Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
What the NHLPA will like about NHL offer: status quo on UFA and salary arbitration.
Quote:
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
What NHLPA may not like about NHL proposal: $300M Make Whole, up from $211M offer, which more or less splits difference on NHLPA ask $393M.
Quote:
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
Of the $300M NHL proposed for Make Whole, $250M is Make Whole and $50M is for pension funding that would not come out of the players' share.
Quote:
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
What NHLPA definitely won't like about NHL offer: 5 year term limit on contracts (except 7 for own UFAs), 5% variance, 10 year term for CBA.
Quote:
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
Couple of other details emerging: NHL proposal for 10 year CBA term contains an opt-out clause after 8 years. So it could be an 8 year deal.
My idea of a compromise
61 game schedule 2012/2013
Rework a prorated system to adjust to the lockout consequences for year one regarding salaries and cap space
Definition of HRR remains the same
50/50 Revenue split
Make whole agreement according to latest NHL proposal
Status quo on UFA and salary arbitration
Revenue sharing index raised - based at starting at 200 M for year one (prorated for a shorter schedule)
6 year term limit on contracts (except 9 for own products that entered the NHL with that team and are UFAs)
8% variance on contracts
Two week compliance buyout period before season starts
Two Way Contract Fix with minor league teams that all players with new contracts over 500.000 count against NHL cap
Draft and UFA period according to NHL proposal
Allow buying of cap space by Dollars allowed to Be Traded Between Teams
A Luxury Tax Paid To Go Over the Cap by 10% maximum
Reinstate bonus system from last CBA
Re-work the NHL Discipline System
Bunk-beds mandatory on the road until you reach RFA status (for Mr Jacobs)
10 year CBA term contains an opt-out clause after 8 years
Get er done!
Ooops - almost forgot. Honorable discharge for Mr Bettman
Variance is nearly irrelevant at that amount. Compromise on contract years. I'm just saying if NBA is the model and contract years are getting that low, they have ufa after, what, 4 years? Is that where we all want this to go?
I think 61 games is a huge eff you to sponsors. I wouldn't doubt that conversation happened between gary and nbc.
I just don't get why the NHLPA has such a huge problem with contract length limits. Right now there are just 22 players with a deal longer than the future limit of seven years for own players. Now if they could maybe meet at 6/8 years, then it's just 42 players overall with 7+ year contracts and 18 players with 9+. And we all know that most of those contracts won't be fulfilled by the players anyway.
It really is only an issue for very few very good players. And they will earn more than enough money, no matter what CBA.
It's a few things. That's two contract controls and in all honesty the variance fixes the loophole and essentially kills long term deals. So the question can be asked why the owners want both.
Also, the pa will lose more next time. At least they need to plan for that. Give it away now, and you will give up something else later.
Finally, what are they getting for the concessions?
I'm not trying to re-open a huge debate. This is bargaining 101. I'm not making a statement on worker rights or fairness. Why do the players care? Future negotiations.
The NHL wants some type of restrictions on the dummy contracts. The NHL has offered to keep free agency at 7 or 27 and arbitration at 4 years for players signing their SPC between 18-20 which is most of the NHL players. The make whole was upped to $300M with $50M going towards the pension program. Now there's an issue between the pension systems in the US and Canada. Less taxes in the US. Wait a few weeks,that won't be issue. Teams can re-sign their own players for 7 years MAX. 5 years for a free agent. We discussed that here. Give teams an extra year to keep their players like the NBA does. The NHL wants the 5% variance. Two weeks ago,the NHL indicated they were flexible with the 5%. Can they up the contract term limits to 6 years for free agents? The NHL left some compromise between 5 and 7.
Quote:
Been told for months players more likely to give on variance than strict term limit, preserving DiPietro deals. Still believe that the case.
I think players really want the potential security of long term deals and that's why they're hesitant to lose that. Even if it's not a back diving retirement contract, being locked in to a long deal is great for them because if anything happens (injury, become the next Scott Gomez) then they have the security of that deal and will still be getting paid
The NHL wants some type of restrictions on the dummy contracts. The NHL has offered to keep free agency at 7 or 27 and arbitration at 4 years for players signing their SPC between 18-20 which is most of the NHL players. The make whole was upped to $300M with $50M going towards the pension program. Now there's an issue between the pension systems in the US and Canada. Less taxes in the US. Wait a few weeks,that won't be issue. Teams can re-sign their own players for 7 years MAX. 5 years for a free agent. We discussed that here. Give teams an extra year to keep their players like the NBA does. The NHL wants the 5% variance. Two weeks ago,the NHL indicated they were flexible with the 5%. Can they up the contract term limits to 6 years for free agents? The NHL left some compromise between 5 and 7.
The 5% variance would mean the salary can't anymore than 5% year by year, no? Wasn't that one of their more pressing issues? Just get them to agree to that and drop the year limit.
I just don't get why the NHLPA has such a huge problem with contract length limits. Right now there are just 22 players with a deal longer than the future limit of seven years for own players. Now if they could maybe meet at 6/8 years, then it's just 42 players overall with 7+ year contracts and 18 players with 9+. And we all know that most of those contracts won't be fulfilled by the players anyway.
