2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Joe S.]

He also posted that NHL players in the AHL will count against the NHL cap.

That's a big one, and not a real surprise either. The league definitely wanted something to deal with the circumvention contracts. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the end, what we see is a tweak to the 35+ rule.

But that's really the owners problem, not the players problem. That's the owners protecting themselves from themselves. The player gets paid either way.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

He also posted that NHL players in the AHL will count against the NHL cap.

That's a big one, and not a real surprise either. The league definitely wanted something to deal with the circumvention contracts. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the end, what we see is a tweak to the 35+ rule.

I'm curious as how they would define an "NHL" player, especially veterans.  i.e: Mike Zigomannis played at the NHL level for a couple years.  Would he count towards the cap if he signs a 2-way deal?

Probably somebody making over a certain salary? Say 2M? I can't imagine they care about the Colton Orr's or players on a peanuts type deal.

This is for the Scott Gomez/Komisarek/Bryzgalov/Luongo type contracts that are either an eternity or are too much money for the type of player.

 

[Joe S.]

No more being able to bury mistakes could be interesting.

Again, in fairness, since 2005 how many times has this actually happened? For the number of players that have come and gone in the NHL, I think it is a microscopic number.

 

[maplesyrup]

No more being able to bury mistakes could be interesting.

Again, in fairness, since 2005 how many times has this actually happened? For the number of players that have come and gone in the NHL, I think it is a microscopic number.

Not often but there have been some significant ones. Much more caution will have to be followed without that net.   

 

[Sudafederov]

That's the thing with Nik, his metaphors and analogies just don't make sense to me.

So, in that way, I'm like a bankrupt parfumerie?

Umm...Yes 

Well, you know, inasmuch as I no longer make scents.

I'll show myself out.

Please stay.  Especially now that your smites have returned to normal, fully operable levels.

Yes, everybody nose you're well liked around these parts

 

[Tigger]

Any idea what the cap ceiling/floor might be with this offer?

 

[cw]

But it's meaningless. By that logic the players could have asked for 100% of revenue and grudgingly come down to 75% and claimed a meaningful concession. The players offer has been to give up something that they have, a percentage of the league's growth, in exchange for something they want which is a guaranteed dollar number.

I don't think so. The CBA agreement ended in mid September. What you claim the players "have" is now past tense to what the players "had" under an expired contract. They certainly don't have that now. Similar to the owners, the players have nothing except a bargaining position - currently down from 57% to 53.36% (roughly).

And we've seen that trend in the previous NHL CBA, the NBA CBA and the NFL CBA. Because profits for teams left a bunch to be desired, the unions starting bargaining positions suffered accordingly. The days are long over when a new CBA automatically meant a raise.

If the reports I've seen are accurate, the NHL just delivered some concessions to the players in the collective bargaining process relative to the previous bargaining positions taken by the two parties. That may not quickly solve the dispute but it is a concession in the right direction that ultimately helps gets them to where they have to go.

Previously and roughly, on the core economic issue
http://news.hockeydraft.ca/2012/09/20/nhlpa-memo-reveals-cba-details/
the NHLPA averaged about 53.36% of hockey revenues. The NHL averaged 47.5%.

For the NHL to offer 50% today is significant movement from their bargaining positions of a month ago. It covers nearly 43% of the divide between the two parties before the offer was made.

And this announcement by Bettman rightfully highlights to the players that if they can't get this wrapped up soon, the players will start to pay for it out of their own bank accounts because there will not be a complete season of revenues.

In 2004-5, most players would tell you it wasn't worth the pay that they gave up and they never recovered the money they lost. They didn't even establish a starting bargaining position that would project them to earn more as a % of revenues in this negotiation. I see no reason why the players can expect that to play out differently this time. In fact, given the owners and players recall how poorly that lockout worked out for the players, the chances of the players being successful seem even slimmer to me this time around.

