If this were to go into effect I'm sure it would take place from here on out. No way the NHLPA would allow it to be retroactive. All contracts signed before the lockout would remain IMO.
If the NHLPA accepts this as is, or close to as is, this will be a nice boon to franchises like the Ducks. We'd have a much better chance at retaining our big UFAs, since no team can swoop in and offer some ridiculous contract length. It also means big teams would have to really think about offering top dollar contracts, as they won't be able to bury them in the minors anymore, a la Redden.
Right now it was just an offer and the NHLPA will no doubt counter with substantial changes. I doubt the UFA age changes but do think there will be some kind of cap on contract length, probably in the range of 6-8 years.
Right now it was just an offer and the NHLPA will no doubt counter with substantial changes. I doubt the UFA age changes but do think there will be some kind of cap on contract length, probably in the range of 6-8 years.
Yeah, I can't see the players accepting 5 year max contracts.
If they take a month to respond, we can pretty much wipe out the entire season.
That wouldn't happen. The PA wouldn't intentionally sabotage the season. The worst I can see happening is they come up with a new proposal with the right amount of spin making the previous proposal look unfair, but even that won't happen.
5 year maximums are unacceptable. Hurts the teams and players interests and investments.
3 year ELC, 5 year RFA, 5 year UFA. The player is then 33. That's after their prime. If you don't want to hit UFA after the second contract then give a 3-4 year contract.
The only players getting locked up past 27-28 right now are the ones on circumvention contracts or the ones named Ovechkin and DiPietro. I'm pretty sure the Ducks don't want any part of any of those contracts.
Most likely they'll settle for 7-8 years, but if this was a "starting point" for discussions the NHL had to leave room in places to give.
That wouldn't happen. The PA wouldn't intentionally sabotage the season. The worst I can see happening is they come up with a new proposal with the right amount of spin making the previous proposal look unfair, but even that won't happen.
I know. I'm just saying that they aren't going to burn another four weeks mulling it over. If they took that amount of time, they'd be destroying any sense of negotiating in good faith.
I know. I'm just saying that they aren't going to burn another four weeks mulling it over. If they took that amount of time, they'd be destroying any sense of negotiating in good faith.
Neither side was negotiating in good faith until now.
I was being a little facetious. I don't think they'll really wait a month. However I do think they will probably take awhile. And I can't say I expect there to be a season.
Neither side was negotiating in good faith until now.
I was being a little facetious. I don't think they'll really wait a month. However I do think they will probably take awhile. And I can't say I expect there to be a season.
According to Eklund, the response is coming tonight. It's Eklund, though.
@Real_ESPNLeBrun: According to NHL offer, at least 50 percent of revenue sharing pot will be raised by top 10 revenue grossing clubs...
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: The floor for this season would be $43.9M and cap would be $59.9M altho in Year 1 teams could still spend to $70.2M but only in Year 1.
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: On trading of cap space/retaining salary, it would be limited to $3M for each contract year left or 50 per cent of AAV, whichever is less
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Each club, in any given year, tho, would be subject to a 2 contract and/or $5M limit in terms of retaining salary.
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Every NHL team would be eligible to receive revenue sharing but top 10 $ clubs responsible for contributing 50 per cent of $200M pool.
Woohoo!
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Because NHL players buried in minors (Redden etc) would count against cap, re-entry waivers would no longer exist.
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Sorry I lied. Important note on back-diving contracts (BDC). If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit
You've got to like the teams that tried to game the system even though they were told not to being punished.
I sincerely hope this makes it through the NHLPA and that Fehr doesn't screw everything up.