It really is only an issue for very few very good players. And they will earn more than enough money, no matter what CBA.
I don't think it's strictly the length that's an issue, rather it's the whole package--variance included. There are cap circumventing deals, such as what Kovalchuk initially signed, and then there are cap softening deals. A 5% variance with a six year limit eliminates the softening deals as well and makes it very difficult for a guy to actually get a max-length deal.
On top of that, it lowers the bar for where a player can start negotiating. You always start negotiations with more favorable terms than what you think you'll actually get. Now, players lose negotiating leverage, since they can't even ask for more than six years. They'll have to start at that point and probably settle for less. The NHLPA wants to preserve as much leverage as they can for their guys.
Finally, it has a trickle down effect on all players. The elite players will maybe get six year deals, and then the next tier of guys will have to accept less, the tier below them even less, and so on. It might not seem like it affects a ton of guys, but it eliminates a variable in the UFA market and restricts bargaining power for everyone--since free agent deals are always based on previous precedents. If elite player X has to settle for six years, then player Y who may have received 6 years under the previous system will now almost assuredly have to settle for 5 or less, and on down the line.
EDIT: I'm using six years as a max with the assumption that the owners would budge from five.
I have no idea why the players wouldn't take that deal.
It's hilarious if they reject it to preserve Rick DiPietro's money while the rest of them continue to bleed.
It's the epitome of the 1%. How is the union doing it's job protecting about 20 players while the other ones wouldn't even be affected at all?
Is it because union leadership tends to be the players more likely to get the long term contracts?
And they rally around "we want the owners to honor the deals they signed." Why? Why would the average player not want owners to be able to abrogate those deals right now? It means more money for the average players.
I have no idea why the players wouldn't take that deal.
It's hilarious if they reject it to preserve Rick DiPietro's money while the rest of them continue to bleed.
It's the epitome of the 1%. How is the union doing it's job protecting about 20 players while the other ones wouldn't even be affected at all?
Is it because union leadership tends to be the players more likely to get the long term contracts?
And they rally around "we want the owners to honor the deals they signed." Why? Why would the average player not want owners to be able to abrogate those deals right now? It means more money for the average players.
It's about far more than DiPietro.
As I said just one post above yours, a strict contract length limit and tiny year-to-year variance affects almost everyone. This is a closed economy. The terms of each contract are based on precedent. You restrict the ability of the top earners to negotiate favorable terms and that trickles down to the lesser players.
The union leadership is guys that tend to get long term contracts? Let's look at the player negotiating committee:
Craig Adams (Pittsburgh Penguins)
Adrian Aucoin (Phoenix Coyotes)
Alex Auld (Ottawa Senators)
David Backes (St. Louis Blues)
Marty Biron (New York Rangers)
Brad Boyes (Buffalo Sabres)
Chris Campoli (Montreal Canadiens)
B.J. Crombeen (St. Louis Blues)
Mathieu Darche (Montreal Canadiens)
Rick DiPietro (New York Islanders)
Shane Doan (Phoenix Coyotes)
Brandon Dubinsky (New York Rangers)
Ruslan Fedotenko (New York Rangers)
Alex Goligoski (Dallas Stars)
Ron Hainsey (Winnipeg Jets)
Scott Hartnell (Philadelphia Flyers)
Jamie Langenbrunner (St. Louis Blues)
Manny Malhotra (Vancouver Canucks)
Steve Montador (Chicago Blackhawks)
Dominic Moore (San Jose Sharks)
Brendan Morrison (Chicago Blackhawks)
Douglas Murray (San Jose Sharks)
George Parros (Anaheim Ducks)
Chris Phillips (Ottawa Senators)
Cory Schneider (Vancouver Canucks)
John Tavares (New York Islanders)
Shea Weber (Nashville Predators)
Kevin Westgarth (Los Angeles Kings)
Dan Winnik (San Jose Sharks)
James Wisniewski (Columbus Blue Jackets)
Henrik Zetterberg (Detroit Red Wings)
Are you kidding me with that statement? Yeah, there's some good players on there that are going to sign big deals down the road, but there's also Westgarth, Winnik, Parros, Campoli, Crombeen, and guys that are close to hanging them up like Biron, Morrison, Fedotenko and so on.
I have no idea why the players wouldn't take that deal.
It's hilarious if they reject it to preserve Rick DiPietro's money while the rest of them continue to bleed.
It's the epitome of the 1%. How is the union doing it's job protecting about 20 players while the other ones wouldn't even be affected at all?
Is it because union leadership tends to be the players more likely to get the long term contracts?
And they rally around "we want the owners to honor the deals they signed." Why? Why would the average player not want owners to be able to abrogate those deals right now? It means more money for the average players.
They aren't preserving DP's contract. They want to preserve those types of deals moving forward.
The 1% stuff is pure hate. Inked deals will be preserved going forward if I'm not mistaken. They aren't rewriting them, just changing rules on what can be signed.
