This topic has been talked about a bit but the current CBA is set to expire in 6 months. This could have a large impact on how teams treat extensions and free agent signings this summer. We won’t see anything close to the last CBA expiry with a lost season and a firesale for some teams with a salary cap. However if there are new rules or restrictions implemented all teams could be affected.
For us we will actively trying to acquire a few players. Obviously the hope is to land a top dman. Gagner, Petry and Dubnyk are all RFA’s up for a new contracts. Smyth is a UFA likely to be resigned. We could also sign extensions for Hall, and Eberle this summer. Is it smart to make long term deals in July without fully knowing the upcoming cap figures?
Deals with lengths of 10 years plus have been an issue, and almost been a loophole for teams for cap hits. Could they limit the years? What about the clause for players over 35? Could they change that, and as a result change what we do with Khabby? There are lots of unknowns that could really change this team moving forward.
As well, what changes do you think should be made with the new CBA? New rules, salary cap figures, etc.
1) A 1-time amnesty buyout. Looking your way Horcoff.
2) A league-wide rollback on players salaries
there would be a lockout about the 2nd one. the NHLPA seems to like to throw as much weight as possible. Horcoff looks like that leg injury that has hindered him for a few seasons is finally starting to go away. i just hope the cap goes up and that all vets are signed for less than 4 mill
One thing that will be quite interesting is to see how the teams operate in July with the new CBA on the horizon. The cap on July 1 could well be $69M or so. Will teams try and take advantage of the big cap increase and throw money around hoping that there will be a general role-back or amnesty to save their bacon?
I'm not sure I understand why an amnesty buyout would be a CBA bargaining chip. The cap is there to ensure the players don't get more that their 54% share. If there was a buyout without a cap hit, wouldn't that be giving the players side more than their share?
I'm not sure I understand why an amnesty buyout would be a CBA bargaining chip. The cap is there to ensure the players don't get more that their 54% share. If there was a buyout without a cap hit, wouldn't that be giving the players side more than their share?
What am I missing?
The NHLPA represents all of its players. Even those with bad contracts. As such it is a negotiation issue.
You are correct though that last time the buyouts were excluded from the player's share. That is also something that had to be collectively bargained.
I'm personally against the amnesty idea. Teams should have to deal with their poor decisions.
It'll only be included if they make changes to the CBA that could unfairly penalize team(s) that had no reasonable expectation that such a change was coming.
On a business site we were discussing Fehr and I think many people fail to understand how he works. This is not the Bob Goodenough type of NHLPA boss and he he a lot more experience then any of the previous NHLPA bosses
here are a few things that the NHLPA may ask for
1) No hard cap
2) no floor
3) 10 year 5 rule in the NHL--in MLB if you are a ten year vet on the same team for 5 years you can veto a trade or the ability for to veto trade
4) raise in the league min
A lot of people are looking at things from the NHL point of view and not the NHLPA. Fehr is a different boss and he has spent the last year learning. The vetoing of the rejigging of how the conferences looked was but a warning shot
my prediction is we will lose another season or part of one.
Fehr is the guy who agreed to play a season will they negotiated a new CBA and ask Montreal Expos fans about that.
I have a few southern relatives and they had a saying that jumps to mind--"bad moon rising" and that is what is coming
__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO
On a business site we were discussing Fehr and I think many people fail to understand how he works. This is not the Bob Goodenough type of NHLPA boss and he he a lot more experience then any of the previous NHLPA bosses
here are a few things that the NHLPA may ask for
1) No hard cap
2) no floor
3) 10 year 5 rule in the NHL--in MLB if you are a ten year vet on the same team for 5 years you can veto a trade or the ability for to veto trade
4) raise in the league min
A lot of people are looking at things from the NHL point of view and not the NHLPA. Fehr is a different boss and he has spent the last year learning. The vetoing of the rejigging of how the conferences looked was but a warning shot
my prediction is we will lose another season or part of one.
Fehr is the guy who agreed to play a season will they negotiated a new CBA and ask Montreal Expos fans about that.
I have a few southern relatives and they had a saying that jumps to mind--"bad moon rising" and that is what is coming
Just curious why you'd want to see no hard cap. I think having one was the best thing the NHL ever did.
