CBA Agreement Reached

[bustaheims]

Isn't that the opposite of trading cap space though? Wouldn't trading Cap space be 3M in space for a 1st rounder or something like that (or player + space for player + Pick/prospect)?

Trading Phaneuf @ 3M (and eating the other 3M) isn't exactly the same thing is it?

Well, it sort of is, it's just a less flexible system. If we use Phaneuf as an example. Were the Leafs to trade him like that, they'd give up $3M of their cap space to a player that wasn't on the team any more and the team receiving him would only be paying $3.5M against the cap for a $6.5M player. Pure trading of cap space was never on the table, nor do I think either side even suggested it. The proposals were always about retaining salary/cap in trades.

 

[bustaheims]

andystrickland: Bill Daly says how quickly NHLPA ratifies deal will determine whether camps open Saturday or Monday

mirtle: Wow - hearing ratification process and legal work on CBA may take a while. Could even be five or six more days.

DarrenDreger: NHL teams told they remain in lockout mode until CBA is ratified. Union\league are chewing on transition rules. Some gm's annoyed at pace.

 

[bustaheims]

mirtle: Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

 

[Corn Flake]

mirtle: Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

a what with the what now?

 

[maplesyrup]

Yeah, and now for us dumb guys?

 

[bustaheims]

mirtle: Another emerging detail from new CBA: The floor will be at 15% below the midpoint, not exactly $16-million below the cap. A good change.

 

[bustaheims]

Yeah, and now for us dumb guys?

I asked, haven't received an answer yet. When it was originally proposed, it had something to to with players retiring with term left and cap penalties for the team that signed the contract. What it ended up at is TBD.

 

[Joe S.]

I'm confused about a few things - but one in particular maybe I completely misunderstood. So the players had asked for a 25% variance on contracts, the league said 5% - and they settle at 30%? Or am I mixing up items?

 

[Kin]

I'm confused about a few things - but one in particular maybe I completely misunderstood. So the players had asked for a 25% variance on contracts, the league said 5% - and they settle at 30%? Or am I mixing up items?

The players asked for 75%, the Owners originally had it at 5%. They settled at 30% with no year being less than 50% of the first year.

 

[maplesyrup]

I'm confused about a few things - but one in particular maybe I completely misunderstood. So the players had asked for a 25% variance on contracts, the league said 5% - and they settle at 30%? Or am I mixing up items?

Maybe I'm wrong but it's possible you may be confusing the two different types of variances. There's one year to year variance (35%) and another variance where any given year can't be less than 50% of the highest year.

 

[Joe S.]

I'm confused about a few things - but one in particular maybe I completely misunderstood. So the players had asked for a 25% variance on contracts, the league said 5% - and they settle at 30%? Or am I mixing up items?

The players asked for 75%, the Owners originally had it at 5%. They settled at 30% with no year being less than 50% of the first year.

Ok - so I had it all wrong... thanks.

 

[Kin]

From Katie Baker over at Grantland:

$300 million of "make whole" payments from owners to honor existing contracts, and a salary cap for the upcoming 2013-14 season of $64.3 million (the same as what the cap was last year; there's also an agreement that future cap levels cannot fall lower than that). Each team will get two "compliance buyouts" in order to help with the adjustment to the new lower cap, so giddyup.

That's something.

 

[bustaheims]

From Katie Baker over at Grantland:

$300 million of "make whole" payments from owners to honor existing contracts, and a salary cap for the upcoming 2013-14 season of $64.3 million (the same as what the cap was last year; there's also an agreement that future cap levels cannot fall lower than that). Each team will get two "compliance buyouts" in order to help with the adjustment to the new lower cap, so giddyup.

That's something.

It's something, yeah, but, since the players didn't get a cap on escrow, until revenues meet or exceed the point where their share would naturally allow for a cap of that level, it just means they'll end up paying more in escrow to cover the difference.

 

[Kin]

It's something, yeah, but, since the players didn't get a cap on escrow, until revenues meet or exceed the point where their share would naturally allow for a cap of that level, it just means they'll end up paying more in escrow to cover the difference.

Yeah, I don't think it's a big win or anything. Just saying that it's something I didn't expect to see.

The players win, if it turns out, is going to be the direct benefit pension.

 

[bustaheims]

The players win, if it turns out, is going to be the direct benefit pension.

It would appear so. They managed to mitigate the damage in some other areas (at least, in comparison to the original proposals) and won a few smaller things, but, the owners "won" on what most pundits felt were their biggest wants.

 

[Kin]

The players win, if it turns out, is going to be the direct benefit pension.

It would appear so. They managed to mitigate the damage in some other areas (at least, in comparison to the original proposals) and won a few smaller things, but, the owners "won" on what most pundits felt were their biggest wants.

But I think we knew that going in. Outside of taking anti-trust to the wall, the players were always going to come out of this worse than they started.

 

[bustaheims]

A potential explanation of the Cap Benefit Recapture Formula (I'm not 100% sure if Mirtle is working with the agreed upon mechanics or the last reported versions from previous proposals):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/mirtle-nhls-new-cba-likely-to-target-existing-long-term-deals/article6251627/

EDIT: He's not dealing with the final language, and even acknowledges that at the end of the article, but, this should do for now.

 

[Corn Flake]

From Katie Baker over at Grantland:

$300 million of "make whole" payments from owners to honor existing contracts, and a salary cap for the upcoming 2013-14 season of $64.3 million (the same as what the cap was last year; there's also an agreement that future cap levels cannot fall lower than that). Each team will get two "compliance buyouts" in order to help with the adjustment to the new lower cap, so giddyup.

That's something.

So the PA won on that hill, I guess.  I assume they didn't get their ask from back in December of having their share of revenue in total $ not drop below what it was in the previous year. 

So they get their cap number (almost) but if revenues decline they still end up giving back in escrow. 

 

[maplesyrup]

A potential explanation of the Cap Benefit Recapture Formula (I'm not 100% sure if Mirtle is working with the agreed upon mechanics or the last reported versions from previous proposals):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/mirtle-nhls-new-cba-likely-to-target-existing-long-term-deals/article6251627/

EDIT: He's not dealing with the final language, and even acknowledges that at the end of the article, but, this should do for now.

Ah. Well, I'm glad it's not a problem the Leafs have to deal with. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Don't worry, I'm sure in 8 years we'll be hearing how the deal was "more fair" to the players than expected.