigning definitely hurts the players value with the team he is traded to. Good for them to put that rule in.
|
I feel like it is going to lessen the returns for a player.
Coyotes would not give up 2 1st and prospects for a rental Hall but if they can sign him and win a round the Devils will get this and next years first.
I wonder if this will lead to more sign and trades (or trades with a deal in principle) with rental players similar to what happened with Pageau this year or Stone in 2019?
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 09:43 PM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
|
Teams will just have to pay full price for a player and take the risk that they won't re-sign instead of attaching a conditional pick that waters down the value. At least that's how I see it.
I think it will help even more when it comes to players with more than a year left on their deals. Like if the Flames trade Johnny this off season, they won't have to have some BS 2022 pick attached to the deal that the value changes on based on whether or not he'll re up with them.
Tre won't have to listen to some GM whine "oh we can't be sure Johnny will sign an extension with us. We can't even talk extension for a year yet, so instead of 2 picks in 2020 plus a prospect and roster player, we'll just give you one pick for 2020 and then attach a second pick in 2022 and if he signs with us it will be a higher pick"
You get every GM on the east coast pulling that crap and then you're waiting two years for that asset to come to fruition and you don't even have a clue how valuable it will be.
Last edited by Roof-Daddy; 07-03-2020 at 09:52 PM.
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 09:57 PM
|
#15
|
First Line Centre
|
I like the NMC and NTC sticks with the player for the duration of the contract. If he waives it for a trade, it will only be a one-off situation and the NMC/NTC remains for the new team after he got traded.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lazypucker For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-03-2020, 10:02 PM
|
#16
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
I like the NMC and NTC sticks with the player for the duration of the contract. If he waives it for a trade, it will only be a one-off situation and the NMC/NTC remains for the new team after he got traded.
|
I don't, I hate it because it seems like every other year the Flames get royally screwed by someone with a NTC or NMC.
I can just imagine how many times it happens and we don't even hear about it.
|
|
|
07-03-2020, 10:22 PM
|
#17
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Van Island
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
I like the NMC and NTC sticks with the player for the duration of the contract. If he waives it for a trade, it will only be a one-off situation and the NMC/NTC remains for the new team after he got traded.
|
It should be that way. It’s in the contract, the team is trading for the contract knowing what is involved. Dos that mean that currently the NTC does not move with the player at all? When would it and when wouldn’t it move?
|
|
|
07-04-2020, 12:53 AM
|
#18
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
I like the 35+ rule change, the NTC/NMC change and the change to conditional picks.
The part I like about the 35+ change is it forces those deals to either be flat or escalating in value, which allows those players to sign for term, but eliminates the use back-diving years.
The NMC/NTC change I think is simply fair, an acquiring team should not be able to change the terms of an agreed upon contract.
I hate conditional picks, I'd like to see all eliminated. But at least this limits them to almost completely being performance/health based.
|
|
|
07-04-2020, 01:02 AM
|
#19
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMike
It should be that way. It’s in the contract, the team is trading for the contract knowing what is involved. Dos that mean that currently the NTC does not move with the player at all? When would it and when wouldn’t it move?
|
Currently, the acquiring team gets to chose, which IMO is fine for guys like Lucic where he could veto the trade if they don't honor it, but was completely unfair to players whose clauses haven't kicked in yet because it was negotiated into the contract to start at a certain point, they should still get that.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Crown Royal For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-04-2020, 01:55 AM
|
#20
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Van Island
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crown Royal
Currently, the acquiring team gets to chose, which IMO is fine for guys like Lucic where he could veto the trade if they don't honor it, but was completely unfair to players whose clauses haven't kicked in yet because it was negotiated into the contract to start at a certain point, they should still get that.
|
So it only has to do with clauses that haven't kicked in yet? I believed if a player waived his clause once he didn't have to, but that goes against what I've learnt about the Lucic deal.
So its more of a signing a player into UFA years, where he gets to earn NMC/NTC but trading him before that clause kicks in, the next team still has to honour when that clause kicks in.
I can't believe it wasn't already that way, no wonder why they are fighting for this.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:35 PM.
|
|