Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 2012 Discussion

[Guest habs1952]

How exactly is that fair to the players? Also, why is it so necessary to put every team on equal footing and if it's so important, why does it have to come at the player's expense? You want teams on equal footing, why not have the rich team's share revenue with the poorer teams?

Salaries may feel exorbitant to you but the money is there, it's coming into the league. Is the solution really to take more money from the players that drive that salary and put it back into billionaire owner's pockets? It's one of the only industries where people tend to support rich management. Players get a fixed % of the income, one that's reasonably fair IMO.

If we want teams on an equal footing, let's start sharing the wealth between the owners. It's not the player's problem. There's concessions the players should and probably will make but it doesn't have to be extreme.

How is it unfair? I'm not suggesting every player earns the same salary. I'm saying each player's salary should be paid in equal yearly payments over the term of the deal. Weber signs for 14 years for 110 mil. That should be paid out at 7.85 mil/yr. with no bonuses. The way his existing contract stands, if he retires early, the Flyers should be penalized (let's say a first round draft pick for argument's sake) for each year he doesn't fulfill on his contract.

[roy_133]

How is it unfair? I'm not suggesting every player earns the same salary. I'm saying each player's salary should be paid in equal yearly payments over the term of the deal. Weber signs for 14 years for 110 mil. That should be paid out at 7.85 mil/yr. with no bonuses. The way his existing contract stands, if he retires early, the Flyers should be penalized (let's say a first round draft pick for argument's sake) for each year he doesn't fulfill on his contract.

That's not all you suggested but in regards to that, why should the players give up such a concession? Money up front is more valuable than money down the road, also guaranteed bonuses are a valuable perk in the event of a potential lockout. If the NHL has that big of a problem with it they can change they way they calculate cap hits, or change the way way you can front load (for example saying the last x number of years on a deal can only be x % lower than the first x number of years). Also why PUNISH teams if a player retires early? They can't control that? If Carey had some kind of issue and decided to retire 2 years into his reasonable deal, we should start being punished 1st round picks? If anything, you make contracts guaranteed to stay on the cap no matter what but even that's really unfair to the players.

The system is fine in that regard, there's only a certain amount of money you can give a player in a year, it's not insane and with the billions coming into the league right now, every team should be able to afford it (if they have the cap room). If some teams can't afford it, fix the revenue sharing so they all can. These issues don't need to be fixed by taking out of the player's pockets, it can be fixed internally.

Also, the limit on contracts you suggested (while IMO too short), would suffice to prevent severe front loading. A 7-year max is probably fair. It would definitely make it harder to extremely front load deals.

[Habitom]

The NFL guarantees the bonus but no contract is gauranteed so they give big bonus up front with small salary and big salary at end. Get cut, oh well! I think NHL should consider this idea.

This CBA is probably being driven by the big boys and they care as little for the weak teams as they do for the players.

As for the Weber deal what is the difference between this deal and Kovalchuk's where NJ was penalized?

Also what is to stop Nash. from trading the offer sheet to Montreal for same compensation as Phil. would give? Better deal for Nash.

[roy_133]

The NFL guarantees the bonus but no contract is gauranteed so they give big bonus up front with small salary and big salary at end. Get cut, oh well! I think NHL should consider this idea.

This CBA is probably being driven by the big boys and they care as little for the weak teams as they do for the players.

The NHL should consider it? Of course they'd love it but the work stoppage would be long and painful. The PA wouldn't just willingly give up guaranteed contracts, nor should they. Also, while the NFL contract system is VERY team friendly (and the NFLPA is seen as quite weak), that system does lead to significantly more holdouts from players.

Also what is to stop Nash. from trading the offer sheet to Montreal for same compensation as Phil. would give? Better deal for Nash.

They can't trade an offer sheet, until they match I don't think they control Weber's rights. Once they match they have to wait a year to trade him, so they can't just match and trade him right away.

[The-Anti-Senator]

Hopefully fans aren't that ignorant. Although a lot of fans were angry after the lockout, they supported the owners foolishly thinking them getting their cost certainty would somehow equal lower ticket prices and that's obviously not reality.

