31 replies to this topic

[Carmissimo]

According to Bill Daly, getting the NHLPA to agree to a five-year limit on contracts ( seven for players already under contract) is the hill owners are prepared to die on. There is one problem. That limit, if implemented would be utterly meaningless. Let's say a team wanted to lock up a player for nine years. Easy. Sign two contracts submitted simultaneously, the first for two years and the second for seven to take effect right after the first one expired.

As well, the desired cash the player wants for those nine seasons is $63m, ie an average of $7m per season. So, you take a hit early for a break later. You make the contract $9m per for thd two-year deal and that allows the second deal to be for $6.43M a season. It might be a player who is worth a salary of $8M per season in let's say the first seven of the nine seasons but for many of those seasons, the cap hit would be $6.43M.

Clearly, limiting the length of a contract in the sloppy fashion that the NHL owners are proposing is doomed to failure. I have to say that in private Fehr must have had a good laugh at the notion of the owners thinking getting their limit on contract length was a measure worth dying over.

It is clearly going to be common for players to sign short deals to be eligible for a longer one for the team of their choice. If you want to play for the Rangers and want to get a deal with the Rangers for longer than five years, it's laughably easy to do it under the system the owners are bent on fightjng for to the death.

And it's wondered why so many NHL franchises are in bad shape?

[roadtoglory]

The 5 year maximum is to stop circumvention of the salary cap. It makes sense to me that a player shouldn't be getting $10 million a season for the first 5 or 6 seasons and then $1 million for the last 3 when he may not even be playing.

The league is just trying to stop some of the owners from taking advantage of a loophole to get around the salary cap restrictions.

And clearly you have no clue how the new CBA will be written. It'll be written up by contract lawyers to prevent loopholes and ensure that the owners follow the intent of the agreement.

[SteveeBee]

Why do the owners need contract length written into a deal with the players in the first place?

Could they not agree or write their own rules between themselves?

[Carmissimo]

Lawyers also drew up the CBA in 2005 and yet here we are. As well, it has to be considered that shortening the length of contracts serves to inflate salaries, not moderate them. The more frequently a player approaches free agency, the more often he can hold outfir more money. Even though the players have their share headed to 50 per cent, if revenues go up, that still means salaries will, too. So instead of a player forfeiting free agency for around a decade, he only sets it aside for a maximum of five years or seven.

It's sad that the deal hasn't even been struck yet it's already looking even worse for the owners. Self-inflicted wounds.

[CrazyCanuckEh]

The 5 year maximum is to stop circumvention of the salary cap. It makes sense to me that a player shouldn't be getting $10 million a season for the first 5 or 6 seasons and then $1 million for the last 3 when he may not even be playing.

The league is just trying to stop some of the owners from taking advantage of a loophole to get around the salary cap restrictions.

And clearly you have no clue how the new CBA will be written. It'll be written up by contract lawyers to prevent loopholes and ensure that the owners follow the intent of the agreement.

Then just raise the league maximum that players are allowed to get and ban signing bonuses. Boom done, player signs for 10 million a season for 8 years and the cap hit stays at 10 million per season or whatever, or the player makes 10 million for 5 years and then it drops down in value because the player is older and maybe not performing well. It's impossible to gauge contract value versus performance. No contract should last more then 8 years and there should be no signing bonuses, either take the money you are offered on the contract, or don't sign it.

[Carmissimo]

Basically owners are making bad business decisions and then trying to address some of them whenever a CBA is being negotiated.

If the owners feel so strongly that they have to have a five-year limit on contracts, how's the following for a wild and crazy idea DON'T OFFER ANY THAT EXCEED FIVE YEARS.

The Leafs, with Burke as GM, have more or less adopted that approach and the last time I checked, there are no law suits pending.

How perverse is it that it's the owners who are fighting to implement a system that encourages players to explore free agency more often? The only reason contract length and variance is even an issue is that owners want to avoid having the cap hit in Year 1 impacted downward if the salary in Year 6,7,8, whatever, is lower. Well then, how's this for a simple solution, don't do it. By that I mean, don't calculate the cap hit for any season based on what the player is scheduked to earn in another season. Why is this happening in the first place?

