HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Dreger: NMC, NTCs could be major sticking points for next CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-03-2017, 05:17 PM
  #26
phil162888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
The 2 sides will fight over how to divide up the pie.

1) Refine definition of what makes up HRR.
2) Argue over split of HRR
3) Agree to formula on how to determine the cap ceiling and floor
4) Limit on escrow - good luck to the players to get that. They would need to accept a flat cap for a couple of years in order for escrow to decrease.
5) Contract length
6) % of contract paid as signing bonus
7) NMC/NTC provisions - Teams don't have to hand out full NTC for the duration of the contacts. A 6 year deal can have a full NTC in the first 3 years, then drops to a M-NTC with a 10 or so trade list in years 4-6 or whatever.
8) Buyout percentages - been 2/3 of remainder of contract since the salary cap (1/3 if under 26).
9) UFA age -
10) Schedule - will either side want it reduced?
11) International competitions

Goes on and on..... You have to give to get.
This should be the #1 issue from a fan and organizations perspective. These 8 year contracts absolutely kill teams. Max contracts should be similar to the NBA (not going to happen yet). I would think it should be 6 years for players resigning and 5 for players wishing to leave . UFA age could be reduced to sway the players. If the league doesn't touch that then they should reduce the buyout percentage and the subsequent cap penalty the teams face. Really the 8 yr contracts pretty much force teams to sign contracts they otherwise would like to avoid. Teams then try and find ways to circumvent via injury etc. Montreal likely knows that Price's contract is going to hurt them at some point. Teams are under immense pressure to give out these contracts or lose valuable assets for little to no return. If your an above average player and your contract is coming up and your around 30 or above the team usually is forced to sign you to a 8 yr deal that will hurt your franchise the last 1/2-1/3 of the contract.

phil162888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 05:37 PM
  #27
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32,699
vCash: 500
I think that they should get rid of NMCs but not NTC. Simple fact is if a player is good enough he won't have to worry about what happens whether he has a NMC or NTC, let players though fear being put on waivers or sent down if they don't perform to a certain level of play

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 05:48 PM
  #28
NHL Dude 120
Registered User
 
NHL Dude 120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Ethiopia
Posts: 2,748
vCash: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
It's not a small percentage. I just checked the Stars, Sharks and Bolts and all three have 8 players each with clauses on their contracts(24 of 62 players). If that ratio holds for the entire league then there could be over 30% of the NHLPA with a clause.
I've checked every team in the Atlantic division(curtosey of cap friendly, also im a sens fan) and the number of players that have any clauses are as of today

Atlantic Division
Boston: 7
Buffalo:4
Detroit:9
Florida:4
Montreal:3
Ottawa:9
Tampa:8
Toronto:7

Total:51
Avg:6.375

I'd rather not spend my day crunching numbers tbh

NHL Dude 120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 05:49 PM
  #29
BuckyDornster
Speed kills, Del.
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cumberland
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,307
vCash: 100
RFA for first two years (age 20-22 max), FA at age 22 or two years of play in the league following RFA (could go to four years maximum here)
Only one player on team gets a NMC (franchise player sort of thing), no more no-trades.
Give players 55%-60% of HRR.

Basically, tons of player movement, the end of mini-dynasties, the end of team loyalty, mercenaries abound. Players would be free agents at age 24-25, in the prime of their careers. Limit contract length to 4-5 years. Contracts longer than that limit upon lockout reduced to 5 years, so players would become free agents unable to re-sign with original teams. For example, lockout happens in 2019, if you were on a contract of 7-8 years length, it is reduced to 4-5 years. You lose your NMC, you are on the market, period.

Blow it up, let freedom reign.

BuckyDornster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 12:55 AM
  #30
yukoner88
Registered User
 
yukoner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dawson City, YT
Posts: 5,122
vCash: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckyDornster View Post
RFA for first two years (age 20-22 max), FA at age 22 or two years of play in the league following RFA (could go to four years maximum here)
Only one player on team gets a NMC (franchise player sort of thing), no more no-trades.
Give players 55%-60% of HRR.

Basically, tons of player movement, the end of mini-dynasties, the end of team loyalty, mercenaries abound. Players would be free agents at age 24-25, in the prime of their careers. Limit contract length to 4-5 years. Contracts longer than that limit upon lockout reduced to 5 years, so players would become free agents unable to re-sign with original teams. For example, lockout happens in 2019, if you were on a contract of 7-8 years length, it is reduced to 4-5 years. You lose your NMC, you are on the market, period.

Blow it up, let freedom reign.
how does this make anything better

yukoner88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 01:08 AM
  #31
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
 
CokenoPepsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
After the lockout of 2004-2005 we had several amazing free agent years and now there are none, what happened?