And no new CBA is going to enforce some kind of reserve clause like they used to have in baseball, I think most logical fans realize losing players is part of the business and always will be, it's offset though by getting players. Yes, Habs fans were upset with losing Komisarek but were excited by gaining Cammalleri. You can't have one without the other. The vast majority of fans so far seem to be with the players and I'd be surprised if that didn't continue just based on the facts this time around.

Do you think Calgary fans were happy when Cammalleri left? The contract that the Flames offered him was similar to what the Canadiens offered him but he still left. I am certain that gave Flames fans a warm fuzzy feeling.

That is my point. Probably every fan has seen one of their favourite players "desert" their favourite team often for reasons that do not make alot of sense to average fan.

Everything you say about the owners is true but in the end is not a relevant to most fans as the fact they had to watch helplessly while the players they have been cheering on for years dismantled the their team by departing to follow the money. Often time these players were key players to a teams most previous run in a playoffs or to a high position in the standings during a season.

If these negotiations drag on they will be overcome by politics and in politics logic takes a back seat to rhetoric. That is how the George W. Bushes of the world win elections. The same thing will happen here. Not many hockey fans like or trust Gary Bettman but if he gets up in the coming weeks and states he is asking the players make concessions to help the teams in the NHL his message will resonate enough to allow the owners to gain the upper hand in the public relations battle and the players will be hard pressed not to give up some important concessions.

[Habitom]

The NHL should consider it? Of course they'd love it but the work stoppage would be long and painful. The PA wouldn't just willingly give up guaranteed contracts, nor should they. Also, while the NFL contract system is VERY team friendly (and the NFLPA is seen as quite weak), that system does lead to significantly more holdouts from players.

They can't trade an offer sheet, until they match I don't think they control Weber's rights. Once they match they have to wait a year to trade him, so they can't just match and trade him right away.

I tend to agree with your opinion on the NFL contract business but it tends. to keep players more motivated.

The NBA has that sign and trade business but I guess Weber would be a little choked is he was dumped to some place he didn't want to go, so I guess the NHLPA wouldn't like that.

The sad thing is that a handful of powerful owners are driving this for their benefit. At least in the NFL the teams are more on a level footing with there TV contract.

Thanks for the info.

[Graeme-1]

. Also why PUNISH teams if a player retires early? They can't control that? If Carey had some kind of issue and decided to retire 2 years into his reasonable deal, we should start being punished 1st round picks? If anything, you make contracts guaranteed to stay on the cap no matter what but even that's really unfair to the players.

They shouldn't be punished exactly, but they should have to "pay back" any free cap space they got. So if a player was payed 3 million in excess of his cap hit for 2 seasons and then retires, the team should have to make up that 6 million over the remainder of the player's contract, whether they play or not.

Also, the limit on contracts you suggested (while IMO too short), would suffice to prevent severe front loading. A 7-year max is probably fair. It would definitely make it harder to extremely front load deals.

Not for older players though, a contract paying 10, 10, 10, 5, 1, 1, 1 doesn't seem out of the question.

All of this would be solved most simply if cap hit = salary. Players could still get frontloaded deals, they could get rid of the 35+ rule that presumably hurts older players chances at getting mroe term, players on frontloaded deals wouldn't be screwing over the other players in the league, etc. The situation the NHL was trying to prevent: using frontloaded/backloaded deals to "go for it" one year seems so logistically implausible they shouldn't even worry about it.

[roy_133]

Not for older players though, a contract paying 10, 10, 10, 5, 1, 1, 1 doesn't seem out of the question.

How old is that player though, obviously not over 35. You could change the rule so any year on a contract after a certain age is guaranteed on the cap. Similar to the over 35 rule. So if a player's contract extends beyond 35 or 37, whatever it is, the cap hit is guaranteed for those years no matter what age the player was when he signed.

All of this would be solved most simply if cap hit = salary. Players could still get frontloaded deals, they could get rid of the 35+ rule that presumably hurts older players chances at getting mroe term, players on frontloaded deals wouldn't be screwing over the other players in the league, etc. The situation the NHL was trying to prevent: using frontloaded/backloaded deals to "go for it" one year seems so logistically implausible they shouldn't even worry about it.

