2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

I agree that those median, marginal players probably don't have much influence -- when it comes to negotiations the crosbies are the guys who get invited to the table with Fehr.  But I believe a benevolent leader would be looking out for the majority, not the elite so I was trying to compute what would actually be best for the majority -- is it best to cave to the owners current proposal or to lose a season and assume you win out in the end?

Two things. One, primarily, Fehr should be taking his cues from the majority as opposed to looking out for any specific group.

Bigger than that though think, though, you're dealing with a bit of a problem in terms of the way a roster is constituted if you just use the leaguewide historical median figures for a player's career to try and determine what constitutes the majority of NHL players.

I mean let's say that at any given moment the NHLPA is going to have somewhere in the vicinity of 700 members spread over 30 teams. Well, sort of by the way we define the game in the real sense, the majority of those guys aren't fringe players, right? Of the 12 forwards a team dresses in a given night, half of them are top 6 forwards. Of the other six, half are third line guys and I'd say the majority of third line guys in the league aren't marginal or fringe either. Same goes with defense, right? 4 of the 6 or 7 defensemen are top 4 guys. Half of all of the goalies are at least 1A guys. The only way you can make the argument that the "majority" of NHL players are fringe guys is if anyone who plays a single shift during the course of a season counts equally. 

Right? I mean, those guys on the bottom rotate a lot. They're the guys who get sent down and called up because of injuries, essentially part timers. Look at our own Maple Leafs. Last year the Maple Leafs had 20 forwards, at some point, on the roster but they had 9 who played in at least 66 games and that was on a team that wasn't very good and needed to juggle their roster.

Fehr, and indeed all of the players, shouldn't think that what's best for the 23rd spot on the roster is more important than what's best for a #1 centre just because there might be 5 different guys who play handful of games in that 23rd spot whereas Evgeni Malkin is there year round. Right? Especially not, say, five times more important.

 

[princedpw]

I agree that those median, marginal players probably don't have much influence -- when it comes to negotiations the crosbies are the guys who get invited to the table with Fehr.  But I believe a benevolent leader would be looking out for the majority, not the elite so I was trying to compute what would actually be best for the majority -- is it best to cave to the owners current proposal or to lose a season and assume you win out in the end?

Two things. One, primarily, Fehr should be taking his cues from the majority as opposed to looking out for any specific group.

Bigger than that though think, though, you're dealing with a bit of a problem in terms of the way a roster is constituted if you just use the leaguewide historical median figures for a player's career to try and determine what constitutes the majority of NHL players.

I mean let's say that at any given moment the NHLPA is going to have somewhere in the vicinity of 700 members spread over 30 teams.

I know what Fehr should be doing, but is he?  More importantly, I'm trying to get at the potential cost of this Brinkmanship diplomacy.

If you want to help out and give me some superior, specific parameters to plug in, that would be great.  What is the career length of the median voting NHLPA member if not 4 years?  How much does a lost lockout year reduce their career length?

If I get time (I've got work to do this weekend ...), I'll compute the break-even point -- how long does a career have to be able come out on top when a season is lost.

 

[maplesyrup]

Not sure of the helps but I heard recently that 40% of NHLers have a career length shorter than 82 games.

 

[Hampreacher]

I hope Bettman and Fehr realize that evry game missed jeopodizes the southern US franchizes. Go into december and they will harm them beyond repair as far as viablity. They might as well fold 3 or 4 of them. That may be inevitable anyways.
    Maybe they need to learn the principles of negotiation is give some here to gain some in another area. The last owners offer said 5% variation on yearly amonts of contract contracts with the maximum length 5 years. So the players say well give us 25% variation on contracts per year and 7 years. So they settle for 6 years 15% variation per year. Now move on to next issue and settle this. Negotiation is not here is my offer take it or leave it. Which neither, especially Bettman understands.

 

[hockeyfan1]

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/father-fights-terminal-cancer-nhl-fan-slams-lockout-174506304--nhl.html

"I hope that the doctors and nurses that keep my dad alive get a raise. And that you get your asses back on the ice before it's too late." Man ?

