2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[bustaheims]

I guess. But if the meat of your offer is a split of HRR and you'd think you'd want those big questions answered and HRR nailed down.

Well, that would come as part of the "mutual clarification" that would be part of the process of drafting the final version of this CBA. From the expanded version of the offer the NHL posted, it really just sounds like they want to make things more streamlined rather than make serious changes to the calculations of HRR.

I don't know, it could just be yammering but it sure doesn't sound they're speaking the same language yet. I wonder if the PA's next offer, whenever that comes, even revolves around a fixed %.

I'm not sure they are, either. If the PA is dead set on removing the link between revenues and salaries, I imagine we won't be seeing NHL hockey for a while. After all, getting that link was the owner's major goal in the last lockout.

 

[Bullfrog]

While that language sounds vague, I doubt it is in reality. Typically throughout the life of a contract there will be interpretations about various items. These are usually formalized through a memo or other written document. Sounds like they're just saying that HRR definition is to be revised to include interpretations, amendments, etc. that have already been mutually agreed upon.

 

[TML fan]

We want.....more money

 

[Kin]

Well, that would come as part of the "mutual clarification" that would be part of the process of drafting the final version of this CBA. From the expanded version of the offer the NHL posted, it really just sounds like they want to make things more streamlined rather than make serious changes to the calculations of HRR.

Still, it's a little disingenuous to tout the split before you've agreed on how it's calculated.

I'm not sure they are, either. If the PA is dead set on removing the link between revenues and salaries, I imagine we won't be seeing NHL hockey for a while. After all, getting that link was the owner's major goal in the last lockout.

Yeah and it seems to be pretty encompassing. I mean, if the players are going into this thinking they don't want to change their individual contract rights at all, or at least certainly not make concessions in that area, and the NHL seems to be seeking that the players give concessions on basically every aspect of individual contracting rights...that's a big gap. Maybe even bigger than the dollar figure gap.

 

[bustaheims]

Still, it's a little disingenuous to tout the split before you've agreed on how it's calculated.

Well, if the league is being honest about the changes they're looking at not having a material impact on the players' share, I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. I mean, when we're talking about a multi-billion dollar deal, how much quibbling is there going to be over what I imagine amounts to a couple million dollars?

 

[Kin]

Well, if the league is being honest about the changes they're looking at not having a material impact on the players' share, I'm not sure it's really that big a deal.

Sure, hence the "little" before disingenuous.

I mean, when we're talking about a multi-billion dollar deal, how much quibbling is there going to be over what I imagine amounts to a couple million dollars?

Tough to say without knowing the particulars, right? But regardless it might speak to the principle of the thing. If your offer includes a big haircut on salary and asking the players for concessions on just about every facet of their negotiating rights and you're saying you want a couple million more off the top? All the while touting a down the middle split?

Well at that point someone, not me mind you, might just tell the person making that offer to go get stuffed.

 

[lamajama]

One media idiot in Vancouver is wigging out over "Brian Burke's fingerprint" on the CBA proposal of having these mega-deals still count against the team that signed them and it's "payback from Gary Bettman for testifying on behalf of the league vs New Jersey".

Personally I think it's Bettman's payback after warning the teams not
to circumvent the Cap with those type of deals. He has a long long memory.

In all seriousness I doubt this will survive the NHLPA's counteroffer anyway but I can dream....

 

[Champ Kind]

One media idiot in Vancouver is wigging out over "Brian Burke's fingerprint" on the CBA proposal of having these mega-deals still count against the team that signed them and it's "payback from Gary Bettman for testifying on behalf of the league vs New Jersey".

Personally I think it's Bettman's payback after warning the teams not
to circumvent the Cap with those type of deals. He has a long long memory.

In all seriousness I doubt this will survive the NHLPA's counteroffer anyway but I can dream....

I think you accurately described the Vancouver writer.  But I also think Burke's stance on long term deals and "cap circumvention" characteristics was based on an inkling that future CBA's would likely change the operating environment.  To be clear, it wasn't "payback" rather than Burke being tuned in and seeing the writing on the wall.

 

[Kin]

One media idiot in Vancouver is wigging out over "Brian Burke's fingerprint" on the CBA proposal of having these mega-deals still count against the team that signed them and it's "payback from Gary Bettman for testifying on behalf of the league vs New Jersey".

Personally I think it's Bettman's payback after warning the teams not
to circumvent the Cap with those type of deals. He has a long long memory.

I wouldn't want to speculate about why it is but it does seem like a glaring example of the League being almost needlessly antagonistic. Keep in mind that the League's proposal isn't just about frontloaded deals that "circumvent the cap" it would apply to any deal longer than five years even something as relatively honest, if stupid, like the Rick DiPietro deal.

I don't know, seemingly going out of your way to penalize teams that struck deals that were legal under a previous CBA strikes me as a battle not worth fighting.