People can game that too though, less so but you can sign back loaded deals hoping the cap will rise or you'll clear cap space and get guys cheap in the short term. If you're a rebuilding team with money you can pay a guy a lot upfront knowing in a couple years when you project your rebuild to be ending you'll have a good player much cheaper. Or a guy with extreme trade value because he's a 6-7 million dollar player with low cap hits left on his deal.

[Guest habs1952]

They shouldn't be punished exactly, but they should have to "pay back" any free cap space they got. So if a player was payed 3 million in excess of his cap hit for 2 seasons and then retires, the team should have to make up that 6 million over the remainder of the player's contract, whether they play or not.

No doubt the contract is set up to reduce the cap hit. What I don't like is the fact if Weber only plays for 9 more years that should be a cap hit of 12.2 mil/year not 7.85. This is why I don't like these front loaded, long term deals.

[Graeme-1]

How old is that player though, obviously not over 35. You could change the rule so any year on a contract after a certain age is guaranteed on the cap. Similar to the over 35 rule. So if a player's contract extends beyond 35 or 37, whatever it is, the cap hit is guaranteed for those years no matter what age the player was when he signed.

Sure, if you just changed the rule to "any years over 35", rather than basing it on when the contract is signed, that would seem fine

People can game that too though, less so but you can sign back loaded deals hoping the cap will rise or you'll clear cap space and get guys cheap in the short term. If you're a rebuilding team with money you can pay a guy a lot upfront knowing in a couple years when you project your rebuild to be ending you'll have a good player much cheaper. Or a guy with extreme trade value because he's a 6-7 million dollar player with low cap hits left on his deal.

The situation you describe doesn't game the cap though. If cap hit matches salary, the cap works exactly as owners intended it to: the cap reflects what players get paid. Whether or not the salary in a given year matches a player's contribution is irrelevant.

The only potential downside with your example is parity: it could allow teams to ice a team that should cost them more than it does. However, I simply see this as creative cap management. End of the day:

- it doesn't get around the salary cap's primary purpose: keeping financials in check

- it doesn't hurt other players in the league through escrow since cap hit equals pay (your example could hurt other players because some years they would get less of the pie, but owners would only sign these deals if the player is likely to finish their deal, so it all should balance out 95% of the time)

- it doesn't really favor smaller or larger market teams

- trying to stack a team would be much more difficult in practice.

[Graeme-1]

No doubt the contract is set up to reduce the cap hit. What I don't like is the fact if Weber only plays for 9 more years that should be a cap hit of 12.2 mil/year not 7.85. This is why I don't like these front loaded, long term deals.

Right, and that's why I say at a minimum there needs to be some sort of rule to force teams to make up for any "free" cap space they got in previous years. I wouldn't charge them draft picks or anything, but if Philli gets to exceed the cap by 20 million or whatever number in the early years I'd make sure in the latter years they have to "pay" that cap space back, regardless of if Weber is playing or not. I wouldn't even grandfather this rule in, because teams signing these long-term contracts technically have to expect the player to play out the deal (otherwise, they are admitting to breaking the same rules New Jersey broke).

I think there are simpler solutions, but this is the one that leaves everything else basically the same.

[Graeme-1]

What angers me is on one hand the owners want financial stability but on the other hand they look for the tiniest loophole to screw another team, front load contracts or pay an exorbitant salary. The CBA needs to be clear. No Bonuses. No front loading, equal yearly salary for the length of the contract. Limit contract length(5 years). Put every team on equal footing.

Technically, if the owners didn't try to do everything they could under the cap to get players it could probably be considered collusion.

Here's a quick though experiment: Say you and some friends are sitting around and playing some sort of card game you invented, ahead of time you've discussed and agreed to the rules. Now imagine there is a rule that getting and playing a Joker makes you automatically win the game. During the game, you get the Joker and choose to play it, thus winning that round. At the end of the game you may say "that Joker is rule is really stupid, we should change it". By your reasoning above, you shouldn't be able to ask to change the rule for everyone since you just chose to use it to your advantage.

