2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Rebel_1812]

I'd like to offer my own suggestions for CBA re-workings

1 - No free agency
2 - Players must do lawn work around the owners homes in the offseason

Those owner offers are a joke.  I'm glad that they wanted to start things off nice and inflammatory to make sure we struggle to avoid a lockout.

I knew a factory owner that did get some of his workers to do "chores" at his place.  So don't give them ideas.

 

[Kin]

Yep.  The owners handing out these contracts can live with the consequences...that's the risk.  I don't have a problem with that.

See, that's the thing that drives me nuts though. These deals are risky, yeah like you say, but cost certainty isn't enough? The owners now think they need to be insulated against the cost-controlled risk they're willingly partaking in?

I'm sorry as someone who once operated a business? That's just laziness and cowardice.

Is anybody advocating a luxury tax instead of a hard cap?

Sure, the NHLPA in '04.

 

[L K]

We need a cap on the length of contracts
(Here Shea, here's 14 years)
This system is unreasonable and we can't manage it
(Here players, here's 100+ million dollars in contract)

 

[moon111]

The only advantage the Leafs have with spending tons on salary is if it a competitive advantage.  With the Cap in place, sure they can spend, but so can allot of teams.  With revenue-sharing in place, the Leafs see their profits going elsewhere.  I really think the Leafs will on the side of lowering the Cap to the point small market teams are no longer struggling.  And I'm willing to bet they just might be willing to throw away this season to do it.  Has Burke been planning for this?  According to CapGeek, the Leafs will be some $20 million lighter in salary heading into 2013-14.  Burke is now stating GM's are making mistakes with these big free-agent contracts.  Think he'd be smiling in 2013 as these young guys he's filling in the minors are ready to make the big leap and other teams are struggling to lower their payroll? 

 

[Rebel_1812]

We need a cap on the length of contracts
(Here Shea, here's 14 years)
This system is unreasonable and we can't manage it
(Here players, here's 100+ million dollars in contract)

No one is forcing either side to sign these long term contracts.  It the Owners don't like them they can hire GM's like Burke who won't give them, or they can deny these contracts since any GM would have to get ownership approval for them.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I think the players would want to see the league increase revenue sharing before they agree to any reductions in revenue. I'd be in agreement with that but can't see certain owners agreeing to it. I also think the 6-7 year limit on contracts would be a good idea. You sign a guy to a 15 year contract and he gets hurt or just plays like trash. Teams end up stuck with a cap hit or a very long time.

That is my real problem with this.  The owners are blaming the problems of the league on the players when you could make a much better case that certain owners or Bettman would be to blame.  There are other ways to solve problems with the teams that lose money other then demanding the players take a pay cut.

 

[Rebel_1812]

We need a cap on the length of contracts
(Here Shea, here's 14 years)
This system is unreasonable and we can't manage it
(Here players, here's 100+ million dollars in contract)

Some of the contracts in the pre-cap era were around that size.  Sundin made 9 mill a year, so did Holik and forsberg made 11 mill.

 

[princedpw]

I think the players would want to see the league increase revenue sharing before they agree to any reductions in revenue. I'd be in agreement with that but can't see certain owners agreeing to it. I also think the 6-7 year limit on contracts would be a good idea. You sign a guy to a 15 year contract and he gets hurt or just plays like trash. Teams end up stuck with a cap hit or a very long time.

That is my real problem with this.  The owners are blaming the problems of the league on the players when you could make a much better case that certain owners or Bettman would be to blame.  There are other ways to solve problems with the teams that lose money other then demanding the players take a pay cut.

I don't see the situation as one where "blame" is the important issue.  I see a situation in which the owners believe they can make more money, so they are going to try to do that by reducing the player share of revenues.  (I know there are other things involved, but that seems like the biggest one.)

 

[princedpw]

Yep.  The owners handing out these contracts can live with the consequences...that's the risk.  I don't have a problem with that.

See, that's the thing that drives me nuts though. These deals are risky, yeah like you say, but cost certainty isn't enough? The owners now think they need to be insulated against the cost-controlled risk they're willingly partaking in?

It makes lots of sense to me.  The situation is such that a GM won't get his guy if he doesn't give out a competitive contract (ie, long, huge money).  And the perception by these GMs is that they can't win without getting their guy. So the perceived choice is: pay risky contract and win or don't pay and lose.  By limiting the contract length, the GMs and owners can avoid having to make such an unpalatable choice.  If I was an owner, I'd certainly like to set the system up that way if I could....it would certainly be something I'd request in the negotiations.

