2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[hap_leaf]

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.

This brings up the possibility of other avenues that a player with these clauses would employ in order to get what he wants.  Bad attitude, low motivation, yapping to the reporters...I think they would get their point across and the team may in fact decide to trade them. As long as it is not their general character, or no other team would want them either.

 

[Kin]

This brings up the possibility of other avenues that a player with these clauses would employ in order to get what he wants.  Bad attitude, low motivation, yapping to the reporters...I think they would get their point across and the team may in fact decide to trade them. As long as it is not their general character, or no other team would want them either.

But you're missing the point. A player with an NTC would have to waive their NTC for any trade to happen, regardless of who initiates it.

 

[bustaheims]

But you're missing the point. A player with an NTC would have to waive their NTC for any trade to happen, regardless of who initiates it.

I think the point he's trying to get across is that, instead of demanding a trade and effectively losing the NTC, the player would cause enough chaos for management to want to be rid of him, but he'd retain final say in where he will and won't play as the trade would be initiated by the team. The problem is that it A) ignores the fact these guys are professionals who, for the most part, understand that unprofessional conduct such being a locker-room problem, a media problem, etc, makes you less appealing to other teams and B) if a player were to take that kind of action to try to initiate a trade, they're more likely to be suspended by the team than traded, which would in turn force the player to demand a trade.

 

[hap_leaf]

But you're missing the point. A player with an NTC would have to waive their NTC for any trade to happen, regardless of who initiates it.

I think the point he's trying to get across is that, instead of demanding a trade and effectively losing the NTC, the player would cause enough chaos for management to want to be rid of him, but he'd retain final say in where he will and won't play as the trade would be initiated by the team. The problem is that it A) ignores the fact these guys are professionals who, for the most part, understand that unprofessional conduct such being a locker-room problem, a media problem, etc, makes you less appealing to other teams and B) if a player were to take that kind of action to try to initiate a trade, they're more likely to be suspended by the team than traded, which would in turn force the player to demand a trade.

Correct, from how I interpret what Freij describes, the player would retain his list of teams in the event a trade is initiated by the team.  Just that the player forced the issue in small ways.  I think we see this in sports generally speaking, when a player is unhappy for whatever reason, he just doesn't produce like he can and some degree of apathy can set in. 

 

[bustaheims]

I think we see this in sports generally speaking, when a player is unhappy for whatever reason, he just doesn't produce like he can and some degree of apathy can set in.

Sure, but that almost always leads to the player being a less than desirable trade candidate and can easily take the teams he's interested in playing for out of the market for him. It can also lower his value to the point where his GM can't find a deal to his liking. It's not a smart tactic to try to force a deal.

 

[Kin]

I think the point he's trying to get across is that, instead of demanding a trade and effectively losing the NTC, the player would cause enough chaos for management to want to be rid of him, but he'd retain final say in where he will and won't play as the trade would be initiated by the team. The problem is that it A) ignores the fact these guys are professionals who, for the most part, understand that unprofessional conduct such being a locker-room problem, a media problem, etc, makes you less appealing to other teams and B) if a player were to take that kind of action to try to initiate a trade, they're more likely to be suspended by the team than traded, which would in turn force the player to demand a trade.

Well, then maybe the fault is mine for not explaining it well but when I said that the NTC would be binding what I mean is that a player could not be traded with a NTC regardless of who initiates it. In order for a player to be dealt with a NTC he'd have to waive it.

Right? So if Nash wanted out of Columbus and was making a jerk of himself, Columbus couldn't come to Nash and say "We want to trade you to New York" they'd have to say "We want to trade you so you have to waive your NTC".

 

[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/

Sounds like I could have written that article.

Maybe once you figure out the distinction between "your" and "you're" they'll hire you.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I'm not sure a term limit is necessary (maybe moreso an age limit). Treat all contracts longer than a specified amount of time (6 years?) as they did the 35+ contracts.

I mean to say, make teams honour the contract no matter what happens (injury/retirement etc.). If teams want to gamble on a player then they can but they'll get no relief from the league. I think there also needs to be a rule about how much time you can be on LTIR for CAP relief.

I agree with that and like it.  (I added for CAP relief)

Then they should either put a Cap on the age a player will be at the end of the contract (40?) or some kind of over- age tax added (not sure how this would work) to the years that go beyond 40.

I still think Burke missed the boat on these type of contracts. At the end of the day they offer great value and are pretty low risk. Who he thinks he's protecting is beyond me. His job is to create a winning hockey club, not protect the league and the sanctity of the salary cap. Too bad.

