So who is bummed about the lockout? II
View Single Post
11-11-2012, 08:47 PM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Originally Posted by
parise might have been a bad example, but given all the changes NHL is trying to get on the contracting issues moving arbitration back by a year makes a big difference to players.
so NHL wants a 5 year max, and 2 year ELC, with them trying to push arbitration back to 26 at the earliest it makes a huge difference to players.
basically a guy who enters NHL at 18, will have to sign at the very least 3 contracts before he's allowed arbitration. 2year elc, 5 year max, he's 25 and can't file for arbitration, his only real leverage is to hold out and that just doesn't work out.
you may not think that it makes a huge difference to players but it does, its another layer of their bargaining power being limited, if that was the only change NHL proposed it might not be so bad, but as proposed its a sizable cog in what NHL wants.
the other proposed changes where clubs get more rights are all a pull towards limiting player pay going forward and reducing club costs.
Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. How many players enter the league at age 18 each year? There's around 3-6 of them. Over a 6 year CBA we're talking about 18-36 players affected out of 700-900 players in the league. Even those in the 3% of the league that are potentially affected, they're not necessarily meaningfully affected either, only if they sign maximum length deals. Ultimately, that's not really likely. Furthermore, once again, this doesn't affect how much the players are paid, it only affects a few individuals. The actual purpose of a lot of this is to redistribute income within the NHLPA, pushing money from being paid to RFAs back to UFAs to earn.
Beyond that, a more typical scenario than your extremely rare 18 year old issue is one like Cal Clutterbuck. If he'd come up under the NHL's proposed system, he'd have a 2 year ELC, and would have been up for re-signing after just 80 NHL games instead of 154. In that situation, the team likely signs him for 2 years instead of 3. Now, instead of being paid $1.5MM in 2011-2012, he would have been on a brand new contract following his 19 goal, 34 point season and at the height of his value. He probably ends up with a 5 year contract (to buy out a UFA year) with an AAV around $3MM minimum. Instead of making around $13.5MM in his first 9 years, he makes around $18MM. There are more players in Clutterbuck's situation in regards to this than those extremely rare players negatively affected.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by squidz*