• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bustaheims said:
Andy007 said:
I would think that the max contract length would be another hold up. The PA offered 8 an yr max and I doubt they go as low as 6.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think that'll be much of an issue. The league offered 6 and 7, the PA last offered 8 flat. Odds are they compromise here and settle at 7 flat.

Variance will be a bigger issue. The PA's latest proposal allowed for a drop of up to 75% over the life of a contract or an increase of up to 300% over the life of a contract. The league has just offered 10% per season either way, which works out to slightly less than 47% drop over a 7 year deal or slightly more than 77% increase over a 7 year deal.
Click to expand...

I read "Year to year salary variability will be limited (up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC".
 
Frank E said:
I read "Year to year salary variability will be limited (up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC".
Click to expand...

Well, that changes things a little, but, still leaves it a fair distance from where the PA is. It would mean 7 year contracts could conceivably drop up to 60%, but, they wouldn't be able to grow more than 60% either.
 
It's an interesting proposal. Buried near the bottom are things like going from the current draft lottery system to one like the NBA's, which I like, and things like a change to drug testing which may have been in other offers because it strikes me as a strange thing to bring up now.
 
bustaheims said:
Frank E said:
I read "Year to year salary variability will be limited (up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC".
Click to expand...

Well, that changes things a little, but, still leaves it a fair distance from where the PA is. It would mean 7 year contracts could conceivably drop up to 70%, but, they wouldn't be able to grow more than 70% either.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm going crazy here, and that's entirely possible, but if the variability is limited to 10% of year one, that's only $500K of variability on a $5mil cap hit contract...no?
 
bustaheims said:
Well, that changes things a little, but, still leaves it a fair distance from where the PA is. It would mean 7 year contracts could conceivably drop up to 60%, but, they wouldn't be able to grow more than 60% either.
Click to expand...

Am I completely off or doesn't it mean that no year can vary by more than 10%, not that the 10% stacks every year.
 
Nik V. Debs said:
Am I completely off or doesn't it mean that no year can vary by more than 10%, not that the 10% stacks every year.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about over the life of a 7 year contract. If the first year is $10M than the 7th could be as low as $4M - or, at least, that's how I read it.
 
Frank E said:
Maybe I'm going crazy here, and that's entirely possible, but if the variability is limited to 10% of year one, that's only $500K of variability on a $5mil cap hit contract...no?
Click to expand...

$500K per season., which would mean up to $3M by the end of a 7 year deal.
 
bustaheims said:
Frank E said:
Maybe I'm going crazy here, and that's entirely possible, but if the variability is limited to 10% of year one, that's only $500K of variability on a $5mil cap hit contract...no?
Click to expand...

$500K per season., which would mean up to $3M by the end of a 7 year deal.
Click to expand...

I read it as variability of 10% of year one, in any given year of the contract.
 
Frank E said:
bustaheims said:
Frank E said:
Maybe I'm going crazy here, and that's entirely possible, but if the variability is limited to 10% of year one, that's only $500K of variability on a $5mil cap hit contract...no?
Click to expand...

$500K per season., which would mean up to $3M by the end of a 7 year deal.
Click to expand...

I read it as variability of 10% of year one, in any given year of the contract.
Click to expand...

Yeah, same here. Again, I could be wrong but the lack of "per season" in the relevant text is what makes me think that.
 
Frank E said:
I read it as variability of 10% of year one, in any given year of the contract.
Click to expand...

I have my doubts the league would propose anything that restrictive, as they know there's no way the PA would be on board with it. I'm relatively certain it's meant as 10% per season.
 
Nik V. Debs said:
Yeah, same here. Again, I could be wrong but the lack of "per season" in the relevant text is what makes me think that.
Click to expand...

I guess my way of thinking is, if they meant it that way, they would have worded it as no season being valued at less then 90% of the 1st season of a multi-year SPC, in order to avoid any issues of ambiguity.
 
bustaheims said:
I guess my way of thinking is, if they meant it that way, they would have worded it as no season being valued at less then 90% of the 1st season of a multi-year SPC, in order to avoid any issues of ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Except I think they wanted to write the sentence to include swings both ways. The idea that the NHL would be proposing a system that would allow for deals to start at 12 million and work down to 4.8 doesn't really strike me as being in line with their way of thinking.
 
Nik V. Debs said:
Except I think they wanted to write the sentence to include swings both ways. The idea that the NHL would be proposing a system that would allow for deals to start at 12 million and work down to 4.8 doesn't really strike me as being in line with their way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Well, that's easily solved by adding "and no more than 110% of the 1st year" in what I previously wrote. It's a much more definite and clear statement, if that was what they wanted - and that's how you approach the creation of a legal document. You'd want as little ambiguity as possible. If the league only wanted that 10% range, they would have stated it much more explicitly than what's been laid out. The league has also been pretty clear that they're not against front or back loaded contracts, but rather, they're against unbalanced "back diving" contracts." A 10% maximum shift per season eliminates the latter without eliminating the former.
 
bustaheims said:
Well, that's easily solved by adding "and no more than 110% of the 1st year" in what I previously wrote. It's a much more definite and clear statement, if that was what they wanted - and that's how you approach the creation of a legal document. You'd want as little ambiguity as possible.
Click to expand...

Sure and I think the lack of "per season" does that. If I were writing the contract the way you're reading it there's no way I wouldn't include those words. The sentence would be "In addition, Salary variability will be limited (up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC per season".
 
Nik V. Debs said:
Sure and I think the lack of "per season" does that. If I were writing the contract the way you're reading it there's no way I wouldn't include those words. The sentence would be "In addition, Salary variability will be limited
(up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC per season".
Click to expand...

See, I feel the phrase "year-to-year" serves the same purpose as the phrase "per season" - and, I imagine some lawyers/agents would as well, which creates unwanted ambiguity.
 
bustaheims said:
See, I feel the phrase "year-to-year" serves the same purpose as the phrase "per season" - and, I imagine some lawyers/agents would as well, which creates unwanted ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that make it ambiguous either way though?

The other thing that leads me to see it my way is that this has been reported as a significant gulf between the two sides. Reading the way you are doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful. Again, I could be wrong but it just doesn't strike me as possible that people wouldn't be making more of a stink about how close they are if the NHL wasn't seeking peculiarly restrictive contract structures.
 
Nik V. Debs said:
Doesn't that make it ambiguous either way though?
Click to expand...

I suppose, but, it the league intends for it to be enforced in its looser definition, then the presence of ambiguity is not really an issue for them. It's also important to remember that the CBA generally doesn't refer to contracts as being defined by seasons, but rather by year or League year. With that in mind, I'm all but positive year-to-year is the equivalent of per season.

Nik V. Debs said:
The other thing that leads me to see it my way is that this has been reported as a significant gulf between the two sides. Reading the way you are doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful. Again, I could be wrong but it just doesn't strike me as possible that people wouldn't be making more of a stink about how close they are if the NHL wasn't seeking peculiarly restrictive contract structures.
Click to expand...

Well, remember, it was a significant gulf when we were talking about 5% per season variances and 5 year max UFA deals. At that point, the league was offering less than half of what the PA was asking for. This newest proposal meets them somewhere in the middle (assuming they do the logical thing and compromise on a 7 year flat contract max).
 
James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Okay, my mistake - the league says new proposal on variance would allow a contract to go from $10-million to $4-million over seven years.
 
It's certainly the hill that they will die on..I know that much.



For those that screamed that the players will never get a better deal than the last one......How's the crow? ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top