Here's a bit more from "eamu99":
Just wanna catch a game with my dad. There is a deal for the players within the NHL. But there is a contract with the communities that these players come from as well. When you are mentally strong enough to become an elite athlete you are a special human being (in most cases anyways) . A human being that can lead and inspire the people around them and their communities. The NHL take these extraordinary people and display them so their effect is amplified. Because of this lockout we have displaced inspiration and it is sad. I am sure that whoever misses out on their little piece of inspiration wont be refunded. Seems there is no deal for the fans in the NHL.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Interview with Fehr (from the Ottawa Sun)...

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/10/19/exclusive-donald-fehr-explains-players-side-in-nhl-labour-dispute

A few pointers:

QMI:  Why does  the league not want to honour the deals that were signed?

FEHR: "They want to pay less money. That's all. It's really very simple: 'We've agreed to pay to the dollar all the contracts we've signed.' We've now decided that's more money than we'd like to pay.' The reason we made the last proposal the way we did was simply because they want to move toward 50-50. The players have already indicated they are willing to do that over time. The question is: Should you agree to honour the contracts you signed between now and then? Players think that's a straight-forward thing to do and not an unusual thing to do. It's sort of the way everybody does business."

QMI: What's your message to fans who have spent the past couple of days calling players "greedy" after the 50-50 offer from the league?

FEHR: "It's pretty hard to treat seriously the notion that the athletes, who are the only people who anybody comes to watch, that they would be greedy in the face of a 24% reduction in their pay last time; billions of dollars went to the owners, not the players; seven years of record revenues that was more than anybody thought. The result of all that success is for the owners to say, 'OK, now we want to renegotiate all the contracts again and we want to lower them.' My message to the fans is: I don't think that characterization hits the facts very well. Hockey players are pretty down-to-earth people. That's why fans like and identify with them. They want to do the right thing. The right thing here happens to be proceeding in a way which is not merely, 'Oh the owners asked for billions of dollars I guess we have to give it to them because who are we? Hockey players.' "

 

[cw]

Interview with Fehr (from the Ottawa Sun)...

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/10/19/exclusive-donald-fehr-explains-players-side-in-nhl-labour-dispute

A few pointers:

QMI:  Why does  the league not want to honour the deals that were signed?

FEHR: "They want to pay less money. That's all. It's really very simple: 'We've agreed to pay to the dollar all the contracts we've signed.' We've now decided that's more money than we'd like to pay.' The reason we made the last proposal the way we did was simply because they want to move toward 50-50. The players have already indicated they are willing to do that over time. The question is: Should you agree to honour the contracts you signed between now and then? Players think that's a straight-forward thing to do and not an unusual thing to do. It's sort of the way everybody does business."

That strikes me as a steaming pile of bunk. The contracts are tied to the CBA under contract law. Because this is a collectively bargained deal, the parties in CBA negotiations could agree to tear up all the contracts and throw them in the garbage. Or they could agree to change them all to pay the players minimum wage. Without the CBA, they're effectively worthless pieces of paper. That was known when they were negotiated.

Also, the very spirit of the recent CBA was an attempt to reduce the league losses. It was successful to a significant degree. But with the salaries moving with revenues, it was known that players salaries would go up and down accordingly. In other words, it was known that the players were unlikely to get the exact amount signed on their contract under that old deal. As it turned out they got more but that was NEVER guaranteed.

So this business about clinging to the existing contract amounts may be an effort in PR and fooling the players but beyond that, it has little sound basis in my opinion beyond having something to argue about.

From the owners perspective, without the Leafs, Rangers and Habs, they're effectively a break even league. 18 teams losing money in 2011. They need some relief now. Those are hard numbers and facts based in reality.

As for the recent CBA, anyone who ran a spreadsheet in 2005 could easily see that that CBA just moved the ball down the field some. It didn't and wouldn't solve the entire problem. Both parties knew this day was coming before they signed the last lockout deal. The revenue sharing being too low, the cap floor moving up much faster than revenue growth and the players share being too high doomed it in basic math. But the divide they had to overcome at the time was so great, it was a major compromise that allowed the league to continue to exist to this point in time. I think that's been largely overlooked this time around.

 

[Kin]

I know what Fehr should be doing, but is he?