CokenoPepsi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 01:54 AM
  #32
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CokenoPepsi View Post
After the lockout of 2004-2005 we had several amazing free agent years and now there are none, what happened?
8 year contracts and teams locking up their key RFA's and pending UFA's to bigger contracts then they ever would have dreamed of getting back in 2005.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 02:00 AM
  #33
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,000
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Signing bonuses should definitely be discussed, if only because we're seeing incidents where the current implementation may be bending the intended functioning of the cap. i.e. players traded after their bonus is paid on July 1st to lower the actual salary for the acquiring team.

Problem is if you invert that so the team that pays the bonus takes the full cap hit for it then you open up a new exploit for the team acquiring the player to be on a significantly reduced cap hit.

Two possible solutions come to mind:

a) Make signing bonuses pro-rated, just like cap hit is, for mid-season trades. e.g. Player with a $2m signing bonus is traded from Team A to Team B exactly 25% of the way through the season. Team A retains a $500k cap hit, Team B gets a $1.5m cap hit (note: this is standard already), however Team B has to pay Team A $1.5m for their pro-rated portion of the signing bonus. Likewise if a player with a signing bonus is traded after July 1st but before the start of the season then the acquiring team is responsible for paying 100% of the bonus.

b) Impose a limit on what % of a player's annual compensation can be in signing bonuses. And/or impose a limit on what % of a contract AAV can be disproportionately paid due to signing bonuses in a midseason trade. This doesn't eliminate the issue, but could keep it within a defined limit.
It's a "signing" bonus, IMHO they should only be paid in the 1st year, which then leads to - no trading players with a signing bonus paid that year (until after the season). The no trading part shouldn't matter at this point since you aren't likely to be signing and trading anyway in most cases and players are going to be their full pay in the first year 99.9999% of the time.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 07:56 AM
  #34
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Limiting NMCs per team (max 3? 5? per team) is something owners may pursue to collude against the players, same with limiting contract length to 5-6 years. As others have stated, one GM following these parameters would put his team at a disadvantage, but if they all do then the sport (from the owners' perspective) would be improved as a whole.

While the players would enjoy more money (and thus fixing the escrow) I don't anticipate major fighting on the "money" side. To get the NMC and contract restrictions above, owners may have to lower the UFA age and toss in Olympic participation.

Crayton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 08:17 AM
  #35
BMOK33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CokenoPepsi View Post
After the lockout of 2004-2005 we had several amazing free agent years and now there are none, what happened?
Teams don't lose their home grown guys anymore. It's sort of become this way in all sports now. MLB and NHL were the final 2 holdouts but these days outside of the Tampa Rays and Oakland As almost every other MLB and NHL team can afford to dish out a massive contract to keep a player if they want to

BMOK33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 10:31 AM
  #36
lindroshomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 373
vCash: 500
Maybe giving teams designated NMC and NTC clause slots that they can trade is the answer?

Each team gets 2 NMC and 1 NTC and if they want another they can trade the slot for a season or two to another team

prioritize players and create silly trades that create headlines and stop giving players who are 33 years old five year deals with a no trade clause

lindroshomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 10:42 AM
  #37
mondo3
Registered User
 
mondo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 50
If the owner's want modifications to NMC and/or NTC, what would be a fair player demand to accept this?

mondo3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 11:08 AM
  #38
Syckle78
Registered User
 
Syckle78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Redford, MI
Country: Belgium
Posts: 9,590
vCash: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
51% trumps 49% in a vote. So you only need to do something to please the 70-80% that don't have NMC/NTC. As I stated above I don' think the NTC are a problem, to me the real problem is NMC.
Can't just look at who has one at the moment. You then have to add to the percentage the number of players that aren't yet eligible for one,players that haven't had theirs kicked in and players that who may have had one at some point. Then there's also going to be players that who may never get one but believe they're a good idea and will vote for the betterment of the group.

Besides what would the owners possibly give up in return? More money? That's highly unlikely. The Olympics sure aren't a valuable enough trade off. If the owners are serious about going after this we're in for a long lockout.

Syckle78 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 11:32 AM
  #39
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
It doesn't have to be that complicated. I think a maximum length of NMC would do the trick. Perhaps you can still sign an 8 year contract, but you can have a maximum of the first 4 years under NMC.

In return, the NHL could drop the age that players are eligible to receive a NMC to 25. This is the age a lot of players are getting married, having kids, and setting down roots and I think it's reasonable to give them some stability in their home situation. It's old enough that with the vast majority of players teams will be knowing what they're buying too.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 11:37 AM
  #40
sabresfan129103
So it begins...
 
sabresfan129103's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Amherst, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 19,930
vCash: 500
NHLPA wants to do away with or greatly reduce escrow, this will be the main point of contention in the next cba. The NHL needs a something to fight for as well. My guess is this is all posturing.

sabresfan129103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 11:38 AM
  #41
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,848
vCash: 50
NHL should scrap NMC's all-together and only give NTC's to 10-5 men like MLB

Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 11:41 AM
  #42
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Method Man View Post
NHL should scrap NMC's all-together and only give NTC's to 10-5 men like MLB
I think it's fundamentally unfair to not allow NHL players to choose where they play.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 11:45 AM
  #43
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
I think it's fundamentally unfair to not allow NHL players to choose where they play.
They don't really choose where to play with the NTC for the most part, it's more about where they don't want to play.

