Do we have a CBA strife thread yet?

[DaBoltsNIsles]

Today was an absolute waste of time. PATHETIC.

 

[awaz]

Option A: Fehr decides to keep delaying for a couple more weeks to squeeze a few more dollars out of the league.

Option B: Players go over Fehr and call for a membership vote on whether or not to accept the league's latest offer.

Option C: IPW lifts 100 lbs. over his head

C for sure. It's the only one that doesn't end with an agreement and is therefore the I Lu one that's even remotely possible.

 

[mooger_35]

Option A: Fehr decides to keep delaying for a couple more weeks to squeeze a few more dollars out of the league.

Option B: Players go over Fehr and call for a membership vote on whether or not to accept the league's latest offer.

Option C: IPW lifts 100 lbs. over his head

Option D: Mooger gets drunk and watches basketb... fuck can't even type it.

 

[Dacks]

Option A: Fehr decides to keep delaying for a couple more weeks to squeeze a few more dollars out of the league.

Option B: Players go over Fehr and call for a membership vote on whether or not to accept the league's latest offer.

I honestly think mid January is the drop-dead date, and both Fehr and Bettman are willing to go that far to see who will break. Which is unfortunate, because I doubt the deal will get much better for either party between now and then.

The owners always intended a lockout. That much is obvious. And while they hoped to bully the players into accepting a bad deal in October, they never really planned on making a serious offer until December. At that point they thought the players would be willing to accept anything remotely approaching a fair deal.

What they didn't count on was the players standing strong behind Fehr. They figured that by holding off the serious offers until now, the players would be so happy to get a few hundred in make whole that they'd cave on every issue. Instead the NHLPA countered, as is normal in negotiations. (Which is why the moral outrage on the part of Bettman and the owners was such a stunt.)

Now we are in serious negotiations. The league will stand by their "take it or leave it" stance for as long as they can, hoping the players buckle. The players will keep proposing counter-offers, hoping to see where the owners will give.

It's a game of chicken. Both sides willing to risk the season over a year of CBA term there, a year of term length there, and a few dozen million in make whole. You wouldn't think we'd lose a season over these issues (definitely not the same magnitude as introducing a salary cap) but there is so much ego here, I wouldn't be shocked.

 

[sbb122]

Please just cancel the season.

 

[dash]

Please just cancel the season.

No way Gary does this prior to Xmas or even New Years. Mid-January is the drop dead date.

 

[Darkstone42]

I don't see why players are so opposed to limiting contract lengths. It only applies to a few players in the top tier, anyway. The 5% deviation would likely be sufficient from the owners' perspective, though, because it would eliminate the benefit of signing players to contracts for longer than 7 years max.

Shorter contract lengths benefit the lower tier of players and young players trying to make roster spots, because it will keep less deserving, but still under contract over the hill veterans from taking their spots. And since the elite players will always get their money, isn't that lower tier who the union should really be fighting for?

 

[mattola]

I don't see why players are so opposed to limiting contract lengths. It only applies to a few players in the top tier, anyway. The 5% deviation would likely be sufficient from the owners' perspective, though, because it would eliminate the benefit of signing players to contracts for longer than 7 years max.

Shorter contract lengths benefit the lower tier of players and young players trying to make roster spots, because it will keep less deserving, but still under contract over the hill veterans from taking their spots. And since the elite players will always get their money, isn't that lower tier who the union should really be fighting for?

coughscottgomezcough

 

[Dacks]

I don't see why players are so opposed to limiting contract lengths. It only applies to a few players in the top tier, anyway. The 5% deviation would likely be sufficient from the owners' perspective, though, because it would eliminate the benefit of signing players to contracts for longer than 7 years max.

Shorter contract lengths benefit the lower tier of players and young players trying to make roster spots, because it will keep less deserving, but still under contract over the hill veterans from taking their spots. And since the elite players will always get their money, isn't that lower tier who the union should really be fighting for?