Here's some math the players are probably thinking  about:
The average NHL salary is roughly $2.4 mil (as of Nov 2011).
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863
The average NHL career is roughly 5.62 years.
http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerLengthGP.php

And since roughly half the players are half way through their careers, for the players directly involved now, 2% of their outstanding (half of their) average career pay (1% of HRR) is very roughly $134,880.

A player making the average of $2.4 mil/yr makes $29,268 per game.

If the existing players miss five games of pay bickering over 1% of HRR, they cross into a territory where they start to lose money even if they win the extra 1% HRR. Think about that.

3.36% of HHR, the difference between where the players are (53.36%) and what the NHL has proposed today (50%) works out to 15.5 NHL games in salary for the average NHL player - IF the players were to ultimately win all of 53.36% they asked for. That's the rough break even point. Any games missed beyond that, and the average player is likely to lose money they'll never recover.

18 or so owners were losing money under the last CBA anyway so I think they can afford to have more patience because unlike the existing players, they'll average more than 2.8 years (half of 5.62 average years for a player) under this new CBA agreement.

As the NHL is forbidden to address the players directly, this "concession" is also effectively final notice to the players on when they'll start losing money ... even if they got everything they asked for after sitting out a bunch of games. It's not a big window of games before the individual players lose money they'll never, ever make back.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think that message and concession from Bettman should be construed as "meaningless". The sooner they can get a deal done, odds are, the better off personally these particular players will be within reason. If and when the pendulum swings the other way in the years ahead, that would be a much better time for the players to take a stand and put the boots to the owners - when the owners have much more to lose.

To date, I don't see tons wrong with what Fehr has done. He's trying to get the best deal for his players. But if Fehr makes the same mistake Goodenow did, and gets the players into major games missed, I think he'll be doing them a disservice - losing them money they'll never get back like Goodenow did.

In another six years or whenever, when this deal expires and all either party has is a brand new bargaining position dependent more on league finances than the position their last deal ended with, those players can pick up the baton and push the envelope to maximize their pay.

There's no doubt in my mind that what the NHL offered today is quite meaningful as strikes me as a sign that they'll get a deal done in the relative near future - after a bunch of acrimony.

 

[knight]

cw's response is exactly why I lurk here.  What a thoughtful and meaningful post.

 

[lamajama]

No more being able to bury mistakes could be interesting.

Again, in fairness, since 2005 how many times has this actually happened? For the number of players that have come and gone in the NHL, I think it is a microscopic number.

Not often but there have been some significant ones. Much more caution will have to be followed without that net. 

Wade Redden....         Suck on this Rangers!

 

[bustaheims]

Real_ESPNLeBrun: Am told league offer also will allow teams to go over salary cap in Year 1 - up to $70 M max - as part of transition rules

 

[iwas11in67]

This offer has counter proposal written all over it.
This allows the NHLPA to make some changes to the offer to make it look like they got something more and 'save face'.

 

[bustaheims]

FriedgeHNIC: One issue pointed out: Entry-level deals: 2yrs. Max contract: 5 yrs. No free agency until after 8 yrs. That really clamps on 2nd contracts.

Proteautype: NHL offer includes 2-year ELC. League source says owners are happy to give 2nd contract to young talent; not happy w/3-yr contracts for duds

 

[bustaheims]

TSNBobMcKenzie: Not only is NHL proposing 5 year limit on player contract length, it's proposing the yearly salary variance can't be more than 5 per cent.

 

[bustaheims]

TSNBobMcKenzie: 1. Entry level would go from 3 to 2 yrs. 2. Salary arb eligibility would go from 4th to 5th yr. 3. UFA goes 7/27 (service/age) to 8/28.

TSNBobMcKenzie: If player comes out of entry level 1 yr earlier, is 1 yr further away from salary arb and UFA, less pressure on teams to give big contract.

 

[Kin]

I don't think so. The CBA agreement ended in mid September. What you claim the players "have" is now past tense to what the players "had" under an expired contract. They certainly don't have that now. Similar to the owners, the players have nothing except a bargaining position - currently down from 57% to 53.36% (roughly).