There's no reason to think that he isn't. The reason the MLBPA has been so successful, by far the most successful of the major sports unions, is that they've involved and educated players and, most importantly, took stands the players were behind. There's no real reason for Fehr to come to the NHL and abandon those principles.

If you want to help out and give me some superior, specific parameters to plug in, that would be great.  What is the career length of the median voting NHLPA member if not 4 years?  How much does a lost lockout year reduce their career length?

I was just pointing out that the numbers you were using didn't really match up with the source you provided. The source you used had the median NHL player's career as being 86 games over the course of four seasons, whereas your math seemed to be based on the idea that the median player's career being four full seasons.

So based on that a missed year would cost your median player 21.5 games. But, again, I'm not sure that's all that relevant to who the members of the PA actually are. I'm sorry if you don't think that's helpful but my point isn't that your numbers are wrong but that the fundamental premise is flawed.

 

[bustaheims]

Real_ESPNLeBrun: Spoke with a team exec who says there's either a labor deal this week or there's no season. Not sure it's that clear-cut but who knows...

While I doubt they'd officially cancel the season this early, that's probably pretty close to the truth. If there's nothing by the end of month, then we'll probably have a stalemate situation until the spring.

 

[maplesyrup]

AAARRRGOOOS!

 

[skrackle]

My feeling, and that's all it is, is that they'll get it done fairly soon. I think the two sides are gradually moving toward common ground that they can live with, though neither side will really like it.

Up to now (and probably for the next bit), it's mostly been a strange performance piece; something worthy of 'Bad Conceptual Theater' with your host Leonard Pinth-Garnell. I think they'll continue this dance right up to whenever the cutoff for preparing the Winter Classic is.

The NHL will probably modify their proposal again, until the players accept it. Donald Fehr will have proven his reputation as a tough negotiator, and the NHL will gain some public approval as being willing to compromise when they make the deal they knew they'd make from the start.

If I'm wrong and the Winter Classic is cancelled, then the season is probably gone too. Both sides will have willingly jumped off the cliff, and who knows what will happen.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I found this to be a really good read: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/10/21/why-there-are-so-many-conflicts-in-pro-sports-and-what-to-do-about-them/

 

[Rebel_1812]

Real_ESPNLeBrun: Spoke with a team exec who says there's either a labor deal this week or there's no season. Not sure it's that clear-cut but who knows...

While I doubt they'd officially cancel the season this early, that's probably pretty close to the truth. If there's nothing by the end of month, then we'll probably have a stalemate situation until the spring.

That exec must be from a joke organization like the Islanders.

 

[princedpw]

I know what Fehr should be doing, but is he?

There's no reason to think that he isn't. The reason the MLBPA has been so successful, by far the most successful of the major sports unions, is that they've involved and educated players and, most importantly, took stands the players were behind. There's no real reason for Fehr to come to the NHL and abandon those principles.

I was trying to compute how a lost season would impact a large fragment of the players as best I could instead of just assuming Fehr's strategy was best.  Also, I understand, of course, that even if he plans to fold he can't show his hand too soon.  So any analysis I do now is really about what he should be doing before the season is cancelled.

If you want to help out and give me some superior, specific parameters to plug in, that would be great.  What is the career length of the median voting NHLPA member if not 4 years?  How much does a lost lockout year reduce their career length?

I was just pointing out that the numbers you were using didn't really match up with the source you provided. The source you used had the median NHL player's career as being 86 games over the course of four seasons, whereas your math seemed to be based on the idea that the median player's career being four full seasons.

So based on that a missed year would cost your median player 21.5 games. But, again, I'm not sure that's all that relevant to who the members of the PA actually are. I'm sorry if you don't think that's helpful but my point isn't that your numbers are wrong but that the fundamental premise is flawed.

It sounds to me like you are just questioning the parameters, not the algorithm.  I also question the parameters and would like to validate them somehow.  Hence the post.  Probably the easiest and most robust thing to do is to just compute the payout for players that 1-6 seasons using one of the players proposals vs. the owners proposal and see where the break-even point is.  If the players don't break even after 6 seasons then they basically just lose pay if a season is lost since after 5-6 seasons they roughly get to 50-50 which coincides with the owners proposal.