That's exactly why the mid and low-tier players are against a term cap.

GMs will always be fighting to offer star players the best deal. As it stands now, that might be max money on a short term deal, or a longer term deal with a lower cap hit. Which do you think leaves more cash left-over for all the other players?

 

[Darkstone42]

That's exactly why the mid and low-tier players are against a term cap.

GMs will always be fighting to offer star players the best deal. As it stands now, that might be max money on a short term deal, or a longer term deal with a lower cap hit. Which do you think leaves more cash left-over for all the other players?

Wouldn't the market self-regulate to account for that? Perhaps star player salaries would stay where they are instead of going up on those short-term deals since otherwise rosters would be difficult to fill. I do think at the very least it would add breadth to the middle-tier salary range to account for that.

In the now, yes, long contracts leave more money for lower tier players. At the end of those contracts, though, when a 40-year-old Kovalchuk is potting 20 goals a year and still has a cap hit of $6.4 million (for example), is where the shorter contracts start to benefit the lower tier players.

 

[Dacks]

Wouldn't the market self-regulate to account for that? Perhaps star player salaries would stay where they are instead of going up on those short-term deals since otherwise rosters would be difficult to fill. I do think at the very least it would add breadth to the middle-tier salary range to account for that.

In the now, yes, long contracts leave more money for lower tier players. At the end of those contracts, though, when a 40-year-old Kovalchuk is potting 20 goals a year and still has a cap hit of $6.4 million (for example), is where the shorter contracts start to benefit the lower tier players.

I don't think so. Look at sports leagues around the world, and through history, and there is always a team willing to give max money to a star player. And then other teams need to give max money to their stars.

As to your second point, the whole idea is that $6.4 million is not worth the same in Kovalchuk's final years, either in terms of monetary value or cap hit.

It would be interesting to see a chart showing, by percentile, how yearly salaries have increased in the cap system. I'm willing to bet the top earners increased their share of the overall pie. And it would get worse under a system with capped terms.

Anyway, 5 is too short and the owners know it. That's why it was their initial proposal. I think it's ridiculous that their first offer is "the hill we'll die on". Obviously they can move on it or they wouldn't have started there. It's such BS.

 

[esls79]

I don't think so. Look at sports leagues around the world, and through history, and there is always a team willing to give max money to a star player. And then other teams need to give max money to their stars.

As to your second point, the whole idea is that $6.4 million is not worth the same in Kovalchuk's final years, either in terms of monetary value or cap hit.

It would be interesting to see a chart showing, by percentile, how yearly salaries have increased in the cap system. I'm willing to bet the top earners increased their share of the overall pie. And it would get worse under a system with capped terms.

Anyway, 5 is too short and the owners know it. That's why it was their initial proposal. I think it's ridiculous that their first offer is "the hill we'll die on". Obviously they can move on it or they wouldn't have started there. It's such BS.

I know the NHL is a hard cap and the NBA a soft cap, but how does a five year max work in the NBA and not in the NHL?

 

[Dacks]

I know the NHL is a hard cap and the NBA a soft cap, but how does a five year max work in the NBA and not in the NHL?

The situation in the NBA is the very reason the NHLPA wants to avoid the five-year max. Star players get max money on short deals, leaving little money for everyone else. But even when it comes to max contract length, the NBA has two advantages - smaller rosters, and mid-level exceptions.

I don't know the NBA CBA very well, but from I understand, there are exceptions so that teams can go over the cap in certain cases. Some of these exceptions only apply to mid-tier players. The NHL isn't considering anything of the sort, so the effect of a max contract length would have a bigger impact on mid and low-tier players.

 

[Dacks]

I know the NHL is a hard cap and the NBA a soft cap, but how does a five year max work in the NBA and not in the NHL?

I think I misread your question - are you asking why I think "exactly 5" is too short for the NHL, but not the NBA?

It's more that I think going straight from no max years to 5 is too big a jump in one CBA negotiation. They proposed 5 because they actually want 7. Just like they proposed a player share of 43% when 50% was their actual goal.