Again, using that logic and framed in the context of what the players have offered, then these are "concessions" that pale in comparison to the players agreeing to a fixed link between salaries and revenues and a hard cap. A movement off of an unreasonable and inflammatory offer is not a concession.

And we've seen that trend in the previous NHL CBA, the NBA CBA and the NFL CBA. Because profits for teams left a bunch to be desired, the unions starting bargaining positions suffered accordingly. The days are long over when a new CBA automatically meant a raise.

Yeah, we've gone down that road of what to take from the other pro sports leagues and their CBAs as well as what to take from starting positions. It wasn't a productive discussion then and I'm not overly eager to start it now.

the existing players miss five games of pay bickering over 1% of HRR, they cross into a territory where they start to lose money even if they win the extra 1% HRR. Think about that.

Ok. But part of collective bargaining always has been and always will be about not being entirely self-interested. That's just unavoidable. You're absolutely right that from an entirely self-interested perspective players are probably always best off to avoid a work stoppage of even one paycheck. That said, I'm guessing Alex Rodriguez is pretty stoked that the MLB players in 94-95 took the hit they did.

As the NHL is forbidden to address the players directly, this "concession" is also effectively final notice to the players on when they'll start losing money ... even if they got everything they asked for after sitting out a bunch of games. It's not a big window of games before the individual players lose money they'll never, ever make back.

Yeah, no, it's a "concession". It's just not actually a concession. That's all I'm saying here.  Again, as mentioned above, I genuinely have no opinion on whether or not players should accept this deal if their one and only concern is how much money they, individually, will make in their careers.

In another six years or whenever, when this deal expires and all either party has is a brand new bargaining position dependent more on league finances than the position their last deal ended with, those players can pick up the baton and push the envelope to maximize their pay.

The problem with that it would be another CBA that doesn't meaningfully address the primary reason teams lose money in the NHL, which is the wild disparity in teams revenues while tying everyone's expenses together. Realistically, unless the NHL ever does anything to address that issue, either through revenue sharing or a recognition of a need to change where their franchises are located everyone will be in largely the same position six years from now.

 

[Kin]

I thought this was kind of interesting: an article all about Bain Capital's offer to buy the entire NHL during the last lockout and what it might have meant business-wise for the NHL.

http://deadspin.com/5939623/where-would-the-nhl-be-if-bain-capital-had-bought-the-whole-league-in-2005

 

[bustaheims]

DarrenDreger: Interesting: top 10 $ earning teams will pay up to 50% of revenue sharing pie in NHL proposal.

 

[maplesyrup]

DarrenDreger: Interesting: top 10 $ earning teams will pay up to 50% of revenue sharing pie in NHL proposal.

I think that's B.S. If that's the kind of model necessary to make this thing float that I say let it sink. All this says to me is that there there are more than a few places where the NHL shouldn't be. - Though that really isn't any earth shattering news in the first place. Honestly, if I'm a top 10 $ earning team and I'm forced to foot the bill for the have-nots, I want at least some sort of return. Hell, at least least let me spend over the cap if I want to... My money should be equally good at both ends.

 

[maplesyrup]

TSNBobMcKenzie: Not only is NHL proposing 5 year limit on player contract length, it's proposing the yearly salary variance can't be more than 5 per cent.

5 years with 5%? If I'm the PA, I counter with 9 years and 9% (expecting to settle at 7 years and 7%.) 

 

[bustaheims]

5 years with 5%? If I'm the PA, I counter with 9 years and 9% (expecting to settle at 7 years and 7%.)

The difference between 5% and 7% (and even 9%) is pretty meaningless. If the PA has an issue with that (and that's probably a safe bet), they'll be looking for something more in the range of 25-50%, if they don't try to take it off the table completely.

As for term limits, I think an NBA style situation might be the best bet here. It helps smaller market teams, as it would increase the number of sign-and-trade situations and it could appease the PA by increasing terms limits from the current stance of 5 years.