By the way, as long as the hypothetical player is paid roughly the same in each season, the math works out the same regardless of whether they play 8 or 80 games each year.

 

[cw]

I know what Fehr should be doing, but is he?

There's no reason to think that he isn't. The reason the MLBPA has been so successful, by far the most successful of the major sports unions, is that they've involved and educated players and, most importantly, took stands the players were behind. There's no real reason for Fehr to come to the NHL and abandon those principles.

I was trying to compute how a lost season would impact a large fragment of the players as best I could instead of just assuming Fehr's strategy was best.  Also, I understand, of course, that even if he plans to fold he can't show his hand too soon.  So any analysis I do now is really about what he should be doing before the season is cancelled.

If you want to help out and give me some superior, specific parameters to plug in, that would be great.  What is the career length of the median voting NHLPA member if not 4 years?  How much does a lost lockout year reduce their career length?

I was just pointing out that the numbers you were using didn't really match up with the source you provided. The source you used had the median NHL player's career as being 86 games over the course of four seasons, whereas your math seemed to be based on the idea that the median player's career being four full seasons.

So based on that a missed year would cost your median player 21.5 games. But, again, I'm not sure that's all that relevant to who the members of the PA actually are. I'm sorry if you don't think that's helpful but my point isn't that your numbers are wrong but that the fundamental premise is flawed.

It sounds to me like you are just questioning the parameters, not the algorithm.  I also question the parameters and would like to validate them somehow.  Hence the post.  Probably the easiest and most robust thing to do is to just compute the payout for players that 1-6 seasons using one of the players proposals vs. the owners proposal and see where the break-even point is.  If the players don't break even after 6 seasons then they basically just lose pay if a season is lost since after 5-6 seasons they roughly get to 50-50 which coincides with the owners proposal.

By the way, as long as the hypothetical player is paid roughly the same in each season, the math works out the same regardless of whether they play 8 or 80 games each year.

I took a stab at answering some of that here:
http://www.tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=716.msg89650#msg89650

Recently, this was reported
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643748
"The so called 50-50 deal, plus honoring current contracts proposed by the NHL Players' Association earlier today is being misrepresented," Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said in a statement. "It is not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely a 56- to 57-percent deal in Year One and never gets to 50 percent during the proposed five-year term of the agreement.

"The proposal contemplates paying the players approximately $650 million outside of the players' share," he continued. "In effect, the Union is proposing to change the accounting rules to be able to say '50-50,' when in reality it is not. The Union told us that they had not yet 'run the numbers.' We did."

So they're bickering over $650 mil in transition to 50/50.

Another way of calculating that:
$3,100 mil is revenue for a season. 50% of that is $1,550 mil for players salary for next season.

$650mil bicker amt/$1550mil for season = 41.9% of the season

41.9% of 82 games = 34.4 games missed is the rough break even point ... IF and only IF they get the league to cave in at the end and pay them all of the $650 mil - which the league has rejected.

Again, very roughly, if the players sit out beyond 16-20 games or so, they're very probably losing money they will NEVER get back over their career. Anything beyond that is probably doubling down on 2005 stupid - particularly when unlike 2005, there is little philosophical at stake - just greed and ego.

 

[Kin]

Anything beyond that is probably doubling down on 2005 stupid - particularly when unlike 2005, there is little philosophical at stake - just greed and ego.

It's interesting. I've heard people say something similar when they were talking about these negotiations and, specifically, they've said it in the context of how they thought a deal would be done with relatively little acrimony because this is just a dispute over numbers as opposed to philosophy.

But I think that kind of masks where the PA is on these deals. I don't think it takes much scratching past the surface to realize that the PA very much dislikes and resents the cap and that, while they probably realize they can't get rid of it in these negotiations, I still think it's very much informing the way that they look at what the owners are offering.

I think that's why some people don't understand why there doesn't seem to much of a middle ground being sought with regards to things like the individual negotiating rights. I think the players see any changes there as being symbolically important and representative what they "won" in the 04-05 lockout and likewise, I think it's why there seems to be more intractability than one would assume when most people seem to think that the nuts and bolts finances of the deal will, at some point, look like a 50/50 split.