On a business site we were discussing Fehr and I think many people fail to understand how he works. This is not the Bob Goodenough type of NHLPA boss and he he a lot more experience then any of the previous NHLPA bosses
here are a few things that the NHLPA may ask for
1) No hard cap 2) no floor
3) 10 year 5 rule in the NHL--in MLB if you are a ten year vet on the same team for 5 years you can veto a trade or the ability for to veto trade
4) raise in the league min
A lot of people are looking at things from the NHL point of view and not the NHLPA. Fehr is a different boss and he has spent the last year learning. The vetoing of the rejigging of how the conferences looked was but a warning shot
my prediction is we will lose another season or part of one.
Fehr is the guy who agreed to play a season will they negotiated a new CBA and ask Montreal Expos fans about that.
I have a few southern relatives and they had a saying that jumps to mind--"bad moon rising" and that is what is coming
I'm more curious about this one.
Seems like something the owners would rather have than the players. Seems to be fair if there's a cap on the max a team can spend there should be something that keeps the cheapskates in line.
Id really like to see them go to a 3-2-1 point system.
3 for a regulation or overtime win.
2 for a shootout win.
1 for a overtime or shootout loss.
Id also like to see a max on contract length. 6 maybe 7 should be the maximum allowed. No more 12 or 15 year contracts.
they dont like that system because it would dilute parity. its better for the league to have 25 teams in a playoff race until the last 2 weeks of the season.
No arbitration - you don't like what you are being offered, exercise your RFA rights and test the market.
Flexible Cap Hits - get rid of AAV cap hits, this would serve two purposes: allow you to better plan your team (like the increase in budget going to an emerging star, or decrease of an aging one, while still giving the player multi year security). This would also serve to eliminate front loaded contracts for the purpose of cap circumvention, you could still front load them, but you'd need more space today.
No contract hiding/cap amnesty - what ever you are paying on 1 way contracts should count against the cap. if you buy a player out it should count against the cap, if you send them to the AHL, it should count, if you are loaning them in europe, whatever you actually have to pay them should count against the cap.
No re-entry waivers - man this is a stupid system, if im calling him back up, hes going to play in the NHL, dont deter me from making a hockey move. perhaps integrate 2 forms of downward waivers: one at full price and one at half price. but dont prevent me from calling up a guy in my system to play on my NHL team.
Add a second BO option - be able to buyout players at the same amount as you can today, but without prolonging the effect EX: buying khabby out would give us something like 1.4M cap hit for 2 years, just let me pay 2.8 on the cap this year.
At this point I'm just hoping for a full season. At this point, that's a question mark.
While I can't disagree that there's a chance the season will be cancelled or shortened, I'm hard pressed to think it actually will be.
The '05 cancellation was as much about egos as it was about the economics of the game. Bettman and Goodenow were out to prove themselves and were entrenched to win their position. I don't think Bettman has anything to prove right now as Stern has passed him in most disliked Commissioner in sports and, overall, hockey is healthy. Fehr isn't there to prove anything - he could be comfortably retired right now if he wanted to be.
I'm quite optimistic a fair deal will be reached.
I'm less convinced that as fans we'll be treated to more Olympic participation.
Just curious why you'd want to see no hard cap. I think having one was the best thing the NHL ever did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanmoreMike
I'm more curious about this one.
Seems like something the owners would rather have than the players. Seems to be fair if there's a cap on the max a team can spend there should be something that keeps the cheapskates in line.
I used to follow baseball far more then I followed hockey. Donald Fehr does not like caps--high or low.
If he gets his way he will put a salary tax on teams that want to spent lots of money.
Remember, I am taking this from the NHLPA point of view. Fehr likes the Luxury Tax system.
