The biggest question would probably be revenue sharing and salary rollbacks.
If the Coyotes Free Agents expect salary rollbacks (from reducing the player share of revenue from the 57% : 43% -> for the owners. The league wants a 50%-50% split). I wouldn't be surprised if Some will get (what would look like) a raise, which eventually be somewhat of a pay cut. The 50 - 50 split would mean that the player would take ~ 1/8 pay cut.
I do expect the gap between the Salary Cap Ceiling and Floor to increase from the set # of $16Mil. Perhaps it should be a % instead of a hard #.
In other sports the player share % of over all revenue has declined and the NHL currently has the highest % of all the major team sports.
now for the issue that I feel passionately about:
I would like for the new CBA to have an outside arbitrator for the questionable discipline practices that the league has issued without giving a clear cut arbitration hearing. Perhaps to the lengthier suspensions.
I don't know of any other issues that both sides may try to change in the current CBA. Maybe about some teams that bury contracts of players in the AHL, even though they could contribute to another NHL team (like Redden), just because they (could) overpaid...
They don't necessarily need to do a salary rollback unless a large number of high spending teams run out and sign players up to the temporary $70.3m cap come July 1st. That may not be particularly wise on their parts because there's no guarantee there will be a salary rollback or amnesty buyouts in the new CBA.
NHL revenue increased 10.7% year over year and the cap is scheduled to [temporarily] increase 9.3% from $64.3m to $70.3m
- If player share was reduced to 50% that would yield a cap of around $62.3m. A year to year cap reduction of 3.1%
- It player share is reduced to 52% that would yield $64.6m. An increase of 0.5%. No need for rollbacks unless lots of dumb contracts are signed before the new CBA is agreed on.
I agree. All the talk has been that there will likely not be a rollback in salaries as the difference is not that significant between what the Cap is today and what it will be come 9/15 (or after). If any adjustment is available I would suspect it would only be an amnesty buyout period that will not count against the Cap to allow teams to get back under.
I like the idea of handling longer suspensions through an appeal process with an outside arbitrator. Like anything, it's always in the definitions so what do you consider a longer suspension, etc.
I'd like to see the ability to trade cash/salary/cap in deals. For example, if a team wants to get rid of a high salary player but they cannot find any takers they can assume some of the salary cap space themselves. I don't think teams should be able to trade cap space in the sense of Columbus trades $5 million of Cap space to the Kings for future considerations, but if it includes a player then the salary can be adjusted.
One thing to keep in mind with all the suggestions of ways to "bend" the cap with options like teams paying partial salary or trading cap space. The main outcome it produces is allow the richer teams to spend more $'s than they would otherwise be allowed. The players are already in a situation where they're regularly giving back a portion of their paychecks via escrow. Escrow's not likely to go away since that's how the player share is guaranteed. So unless they reduce the expenditures of the other teams to offset increased expenditures by the top revenue teams you're looking at any cap bending changes creating larger player escrow clawbacks.
Maybe forcing the original team to allow re-entry waiver anytime another team wants players that were allocated to the 'A' for cap reasons. Probably over a duration period, so not to be confused with a rehab or just getting in some much needed ice time.
Or maybe being able to trade with specific teams and act like they were claim by re-entry, where the original team is on the hook for the remaining 1/2 of the contract and their trading partner pays the other 1/2.
I've been thinking about what, if there will be, roll backs would do the Coyote players. It seems that this is the only organization that gives out what, IMO, seems to be relatively reasonable contracts. But Hanzal signed a 5 year extension that kicks in and Yandle be starting his 2nd of a 5 year. That's pretty screwed up! It seems to me that this off season contracts are compensated to a roll back and the other ones (that already exist) will have to pay the price.
So a team that has no ownership is run efficiently and honest, while everyone else runs amok... go figure!
I've been thinking about what, if there will be, roll backs would do the Coyote players. It seems that this is the only organization that gives out what, IMO, seems to be relatively reasonable contracts. But Hanzal signed a 5 year extension that kicks in and Yandle be starting his 2nd of a 5 year. That's pretty screwed up! It seems to me that this off season contracts are compensated to a roll back and the other ones (that already exist) will have to pay the price.
So a team that has no ownership is run efficiently and honest, while everyone else runs amok... go figure!
Why did both the NHL and the NHLPA waited this long to start talking about a new CBA when these talks could have started way sooner? If Jamisen is really waiting for a new CBA to workout to close the deal, then this could have been done sooner in case if at any point in the meetings there are break downs in discussions and both sides get back to the table after willing to agree to a compormise on any of the issues. Now because of the late meetings and the possibility of a lockout, the deal to get GJ as an onwer could fall through.
Why did both the NHL and the NHLPA waited this long to start talking about a new CBA when these talks could have started way sooner? If Jamisen is really waiting for a new CBA to workout to close the deal, then this could have been done sooner in case if at any point in the meetings there are break downs in discussions and both sides get back to the table after willing to agree to a compormise on any of the issues. Now because of the late meetings and the possibility of a lockout, the deal to get GJ as an onwer could fall through.
I agree, the talks could have started last off-season and progressed throughout the season if needed. It almost seems like they were playing chicken and no one wanted to feel like the desperate one, calling the other first.
Keep seeing threads & posts popping up about reaching the floor. Can you imagine if they (the new CBA) decide to lower the cap without rollbacks and then implement the floor @ 2/3 of the ceiling. That would put the Coyotes just above the floor. This scenario would greatly benefit the Coyotes!
Also if the new CBA does have roll backs, I would imagine that it wouldn't effect the internal budget of the team (where the cap ceiling goes down to $61Mil, the internal budget stays @ ~$56Mil, and the floor is at ~$41Mil). I also don't see the ELC being included in the roll backs).
