2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[maplesyrup]

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.

I suppose it depends on the total but sure, it goes without saying that the smaller the deal, the more meaningless that becomes.

 

[Kin]

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.

Well but the return they're getting is that these teams, many of whom are hugely profitable, are getting the exact same break on their expenses as the teams who can legitimately make an argument to need it. If the revenue sharing totals 200 million dollars than 10 teams footing 50% of that works out, if evenly distributed, to 10 million bucks apiece. I don't know what that reflects in terms of an increase for teams on the current deal but for the Leafs that amounts to something like, in total, five percent of Leafs revenues according to Forbes.

But, in return, they're getting to keep an extra 7% of their revenues. So they're coming out ahead even if their current revenue sharing is zero which it isn't.

You make a fair point that there could be some sort of competitive advantage to it but, again, I'm guessing the Leafs are going to take those extra percentage points if given the choice.

 

[bustaheims]

I suppose it depends on the total but sure, it goes without saying that the smaller the deal, the more meaningless that becomes.

Well, even on a $10M deal, that extra 2% to 7% represents only $200K difference in what the variance can be. Even at 9%, we're talking about a year 1 to year 2 difference of $500K vs $900K. In terms of front loading/backloading, those are pretty insignificant differences.

 

[maplesyrup]

I suppose it depends on the total but sure, it goes without saying that the smaller the deal, the more meaningless that becomes.

Well, even on a $10M deal, that extra 2% to 7% represents only $200K difference in what the variance can be. Even at 9%, we're talking about a year 1 to year 2 difference of $500K vs $900K. In terms of front loading/backloading, those are pretty insignificant differences.

I don't know, seems significant enough to me but I've been lost on the context from the get go. None of this has made much sense to me in the first place so what do I know?

Edit: Maybe ask for up to a 15% variance?... Hope to settle for 10%? 

 

[Kin]

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.

The thing about that proposal that strikes me as so nutty is that, ignoring the issue of your front loaded 10 year deals, it outlaws the sort of multi year deal with significant raises that teams give to younger players. What's wrong with Evander Kane's deal or Van Riemsdyk's?

I just wish the NHL's answer to everything didn't look like performing surgery with a sledgehammer.

 

[maplesyrup]

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.

Well but the return they're getting is that these teams, many of whom are hugely profitable, are getting the exact same break on their expenses as the teams who can legitimately make an argument to need it. If the revenue sharing totals 200 million dollars than 10 teams footing 50% of that works out, if evenly distributed, to 10 million bucks apiece. I don't know what that reflects in terms of an increase for teams on the current deal but for the Leafs that amounts to something like, in total, five percent of Leafs revenues according to Forbes.

But, in return, they're getting to keep an extra 7% of their revenues. So they're coming out ahead even if their current revenue sharing is zero which it isn't.

You make a fair point that there could be some sort of competitive advantage to it but, again, I'm guessing the Leafs are going to take those extra percentage points if given the choice.

Well, if the economics somehow state that giving my money away on one end helps me on the other, who am I to argue?  ??? I'd want to be damn sure that's the case though. 

 

[bustaheims]

The thing about that proposal that strikes me as so nutty is that, ignoring the issue of your front loaded 10 year deals, it outlaws the sort of multi year deal with significant raises that teams give to younger players. What's wrong with Evander Kane's deal or Van Riemsdyk's?

I agree that, based on the information we have, it doesn't appear to be the most well thought out aspect of things. Of course, there could very well be a different set of numbers for backloaded deals that hasn't been released yet - in a similar vein to the 50/100 rule from the recently expired CBA. Though, perhaps, part of the whole package of contract stipulations here seems to lend towards the owners' desire to be able to have greater control over the levels of salary inflation for younger players. Their current set of demands would see players being on at least their 3rd contract before reaching UFA status. So, instead of the multi-year, scaled raises we saw under the past CBA, we'd likely go back to the short-term, moderate raise deals we saw when players didn't reach UFA status until their 30s.

 

[Kin]

So, instead of the multi-year, scaled raises we saw under the past CBA, we'd likely go back to the short-term, moderate raise deals we saw when players didn't reach UFA status until their 30s.

Well, except that it would only take one owner giving a big, multi-year deal to a big-time young player coming off their entry level contract to set the market for that and if watching the NHL over the years has taught us anything it's that often times owners are more interested in maintaining good relationships with their important young players than they are maximizing what they get out of their years of control.

I mean, I understand the NHL's desire to let the teams control as much of the bargaining process as possible but I don't necessarily think that should equate to taking options off the table for teams to reach good deals with young players.

 

[Bonsixx]

I'm anxious to see how teams that signed players to lengthy, front-loaded deals will be penalized in this new CBA, since Brian Burke seemed to indicate that would be the case when explaining why he wouldn't sign those types of deals.

 

[bustaheims]

Real_ESPNLeBrun: More on NHL offer: calls for 2012-13 salary cap of $59.9 million but teams can go over up to $70.2 million in Year 1 as part of transition

DarrenDreger: More on NHL Rev Sharing.  Pool will be determined yearly by a Revenue Sharing Committee. The NHLPA will have representation and input.

 

[maplesyrup]

The Leafs could actually be in decent shape under those terms. 

 

[maplesyrup]

... a few other teams I see who might struggle getting under 60 mil. after this year.

 

[bustaheims]

This could make things real interesting:

TSNBobMcKenzie: On trading of cap space/retaining salary, it would be limited to $3M for each contract year left or 50 per cent of AAV, whichever is less

TSNBobMcKenzie: Each club, in any given year, tho, would be subject to a 2 contract and/or $5M limit in terms of retaining salary.

 

[maplesyrup]

This could make things real interesting:

TSNBobMcKenzie: On trading of cap space/retaining salary, it would be limited to $3M for each contract year left or 50 per cent of AAV, whichever is less

TSNBobMcKenzie: Each club, in any given year, tho, would be subject to a 2 contract and/or $5M limit in terms of retaining salary.

Indeed. As you know, Burke had been pushing for something like this for a long while.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

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

You'd almost think the owners who are most involved in the NHL's strategy were close to the cap.

 

[bustaheims]

TSNBobMcKenzie: Because NHL players buried in minors (Redden etc) would count against cap, re-entry waivers would no longer exist.

That's new info.

 

[bustaheims]

You'd almost think the owners who are most involved in the NHL's strategy were close to the cap.

Without the transition rules, 16 teams would currently be over the cap (1 team - Edmonton - would be fall below with a bonus cushion), without some form of compliance buyouts or salary rollback.

 

[bustaheims]

... a few other teams I see who might struggle getting under 60 mil. after this year.

It's going to be interesting, because, HRR could very well fall below the current levels thanks to the lockout, meaning the 13/14 ceiling could very easily be below $60M (assuming the 50/50 split stands).

 

[bustaheims]

TSNBobMcKenzie: One of most interesting aspects of NHL proposal is aimed at punishing clubs more than players, with regard to existing back-diving deals.

TSNBobMcKenzie: Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.

TSNBobMcKenzie: In other words, the benefit clubs thought they were getting by reducing AAV with back-diving deals/bogus end yrs would be reduced/negated.

The sound you're hearing . . . that's the fuse on the explosives attached to Luongo's trade value being lit.

 

[maplesyrup]

How's those Weber, Parise, Kovalchuk, Richards type deals looking now?