As for the floor--there was a report last year that the teams struggling at the gate wanted it gone because they felt as though they were being forced to play players they could not afford.
here is a brief example of how the MLB luxury cap works
not from any media but from an on line Q and A
MLB's current collective bargaining agreement sets a 'payroll threshold' each season that is somewhat similar to a salary cap. For the 2007 season, this threshold has been set at $148 million ($155 million in 2008). Should the average annual value of a team's total salary contracts surpass this threshold in any year, they pay a 'tax' on the amount over the threshold. The tax is graduated such that a team pays a progressively higher percentage every year it exceeds the threshold, to a maximum of 40%. As an example, when Roger Clemens signed with the Yankees this season, his salary was reported at $18.5 million. But since the Yankees have already exceeded the payroll threshold several times, they were forced to pay the maximum luxury tax on his salary of 40%. Applied to Clemens' salary, the tax comes to $7.4 million. So in actuality, Clemens is costing the Yankees $25.9 million this season.
The Luxury Tax is also called the 'Competitive Balance Tax'. Ironically, the money from the tax isn't distributed to smaller market teams to promote competitive balance. Instead, it goes into an 'Industry Growth Fund' that MLB uses for player benefits and to promote the growth of baseball around the world. Money is distributed to smaller revenue teams, but that money comes from MLB's revenue sharing program, which is entirely separate and independent of the luxury tax.
This is one thing I did not realize until today. If a team wins their division, they can get at least a playoff spot and a 1-3 seed in the conference. I thought its the top eight in each conference that makes it. Unless I am misunderstanding something. That should be changed in the next CBA if its applicable to that.
Last edited by cpnfantstk: 03-04-2012 at 06:33 PM.
The owners aren't going to budge. At this point, flushing an entire year would just let RNH get some more muscle on his frame, and Katz gets more time to get the arena built. It would also allow some of the young d in the system to get a year older, which might not be a bad thing for the Oilers either, since Tambo seems to think that they will save the blueline. There might some small concessions made by the owners, but the players are going to get shafted again.
I'm having trouble caring. It's not like this team is going to be fighting for a playoff spot a year from now, barring some major renovations that the management isn't qualified to make. I also can't see buying out Horcoff even if we could due to an amnesty. You just know the braintrust will buy out Belanger instead...
Also another idea for the CBA, at least the lottery draft:
David Staples wrote about it in his blog and BB will probly touch about it in the news report thread tommorow, but it is a fantastic idea. Basically instead of reverse order standings and lottery system for the draft, the teams would have to win once eliminated.
So once a team gets mathmatecially eliminated they start counting points and the team with the most points wins the right for first overall. So if a team is really bad they are eliminated early so have more games to earn points. Conversely if a team is elimated with few games left they only have a few games for points.
So the blog goes more in depth and sheds some reasons for this idea and also what the standings would have been like last year.
I used to follow baseball far more then I followed hockey. Donald Fehr does not like caps--high or low.
If he gets his way he will put a salary tax on teams that want to spent lots of money.
Remember, I am taking this from the NHLPA point of view. Fehr likes the Luxury Tax system.
As for the floor--there was a report last year that the teams struggling at the gate wanted it gone because they felt as though they were being forced to play players they could not afford.
here is a brief example of how the MLB luxury cap works
not from any media but from an on line Q and A
MLB's current collective bargaining agreement sets a 'payroll threshold' each season that is somewhat similar to a salary cap. For the 2007 season, this threshold has been set at $148 million ($155 million in 2008). Should the average annual value of a team's total salary contracts surpass this threshold in any year, they pay a 'tax' on the amount over the threshold. The tax is graduated such that a team pays a progressively higher percentage every year it exceeds the threshold, to a maximum of 40%. As an example, when Roger Clemens signed with the Yankees this season, his salary was reported at $18.5 million. But since the Yankees have already exceeded the payroll threshold several times, they were forced to pay the maximum luxury tax on his salary of 40%. Applied to Clemens' salary, the tax comes to $7.4 million. So in actuality, Clemens is costing the Yankees $25.9 million this season.
The Luxury Tax is also called the 'Competitive Balance Tax'. Ironically, the money from the tax isn't distributed to smaller market teams to promote competitive balance. Instead, it goes into an 'Industry Growth Fund' that MLB uses for player benefits and to promote the growth of baseball around the world. Money is distributed to smaller revenue teams, but that money comes from MLB's revenue sharing program, which is entirely separate and independent of the luxury tax.
No players union likes caps. But it should be 100% clear that no cap means no hockey for a long long time.
What Fehr did in baseball cannot be repeated in the NHL. The economics of the sports are completely different.