A more real example is taxes: you can disagree with tax loopholes, deductions, etc. all you want; but in the end you are going to take advantage of them to pay as few taxes as you can. The fact you take advantage of the current climate doesn't mean you can't want that climate to be changed.

[FirstStar]

This is such a sticky situation.

This is one thing that is being addressed at the current CBA meetings. One thing they could enforce... Teams who sign players to long term ridiculously long contracts should count against the cap until the contract is up.

IE: Weber signs a 17 year (hypothetically), front loaded contract with an annual cap hit of 7.5 mil (again, hypothetically) and he decides to retire after 12 years, then I believe the cap hit should count for the full length of contract-regardless if the player is still playing or not.

If it continued to count against the cap for the full duration of the contract, it would probably cause GM's to think twice before signing these long, front loaded contracts.

[roy_133]

This is such a sticky situation.

This is one thing that is being addressed at the current CBA meetings. One thing they could enforce... Teams who sign players to long term ridiculously long contracts should count against the cap until the contract is up.

IE: Weber signs a 17 year (hypothetically), front loaded contract with an annual cap hit of 7.5 mil (again, hypothetically) and he decides to retire after 12 years, then I believe the cap hit should count for the full length of contract-regardless if the player is still playing or not.

If it continued to count against the cap for the full duration of the contract, it would probably cause GM's to think twice before signing these long, front loaded contracts.

That punishes future players because then teams have less money under the cap to spend. Also, what's to stop a poor team from artificially getting to the cap by trading for a guy who plans to retire, like Weber from Philly, letting him sit on their cap and not have to actually pay anything and probably getting a sweetener from Philly, like a pick for helping them out?

[FirstStar]

That punishes future players because then teams have less money under the cap to spend. Also, what's to stop a poor team from artificially getting to the cap by trading for a guy who plans to retire, like Weber from Philly, letting him sit on their cap and not have to actually pay anything and probably getting a sweetener from Philly, like a pick for helping them out?

A contracts a contract. When a coach is fired, he continues collecting checks. I wouldn't worry about teams acquiring a player contemplating retire just to get to the cap floor. First, i would think it would eliminate these long contracts and having count against the cap and having to pay til the end would not be beneficial to a team trying to touch the cap floor.

I think we'd see a lot of short term contracts if it was enforced until the duration of the contract.

It wouldn't affect future players since teams wouldn't sign these, front loaded, long term contracts. And if it does, then it'll be... Once bitten twice shy. If teams can't attract players cos they're stuck paying for contracts of players who are no longer playing, so be it-They should've thought of that before.

Obviously make an exception for those who suffered career ending injuries.

This is the price you pay if you think you're smart and trying to get around the CBA.

[roy_133]

A contracts a contract. When a coach is fired, he continues collecting checks. I wouldn't worry about teams acquiring a player contemplating retire just to get to the cap floor. First, i would think it would eliminate these long contracts and having count against the cap and having to pay til the end would not be beneficial to a team trying to touch the cap floor.

So you're implying that you keep PAYING the player, not just have it count against the cap? There's a difference between a coach being fired and a player retiring. If we told Gomez to go home and get lost, we'd have to keep paying him too but if he retired we wouldn't, same goes for a coach, if he retires he's no longer going to be paid.

Anyway, that would never happen just because what's to stop a playing from signing a contract and retiring and continuing to be paid? On over 35 contracts they count against the cap if the player retires, but the team no longer has to pay the money which is what would be appealing to an aspiring cap floor team. You get the cap hit but you don't actually have to spend a dime.

I think we'd see a lot of short term contracts if it was enforced until the duration of the contract.

I wouldn't affect future players since teams wouldn't sign these, front loaded, long term contracts. And if it does, then it'll be... Once bitten twice shy. If teams can't attract players cos they're stuck paying for contracts of players who are no longer playing, so be it-They should've thought of that before.

Obviously make an exception for those who suffered career ending injuries.

This is the price you pay if you think you're smart and trying to get around the CBA.

It won't stop teams because it will never be a situation where you have to pay a retired player, it makes no sense. Teams would just continue to game the system. Also factor that, many GM's don't care about 10 years down the road since it's unlikely they'll be there anyway.

