2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

The problem is that a team can already do that and sign the so-called stars to max deals.  There just aren't that many stars and the league has done a good job of providing all players with a decent salary and not mins.

But, as Potvin pointed out, that's in large part because the best players aren't eating up significant chunks of a team's cap space and are instead signing deals with relatively low AAV's and long terms. Were that to change, and with a hard cap in place, it would be the guys in the middle who felt the squeeze.

 

[bustaheims]

So, as the PA have argued, you'll have an "NBA-style" situation where a few players at the top make a huge proportion of the salary, and the rank-and-file guys get squeezed down to the minimum.

Here's a good explanation of it, and as well demonstrates how it was the lesser players who saw huge salary growth in % terms during the last CBA, not the star players: http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=5098

They're already kind of there - maybe with a little more stratification than the NBA, but, that's about it. Right now, the top 50 earners are set to receive more than 20% of the players' share from the expired CBA and the top 100 earners are set to receive close to 35% it. With the 20% limit for max player salaries and a hard cap, there's a limit on how much that will change. What we'd likely see is less stratification, but, also, less real dollars in difference between the top earners on new contracts and the bottom earners on new contracts, simply due to the unfeasibility of building a competitive NHL roster than contains multiple guys with ~$10M+ cap hits with a cap that's in the $65-$75M range.

 

[bustaheims]

But, as Potvin pointed out, that's in large part because the best players aren't eating up significant chunks of a team's cap space and are instead signing deals with relatively low AAV's and long terms. Were that to change, and with a hard cap in place, it would be the guys in the middle who felt the squeeze.

I'm not so sure they would, because, individual players have less impact on a team's success in the NHL than they do in the NBA.

 

[Kin]

I'm not so sure they would, because, individual players have less impact on a team's success in the NHL than they do in the NBA.

I'm not sure what relevance that has. It's pretty basic stuff. If there's a hard cap and the % eaten up by the few guys at the top increases then it's going to come at the expense of who's getting that % now.

 

[Kin]

What we'd likely see is less stratification, but, also, less real dollars in difference between the top earners on new contracts and the bottom earners on new contracts, simply due to the unfeasibility of building a competitive NHL roster than contains multiple guys with ~$10M+ cap hits with a cap that's in the $65-$75M range.

Except that the argument goes that the market for the players in the middle will soften. So teams of the exact same composition will exist, the salaries will just be distributed differently. If a Crosby or a Parise are comparatively less important to a team than a Lebron or a Kobe then so is, say, a Jason Garrison to Jason Terry.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm not sure what relevance that has. It's pretty basic stuff. If there's a hard cap and the % eaten up by the few guys at the top increases then it's going to come at the expense of who's getting that % now.

Well, that's assuming it's going to increase. I don't think it will. It'll either stay roughly where it is in terms of real dollars - which, as I showed in another post, already has some of the effect you're suggesting - or the players at the top will see their salaries become more in line with the cap hits players of that calibre have now. Considering the depth required to win in the NHL, I really would not be surprised to see the latter winning out over the former.

 

[bustaheims]

Except that the argument goes that the market for the players in the middle will soften. So teams of the exact same composition will exist, the salaries will just be distributed differently. If a Crosby or a Parise are comparatively less important to a team than a Lebron or a Kobe then so is, say, a Jason Garrison to Jason Terry.

I'd strongly disagree. I'd say the middle tier players are much more important to an NHL team's success than they are to an NBA team's success. In the NBA, your top guys play 80%+ of the game. In the NHL, that's unfeasible. An NHL team requires more depth to be successful, if for no other reason than the size of the roster and the percentage of game played by each player.

The real truth here is that comparing the NBA and the NHL and their CBAs is a fruitless process due to the extreme differences in the sports, the make up their respective rosters and the financial systems both league employ. It's not really an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Kin]

Well, that's assuming it's going to increase.

No, it's positing if that happens. Hence my clever use of the word "if".

Considering the depth required to win in the NHL, I really would not be surprised to see the latter winning out over the former.

Considering the NHL clubs' history of making prudent decisions when the chasing of elite Free Agents, I'm pretty comfortable with my position being where it is.