You solve nothing by imposing a limit on contract length and variance. There are workarounds that I could come up with and I'm no lawyer. Don't you think player agents with years to pick apart the next CBA would easily render the document worthless. Based on past experience, I'd say that"s likely. They have with past CBAs so why should this one be any different.

Losing a season over this stuff is rather absurd. The longer this drags out, the less respect I have for the collective intelligence of the folks running the NHL. In my books they get a failing grade if we see momentum seriously damaged over details like the nominal contract length writtem into the next CBA. Make no mistake, cancelling a season is a momentum killer. Fans tune the game out, seek alternatives, and with each lockout, more don't come back.

The most puzzlng aspect of this scenario is that the NHL owners have a willng partner. A 50/50 revenue split was long ago agreed to. The players have made numerous concessions in the owners' direction on a number of matters and the only enhancement the owners have offered in return is to improve the pension (evidently that's off the table now). All the other so-called concessions have consisted of the owners backing off somewhat on concession demands put on the table at the beginning. If the owners had been less aggressive in demanding concessions in the first place, the lockout would have ended months ago, if not been avoided entirely.

As usual, NHL owners are coming across in all of this as rather bumbling. They seem to be rather inept at bargaining, losing months, even years, to lockouts and still paying millions to their athletes. Now they are pushng for a contract-length limitation that has the potential to be an inflationary measure, driving up salaries in the long run. The more often you have to re-negotiate a player's contract, the more you have to pay to retain his services, if that player continues to perform to a high standard. If Player X still has it at age 34 when his contract is due to expire, he can still get big money from other teams and it really doesn't matter that there is a contract limit at that point because who would want to aign a 34-year-old player to a term longer than five years?

Let's consider this carefully. Up to age 27 or seven seasons of service as an NHLer, a player is not eligible for free agency. So contract length becomes an issue mainly when free agency is looming because other teams can't really do much. So if you impose a five-season limit, it means that a player could sign a five-season deal upon achieving free agency taking him to age 32. These days, thanks to enhancements in training, including better nutrition, many players are at the peak of their game at 32, with three, four, five good years still a good possibility. That means the player could proceed to seek out an even more lucrative deal at age 32, hence making even more money than he would have by signing a seven-season contract with the team he was already playing on. The offers made to a 34-year-old player would tend to be weaker than those offered to someone at age 32. It could be that a player might just not want a deal longer than five years, even if he stays with his current team. If players opt for shorter contracts, teams end up having to pay more to retain their best talent. Why do the owners want this? Why are they apparently poised to cancel an entire season to get it? don't forget that being as teams are, according to the deal proposed by the NHL, prohibited from offering a player on their own team more than seven seasons. Yet what player would be fine with a contract that takes him only to 34? After all, he'd make more money if he hit free agency at 32 instead of 34, being as with the proposed restrictions in place, he couldn't opt to sign for a deal taking him past 34.

[Griffon1]

There is a possibility that Bettman thinks the free agent frenzy helps sell the game in small markets, thus he wants a steady stream of them coming on line.

I agree with you, it is not a wise or necessary move by the owners. If they just get the maximum contract length to 7 or 8 years, the variance shouldn't matter at all. Rich teams like the leafs, who actually have fans, will be able to offer more up front money, but why shouldn't they be able to? Perhaps that's the incentive for the small market teams to actually implement a business plan where they can make money, or relocate.

IMHO, the sides are so close that a deal should be made soon.

[Carmissimo]

There is a possibility that Bettman thinks the free agent frenzy helps sell the game in small markets, thus he wants a steady stream of them coming on line.

I agree with you, it is not a wise or necessary move by the owners. If they just get the maximum contract length to 7 or 8 years, the variance shouldn't matter at all. Rich teams like the leafs, who actually have fans, will be able to offer more up front money, but why shouldn't they be able to? Perhaps that's the incentive for the small market teams to actually implement a business plan where they can make money, or relocate.

IMHO, the sides are so close that a deal should be made soon.