[FirstStar]

So you're implying that you keep PAYING the player, not just have it count against the cap? There's a difference between a coach being fired and a player retiring. If we told Gomez to go home and get lost, we'd have to keep paying him too but if he retired we wouldn't, same goes for a coach, if he retires he's no longer going to be paid.

Anyway, that would never happen just because what's to stop a playing from signing a contract and retiring and continuing to be paid? On over 35 contracts they count against the cap if the player retires, but the team no longer has to pay the money which is what would be appealing to an aspiring cap floor team. You get the cap hit but you don't actually have to spend a dime.

It won't stop teams because it will never be a situation where you have to pay a retired player, it makes no sense. Teams would just continue to game the system. Also factor that, many GM's don't care about 10 years down the road since it's unlikely they'll be there anyway.

The way i see it, if you're going to sign a player to a contract that exceeds his playing time (when you know deep down he'll never finish the final years), then you should pay for it, both in cap and in liquid funds.

They may try and find another way, when they do, they'll deal with it in similar fashion.

Governments don't stop printing money cos counterfeiters continue counterfeiting.

And why not?

It's ridiculous for us to believe that players will fulfill their contractual demands when contracts exceed the average hockey career.

You want to sign a 29 year old to a 14 year contract... Then you better be sure he'll play all 14 years cos you'll be paying in terms of cap and in liquid funds.

If teams were required to pay contracts in full and have them count against the cap regardless, then I doubt owners would allow their GM's to sign these ridiculously long contracts.

[roy_133]

The way i see it, if you're going to sign a player to a contract that exceeds his playing time (when you know deep down he'll never finish the final years), then you should pay for it, both in cap and in liquid funds.

They may try and find another way, when they do, they'll deal with it in similar fashion.

Governments don't stop printing money cos counterfeiters continue counterfeiting.

And why not?

It's ridiculous for us to believe that players will fulfill their contractual demands when contracts exceed the average hockey career.

You want to sign a 29 year old to a 14 year contract... Then you better be sure he'll play all 14 years cos you'll be paying in terms of cap and in liquid funds.

If teams were required to pay contracts in full and have them count against the cap regardless, then I doubt owners would allow their GM's to sign these ridiculously long contracts.

But where does the money go? You're prepared to let players sign contracts, decide not to honor them and still collect millions of dollars? If I'm 32 and sign a reasonable 5 year deal and decide after the 3rd year, I want to retire I still get paid?

[Guest]

The way i see it, if you're going to sign a player to a contract that exceeds his playing time (when you know deep down he'll never finish the final years), then you should pay for it, both in cap and in liquid funds.

They may try and find another way, when they do, they'll deal with it in similar fashion.

Governments don't stop printing money cos counterfeiters continue counterfeiting.

And why not?

It's ridiculous for us to believe that players will fulfill their contractual demands when contracts exceed the average hockey career.

You want to sign a 29 year old to a 14 year contract... Then you better be sure he'll play all 14 years cos you'll be paying in terms of cap and in liquid funds.

If teams were required to pay contracts in full and have them count against the cap regardless, then I doubt owners would allow their GM's to sign these ridiculously long contracts.

It would make more sense that teams signing players to long contracts that extend beyond the age of 35 should be guaranteed money applied towards teams Cap totals.

In other words,,,if a 28 year old player gets a 14 year deal,, then those last 7 years of the deal should be guaranteed funds as far as the Cap hit goes. If he retires at age 38,, the team is still on the hook for those last 4 years regardless of them not paying the player. The team should also be unable to dump those remaining years on another team unless he was traded while still an active player.

That would put an end to those deals extending beyond players questionable years or at the very least make it risky for teams to make those deals.

[roy_133]

It would make more sense that teams signing players to long contracts that extend beyond the age of 35 should be guaranteed money applied towards teams Cap totals.

In other words,,,if a 28 year old player gets a 14 year deal,, then those last 7 years of the deal should be guaranteed funds as far as the Cap hit goes. If he retires at age 38,, the team is still on the hook for those last 4 years regardless of them not paying the player. The team should also be unable to dump those remaining years on another team unless he was traded while still an active player.