That age limit idea won't work from what I can see.  If you just did your 1st 2 paragraphs then the age thing wouldn't be needed.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

I like one year contracts or something to that effect, where the player needs to play well to get paid well.

But giving the GM's a "get out of jail free card" for some of their incompetency, is just asking for more of the madness and poor decision making when it comes to player contracts.

 

[princedpw]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

This would be great for teams like the leafs, but I'm afraid the majority of team owners would not agree.

 

[Kin]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

How could you possibly square that with the idea that players can only get paid a certain percentage of the league's revenue?

 

[cw]

Factually, that isn't what they did. The top revenue teams contribute to the bottom revenue teams. The Leafs contribute the most to revenue sharing. So there is a variable scale. As well, there is a cap floor which allows smaller market teams to spend less. Therefore, the percentages vary with each team.

You and I both know that the revenue sharing in the NHL is so minimal as to barely register as meaningful.

You're welcome to imagine you know that but I think the facts defy any sense of reasonableness with that position. Claiming you know what I know is just a heck of a presumption.

2006 is the only year we have decent media reports quantitatively on what the revenue sharing numbers were combined with Forbes 'guesses' on team revenues and profits or losses.

Media reports quoting among others, Richard Peddie, since 2006 and the Forbes numbers since 2006 strongly suggest that the relationship of revenue sharing relative to revenue growth didn't materially change in the years that have followed. Peddie, for example, indicated the Leafs revenue sharing contributions rose with revenues during that time. EBITDA league profits have hovered around 6%.

In 2006, revenue sharing was 44% of overall league profits. That's a pretty staggering number for most reasonable business people and not "so minimal as to barely register as meaningful" when one considers profit as a rational means to contribute to revenue sharing. It doesn't materially deviate in the years that followed. In previous posts, I found 6.7% of the teams (Toronto & Montreal) took home roughly 60% of the profits after revenue sharing, leaving 93.3% of the  league (the other 28 teams) to pick over the remaining 40% of profits that were left. To ignore that exponential rise in profits for the top teams and focus on the bottom five teams strikes me as myopic. We have to consider ALL the teams in between for the system to work fairly.

So this issue about "revenue sharing" has to consider the profits available to be shared. Otherwise, all you're doing with much bigger revenue sharing is largely and pointlessly pushing losses from one team to another or leaving absolutely no or relatively little profit incentive for an owner of a decent franchise to own a team. And for those who preach a "free market" for the players, capitalism ought to exist for those who own the teams too because they're the guys providing the financing and named in the bankruptcy documents taking the brunt of the risk.

There's no question that the Habs & Leafs could afford to kick in a little more towards revenue sharing. But when you consider how much those teams sold for recently, I can also have some sympathy for limits on how much more they should kick in. They're the franchises who have largely done everything right and their "reward" is to pay for the weaknesses of their fellow franchises. For me, there are two legitimate sides to that debate. The right answer lies somewhere in between for the most profitable teams.

The bottom line on revenue sharing is that for the league to increase it substantially or in a more meaningful way, the league needs to make more profit. Given the league's respectable history of revenue increase, that's a very reasonable and basic business 101 conclusion. And the first place the league should look to improve that overall profit so they can increase revenue sharing is with their largest expense (again, using rational and basic business 101 logic): the players salaries (57% of revenues).

Since 44% of profits is according to you "so minimal as to barely register as meaningful" then you must be advocating for revenue sharing at a level pretty close to 100% of profits or more which renders the league  effectively as a charity unless something else gives - like players salaries. If that's really where the NHLPA are (and I don't think for a second that it is), then the league should just do what MLS did and form a single corporation (giving the Leafs and Habs for example, a larger % to compensate them) which would effectively neuter the NHLPA antitrust stuff and break a stupid union. Again, I don't think the NHLPA and the players, armed with jointly audited numbers, are anywhere close to stupid on this - like they were with Goodenow propaganda the last time.

If the players can't see that (but again, I think they do and will), then by all means, lock them out until they do. The owners would have my full support and blessing because it would be for the long term good of the game and the sport.

In 2006, assuming Forbes took into account revenue sharing, revenue sharing paid $55 mil of $85 mil +/-  of teams with losses = 62% of losses by smaller market teams. I don't think the big market teams should be on the hook for 100% of those losses. On that basis, revenue sharing is more than 2/3 rds of the way there and therefore, it's meaningful.

I don't see contributing 44% of a league profits toward revenue sharing as "so minimal as to barely register as meaningful"

 

[Britishbulldog]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

This would be great for teams like the leafs, but I'm afraid the majority of team owners would not agree.