 

[Corn Flake]

I don't see why the whole notion of honoring current contracts is so insurmountable and to me is what the big gap really comes down to. 

It seems like it could be resolved by allowing a short term rise in the cap, or a "soft cap" if you will where teams over the $51 mil new cap can hang there for at least 1 season, provided they are allowed to buy out one contract with no penalty.

Based on cap geek numbers, the teams collectively have $1.801 bil in contracts signed based on cap hit for next season.  If the 50% magic mark is $1.55 bil, then the difference is only $251 mil, or 16% of the amount owed.  While it would be unfair to make the players take a 16% cut off the hopper, giving teams 1-2 seasons to drop down to the 50% mark seems fair to both sides. 

the PA seems to have some poorly thought out, convoluted ways to get there and the league proposed something like this but the provisions on how those contracts would be honored sounded weak.  So in the end would it not simply come to the point where they work out the details on how that contract honoring takes place and what provisions teams get to help get down to the cap and temporarily work when they are over? The details on the cap issue get tricky, considering all but two teams are at or above $51 mil for this season already, but if the posturing ended they could get it worked out I'm sure.

Too easy?

 

[Kin]

It seems like it could be resolved by allowing a short term rise in the cap, or a "soft cap" if you will where teams over the $51 mil new cap can hang there for at least 1 season, provided they are allowed to buy out one contract with no penalty.

Doesn't the cap figure of 51 million assume that there wouldn't be a spread the way there is now?  I could be off the mark but everything I've heard from the negotiations assumes that there'd be a 16 million dollar spread from minimum to maximum so the cap ceiling would end up being 59 million.

the PA seems to have some poorly thought out, convoluted ways to get there and the league proposed something like this but the provisions on how those contracts would be honored sounded weak.  So in the end would it not simply come to the point where they work out the details on how that contract honoring takes place and what provisions teams get to help get down to the cap and temporarily work when they are over? The details on the cap issue get tricky, considering all but two teams are at or above $51 mil for this season already, but if the posturing ended they could get it worked out I'm sure.

Maybe I'm missing your point but it seems as though the dispute right now actually is about the details and how they would eventually get to the 50/50. The problem is that neither side seems all that inclined to move off of where they are.

 

[maplesyrup]

Personally, I have a hard time coming to grips why anyone should take a haircut in an industry where profits continues to rise. 

 

[Corn Flake]

It seems like it could be resolved by allowing a short term rise in the cap, or a "soft cap" if you will where teams over the $51 mil new cap can hang there for at least 1 season, provided they are allowed to buy out one contract with no penalty.

Doesn't the cap figure of 51 million assume that there wouldn't be a spread the way there is now?  I could be off the mark but everything I've heard from the negotiations assumes that there'd be a 16 million dollar spread from minimum to maximum so the cap ceiling would end up being 59 million.

I thought the proposal was the cap was $51 but if it is $59 as the top end then that works too.  My little scenario went under the assumption that if $51 was the cap then most teams would be at or over it.  $59 provides more wiggle room.

the PA seems to have some poorly thought out, convoluted ways to get there and the league proposed something like this but the provisions on how those contracts would be honored sounded weak.  So in the end would it not simply come to the point where they work out the details on how that contract honoring takes place and what provisions teams get to help get down to the cap and temporarily work when they are over? The details on the cap issue get tricky, considering all but two teams are at or above $51 mil for this season already, but if the posturing ended they could get it worked out I'm sure.

Maybe I'm missing your point but it seems as though the dispute right now actually is about the details and how they would eventually get to the 50/50. The problem is that neither side seems all that inclined to move off of where they are.

[/quote]

That is what I'm trying to say by dumping my thoughts here, is the 'how' of getting to 50/50.  By my crude calculations, it would be that $251 mil void, which although is large is not insurmountable.  A combination of LTIR's, buyouts, "free" demotions to the AHL, and some cap flexibility for the first year or two should be more enough to get it done.

And yes the key right now is these guys getting to the table and being willing to work on it at all.  When they finally do, the path to agreement doesn't seem that insurmountable.