 

[davnlaguna]

So let's say a guy signs a 5 year deal starting at 5 million per season. If the 5% variance is applied year-to-year, the contract would look as follows:

Year 1 - 5,000,000
Year 2 - 4,750,000
Year 3 - 4,512,500
Year 4 - 4,286,875
Year 5 - 4,072,531

Would it be really so terrible to add a couple more years if it gets a CBA deal done?

I think the 5 years and the 5% are for different reasons. The 5% is for back diving deals. The 5 years when combined with a shorter ECL is to recreate the idea of a second contract. They want a second contract under RFA so that after a player completes his ELC they have more time to find out if the players are worth 10 mil a year. It limits the "buying UFA" deals as well

 

[TheRobotDevil]

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Cant get a clear shot off my phone

 

[elocomotive]

I know the NHL is a hard cap and the NBA a soft cap, but how does a five year max work in the NBA and not in the NHL?

You can't even compare the two. In the NBA, you can get 3 stars, 4 below average players and 3 scrubs and have a championship team. It's a league built on stars. How many teams have won a title in the last 30 years without one of the best 3-4 players in the league on their roster? Maybe 2 or 3? Hockey is more of a team game, you can't win with that structure. But owners will pay some of the stars more partly b/c of the gate.

As fans, we are always looking at the championship formula. But there are other obligations.

I don't think they should have any limits to contract length so long as they have the variance in place. THAT solves the problem of fake contracts like Kovalchuk's. An 8-year deal can be a smart move for a team AND be good for the security of the player. Nick Backstrom's deal is a great example of a win-win. But what they want to avoid are contracts like Pronger or Kovalchuk. The variance takes care of that. You won't see 10- and 12-year deals when they it kills the team 10 years down the road.

 

[elocomotive]

I don't know the NBA CBA very well, but from I understand, there are exceptions so that teams can go over the cap in certain cases. Some of these exceptions only apply to mid-tier players. The NHL isn't considering anything of the sort, so the effect of a max contract length would have a bigger impact on mid and low-tier players.

That is a big difference, too. There are TONS of exceptions in the NBA such that teams can and readily do exceed the cap. The "amnesty" clause is the biggest one basically allowing teams to dump one contract prior to the season and it won't count towards the cap. That's huge. Imagine if every NHL team could just dump a player each year. No Scott Gomez, no Brian Campbell. Imagine the impact just that one player difference would make.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

I honestly think mid January is the drop-dead date, and both Fehr and Bettman are willing to go that far to see who will break. Which is unfortunate, because I doubt the deal will get much better for either party between now and then.

The owners always intended a lockout. That much is obvious. And while they hoped to bully the players into accepting a bad deal in October, they never really planned on making a serious offer until December. At that point they thought the players would be willing to accept anything remotely approaching a fair deal.

What they didn't count on was the players standing strong behind Fehr. They figured that by holding off the serious offers until now, the players would be so happy to get a few hundred in make whole that they'd cave on every issue. Instead the NHLPA countered, as is normal in negotiations. (Which is why the moral outrage on the part of Bettman and the owners was such a stunt.)

Now we are in serious negotiations. The league will stand by their "take it or leave it" stance for as long as they can, hoping the players buckle. The players will keep proposing counter-offers, hoping to see where the owners will give.

It's a game of chicken. Both sides willing to risk the season over a year of CBA term there, a year of term length there, and a few dozen million in make whole. You wouldn't think we'd lose a season over these issues (definitely not the same magnitude as introducing a salary cap) but there is so much ego here, I wouldn't be shocked.

My take is for the first time in the history of the NHLPA they hired somebody who is going to make sure they get a fair deal. They hired somebody who isn't going to take any crap from the owners. They hired somebody who's been their done that in labor negotiations for athletes. I think the owners not Bettman have underestimated Fehr & his ability to keep the players strong.