I was actually thinking the opposite.  Say a small market team sticks their neck out and signs a UFA hoping for big returns but unfortunately the player lays an egg.  This would allow the small market team a way to get out of the contract by sending the UFA to a large market team so the small market team owner can save salary.  The player gets paid in full so the NHLPA should be happy.

 

[louisstamos]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

This would be great for teams like the leafs, but I'm afraid the majority of team owners would not agree.

I was actually thinking the opposite.  Say a small market team sticks their neck out and signs a UFA hoping for big returns but unfortunately the player lays an egg.  This would allow the small market team a way to get out of the contract by sending the UFA to a large market team so the small market team owner can save salary.  The player gets paid in full so the NHLPA should be happy.

I see what you're saying, but I think there's still a tactical advantage to the large market teams.  They can buyout their own contracts with no punishment.  A smaller market team will have to send an asset or incentive of some kind to the larger market team in order to do it.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

This would be great for teams like the leafs, but I'm afraid the majority of team owners would not agree.

I was actually thinking the opposite.  Say a small market team sticks their neck out and signs a UFA hoping for big returns but unfortunately the player lays an egg.  This would allow the small market team a way to get out of the contract by sending the UFA to a large market team so the small market team owner can save salary.  The player gets paid in full so the NHLPA should be happy.

I see what you're saying, but I think there's still a tactical advantage to the large market teams.  They can buyout their own contracts with no punishment.  A smaller market team will have to send an asset or incentive of some kind to the larger market team in order to do it.

Yeah....sucks to be small!  ;D

I guess if the larger markets and more profitable teams have to share a percentage of their revenues simply because they are successful I think it is fair to have a compensation like this for them. 

Plus if a star player like Colby Armstrong gets bought out by a large market team, then a small market puke team could sign him for....$1 MIL let's say.  That helps the Armstrongs, Fingers and Reddens to continue to play in the NHL.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I would like to see a buyout option that could be invoked between the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs and the next season opener that a team could buyout the whole remaining contract so that they player would receive all he was promised BUT it wouldn't impact the CAP hit of that team at all. 

That way if a team has a player that is 'over payed', that team could trade the player (with an asset of some kind) to a 'rich' team who could buyout the remaining contract to benefit the player, the original team and the rich team.

For the teams it is almost like having NFL style non-guaranteed contracts but for the player he still gets all his cash AND can try to get with another team.

How could you possibly square that with the idea that players can only get paid a certain percentage of the league's revenue?

That's a valid point Nik.  I was thinking it could be added to the escrow amount.

 

[Kin]

I don't see contributing 44% of a league profits toward revenue sharing as "so minimal as to barely register as meaningful"

You're a smart guy cw. I know me presuming that you know anything strikes you as terribly presumptuous but I think you can get a handle on the fundamental difference between revenue sharing and profit sharing.

Don't get me wrong, I have no personal problem with you obfuscating as much as you possibly can in the service of whatever weird problem you have with players negotiating with all of the rights of everyone else in society but I know enough about sports to know that when the term revenue sharing is discussed it means one very simple and straightforward thing, namely the amount of revenues a team takes in that is then shared with the other teams in the league rather than kept by the team that sells the ticket or the jersey or whatever. Your claim about  the league's profits being what they are and Montreal and Toronto's being what they are is the perfect evidence of what I'm saying. Neither team shares a significant percentage of their revenue with the rest of the league and it creates the massive imbalance in terms of profitability.

 

[Kin]

That's a valid point Nik.  I was thinking it could be added to the escrow amount.

Then players wouldn't really be getting the money, would they?

 

[Frank E]

I don't see contributing 44% of a league profits toward revenue sharing as "so minimal as to barely register as meaningful"

You're a smart guy cw. I know me presuming that you know anything strikes you as terribly presumptuous but I think you can get a handle on the fundamental difference between revenue sharing and profit sharing.

Don't get me wrong, I have no personal problem with you obfuscating as much as you possibly can in the service of whatever weird problem you have with players negotiating with all of the rights of everyone else in society but I know enough about sports to know that when the term revenue sharing is discussed it means one very simple and straightforward thing, namely the amount of revenues a team takes in that is then shared with the other teams in the league rather than kept by the team that sells the ticket or the jersey or whatever. Your claim about  the league's profits being what they are and Montreal and Toronto's being what they are is the perfect evidence of what I'm saying. Neither team shares a significant percentage of their revenue with the rest of the league and it creates the massive imbalance in terms of profitability.

I think you should re-read cw's post.  I don't read any weird problem with anything.

If indeed 44% of combined team profit went to revenue sharing, well, that's a pretty significant number no matter which teams contributed more or less.  What percentage would you suggest is more fair?

And given still that many teams are still in financial distress, it makes this even more alarming.