 

[Corn Flake]

One media idiot in Vancouver is wigging out over "Brian Burke's fingerprint" on the CBA proposal of having these mega-deals still count against the team that signed them and it's "payback from Gary Bettman for testifying on behalf of the league vs New Jersey".

Personally I think it's Bettman's payback after warning the teams not
to circumvent the Cap with those type of deals. He has a long long memory.

In all seriousness I doubt this will survive the NHLPA's counteroffer anyway but I can dream....

Vancouver is just mad because clearly several years ago, when the league was warning teams about what the new CBA could do to long-term deals, Mike Gillis had his headphones in and was listening to MC Hammer albums.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

One media idiot in Vancouver is wigging out over "Brian Burke's fingerprint" on the CBA proposal of having these mega-deals still count against the team that signed them and it's "payback from Gary Bettman for testifying on behalf of the league vs New Jersey".

Personally I think it's Bettman's payback after warning the teams not
to circumvent the Cap with those type of deals. He has a long long memory.

I wouldn't want to speculate about why it is but it does seem like a glaring example of the League being almost needlessly antagonistic. Keep in mind that the League's proposal isn't just about frontloaded deals that "circumvent the cap" it would apply to any deal longer than five years even something as relatively honest, if stupid, like the Rick DiPietro deal.

I don't know, seemingly going out of your way to penalize teams that struck deals that were legal under a previous CBA strikes me as a battle not worth fighting.

As much as it'd be fun to see teams like Vancouver and the Rangers and others put in a tough situation, it seems completely unfair to penalize those teams.

Not sure the players will care about that clause as it affects so few, but there are definitely huge issues with the offer.

Why the players would accept a 7% reduction, lose a year towards UFA and have the second contracts stay more controllable along with many other small control issues doesn't have me so hopeful.

It would be great if Fehr is creative enough to offer something that will keep the ball rolling in the right direction as opposed to offering something that will tick off Bettman and the owners (though a part of me would understand that).

 

[Kin]

As much as it'd be fun to see teams like Vancouver and the Rangers and others put in a tough situation, it seems completely unfair to penalize those teams.

Not sure the players will care about that clause as it affects so few, but there are definitely huge issues with the offer.

Well, I mean, and this is just me thinking here but if previous posters are right about why the league is going after these as sort of punitive measures then as a player I'd feel a pretty strong reason to stop that dead in it's tracks. I mean, the league telling its teams not to sign deals they're permitted to under an existing CBA and threatening that they'll seek to punish them in the next CBA is essentially the definition of collusion. It's not a collusion, I suppose, that you could sue over because any "punishment" would have to be collectively bargained but I'd hate the precedent it sets.

I mean, the league could then say "Don't sign anyone to deals of more than 10 million per year or next CBA we'll get you again" or something. If a deal's allowed to be signed under a CBA, the league should keep mum on it on accept that those deals were signed in good faith by both parties.

 

[Bonsixx]

Elliotte Friedman on effect (or lack thereof) new proposal has on Luongo contract:

For example, let's say the Vancouver Canucks worked out a Roberto Luongo trade with the Florida Panthers. Eventually, he reaches the point where his salary slides down from the current $6.7 million US and he retires. But it's Canucks who would get clobbered with the $5.3-million cap hit for the duration of his 12-year contract. Brutal for them, right?

Not so fast.

The NHL offer is for six years with an option for a seventh. Look at Luongo's salary over those seasons -- he only drops below that $6.7 million in the final one (to $3.4 million). It is unlikely that he walks away from that. The true cap evasion doesn't come until after this proposed collective bargaining agreement would be completed. So the Canucks probably aren't in serious danger.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/10/nhl-nhlpa-enter-zopa-in-labour-talks.html

 

[Corn Flake]

Elliotte Friedman on effect (or lack thereof) new proposal has on Luongo contract:

For example, let's say the Vancouver Canucks worked out a Roberto Luongo trade with the Florida Panthers. Eventually, he reaches the point where his salary slides down from the current $6.7 million US and he retires. But it's Canucks who would get clobbered with the $5.3-million cap hit for the duration of his 12-year contract. Brutal for them, right?

Not so fast.

The NHL offer is for six years with an option for a seventh. Look at Luongo's salary over those seasons -- he only drops below that $6.7 million in the final one (to $3.4 million). It is unlikely that he walks away from that. The true cap evasion doesn't come until after this proposed collective bargaining agreement would be completed. So the Canucks probably aren't in serious danger.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/10/nhl-nhlpa-enter-zopa-in-labour-talks.html

...."probably aren't in serious danger".  So he's making assumptions two CBAs out to come to this conclusion? Oi vey.  Quite the assumption there.  I think the only way they wouldn't be in "serious danger" is if revenues climb to the degree where a $6.7 cap hit is no longer even close to 10% of your payroll - what Luongo's salary would be (and then some) with the NHL's $59 mil proposed cap.

