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

[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).

[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.

[Resolute 14]

There's going to be a lockout any way, so best to set the battle lines now... especially if the players are stupid enough to try and break the linked cap.

I think 1 and 5 will be the points that the owners fight hardest for. 7 the players won't care about since it doesn't affect union members. 6 they will probably have no trouble agreeing on, but the players likely ask that LTIR players no longer count against the 50% share either. 2 is something that could happen, but the players will fight against. 3 is a complete non-starter for the union, and I suspect 5 is also.

[kyuss275]

Would love to see 1-3 go through.

[FlamesAddiction]

A lot of it will depend on what the players get in return.

If contract length is limited to 5 years, I think they will demand changes to buyout rules that work more in their favour. I can't imagine UFA age going any lower, but I am sure it will be something they try to trade in exchange for anything the owners want to implement.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There's going to be a lockout any way, so best to set the battle lines now... especially if the players are stupid enough to try and break the linked cap.

I think 1 and 5 will be the points that the owners fight hardest for. 7 the players won't care about since it doesn't affect union members. 6 they will probably have no trouble agreeing on, but the players likely ask that LTIR players no longer count against the 50% share either. 2 is something that could happen, but the players will fight against. 3 is a complete non-starter for the union, and I suspect 5 is also.

I would have agreed up until 2-3 months ago but if this season is shot and next season is played to no fans, can they really afford to lock out the players? And can the players afford another season with less or no salary?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jacks

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

Presumably, as with any negotiation, you start by asking for everything under the sun so that you can give up some of the things you don't really want in order to keep the ones you really do.


My thoughts on these:

1. I think it should be the same as ELCs, up to 10% of the contract's total value in any season can be given as a signing bonus. It's a bonus and that's how it should be structured.
   
   
2. I'd rather they just make the value of the contract in any season be the cap hit for that season. Let players and teams structure the deal however they see fit otherwise.
   
   
3. I don't think there's anything wrong with the 7/8 year limit. As it stands, only a small percentage of players get deals longer than 5 years anyway and they tend to be the star players. If a player and team are willing to commit for that long, they should be able to. If they can fix #2, they don't need to fix #3. The only reason term limits were needed is because of the ridiculous back-diving deals. If the cap hit is always equal to the contract value, it shouldn't matter how long the contract is.
   
   
4. I have no problem with the NTC/NMC rules as they stand. Again, they're freely negotiated and a good GM will negotiate a lower contract value in exchange for the NTC/NMC.
   
   
5. I like this fix. It keeps everyone realistic.
   
   
6. Making the numbers easier to understand would be good. They need to make sure that LTIR players still count against the players' share though. The other big issue with LTIR players are the career-ending injuries and teams trading their rights for cap purposes. If they fix issue #2, the LTIR cap trades will disappear over time anyway because there won't be an advantage to them.
   
   
7. I wouldn't be opposed to teams receiving a compensatory pick if a drafted player is unwilling to sign before a team's rights expire. If they were to implement this, there should be a requirement that the team actually offered a contract to the player of equal or greater value than the contract he eventually signed. A team shouldn't receive compensation if it was their choice not to sign the player. Teams shouldn't receive any compensation for losing a UFA. That's the nature of a UFA, whether he was a rental or you owned his rights before (a self-rental).

[GirlySports]

How about owners control themselves on July 1?

[Reaper]

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.

Players will never strike again. They would rather play without a CBA than strike. If they strike then they are the villains but if they are locked out then they get to pretend to play impoverished factory workers who have been mistreated by the evil owners.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How about owners control themselves on July 1?

Players agents have just as much accountability in this also. They are the ones that look for loopholes in Cba agreements.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Love contract term limits. More player movement makes for more interesting off seasons.

[dobbles]

The contract related ones also seem silly to me. If owners and GM's don't want contracts like that, then don't offer them. Problem solved.

IMO, the biggest thing that needs done is accountability. Teams have always found ways to hand out terrible contracts and then weasel out of if. We've had the salary rollbacks, compliance buyouts, people on LTIR for the better part of a decade, dumping contracts on cap floor teams, and totally front loaded contracts. Continue to get rid of loopholes like these and there won't be enough cap money left for GM's to waste.

[N-E-B]

I would love to see NTC/NMC’s get nerfed a bit. They’re completely unfair and favour teams from more desirable markets.

It will never happen but the best thing that could happen to the sport would be if they went away entirely.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by dobbles

The contract related ones also seem silly to me. If owners and GM's don't want contracts like that, then don't offer them. Problem solved.

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

[MrMike]

“I'd rather they just make the value of the contract in any season be the cap hit for that season. Let players and teams structure the deal however they see fit otherwise“

There would be teams structuring deals to line up at the same year to have room to load up for one or two big runs. Their would definitely be “back-loading” with plans to rebuild in that time.

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by MrMike

“I'd rather they just make the value of the contract in any season be the cap hit for that season. Let players and teams structure the deal however they see fit otherwise“

There would be teams structuring deals to line up at the same year to have room to load up for one or two big runs. Their would definitely be “back-loading” with plans to rebuild in that time.

That would be pretty wild... I feel like it would definitely increase the importance of having a good GM. It would also allow for much more reasonable long contracts that tail off in $ value over time. Cheap teams wouldn't be able to just take on a bunch of players whose real $ salaries were lower than their cap hits like they do now though - so not sure if those teams would like this idea.

Otherwise, I feel like most of the changes would be good for reducing some of the advantages that "big markets teams" are currently using (eg. make the majority of compensation signing bonuses, which less affluent teams might struggle with).

I think the salary arbitration one is the most sensible, as right now both sides always are forced to start with outageous offers in order for them to get a reasonable arbitration number. Having the arbitrator pick one or the other will force both sides to put out an offer that they actually think is fair.

[btimbit]

I actually like the sound of every one of these

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dobbles

The contract related ones also seem silly to me. If owners and GM's don't want contracts like that, then don't offer them. Problem solved.

Completely impossible without league-wide collusion.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I would have agreed up until 2-3 months ago but if this season is shot and next season is played to no fans, can they really afford to lock out the players? And can the players afford another season with less or no salary?

Honestly, that would be the best time for a lockout from the owners perspective, I think. The game will have basically been 'gone' from an attendance POV for almost two years at that point. You may as well wait another four months for fan-attended hockey to resume in this scenario.

If that hypothetical comes to pass, I would say the pressure would be massively on the players and far less so on the owners. A 2020-21 season with no attendance would probably drop the players to 40-50% of their expected salaries. They are going to be hurting.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Completely impossible without league-wide collusion.

Like baseball?

I'm not asking for much. How about not signing all the top FAs on the very first day. Negotiate a little. It's so bad the sports networks make a show out if it

When is free agency day in MLB? Anyone?