HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   McKenzie:rookie$ will take it on the chin (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=14675)

CREW99AW 09-27-2003 12:42 AM

McKenzie:rookie$ will take it on the chin
 
Not really isles related but an interesting article.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=55045

But with only a year left on the current collective bargaining agreement, no NHL team, especially the Panthers, intends to dole out a Thornton or Kovalchuk type contract, not when they can wait one year in the anticipation of a true rookie salary cap in the new CBA. No one knows what will transpire, or when, but smart money suggests that entry-level players are going to take it on the chin.

NYIsles1* 09-27-2003 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CREW99AW
Not really isles related but an interesting article.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=55045

But with only a year left on the current collective bargaining agreement, no NHL team, especially the Panthers, intends to dole out a Thornton or Kovalchuk type contract, not when they can wait one year in the anticipation of a true rookie salary cap in the new CBA. No one knows what will transpire, or when, but smart money suggests that entry-level players are going to take it on the chin.

That was very good. It's going to be interesting to see if teams like Florida and Pittsburgh choose to sign these player now if they can really help or letting them go back to juniors and waiting for a new CBA so they may not have to pay less bonus money. If a strike happens the AHL announced they will be operating so these players can play in that league, but they will not be getting paid by the parent clubs.

I think it played into DiPietro's situtation in his rookie year. I think it absoultely played into Luongo's demotion a game short of his bouns and maybe was the final issue for Milbury, even though Luongo played in the AHL playoffs for the Isles affiliate in Lowell at the time.

Unthinkable 09-28-2003 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
That was very good. It's going to be interesting to see if teams like Florida and Pittsburgh choose to sign these player now if they can really help or letting them go back to juniors and waiting for a new CBA so they may not have to pay less bonus money. If a strike happens the AHL announced they will be operating so these players can play in that league, but they will not be getting paid by the parent clubs.

I think it played into DiPietro's situtation in his rookie year. I think it absoultely played into Luongo's demotion a game short of his bouns and maybe was the final issue for Milbury, even though Luongo played in the AHL playoffs for the Isles affiliate in Lowell at the time.

Absolutely. The Penguins are taking their sweet time in deciding whether or not to make contact with Fleury's agent. Time is quickly running out for them as they will have to decide before opening night whether their new goaltender is in their plans this season or not.

Buffaloed 09-28-2003 07:27 PM

I don't believe they'll be able to impose any restrictions on unsigned draft picks with a new CBA that were drafted under the current CBA. These players enrolled in the draft under the current CBA. The declaration document for making oneself available for the draft is part of the CBA. If the NHL tries to change the rules after the fact, those players could be declared UFA's. In effect, these players signed a contract with the NHL when they filed for the draft and the NHL is obligated to fullfill it.



(thread copied from Islander's Board)

hillbillypriest 09-29-2003 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffaloed
I don't believe they'll be able to impose any restrictions on unsigned draft picks with a new CBA that were drafted under the current CBA. These players enrolled in the draft under the current CBA. The declaration document for making oneself available for the draft is part of the CBA. If the NHL tries to change the rules after the fact, those players could be declared UFA's. In effect, these players signed a contract with the NHL when they filed for the draft and the NHL is obligated to fullfill it.



(thread copied from Islander's Board)

Hi Buffaloed,

Hope this doesn't bring back too much bad deja vu from our recent exchanges on the Maurice Clarett thread, but I'm going to beg to differ. I believe that what is being suggested is not that the NHL will break contracts with rookies, but that the NHLPA and NHL will reach a new agreement to severely reduces the limit of what rookies can be paid as part of a jointly negotiated CBA. Apart from standard form contracts signed with individual players that expire after the CBA expires, I would not think that there's any aspect of the CBA could not be re-negotiated within the context of collective bargaining. So I don't see any reason why unsigned rookies could not be successfully sacrificed by the NHLPA when the ink's finally dry on the upcoming CBA.

p.s. - Unlike the Clarett discussion, in which you and DeathFromAbove pointed out to me that the current NFL CBA has a gap that does not specifically mention minimum draft age, I think Leon Wood's unsuccessful case against the NBA does apply here.

Buffaloed 09-29-2003 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillypriest
Hi Buffaloed,

Hope this doesn't bring back too much bad deja vu from our recent exchanges on the Maurice Clarett thread, but I'm going to beg to differ. I believe that what is being suggested is not that the NHL will break contracts with rookies, but that the NHLPA and NHL will reach a new agreement to severely reduces the limit of what rookies can be paid as part of a jointly negotiated CBA. Apart from standard form contracts signed with individual players that expire after the CBA expires, I would not think that there's any aspect of the CBA could not be re-negotiated within the context of collective bargaining. So I don't see any reason why unsigned rookies could not be successfully sacrificed by the NHLPA when the ink's finally dry on the upcoming CBA.

p.s. - Unlike the Clarett discussion, in which you and DeathFromAbove pointed out to me that the current NFL CBA has a gap that does not specifically mention minimum draft age, I think Leon Wood's unsuccessful case against the NBA does apply here.

The difference with the NHL draft is that players have to sign a document to opt-in. It's a legal document that is part of the current CBA. If the NHL changes the terms these players were drafted under when they signed the opt-in form, they also void the opt-in form, which nullifies the draft. Those players would either become UFA's or be subject to re-drafting under the new CBA.

hillbillypriest 09-29-2003 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffaloed
The difference with the NHL draft is that players have to sign a document to opt-in. It's a legal document that is part of the current CBA. If the NHL changes the terms these players were drafted under when they signed the opt-in form, they also void the opt-in form, which nullifies the draft. Those players would either become UFA's or be subject to re-drafting under the new CBA.

Interesting...

