I figured I start a thread to track the progress of the negotiations since they are starting tomorrow. Does anyone have a list of potential sticking points?
Owners definitely aren't going to get it down to about 50/50.. Closest I see is 54/46 and that'd be with them giving up a concession like lower UFA age.
And the cap floor thing should be pretty easy to solve in my opinion..
Have a soft cap floor. I'll use 70 million as the ceiling
70 million is the ceiling.
The cap floor would be 1/2 of that, so 35 million, but if you are under 2/3rds of the ceiling, 46.9m, you don't qualify for revenue sharing.
I'm hoping they get rid of the 35+ rule. I really don't understand how that made it into the last CBA. It seemingly hurts the players as much as it hurts the teams. Teams would be less likely to sign a 35+ guy to a multi-year deal and if they do, the teams get screwed if something goes wrong. I think it could be a better solution maybe to prevent more than a three year deal or something on guys 35 and older. That way people could still get signed but you wouldn't have a Kovalchuk deal with Dwayne Roloson or something.
I'm hoping they get rid of the 35+ rule. I really don't understand how that made it into the last CBA. It seemingly hurts the players as much as it hurts the teams. Teams would be less likely to sign a 35+ guy to a multi-year deal and if they do, the teams get screwed if something goes wrong. I think it could be a better solution maybe to prevent more than a three year deal or something on guys 35 and older. That way people could still get signed but you wouldn't have a Kovalchuk deal with Dwayne Roloson or something.
To me the 35+ Rule is very easy to correct and the correction would eliminate all the traps and Cap circumvention.
Fix A: Only one year contracts on player 35+ and movement eliminates Cap.
Fix B: Multi-year contracts allowed on 35+ with Cap based on salary paid per specific season rather than AAV and Retirement allowed/movement elimnates Cap.
Fix C: Organization option to take the AAV based 35+ and be as Current CBA risking carrying dead weight or having to LTI a player or Fix A/B whichever is adopted... Thus GMs can gamble reduced Cap with front-loaded to reduce Cap yet entice player or take the safe bet and risk losing a player to a gambling Organization's GM.
Fix D: Any of the other fixes, or Current 35+ Rule, with an age adjustment.
Personally I'd never risk carrying dead Cap with 35+ player if I had the option to avoid it... since retirement would never be an option on such Front-loaded contracts.
Furthermore... I believe they should penalize any front-loaded long-range where a player retires in-contract. Or they should eliminate all LONG-range front-loaded contracts period. Also, eliminating AAV based Cap hits and replacing with Salary based contracts would eliminate just about all circumvention... although it would also eliminate a great way to entice players to Big Market Organization.
They haven't even begun negotiations yet. That said, I expect it goes back in.
Now, to solve Cap Circumvension techniques, minimally they need to change the way cap hits are calculated. Something like this....
Quote:
Salary Cap hit is AAV or 80% of the highest year's salary, whichever is higher.
That would prevent those backend years from reducing the salary to such a large degree. They would probably need to allow previously signed contracts be grandfathered through or something.
They haven't even begun negotiations yet. That said, I expect it goes back in.
Now, to solve Cap Circumvension techniques, minimally they need to change the way cap hits are calculated. Something like this....
That would prevent those backend years from reducing the salary to such a large degree. They would probably need to allow previously signed contracts be grandfathered through or something.
I agree that they will/should grandfather the current contracts that are frontloaded heavily.
As far as the +35 rule, what was the reason for it in the first place? They must have done it because of something so whatever that was, it needs to be addressed.
They haven't even begun negotiations yet. That said, I expect it goes back in.
yeah I know talks start at like 11am today or something. I was just wondering if anyone heard anything new on the subject. I too expect it in the new CBA but then again I really don't understand why it wasn't in the current CBA.
yeah I know talks start at like 11am today or something. I was just wondering if anyone heard anything new on the subject. I too expect it in the new CBA but then again I really don't understand why it wasn't in the current CBA.
It was in the current one, but the current one simply stated that you couldn't have a bonus cushion in the final year because there would be no way to properly apply any overage to the following year.
If you will recall, going into this season we had like 1.2M carried over on our cap due to bonuses that were paid out in 2010. Chicago had the same thing and that's what forced them to trade Buff and Ladd to then Atlanta.
Because their was no CBA to apply cap penalties/overages to next year, all possible achievable bonuses were applied until they no longer could be achieved... ie Schenn couldn't play all 82 after he was put in the AHL for a week.