Would you suggest some sort of opt out or player triggered buy out of their contract? It seems like that would create more issues than anything else.

__________________
You pressed You, referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is You.
BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 12:03 PM
  #44
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfan129103 View Post
NHLPA wants to do away with or greatly reduce escrow, this will be the main point of contention in the next cba. The NHL needs a something to fight for as well. My guess is this is all posturing.
Escrow is nothing more than a math problem.

Players get 50% of HRR, period. It doesn't matter exactly what their contact says, the players' sum total of salaries can't exceed 50 %. The reason that the players lose money in escrow is that more trans are near the cap than the floor.

If you want to solve the escrow problem, change the CBA so that the cap is closer to the midpoint than the floor. That requires, maybe a single year where the cap falls by 1-2 M. Then, it's good.

It's an easy fix if only there is a math guy there to explain to everybody what's happening.

MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 12:10 PM
  #45
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,407
vCash: 500
And technically they don't even need to change the CBA. There's nothing preventing the negotiation of a negative escalator %.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 12:21 PM
  #46
thedjpd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
NHL GMs: "We need the owners and players to save us from our poor decision-making and negotiating abilities!"
NHL Players: "I have a NTC/NMC anyway, I can play as ****** as I want, not live up to the expectations, but still hold a team hostage for where I want to play and what they get if they want to move me elsewhere."

Very narrow minded view. There are plenty of examples where players don't meet the contracts they sign - which is as much a fault of the player as it is the GM who signs the contract - as there are GMs who hand them out like candy without fully thinking it through.

A max 10 team NTC or some sort of median is a compromise, and sufficient. Or whatever the correctly negotiated number is. This allows players to an extent choose where they don't want to play, which really is the main purpose, and GMs enough options to gain value out of a poor fit.

One or the other isn't the only way in business.

thedjpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 12:36 PM
  #47
tmg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfan129103 View Post
NHLPA wants to do away with or greatly reduce escrow, this will be the main point of contention in the next cba. The NHL needs a something to fight for as well. My guess is this is all posturing.
It would be greatly reduced if they didn't press the "artificially inflate the cap" button every year. Them doing that is the reason escrow numbers are as large as they are.

It seems like this is a self-solving problem. "You want smaller escrow? Give up the cap inflator button. And shazam! Smaller escrow!"

tmg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 12:45 PM
  #48
Fig
Registered User
 
Fig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,751
vCash: 50
I think keep NMC/NTC. I'd rather tweak contracts lengths. In a different thread, a poster suggested an idea about a max contract length of 5 years as an RFA, 3 as UFA. I have no problems with NTC/NMC with those contract lengths. It would suck, but far less crippling. NMC and NTC are fine when properly applied. I think they just are problematic when applied incorrectly for an excessive duration.

Probably easier to discuss contract length than killing NMC and NTC.

EDIT: This also could help to inflate individuals salaries as teams would be including long term anchor contracts in their consideration for new contracts signed.

Fig is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 01:44 PM
  #49
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 653
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedjpd View Post
NHL Players: "I have a NTC/NMC anyway, I can play as ****** as I want, not live up to the expectations, but still hold a team hostage for where I want to play and what they get if they want to move me elsewhere."

Very narrow minded view. There are plenty of examples where players don't meet the contracts they sign - which is as much a fault of the player as it is the GM who signs the contract - as there are GMs who hand them out like candy without fully thinking it through.

A max 10 team NTC or some sort of median is a compromise, and sufficient. Or whatever the correctly negotiated number is. This allows players to an extent choose where they don't want to play, which really is the main purpose, and GMs enough options to gain value out of a poor fit.

One or the other isn't the only way in business.
I don't think you can look at that in a vacuum. The entire ELC and RFA system drastically underpays players. Do we do away with that and make everyone UFAs? No, because both sides agree to artificial restrictions on the marketplace.

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 02:06 PM
  #50
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME View Post
I don't think you can look at that in a vacuum. The entire ELC and RFA system drastically underpays players. Do we do away with that and make everyone UFAs? No, because both sides agree to artificial restrictions on the marketplace.
But how can you say it under pays anyone? The cap system, with the 50% of HRR determines how much money is in the pot. That's why the owners like it.

After that, it's just the players deciding how to decide it up, and I don't think the owners care about that.

MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.