Is the opt-in form an appendix to the CBA that you have a handy link to?

Doofis_L_Hipster 09-29-2003 06:34 PM

You guys are missing a key point though.

The NHLPA is going to fight the owners tooth and nail. If they do break down and accept another restrictive rookie contract system, you better believe it will be grandfathered in, just as any kind of salary cap would have to be.

The guys like Fleury, Horton and Staal are still going to get their big bucks. And if they don't, they could all become UFAs in 2005 if they're not contracted by then.

hillbillypriest 09-29-2003 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doofis_L_Hipster
You guys are missing a key point though.

The NHLPA is going to fight the owners tooth and nail. If they do break down and accept another restrictive rookie contract system, you better believe it will be grandfathered in, just as any kind of salary cap would have to be.

The guys like Fleury, Horton and Staal are still going to get their big bucks. And if they don't, they could all become UFAs in 2005 if they're not contracted by then.

Nah...

The NHLPA is going to have to offer some concession. For the majority of NHLPA members, the thing that hurts least is the concession the primarily impacts guys that aren't part of the union yet, "haven't paid their dues", etc. Althought the NHLPA would, all things being equal, want to protect rookies, but if push came to shove they the interests of the rookies would be the first to go.

Buffaloed 09-29-2003 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillypriest
Interesting...

Is the opt-in form an appendix to the CBA that you have a handy link to?

National Hockey League Collective Bargaining Agreement, Exhibit 3, Opt-In Form


Article 8 refers to who must submit an Opt-In form

8.4. Eligibility for Claim. excerpt
(b) In addition to the players referred to in sub-paragraph
(a), any player who (i) will be age 18 on or before September
15 in the year in which such Entry Draft is held, or (ii) reaches
his 19th birthday between September 16 and December 31, both
dates included, next following the Entry Draft and who in either
case wishes to become eligible for selection in the Entry Draft,
can attain eligibility by delivering to the League a written
notice in the form of Exhibit 3 hereto prior to the later of (A)
May 1, or (B) seven days following the date such player finishes
competing on his team in the year in which such draft is to be
held.


Seems pretty logical that if a player opts in under one set of rules, and those rules are changed, he'd be permitted to opt out. I don't think players not subject to the requirement to opt-in would have a legal basis to challenge being subject to a rookie salary cap under the new CBA, but the vast majority of top prospects have to opt-in.

The NHL can cite the Leon Wood case, but the only thing that established was that the NBA draft and it's salary cap negotiated into the CBA wasn't subject to antitrust regulation. Wood wasn't drafted under any opt-in provision, and the salary cap rules that Wood was challenging were already in the NBA CBA when he was drafted. Wood was drafted in 1984. The CBA he was challenging was signed in 1983.

hillbillypriest 09-30-2003 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffaloed
National Hockey League Collective Bargaining Agreement, Exhibit 3, Opt-In Form


Article 8 refers to who must submit an Opt-In form

8.4. Eligibility for Claim. excerpt
(b) In addition to the players referred to in sub-paragraph
(a), any player who (i) will be age 18 on or before September
15 in the year in which such Entry Draft is held, or (ii) reaches
his 19th birthday between September 16 and December 31, both
dates included, next following the Entry Draft and who in either
case wishes to become eligible for selection in the Entry Draft,
can attain eligibility by delivering to the League a written
notice in the form of Exhibit 3 hereto prior to the later of (A)
May 1, or (B) seven days following the date such player finishes
competing on his team in the year in which such draft is to be
held.


Seems pretty logical that if a player opts in under one set of rules, and those rules are changed, he'd be permitted to opt out. I don't think players not subject to the requirement to opt-in would have a legal basis to challenge being subject to a rookie salary cap under the new CBA, but the vast majority of top prospects have to opt-in.

The NHL can cite the Leon Wood case, but the only thing that established was that the NBA draft and it's salary cap negotiated into the CBA wasn't subject to antitrust regulation. Wood wasn't drafted under any opt-in provision, and the salary cap rules that Wood was challenging were already in the NBA CBA when he was drafted. Wood was drafted in 1984. The CBA he was challenging was signed in 1983.

Hi Buffaloed, thanks for the look up...

I think we're on different wavelengths here. I agree that if Rookies have complied with the CBA by opting into the draft, they have made an agreement to live by the CBA on the expectation that the NHL team that drafts them will do the same.

However, at the moment the CBA expires and NHL locks out the NHLPA, the CBA no longer applies to anyone until there an agreement on a new one. If you believe the NHL, they will not agree to enter into a new CBA unless and until the NHLPA makes some concessions in certain key areas in a re-written agreement.

The NHL will have its ideas on what it's minimum conditions for a deal would be, and the NHLPA will have theirs. The NHLPA may well take an opening position that unsigned rookies that opted in under the terms of the previous CBA must be allowed to obtain the rights they would have obtained had the CBA continued and the NHL teams that drafted them failed to exercise their options by tendering a bone fide offer compliant with the rookie contract provisions. However, both sides will have to offer concessions in the drafting of the new rules, and I would expect that the CBA would almost certainly have some explicit language that would deal with the rights of and restriction on entry level players drafted under the old system.

I still think that McKenzie is right, that in the end, the NHLPA will offer concessions that negatively impact the rights of entry system players before offering concessions that impact the rights of more established players. And while I would agree that concessions regarding the rights of future draftees will be offered sooner than concessions that diminsh existing draftee rights, it's my opinion at this stage that the NHLPA will only be slightly more protective of the CBA rights of previously drafted players. In the end, I would expect at this stage that the new CBA will have new and specific language that will pertaining to old system entries that will offer less than existing CBA salary limits and will strongly tighten up on bonus rules.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.