That would put an end to those deals extending beyond players questionable years or at the very least make it risky for teams to make those deals.

This is much more in line with what I'm thinking/suggesting. You can't have players getting paid for retiring IMO but there's still issues here, players are still technically active until they sign their retirement papers, so before that a player will usually tell the team and maybe even the press, what's to stop a trade then? Player isn't technically retired. I suppose you could do what the league did to the Devils, violation of the spirit of the cap. Prove they knew he was retiring and traded what they believe to be dead cap space. Only solution I can think of.

[Manatee-X]

All this discussion brings up an interesting question: under the current CBA, can you trade a player who is retired (or, failing that, who is about to retire)? This seems like an interesting way for a team to make it to the cap floor. It's very situational (player must have multi-year deal signed after he is 35, etc) but it's possible. Does Chris Pronger still have years on his contract? If he retires do you think Philly could send him to a team struggling to make the floor for like a 7th rounder or something?

Edit: I see Roy beat me to it

[roy_133]

All this discussion brings up an interesting question: under the current CBA, can you trade a player who is retired (or, failing that, who is about to retire)? This seems like an interesting way for a team to make it to the cap floor. It's very situational (player must have multi-year deal signed after he is 35, etc) but it's possible. Does Chris Pronger still have years on his contract? If he retires do you think Philly could send him to a team struggling to make the floor for like a 7th rounder or something?

Edit: I see Roy beat me to it

Pronger can probably go on the LTIR so he isn't as much of an issue I guess, but it's interesting for sure. There was a rumor Boston was going to trade Thomas and they know he isn't playing this year, the final year of his deal. It seems like a similar premise and no one raised much ire about that.

[FirstStar]

It would make more sense that teams signing players to long contracts that extend beyond the age of 35 should be guaranteed money applied towards teams Cap totals.

In other words,,,if a 28 year old player gets a 14 year deal,, then those last 7 years of the deal should be guaranteed funds as far as the Cap hit goes. If he retires at age 38,, the team is still on the hook for those last 4 years regardless of them not paying the player. The team should also be unable to dump those remaining years on another team unless he was traded while still an active player.

That would put an end to those deals extending beyond players questionable years or at the very least make it risky for teams to make those deals.

There you go, along the lines of what I was saying with a tweak.

It's all to cut down on these ridiculous contracts.

It'll make GM's and owners think twice. The GM may not be around forever, but if the owner has to continue paying for a player who retired 2 years ago and present GM has to deal with the cap issues... Teams won't like that very much.

Owners will send the message, do what you think is right but nothing over "X" amount of years.

I have no problems with a team signing a 23 year old to a 12 year contract.

This rule would only apply to players signing long term contracts that exceed their expected playing career. If they sign until he's 39 and he retired at 38-It's one year to swallow. If he's signed until he's 43 and retires at 38, different story.

[Guest]

This is much more in line with what I'm thinking/suggesting. You can't have players getting paid for retiring IMO but there's still issues here, players are still technically active until they sign their retirement papers, so before that a player will usually tell the team and maybe even the press, what's to stop a trade then? Player isn't technically retired. I suppose you could do what the league did to the Devils, violation of the spirit of the cap. Prove they knew he was retiring and traded what they believe to be dead cap space. Only solution I can think of.

It's a loophole that could be exploited no doubt. Maybe add in a speculation that if that player doesn't play a set minimum number of games for the team he was traded to before retiring then the contract term reverts back to the original team.

It would require some real long term planning on the part of the team offering that deal regardless,, as there is no guarantee they could find a willing team come those late years of the deal. I know GM's don't worry about down the road (probably gone by then) but the team owner should be held accountable for not stepping in when the deal is being put together.

[FirstStar]

Pronger can probably go on the LTIR so he isn't as much of an issue I guess, but it's interesting for sure. There was a rumor Boston was going to trade Thomas and they know he isn't playing this year, the final year of his deal. It seems like a similar premise and no one raised much ire about that.

Who knows, a lot went on with Timmy this past season and he may want out of boston. He says he's taking a year off, boston trades him and Timmy decides not to take a year off... Totally plausible.