Free agency has dried up, for the most part, and that has meant that the contracts picked off by the few free agents of note that are available every July have been rather pricey. It has been in the players' favour that there are so few of them available to the highest bidder. On the other hand, this arrangement being proposed by the owners is, in my view, not going to have the effect that the owners are hoping for. They think that since it makes more sense for a player to take a five-year deal than a seven that many will opt for free agency upon reaching age 27. Yet I suspect that many of them will choose to stay with their current team only not sign longer deals, hence the market will still remain limited. If you can't, as a 27-year-old, land a deal taking you through to let's say age 36, which I think has become the point at which many are retiring, it makes more sense to take a shorter deal in order to maximize your value when the next deal has to be negotiated. You have more leverage at age 32 than 34. There is appeal to inking a deal that would take you beyond 34 on account of it's hard to say what a player's worth would be at that stage in his career. There is far less appeal to signing through to 34 because then there could be a difficulty securing a good payday with the next, and likely, last contract. So, what will happen? I think what will happen is that let's say Kessel, signs a five-season extension, and then at 32 years of age, seeks another lucrative deal to close out his career, squeezing the Leafs twice instead of just the once. If the Leafs like him still, he never reaches free agency.

In other words, the market will, I suspect, remain just as restricted as ever with the difference that players will threaten to explore the free agency option more often. That means keeping your best players will, in effect, become more expensive. How expensive rounding out your roster will become depends on how much revenue grows. Even though the players' share will wind up lower at 50 per cent, if the total pot is bigger, in absolute terms, the cap could still go higher.

I do agree with you that there is nothing left that should cause a deal to not happen soon. The owners are just pushing this that extra bit further but they really have no reason to go much beyond this coming week with this process. If they do push it into 2013, how lame is that?

[Carmissimo]

As a follow-up to my comments regarding the inflationary impact that limiting contracts to five years would have, the NHLPA appears to see it that way, too. Just watched Chris Campoli interviewed on Sportsnet and he stated that the concern of the players is that the result would be bigger contracts for the top-end players resulting in less money for the mid-range players on account of cap space would be that much less.

The players are correct, in my estimation. The big-name talent with the most leverage would wind up making more money and while that's great for the Crosbys and Ovechkins, most of the league's players do not fall into that category. The owners don't care because they have the cap and would not be spending more overall. Meanwhile they would get the benefit of the publicity generated by inking big contracts. The league would be perceived to be more impressive if the top stars are making more money.

As Campoli noted, though, this would come at a price for the majority of NHLPA members. Can you blame the association for balking at a change that would hurt the majority and benefit a small group of players who are already well compensated.

Maybe the problem here is that the owners have a hard time thinking matters through. It's the same thing with them dragging their feet in the process of arriving at an agreement. They see it as smart negotiating tactics. I see it as hurting the game over the long haul. It's like the decision to expand into markets that simply don't want hockey in order to improve the chances of landing a major TV deal. The intention was to land that deal but the impact has been to have teams in trouble making it seem that hockey is struggling, especially in the US.

Let's face it, when it comes to thinking matters through in full, it's not a Bettman strength.

[gandlebot]

The exact same logic applies to the players… why, if it's damaging the the NHLPA as a whole, would the stars accept those potential huge contracts that destroy the middle class? Because, like the individual owners, individual players are in it for themselves. …I'm not saying you're not right about the Campoli issue… I'm just saying that the idea that the owners need to be protected from themselves isn't new or strange or unique to them… that's what society IS. Rules.

[roadtoglory]

Guys like Crosby and Ovechkin make a lot of money for the league, so maybe they're worth their salaries. I have a hard time feeling sorry for mid range talent that makes $2 or $3 or $4 million per season.

[CrazyCanuckEh]

I find that free agency has pretty much become a redundant thing in recent years. Long term contracts have really impacted free agency heavily as high quality players are more likely to stay with their clubs rather then going off to a new team. And that kind of thing makes the game even more boring, not to mention the free agent market in terms of a dollar value perspective, is completely screwed up now. Players who have maybe one good quality season where they get lucky and score 35 goals and expect to make 5 or 6 million a season when they generally average 20 goals and make 3.5 or 4 million dollars or whatever.