 

[hockeyfan1]

SportsBizNews @TheSportMarket ... only 12% of current NHL contracts are 5+ years, 88% of @NHLPA do not have long term deals

"I understand how important it is to have a strong league and 30 healthy teams," Tanenbaum said. "I must admit that I was shocked at how things have played out over the last 48 hours. The sessions on Tuesday felt cooperative with an air of goodwill. I was optimistic and conveyed my optimism to the Board of Governors at our Wednesday meeting. However, when we reconvened with the players on Wednesday afternoon, it was like someone had thrown a switch."

Source: SBN

 

[Kin]

I'd strongly disagree. I'd say the middle tier players are much more important to an NHL team's success than they are to an NBA team's success. In the NBA, your top guys play 80%+ of the game. In the NHL, that's unfeasible. An NHL team requires more depth to be successful, if for no other reason than the size of the roster and the percentage of game played by each player.

Well, I'd argue that in the NHL the most important guys can play 100% of the game, something unfeasible in the NBA but at that point we're veering somewhat off topic. Anyways, without getting too deep into it just with using your time based argument it still holds. A guy like Jason Terry will play in a significantly greater percentage of the game(right now about 60%) then a guy like Jason Garrison will.

 

[skippy]

SportsBizNews @TheSportMarket ... only 12% of current NHL contracts are 5+ years, 88% of @NHLPA do not have long term deals

"I understand how important it is to have a strong league and 30 healthy teams," Tanenbaum said. "I must admit that I was shocked at how things have played out over the last 48 hours. The sessions on Tuesday felt cooperative with an air of goodwill. I was optimistic and conveyed my optimism to the Board of Governors at our Wednesday meeting. However, when we reconvened with the players on Wednesday afternoon, it was like someone had thrown a switch."

Source: SBN

I don't have a horse in this race, but the longer this goes on, the worse the players look.

 

[rdowdall]

SportsBizNews @TheSportMarket ... only 12% of current NHL contracts are 5+ years, 88% of @NHLPA do not have long term deals

"I understand how important it is to have a strong league and 30 healthy teams," Tanenbaum said. "I must admit that I was shocked at how things have played out over the last 48 hours. The sessions on Tuesday felt cooperative with an air of goodwill. I was optimistic and conveyed my optimism to the Board of Governors at our Wednesday meeting. However, when we reconvened with the players on Wednesday afternoon, it was like someone had thrown a switch."

Source: SBN

I don't have a horse in this race, but the longer this goes on, the worse the players look.

Maybe that's part of the problem to a certain degree.  Both sides should realize that this is hurting the sport in general that, I believe, most care about.  Coming out and pointing fingers and saying "They are the ones to blame" isn't really helping anyone. 

 

[Peter D.]

I can respect the PA's stance (as foolish as I may think it is), but I really don't know what their end game is.  I'll be shocked if the deal they ultimately end up taking is going to be (reasonably) better then than it is now.  In 5-7 years, we'll have players just like Recchi, Modano and Roenick look back and say it wasn't worth it.

 

[jdh1]

It's time for the players to look at Mr.Fehr and ask the question..How many more games and how much more money do we have to lose to satisfy your ego?

 

[#1PilarFan]

SportsBizNews @TheSportMarket ... only 12% of current NHL contracts are 5+ years, 88% of @NHLPA do not have long term deals

"I understand how important it is to have a strong league and 30 healthy teams," Tanenbaum said. "I must admit that I was shocked at how things have played out over the last 48 hours. The sessions on Tuesday felt cooperative with an air of goodwill. I was optimistic and conveyed my optimism to the Board of Governors at our Wednesday meeting. However, when we reconvened with the players on Wednesday afternoon, it was like someone had thrown a switch."

Source: SBN

I don't have a horse in this race, but the longer this goes on, the worse the players look.

I don't know if that's true. Granted, I've done my best to avoid this kind of talk but this article seems to suggest that the NHL is at fault.

Daly said the league had three unbreakable conditions to a deal: a five-year cap on contracts with only 5% variance between the highest and lowest yearly salaries (seven if you are re-signing with the same team), a 10-year CBA, and no limits on things like escrow, calling them ?the hill we will die on.? The players had offered eight-year maximums with 25% variance, and an eight-year CBA with an opt-out after six, and limits on escrow, and so-called compliance buyouts, which takes money off the cap. Some hill.

