If it's really only one extra game every 5 weeks, that's not a big deal. They're going to need a full schedule to keep HRR from plummeting regardless, so I imagine the players prefer it to the alternative.
The one thing that isn't clear is whether they've cooked the books again with regard to calculating HRR.
If the calculus is the same, and 50/50 is using the same parameters as the 57/43, meaning it's apples to apples (merely fewer apples), on top of no rollback... then that's something the players might want to take, in my opinion. It might not get a whole lot better than that, and it puts money in players' pockets this season.
If they're still fudging how you arrive at HRR, then that's a non-starter. If not, then that's a significant offer.
The one thing that isn't clear is whether they've cooked the books again with regard to calculating HRR.
If the calculus is the same, and 50/50 is using the same parameters as the 57/43, meaning it's apples to apples (merely fewer apples), and there is no rollback... then that's something the players might want to take, in my opinion. It might not get a whole lot better than that, and it puts money in players' pockets this season.
I believe it was stated that the proposal didn't change HRR definitions.
I expect the players will want to make some changes to the contract proposals (an extra year to UFA might not be a big deal, but a 5 year cap probably is) but if nothing else, this should be something to build on. If the NHL is proposing seriously getting them back whatever they'd lose this year to the 57%->50% shift, they'd be crazy not to try and make something out of it.
Thanks. Good start, then. There will no doubt be details to work out, probably swapping Olympic participation for the league's proposed conference and schedule proposal from last season, etc. As a basic framework, though? This seems close. This seems like reason for genuine optimism, depending on how Fehr responds.
The league would be well served not to attack UFA too aggressively, in my opinion. Now what about long contracts? That one ought to be on the table, in addition to restrictions on the degree to which you can front-load those deals. A basic UFA age discussion could be a deal breaker under certain circumstances, though.
I have to say... that one makes sense. It's quite simply a way to allow rich teams to bury mistakes, which poor teams can't afford to do. I favor that loophole closure in a capped environment.
Now five-year contracts max, and four-year rookie deals? That's a starting point and not an end point, I'll bet, if the NHL really wants 82 games. I'd wager they end up at the same three-year ELC, and seven years maximum, maybe, with more restrictions on the deviation in any one year compared to other years in the deal.
I have to say... that one makes sense. It's quite simply a way to allow rich teams to bury mistakes, which poor teams can't afford to do. I favor that loophole closure.
Now five-year contracts max, and four-year rookie deals? That's a starting point and not an end point, I'll bet, if the NHL really wants 82 games.
The loophole aspect of it has always been overblown. The offseason cap is sacrosanct, so in effect all it does is give teams an extra 5% (or whatever) to work with if they can afford to. Not that I'm against that sort of change, I really don't care either way and if the players would rather have the security of NHL jobs than the potential for extra money that might be opened up, more power to them.
The ELC thing is an interesting question. Honestly, it should be an easy "concession" for the PA to accept because it effects nobody currently under contract... I mean I realize they have an interest in their future members' rights as well, but to me that seems like an easy bone for them to throw in in order to get a better deal somewhere else.
82 games is too long, and games should be cut out of the schedule.
Optimistic about the return of hockey, but don't know whether Ovechkin will come back or not if and when the league does end the lockout. He has threatened that he will stay in the KHL for the remainder of the year
82 games is too long, and games should be cut out of the schedule.
Optimistic about the return of hockey, but don't know whether Ovechkin will come back or not if and when the league does end the lockout. He has threatened that he will stay in the KHL for the remainder of the year
Cutting out games = cutting revenues. The hit due to the lockout should be bad enough for the league's health without cutting it even further. Neither side will ever want that if they can avoid it.
Interesting inclusion. Ends up making the available money pool for players a bit smaller unless guys like Redden are grandfathered in.
i think this is a bone for the players who very much didnt like seeing sheldon souray who could still play in the nhl buried in the ahl because of his salary
i think this is a bone for the players who very much didnt like seeing sheldon souray who could still play in the nhl buried in the ahl because of his salary
It's an odd thing. Logically speaking, any player with confidence in his ability to not suck should love the rule. More money available to them given the same share. Any player not confident should be so-so on it; on the one hand, there's the risk of being sent down and playing in the AHL with fewer amenities etc. On the other hand, while doing so you don't pay anything into escrow.
Like I said, if the players want the extra security wrt quality of life vs. the extra money, more power to them.