 

[Kin]

It makes lots of sense to me.  The situation is such that a GM won't get his guy if he doesn't give out a competitive contract (ie, long, huge money).  And the perception by these GMs is that they can't win without getting their guy. So the perceived choice is: pay risky contract and win or don't pay and lose.  By limiting the contract length, the GMs and owners can avoid having to make such an unpalatable choice.  If I was an owner, I'd certainly like to set the system up that way if I could....it would certainly be something I'd request in the negotiations.

No, I get it, they want things idiot-proofed. They want to not to have to make hard, risky decisions or let the market dictate contracts and have it so that they're profitable despite whatever bad decisions they might make. Essentially, they're fine with risky contracts just so long as you take out all the risk. I don't not understand why the owners want it.  If they can get it so that they pay the players minimum wage and own their rights from birth until they're 75 I absolutely understand why they'd benefit. It's just absolutely ridiculous to get that in a CBA.

But beyond that there's an element to it I think owners ignore that teams like the Wild should keep in mind. In the NBA there are strict limits to the money and years a player can be offered. This has not made the NBA an egalitarian wonderland where small market teams are just as likely to sign big name free agents. On the contrary, it's set up a system where certain teams essentially have to realize they'll never, ever be able to sign marquee free agents because they don't have anything to sell. What we've seen is that if the money teams can offer a player is essentially the same players are going to choose to sign with good teams or in good locations. Your smaller market teams are left having to overpay for the scraps or desperately hope they can draft superstars while Lebron James and Steve Nash take haircuts to join contenders.

If I'm Minnesota? I want this option on the table. I want to be able to blow a UFA's hair back with an offer instead of having to try and sell him on beautiful downtown St. Paul instead of Manhattan.

 

[L K]

What they need to implement:

Cap exemption trading/trading of cash.  Allow a team to send money with a player to unload their contract.  It allows player movement to be a little more free.

Along with that, just change the rules so that a players contract is stationary throughout the terms of the deal.  Allow a lump-sum payment in Year 1 and maybe year 2 but the rest of the salary gets averaged out over the remaining years.

So if a guy signs a 10 year, 100 million dollar contract.  And he gets a 10 million dollar signing bonus.  His salary is them 9M in year 1-10.  None of the 14 10 9 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.950  stuff.  Then you can't argue that the player is cheating the system and intending to retire because if he actually does, he's leaving a lot of money on the table.

 

[Kin]

Along with that, just change the rules so that a players contract is stationary throughout the terms of the deal.  Allow a lump-sum payment in Year 1 and maybe year 2 but the rest of the salary gets averaged out over the remaining years.

So if a guy signs a 10 year, 100 million dollar contract.  And he gets a 10 million dollar signing bonus.  His salary is them 9M in year 1-10.  None of the 14 10 9 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.950  stuff.  Then you can't argue that the player is cheating the system and intending to retire because if he actually does, he's leaving a lot of money on the table.

But, and apologies if I'm covering well-worn territory here, but shouldn't there at least be one example of a player actually retiring with high cap-hit/low real dollar years on their contract before it's considered a necessity to address it through the collective bargaining process?

 

[Omallley]

Along with that, just change the rules so that a players contract is stationary throughout the terms of the deal.  Allow a lump-sum payment in Year 1 and maybe year 2 but the rest of the salary gets averaged out over the remaining years.

So if a guy signs a 10 year, 100 million dollar contract.  And he gets a 10 million dollar signing bonus.  His salary is them 9M in year 1-10.  None of the 14 10 9 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.950  stuff.  Then you can't argue that the player is cheating the system and intending to retire because if he actually does, he's leaving a lot of money on the table.

But, and apologies if I'm covering well-worn territory here, but shouldn't there at least be one example of a player actually retiring with high cap-hit/low real dollar years on their contract before it's considered a necessity to address it through the collective bargaining process?

How many years do you have to wait for that? Another 8-10? How many front-end loaded contracts get signed between now and then? I don't think it is fair to assume that everyone of these players is going to retire before their 1M seasons, but there is certainly potential for cap circumvention with these deals. I don't think preventative measures are an absurd direction for the league to take to ensure this kind of thing *doesn't* happen.

 

[Kin]

How many years do you have to wait for that? Another 8-10? How many front-end loaded contracts get signed between now and then? I don't think it is fair to assume that everyone of these players is going to retire before their 1M seasons, but there is certainly potential for cap circumvention with these deals.

I don't see that it's fair to assume that any of those players will do it. If it actually happens then, yeah, the League would be able to argue it on those merits. As is though all that really is is yet another good argument for teams to be more reluctant to offer those deals, not that it needs to be a point of contention in the CBA.

There'd be nothing to stop the league from telling it's teams that, in the even that there's one or a rash of players who retire with those years left, they'd push for a change to the rules and not grandfather in existing contracts.