It was a farce. The owners have crushed them. They have gotten players to agree to a 50-50 split of revenues from 57-43, plus US$300-million in payments to honour parts of existing contracts which would be rolled back, though US$50-million of that is players paying their own pensions. They have pushed the length of the collective bargaining agreement, no matter what, and have put limits on contract lengths. They have held steady on arbitration, and age of unrestricted free agency. It is a rout. All that?s left is finding out how much of a rout it is.

..................................

On Wednesday night one owner banged on the door and tried to pull players out of the room, apparently in order to isolate them; Winnipeg defenceman Ron Hainsey said someone from the ownership side told players Wednesday night that bringing Fehr back into the room ?could be a dealbreaker.?

NHL labour negotiations come crashing down in blink of an eye

EDIT: Forgot the link.

 

[rdowdall]

THIS IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR KIDS (well, most kids anyways).

Lighter side post:

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/12/07/exclusive-bill-dalys-doom-bringing-voice-message-to-steve-fehr-audio/

 

[bustaheims]

I can respect the PA's stance (as foolish as I may think it is), but I really don't know what their end game is.  I'll be shocked if the deal they ultimately end up taking is going to be (reasonably) better then than it is now.  In 5-7 years, we'll have players just like Recchi, Modano and Roenick look back and say it wasn't worth it.

That's sort of where I've been at throughout this process. The players have a lot more to lose in missing significant time than the owners do, and, that should lead to a greater sense of urgency on their side to get a deal done. I really don't feel like we've seen that until maybe last week or so. I really believe that the best deal they're going to be offered is the one they just turned down. I mean, a number of the more moderate owners they've been counting on to better the deal were deeply involved in crafting this one. The BoG looks to be pretty entrenched right now. I'd say, at best, there will be minor tweaks to what they were presented this week.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

From Bob McKenzie

I had a player ask me how many NHLers currently have contracts with term of 6 or more years. I didn't know answer so I asked @capgeek......@capgeek said 89 players currently are on contracts longer than 5 years. But of those 89, just over half are on 6 or 7 yr deals signed as UFA or RFA with their own club. So it's obviously a projection, but 5 yr term limits on contracts could conceivably only apply to just over 40 players. Of course, you can spin those numbers either way. Such as: why is NHL so worried about a clause that affects so few players, or......Why would the PA be so adamantly opposed to 5 yr term limit when it affects so few, relatively speaking, of the membership. And without doing number crunching, many of those 40+ contracts are "backdiving" and likely not do-able in new CBA. So # is further reduced.

 

[Kin]

From Bob McKenzie

I had a player ask me how many NHLers currently have contracts with term of 6 or more years. I didn't know answer so I asked @capgeek......@capgeek said 89 players currently are on contracts longer than 5 years. But of those 89, just over half are on 6 or 7 yr deals signed as UFA or RFA with their own club. So it's obviously a projection, but 5 yr term limits on contracts could conceivably only apply to just over 40 players. Of course, you can spin those numbers either way. Such as: why is NHL so worried about a clause that affects so few players, or......Why would the PA be so adamantly opposed to 5 yr term limit when it affects so few, relatively speaking, of the membership. And without doing number crunching, many of those 40+ contracts are "backdiving" and likely not do-able in new CBA. So # is further reduced.

I've read similar sentiments before and while I understand the logic of them I do sort of think that it's largely missing the point. To me it's a little bit like asking if the odds of winning are statistically insignificant, why do so many people play the lottery? The odds of a second round draft pick becoming an NHL all-star are probably one in 50 or one in 100 but I bet if you asked every 2nd round pick from last year's draft, they'd say they're that one guy. Regardless of how realistic it is, I think that's the sort of attitude you want from hockey players. The confidence that they'll succeed despite the odds against them.

So when looking at the biggest, most lucrative contracts I don't think you can just look at the relatively small number of players who get them and say that only those players will care about whether or not those contracts are available to them. In a way, the players who have already signed the 12 year deals for huge upfront money are the least likely players to care about whether they survive to the next CBA.

More than that though I think it ignores the practical realities of the market place. The assumption then seems to be that if there's a five year cap on deals then the only current deals that would be affected would be deals that were longer than five years. Of course that's not true. Things scale. If the top tier guys get five years, the mid tier guys get 3 or 4.

 

[maplesyrup]

Dan Gelston ‏@APgelston
#NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly in email to AP: "I have no reason, nor any intention, of reaching out to the union right now."
Retweeted by adater

... and that's just the sort of childish stupidity that frustrates the hell of me.