Long and short of it... current CBA had a bonus cushion and penalty system. Because the penalty system couldn't be verified, the cushion did not apply in 2011-2012. There is zero reason to expect that the cushion gets eliminated in 2012-2013 as it tends to benefit both sides by keep guaranteed dollars low for managers, but allowing young players/aged vets to achieve higher salaries.
To me the 35+ Rule is very easy to correct and the correction would eliminate all the traps and Cap circumvention.
Fix A: Only one year contracts on player 35+ and movement eliminates Cap.
Fix B: Multi-year contracts allowed on 35+ with Cap based on salary paid per specific season rather than AAV and Retirement allowed/movement elimnates Cap.
Those are fixes for sure, but it doesn't really do anything. Might as well get rid of it entirely at that point (which I'd be fine with). No way players agree to the deal allowing 35+ players only getting one year deals, and the second option essentially the same thing as not having a the rule at all, you just wouldn't be able to front load the contracts.
Quote:
Fix C: Organization option to take the AAV based 35+ and be as Current CBA risking carrying dead weight or having to LTI a player or Fix A/B whichever is adopted... Thus GMs can gamble reduced Cap with front-loaded to reduce Cap yet entice player or take the safe bet and risk losing a player to a gambling Organization's GM.
So is this fix to just leave it the way it is or allow the team to pick a different option? Still wouldn't make much sense.
Quote:
Fix D: Any of the other fixes, or Current 35+ Rule, with an age adjustment.
This would make sense, making it like a 38+ or something like that. I think that would be pretty solid or just put a limit on length of the deal to like three or four years or something like that to avoid the super long ones and leave the rules in place the way they are otherwise. Or just get rid of it all together.
Quote:
Furthermore... I believe they should penalize any front-loaded long-range where a player retires in-contract. Or they should eliminate all LONG-range front-loaded contracts period. Also, eliminating AAV based Cap hits and replacing with Salary based contracts would eliminate just about all circumvention... although it would also eliminate a great way to entice players to Big Market Organization.
Yeah they definitely need to do something with these 500 year contracts. They are getting pretty extreme and annoying.
It was in the current one, but the current one simply stated that you couldn't have a bonus cushion in the final year because there would be no way to properly apply any overage to the following year.
If you will recall, going into this season we had like 1.2M carried over on our cap due to bonuses that were paid out in 2010. Chicago had the same thing and that's what forced them to trade Buff and Ladd to then Atlanta.
Because their was no CBA to apply cap penalties/overages to next year, all possible achievable bonuses were applied until they no longer could be achieved... ie Schenn couldn't play all 82 after he was put in the AHL for a week.
Long and short of it... current CBA had a bonus cushion and penalty system. Because the penalty system couldn't be verified, the cushion did not apply in 2011-2012. There is zero reason to expect that the cushion gets eliminated in 2012-2013 as it tends to benefit both sides by keep guaranteed dollars low for managers, but allowing young players/aged vets to achieve higher salaries.
Renaud P Lavoie @RenLavoieRDS
NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
Renaud P Lavoie @RenLavoieRDS
3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.
Hilarious for number 1.
My thoughts
1. Ridiculous. Do 55/45 and Min salary goes up to 650k or so
2. I've always liked it being after your 2nd contract. 3rd if you have a one year deal in there
3. That's actually good.. Though 7 would be a little better
4. Terrible
5. I'd be for this if the max salary for ELCs was scaled the way the NBA has it
I agree that they will/should grandfather the current contracts that are frontloaded heavily.
As far as the +35 rule, what was the reason for it in the first place? They must have done it because of something so whatever that was, it needs to be addressed.
35+ was put in to put a drag on those deals, basically, like the cap itself, to protect owners from themselves. Pre-lockout under the prior CBA guys weren't hitting UFA until they reached their 30s, and those players were being comparatively overpaid because they were the only guys hitting the market, since RFA in the NHL isn't really free agency at all between punitive compensation and right to match. So ownership saw these big contracts to aging players as a problem, and put the rule in to try to keep the AAV and term down on those deals by sticking clubs with the cap hit no matter what.
I agree that they will/should grandfather the current contracts that are frontloaded heavily.
As far as the +35 rule, what was the reason for it in the first place? They must have done it because of something so whatever that was, it needs to be addressed.