If this was a case where the money teams were paying players as a whole was being thrown out of whack I could buy the economic necessity of it but if it's just an issue of Parity I think you need to actually have some evidence of malfeasance before you assume it's going to happen.

 

[Kin]

The Limits of Control

Good article from Charlie Pierce at Grantland about the collective bargaining environment these days.

 

[princedpw]

It makes lots of sense to me.  The situation is such that a GM won't get his guy if he doesn't give out a competitive contract (ie, long, huge money).  And the perception by these GMs is that they can't win without getting their guy. So the perceived choice is: pay risky contract and win or don't pay and lose.  By limiting the contract length, the GMs and owners can avoid having to make such an unpalatable choice.  If I was an owner, I'd certainly like to set the system up that way if I could....it would certainly be something I'd request in the negotiations.

No, I get it, they want things idiot-proofed. They want to not to have to make hard, risky decisions or let the market dictate contracts and have it so that they're profitable despite whatever bad decisions they might make. Essentially, they're fine with risky contracts just so long as you take out all the risk. I don't not understand why the owners want it.  If they can get it so that they pay the players minimum wage and own their rights from birth until they're 75 I absolutely understand why they'd benefit. It's just absolutely ridiculous to get that in a CBA.

It sounds like we largely understand eachother, though I don't think attempting to shape the market through regulations such as term limits is ridiculous (if that is what you meant) -- the CBA is all about shaping the market in various ways.  I do understand your point below that some teams are disadvantaged by term limits.  Of course, some teams, like the leafs, are disadvantaged by any cap at all!  Anyway, it seems the majority of teams (or whoever holds the power) feel they are a good idea...or at least a bargaining chip in negotiations.

But beyond that there's an element to it I think owners ignore that teams like the Wild should keep in mind. In the NBA there are strict limits to the money and years a player can be offered. This has not made the NBA an egalitarian wonderland where small market teams are just as likely to sign big name free agents. On the contrary, it's set up a system where certain teams essentially have to realize they'll never, ever be able to sign marquee free agents because they don't have anything to sell. What we've seen is that if the money teams can offer a player is essentially the same players are going to choose to sign with good teams or in good locations. Your smaller market teams are left having to overpay for the scraps or desperately hope they can draft superstars while Lebron James and Steve Nash take haircuts to join contenders.

If I'm Minnesota? I want this option on the table. I want to be able to blow a UFA's hair back with an offer instead of having to try and sell him on beautiful downtown St. Paul instead of Manhattan.

These are all good points.  As a Leafs fan, I'm just hoping for whatever combination of rules gives the Leafs the best chance at success.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I won't pretend to know much about these negotiations or anything, but I found this article interesting, especially to see how poorly certain teams are doing revenue-wise.

The team that generated the least amount of ticket revenue in 2011 was Atlanta and we know how that problem was solved. The next five teams ? the Islanders, Phoenix, Tampa, Florida and Nashville totalled $94 MM in 2011. Worse, those five teams are down 20% since 2008. The gap is not getting smaller. It is getting bigger. The players can?t (and should not be asked to) solve that problem. The rich owners can?t (and should not be asked to) solve it either. Florida has to fix the Panther problem and Phoenix has to do something about the Coyotes.

If they can?t find enough people willing to pay big money to watch hockey? Too bad. The Atlanta solution works.

http://canuckscorner.com/tombenjamin/2012/07/23/the-atlanta-solution/

 

[Rebel_1812]

I won't pretend to know much about these negotiations or anything, but I found this article interesting, especially to see how poorly certain teams are doing revenue-wise.

The team that generated the least amount of ticket revenue in 2011 was Atlanta and we know how that problem was solved. The next five teams ? the Islanders, Phoenix, Tampa, Florida and Nashville totalled $94 MM in 2011. Worse, those five teams are down 20% since 2008. The gap is not getting smaller. It is getting bigger. The players can?t (and should not be asked to) solve that problem. The rich owners can?t (and should not be asked to) solve it either. Florida has to fix the Panther problem and Phoenix has to do something about the Coyotes.

If they can?t find enough people willing to pay big money to watch hockey? Too bad. The Atlanta solution works.

http://canuckscorner.com/tombenjamin/2012/07/23/the-atlanta-solution/

Sounds like I could have written that article.

 

[Kin]

Elliotte Friedman had an interesting suggestion the other day that I actually kind of like. Basically, the idea is that you change NTC's or NMC's so that they're binding and that if a player with one asks to be traded he has to outright waive the NTC.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Elliotte Friedman had an interesting suggestion the other day that I actually kind of like. Basically, the idea is that you change NTC's or NMC's so that they're binding and that if a player with one asks to be traded he has to outright waive the NTC.

I like it, seems fair.