As I said just one post above yours, a strict contract length limit and tiny year-to-year variance affects almost everyone. This is a closed economy. The terms of each contract are based on precedent. You restrict the ability of the top earners to negotiate favorable terms and that trickles down to the lesser players.
But you're not restricting cash payouts, you are restricting length.
So what exactly does "make whole" mean? Does that just mean they would honor the contracts and cap it at whatever number they have, such as the $250MM?
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
But you're not restricting cash payouts, you are restricting length.
Pay per year can still go up and will go up.
But they ARE restricting cash payout by lowering the cap/reducing the pool of HRR.
So you've got less money for the players to earn as a whole, and less security for players in their individual deals.
Even if the money stayed the same, contract lengths being shortened affects EVERYONE. And the point you tried to make in the post I quoted was that somehow the proposal only affects 20 or so players, which is patently false.
Players aren't going to go for a 5 or 6 (or even 7) year contract limit. Not from unlimited contracts. If they are going to have a maximum variance from one year to the next why does there need to be a cap? For the sake of getting a deal done perhaps the players agree to 10 years max on contracts. That's a huge philosophical move...and if they agree to even that it's a huge win for the owners...because you know that once it's in play it will be whittled down even further in the next CBA.
Players aren't going to go for a 5 or 6 (or even 7) year contract limit. Not from unlimited contracts. If they are going to have a maximum variance from one year to the next why does there need to be a cap? For the sake of getting a deal done perhaps the players agree to 10 years max on contracts. That's a huge philosophical move...and if they agree to even that it's a huge win for the owners...because you know that once it's in play it will be whittled down even further in the next CBA.
Agreed. A tight variance eliminates the need for term length, IMO.
According to Katie Strang of ESPN, the NHLPA is starting to worry about the format of the talks of the last few days which haven’t included Gary Bettman or Donald Fehr.
She says that the NHLPA is worried that the owners are using these meetings as a way to separate the players from their leader and may push to have no restrictions on who can attend. That would allow both Fehr and Bettman to return to the negotiating table.
She adds that the sessions yesterday were described as bizarre and said that they are closer in some areas but further apart in others.
Quote:
Chris Botta@ChrisBottaNHL
Talks set up well for Bettman/Fehr return, NHL to still get big concessions, players to still make big $ and play to begin Dec. 26.
Please don't let this fall apart.
__________________
Jaime Lannister has better hands than Brian Boyle.
Pushing for no limits on who can attend also opens the way for owners like Dolan and Snider to attend...it works both ways here. The players could be trying to get more voices on the owners side heard as well
I saw Marty St. Louis and another player(It looked like Mathieu Darche from looking at the headshots of the players who has attended the meetings)walking towards the Westin on 43rd. Two blocks later I saw David Backes making his way towards the hotel. He is one big dude. He had a carry on bag with him. Maybe he is going home early. The PA are having internal meetings this morning.
Wouldn't it be smart for the NHL to bump the make whole up to what the players are asking for, but keep everything else as is?
I would think that would get it done. They've been clamouring all along that they want their current contracts honored. This would accomplish that, but going forward the owners get exactly what they want. They just have to pay now to gain later.
Two blocks later I saw David Backes making his way towards the hotel. He is one big.
I'd love David Backes on NYR. Great team leader. I wont be shocked if he is the captain of team USA in the Olympics if NHL players participate. He was selected in the same draft as Hugh Jessiman.
But they ARE restricting cash payout by lowering the cap/reducing the pool of HRR.
But that's already been basically agreed to. The 50-50 split has been decided more or less.
The contracting issues are what remains, and it doesn't make sense to throw away more money so that future Rick DiPietros can get long term contracts.
Quote:
So you've got less money for the players to earn as a whole, and less security for players in their individual deals.
Even if the money stayed the same, contract lengths being shortened affects EVERYONE.
I don't agree.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds to me that what you are implying is that since top players used to get 10 year deals, and average players would get 4-5 year deals, and bottom players got 1-2 year deals...
... that since we are shortening the max deal to 5 years, that means average players will get 3 year deals and bottom players will get 1 year deals, and that will be the "trickle down effect" you are talking about.
I don't agree with that. I think the top players will get the 5 year deals and the average won't suffer shorter length deals at all, on average.
Quote:
And the point you tried to make in the post I quoted was that somehow the proposal only affects 20 or so players, which is patently false.
The players who currently get over 5 year deals are the vast minority.
Unless you believe that a trickle-down effect will occur on contract lengths for everyone, and I don't, there's really no effect for most of the players.
Guys like Del Zotto or whoever were only gonna get like 4-5 year deals anyway. All this does is bump the Brad Richards types into the 5 year range too.
“@TSNBobMcKenzie: I wouldn't try to predict how things go today but player mood last night was pretty dark. But it's emotional process. See what today brings.”
“@TSNBobMcKenzie: PA doesn't like 5 yr term limits on contracts or 10 yr term of CBA or fact that Make Whole bump to $300M is tied to accepting 10 yr CBA.”