The upside is no season means that Getzlaf and Perry become free agents next summer from Anaheim and they could wind up in Toronto.

[Carmissimo]

I find that free agency has pretty much become a redundant thing in recent years. Long term contracts have really impacted free agency heavily as high quality players are more likely to stay with their clubs rather then going off to a new team. And that kind of thing makes the game even more boring, not to mention the free agent market in terms of a dollar value perspective, is completely screwed up now. Players who have maybe one good quality season where they get lucky and score 35 goals and expect to make 5 or 6 million a season when they generally average 20 goals and make 3.5 or 4 million dollars or whatever.

The upside is no season means that Getzlaf and Perry become free agents next summer from Anaheim and they could wind up in Toronto.

And under the system proposed by the owners, that would continue, only that to keep their stars, teams would have to pay more and as a result have less cap room to devote to the majority of players on the team.

Regardless, if you think that the majority of NHLPA members are fine with being put in the position of earning significantly less money, good luck with that. As well, making the NHL as a regular is not easy and it's ridiculous to think players who accomplish that feat do not deserve to be well paid. I can assure you that cap or no cap, if any number of AHLers could come up and duplicate the play of the athletes who are NHL regulars, teams would have gone that route a long time ago. There's a reason why some players are toiling in the AHL and others the NHL.

[CrazyCanuckEh]

Which pretty much leaves the league with three options. Abandon the hopeless struggle of limiting contract length to 5 years and make it 10 years for players under 25 and no contract can have a term that extends past a players age of 35, limit the dollar value that teams are allowed to sign players for (which means that you will start seeing Russian players get poached back to the KHL if they play well here), or eliminate/raise the salary cap (to say 85 million) plus get rid of the cap floor if the cap is to be raised up.

[SteveeBee]

I say that if I was Fehr I would throw this right back into the owners laps, up until now all we have heard is concessions by the players and the owners complaining they are giving way too much ground. So I think the players assoc. should instruct the owners to one time table a final offer by Tuesday, NO NEGOTIATING, one final offer and if the players do not accept it in full then no more talks until after the holidays and if that is too late, so be it.

Time to poop or get off the pot, enough nonsense, lets see if the owners even want a season at all.

[jockdent]

It's all a game, guys; and we, the fans, are not invited.

When NHL hockey does reconvene; and they DO invite us; we should graciously decline.

F_ _ k them!

[Carmissimo]

I'm not happy with what the current ownership group is doing with our game but it is our game despite this. When the new CBA is finalized later this week, best to set iit aside and enjoy the game, warts and all.

I have to admit that it would not be a bad thing if this mess led to an end to the Bettman Era. I hope, though, that this is a low point with only better days to follow, Bettman or no Bettman.

[jockdent]

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL FROM THE HUMAN SOUL!

(That's for your benefit, Carm.)

[CrazyCanuckEh]

Neither side is talking and I think the players are at a point where they are going to start exploring options that would force the season to start whether the league likes it or not. Since talks have effectively broken down, the PA pretty much only has one step that would ensure that some part of a season could be salvaged and that is to decertify. Even though it's a last ditch attempt to get the season going, at this point with such an ignorant and clearly blinded group of owners not willing to make any progress towards a CBA deal without trying to undermine the entire negotiation process and using bullying tactics to boot, the players by now should be more then willing to support decertification if they want to get back to playing in the new year.

[jockdent]

Neither side is talking and I think the players are at a point where they are going to start exploring options that would force the season to start whether the league likes it or not. Since talks have effectively broken down, the PA pretty much only has one step that would ensure that some part of a season could be salvaged and that is to decertify. Even though it's a last ditch attempt to get the season going, at this point with such an ignorant and clearly blinded group of owners not willing to make any progress towards a CBA deal without trying to undermine the entire negotiation process and using bullying tactics to boot, the players by now should be more then willing to support decertification if they want to get back to playing in the new year.

Can you explain to me how decertification can get the season started, whether the owners like it or not?

It's the owners' arenas; if they don't want to make them available to the players; why would they have to?