... when sports media try to teach economics.  (day jobs please, boys)

 

[bustaheims]

Elliotte Friedman on effect (or lack thereof) new proposal has on Luongo contract:

For example, let's say the Vancouver Canucks worked out a Roberto Luongo trade with the Florida Panthers. Eventually, he reaches the point where his salary slides down from the current $6.7 million US and he retires. But it's Canucks who would get clobbered with the $5.3-million cap hit for the duration of his 12-year contract. Brutal for them, right?

Not so fast.

The NHL offer is for six years with an option for a seventh. Look at Luongo's salary over those seasons -- he only drops below that $6.7 million in the final one (to $3.4 million). It is unlikely that he walks away from that. The true cap evasion doesn't come until after this proposed collective bargaining agreement would be completed. So the Canucks probably aren't in serious danger.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/10/nhl-nhlpa-enter-zopa-in-labour-talks.html

I don't really follow the logic here. Does Friedman expect the league to loosen the rules here in the next CBA, when they know full well that the majority of the contracts they're targeting with these rules won't really be impacted until the next CBA? Does he expect the next CBA to make things less restrictive? If anything, what Friedman highlights here is why Luongo's trade value is more negatively impacted by this CBA - the very fact he's unlikely to retire until the next one means, if his performance drops past the point of being a viable #1 goalie, the team he's playing for has no recourse to remove his salary from the cap as long as he's healthy.

Really, it's almost lose-lose for the Canucks here, as Luongo now essentially has all the power. If he retires, the Canucks get screwed, if he doesn't, any team trading for him eventually gets screwed. The only way the Canucks can really get good value out of Luongo is to eat half the cap hit (if that provision stands), in which case, they could be screwed when it comes to re-signing guys like Edler and the Sedins - though, they'd be in much worse shape there if they don't move him at all. There's very little in good news here for the Canucks.

 

[Tigger]

I find it kind of amusing that the Leafs will have 13 players signed next year for 41.5 against the cap and Vancouver will have 13 players with 55.4 against. If some of these new rules come into play, well I'll feel real bad for Vancouver fans...

If the league can garner similar revenue increases to what it's enjoyed recently, the Leafs could be fairly well positioned after this year, cap wise.

 

[lamajama]

One media idiot in Vancouver is wigging out over "Brian Burke's fingerprint" on the CBA proposal of having these mega-deals still count against the team that signed them and it's "payback from Gary Bettman for testifying on behalf of the league vs New Jersey".

Personally I think it's Bettman's payback after warning the teams not
to circumvent the Cap with those type of deals. He has a long long memory.

In all seriousness I doubt this will survive the NHLPA's counteroffer anyway but I can dream....

I think you accurately described the Vancouver writer.  But I also think Burke's stance on long term deals and "cap circumvention" characteristics was based on an inkling that future CBA's would likely change the operating environment.  To be clear, it wasn't "payback" rather than Burke being tuned in and seeing the writing on the wall.

What I meant by "payback" was Bettman "paying back" the owners who did this crap - not Burke. I read elsewhere and sorry I cannot recall the source but Bettman was very peed off and warned these teams against
doing those deals - "legal" or not - everyone (owners etc) knew it was not the intended outcome of that CBA. This is Bettman getting even for those
that ignored his wishes.

Yes he is that vindictive. But as I say, it's unlikely it survives the final CBA but I am 100% sure it surprised Snider et al.

 

[moon111]

I find it kind of amusing that the Leafs will have 13 players signed next year for 41.5 against the cap and Vancouver will have 13 players with 55.4 against. If some of these new rules come into play, well I'll feel real bad for Vancouver fans...

If the league can garner similar revenue increases to what it's enjoyed recently, the Leafs could be fairly well positioned after this year, cap wise.

And how many fans have been dishing Burke for not signing a big #1 center?  Does signing Brad Richards look so smart now?  Last time around, J.F.J. and the Leafs were clueless.  Burke doesn't just know what's going on, he IS what's going on.

 

[Omallley]

I find it kind of amusing that the Leafs will have 13 players signed next year for 41.5 against the cap and Vancouver will have 13 players with 55.4 against. If some of these new rules come into play, well I'll feel real bad for Vancouver fans...

If the league can garner similar revenue increases to what it's enjoyed recently, the Leafs could be fairly well positioned after this year, cap wise.

That would hit a few teams, although it does look like Vancouver is one of the worst off. Montreal (60M on 16 players next year) would be in tough too.

 

[Palmateer29]

Didn't I hear a piece in there about not being able to dump huge contracts in the minors as well without them counting towards the cap? So the Wade Redden's and Souray (with the Oilers) would have still counted under the new proposal...