They did it to discourage deals like Pronger's that are frontloaded with bogus years at the end to circumvent the cap. Only it doesn't work when a GM does not understand the rule.
Renaud P Lavoie @RenLavoieRDS
NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
Renaud P Lavoie @RenLavoieRDS
3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.
Awful. These are all non-starters from the NHLPA's perspective, I presume.
I think these would be some reasonable compromises:
1. 53-55% revenue split
2. 7 seasons before UFA
3. No changes to arbitration
4. Contracts limited to 8 years
5. ELC's extended from 3 to 4 years unless a player reaches "super" status (a la "super twos" in MLB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
They did it to discourage deals like Pronger's that are frontloaded with bogus years at the end to circumvent the cap. Only it doesn't work when a GM does not understand the rule.
This is going to get ugly real fast. Some say that this is just a tactic, but when negotiations for the last CBA took place, the NHL didn't budge from their stance on anything. That's the way to look at this. They aren't going to budge on a reduction of the revenue split between owners and players. They aren't going to budge on free agency. They aren't going to budge on redefining hockey revenue. They aren't going to budge on entry level contracts and actual contract lengths.
The last time around, the owners wanted cost certainty. They got it. The last time around, they wanted entry level contracts limited. They got it. The last time around, in order to achieve a bonus, you had to basically tear up the record books. They got it. This isn't about negotiations anymore. This is about dictating to the players what the owners want. The owners can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know about anyone else, but I called this the last time when the last CBA was signed - this was never a partnership and that the next CBA negotiations, owners were going to demand even more concessions from the players. We're witnessing it. I hope nobody expects the owners to move from their demands because they certainly didn't the last time around.......
This is going to get ugly real fast. Some say that this is just a tactic, but when negotiations for the last CBA took place, the NHL didn't budge from their stance on anything. That's the way to look at this. They aren't going to budge on a reduction of the revenue split between owners and players. They aren't going to budge on free agency. They aren't going to budge on redefining hockey revenue. They aren't going to budge on entry level contracts and actual contract lengths.
The last time around, the owners wanted cost certainty. They got it. The last time around, they wanted entry level contracts limited. They got it. The last time around, in order to achieve a bonus, you had to basically tear up the record books. They got it. This isn't about negotiations anymore. This is about dictating to the players what the owners want. The owners can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know about anyone else, but I called this the last time when the last CBA was signed - this was never a partnership and that the next CBA negotiations, owners were going to demand even more concessions from the players. We're witnessing it. I hope nobody expects the owners to move from their demands because they certainly didn't the last time around.......
I don't think it was that extreme last time or will be this time (if it was/is then the NHLPA would have a pretty good lawsuit going for them). I read somewhere they were thinking about renewing this current CBA for a year to avoid a lockout and negotiating a new one in the mean-time. I can't imagine either side wants to risk another lockout when the NHL is just starting to begin to be relevant again (in the USA). Too much risk involved on both sides. If they miss the season again, I really don't think the NHL could recover in regards to the casual fans and new fans that have sprung up in recent years.
This is going to get ugly real fast. Some say that this is just a tactic, but when negotiations for the last CBA took place, the NHL didn't budge from their stance on anything. That's the way to look at this. They aren't going to budge on a reduction of the revenue split between owners and players. They aren't going to budge on free agency. They aren't going to budge on redefining hockey revenue. They aren't going to budge on entry level contracts and actual contract lengths.
The last time around, the owners wanted cost certainty. They got it. The last time around, they wanted entry level contracts limited. They got it. The last time around, in order to achieve a bonus, you had to basically tear up the record books. They got it. This isn't about negotiations anymore. This is about dictating to the players what the owners want. The owners can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know about anyone else, but I called this the last time when the last CBA was signed - this was never a partnership and that the next CBA negotiations, owners were going to demand even more concessions from the players. We're witnessing it. I hope nobody expects the owners to move from their demands because they certainly didn't the last time around.......
Couldn't agree more. Last time they killed a whole season and got put on pedestals because of how well they did and how they killed the players. Now here we are again and the CBA they wanted, that they utterly killed the NHLPA on, apparently still isn't good enough. Our only hope is that the competitive owners can create some dissention; it's frustrating when these things come up and we're all at the mercy not of the owners as a group, but that faction of cheap owners of poorly run franchises in crap markets who seem to think the weak should be setting the pace.
:
