Official NHL and NHLPA CBA Negotiations Thread

[cardsfan04]

I really don't understand the holdup over this contract length thing. I mean, I get why it's generally a terrible idea to give players deals longer than 5 years. But, I don't get why it would hold up the CBA.

-For the NHLPA, this only affects something like 1-2% of players. And, it's not like limiting contract lengths takes money out of players' pockets. If it gets taken from one, it's going to go to another anyway.

-For the owners, do they really need to legislate their own sanity? Here's an idea. If you don't want to go past 5 years, just don't do it. Take responsibility for your own negotiating instead of requiring the league to legislate it. It's not like taking this out forces owners to give players 6+ year deals. It just provides the option.

That being said, if the rule doesn't pass, I don't trust owners/GMs to use good judgment. It won't take a year for somebody to do it, and then there will be a snowball affect.

[STLADOGG]

I'll watch on TV, but they aren't getting a penny of my money for a long time.

I want them to feel financial repercussions from this.

Yeah, I was going to buy season tickets this year. Now I don't know when I will buy a ticket again unless there really cheap.

[ProngerBlues44]

I'll watch on TV, but they aren't getting a penny of my money for a long time.

I want them to feel financial repercussions from this.

Yeah, I was going to buy season tickets this year. Now I don't know when I will buy a ticket again unless there really cheap.

I'm sorry, that gave me a hearty laugh.

This crap will probably result in more expensive tickets.

[STLADOGG]

I'll watch on TV, but they aren't getting a penny of my money for a long time.

I want them to feel financial repercussions from this.

Yeah, I was going to buy season tickets this year. Now I don't know when I will buy a ticket again unless there really cheap.

I'm sorry, that gave me a hearty laugh.

This crap will probably result in more expensive tickets.

Even on a site like Ticketmaster you think?

[abc789987]

I'll watch on TV, but they aren't getting a penny of my money for a long time.

I want them to feel financial repercussions from this.

Yeah, I was going to buy season tickets this year. Now I don't know when I will buy a ticket again unless there really cheap.

I'm sorry, that gave me a hearty laugh.

This crap will probably result in more expensive tickets.

Yeah, when this is all done with and someday they play hockey again I'm really curious how they try and win us back this time... Will we be foolish again to fall for it? I have a feeling I'm going to be like a battered wife and keep coming back to this asshole of a husband. I'm sure they will never hit me again. They really love me.... They don't mean it...

[cardsfan04]

I'll watch on TV, but they aren't getting a penny of my money for a long time.

I want them to feel financial repercussions from this.

Yeah, I was going to buy season tickets this year. Now I don't know when I will buy a ticket again unless there really cheap.

I'm sorry, that gave me a hearty laugh.

This crap will probably result in more expensive tickets.

I was actually thinking exactly the opposite, at least in the shortterm. Demand determines ticket pricing more than anything. If arenas are empty again like 2005, I don't think they'll have a choice.

[gaijin]

After these lastest shenanigans, if I'm the Players' Union, I have zero trust that the League is acting in good faith when it makes any offers in the future. This won't make the Union move closer to a middle ground, this will make them more stubborn in negotiations from here on out, making a deal less likely. After this, I wouldn't be surprised if the lockout lasted more than one season.

What the hell.

[philco_3]

(Frank) em all

[theohall]

Buttman strikes again. As soon as his cronies get involved, the deal is suddenly off the table???? It's not the owners - who had hashed something out with the players - it's Buttman and Daly trying to get the players to drop Fehr as their rep.

[theohall]

I really don't understand the holdup over this contract length thing. I mean, I get why it's generally a terrible idea to give players deals longer than 5 years. But, I don't get why it would hold up the CBA.

-For the NHLPA, this only affects something like 1-2% of players. And, it's not like limiting contract lengths takes money out of players' pockets. If it gets taken from one, it's going to go to another anyway.

-For the owners, do they really need to legislate their own sanity? Here's an idea. If you don't want to go past 5 years, just don't do it. Take responsibility for your own negotiating instead of requiring the league to legislate it. It's not like taking this out forces owners to give players 6+ year deals. It just provides the option.

That being said, if the rule doesn't pass, I don't trust owners/GMs to use good judgment. It won't take a year for somebody to do it, and then there will be a snowball affect.

Backes did a good job of explaining why contract length matters in the STLToday article.

Since Thursday, many fans have wondered why the union is so opposed to a five-year limit on contracts. T.J. Oshie and Roman Polak are the only Blues players currently holding a five-year deal. Backes would be in the second year of a five-year contract this season.

Backes explained: “If (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, I’m lucky if I get two. If he’s making $12 million and doesn’t take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You can’t play five guys the whole game.”

[glen a richter]

The reason everyone would be slotted below Crosby is because Crosby is the best player in the damn league (crybaby whiny bullshit aside, let's face the facts). If you only garner a two year contract then play your ass off to garner a three year contract next time. Shorter contracts would improve the quality of the game on the ice.

Asinine idea: after the lottery to pick the draft order, run a second lottery. Every team is weighted equally, one team from each division is pulled. At that teams behest, they can either re-negotiate with exactly ONE of their players on a contract that will not count against the cap (maximum, say 8 years) or they can receive two extra draft choices, one in a sandwich round between the first and second round and one in a round at the end of the regular draft. If they choose to trade the player they signed in scenario one, the contract will count against the cap of the team acquiring the player. That way teams who sign players to ridiculous contracts could get stuck with a serious albatross if they go too wild and can't find a trading partner. Teams that win the second lottery are ineligible for entry into the next years lottery.

[cprice12]

I really don't understand the holdup over this contract length thing. I mean, I get why it's generally a terrible idea to give players deals longer than 5 years. But, I don't get why it would hold up the CBA.

-For the NHLPA, this only affects something like 1-2% of players. And, it's not like limiting contract lengths takes money out of players' pockets. If it gets taken from one, it's going to go to another anyway.

-For the owners, do they really need to legislate their own sanity? Here's an idea. If you don't want to go past 5 years, just don't do it. Take responsibility for your own negotiating instead of requiring the league to legislate it. It's not like taking this out forces owners to give players 6+ year deals. It just provides the option.

That being said, if the rule doesn't pass, I don't trust owners/GMs to use good judgment. It won't take a year for somebody to do it, and then there will be a snowball affect.

Backes did a good job of explaining why contract length matters in the STLToday article.

Since Thursday, many fans have wondered why the union is so opposed to a five-year limit on contracts. T.J. Oshie and Roman Polak are the only Blues players currently holding a five-year deal. Backes would be in the second year of a five-year contract this season.

Backes explained: “If (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, I’m lucky if I get two. If he’s making $12 million and doesn’t take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You can’t play five guys the whole game.”

Part of what Backes said doesn't make much sense to me.
If Crosby signs for 5 years, why can a player like Backes only sign for 2 years?
The length of your contract has nothing to do with how much money you are making or how good you are.

[theohall]

It is the whole "slotting" concept which is commonly used when FAs and draft picks sign.

The top FA signs then the rest of the FA contracts are slotted based on what the top guy got.

[cardsfan04]

I really don't understand the holdup over this contract length thing. I mean, I get why it's generally a terrible idea to give players deals longer than 5 years. But, I don't get why it would hold up the CBA.

-For the NHLPA, this only affects something like 1-2% of players. And, it's not like limiting contract lengths takes money out of players' pockets. If it gets taken from one, it's going to go to another anyway.

-For the owners, do they really need to legislate their own sanity? Here's an idea. If you don't want to go past 5 years, just don't do it. Take responsibility for your own negotiating instead of requiring the league to legislate it. It's not like taking this out forces owners to give players 6+ year deals. It just provides the option.

That being said, if the rule doesn't pass, I don't trust owners/GMs to use good judgment. It won't take a year for somebody to do it, and then there will be a snowball affect.

Backes did a good job of explaining why contract length matters in the STLToday article.

Since Thursday, many fans have wondered why the union is so opposed to a five-year limit on contracts. T.J. Oshie and Roman Polak are the only Blues players currently holding a five-year deal. Backes would be in the second year of a five-year contract this season.

Backes explained: “If (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, I’m lucky if I get two. If he’s making $12 million and doesn’t take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You can’t play five guys the whole game.”

Part of what Backes said doesn't make much sense to me.
If Crosby signs for 5 years, why can a player like Backes only sign for 2 years?
The length of your contract has nothing to do with how much money you are making or how good you are.

I agree and think it's a bit of a cop-out in a power struggle. A contract term limit won't proportionally shorten contracts. It will shorten the really long ones, but the Blues still would have given Backes a similar deal.

[glen a richter]

How about contracts can run over 5 years in length, but for every year over 5 years the signing team takes a hit of 2X the value of the contract on their cap? If they're willing to absorb the cap hit then they should go for it, by all means. Financially it won't hurt the team because they could be paying Crosby 12 million per for the entire length of the contract and he'll keep getting his 12 million per over 10 years or whatever, but for the last 5 years of the contract they'll be saddled with 24 million against the cap, meaning they'll have to make either pinch pennies elsewhere or trade Crosby to lose the cap hit.

[cardsfan04]

How about contracts can run over 5 years in length, but for every year over 5 years the signing team takes a hit of 2X the value of the contract on their cap? If they're willing to absorb the cap hit then they should go for it, by all means. Financially it won't hurt the team because they could be paying Crosby 12 million per for the entire length of the contract and he'll keep getting his 12 million per over 10 years or whatever, but for the last 5 years of the contract they'll be saddled with 24 million against the cap, meaning they'll have to make either pinch pennies elsewhere or trade Crosby to lose the cap hit.

I don't think the NHLPA would go for that. It might not affect Crosby. But, that extra $12 mil would essentially come out of other players' pockets.

I think they should basically just meet near the middle. League wants 5. Players want 8. Make it 6 for UFA, 8 for extensions. This issue shouldn't be tough to work out.

[philco_3]

I honestly don't see why the length of contracts or the amount is an issue. I mean if the team wants to offer a player a 25 year contract for 1.25 billion dollars let em, its their own stupid fault for a team offering em a contract in the first place.

[glen a richter]

They could just ditch the salary cap altogether and have a luxury tax such as in baseball. But make the threshold for getting stuck with the luxury tax lower than what it is in MLB, obviously, because their threshold is just plain ridiculous.

[not_a_wings_fan]

I see where the players are coming from on the contract length issue - they want job security and some more income certainty. I see where they like the unlimited variance because it means more money this year to pay the other lines (the NBA comparison is a good one on this issue).

I see where they owners are coming from - they need to (a) stop people from cheating the cap with 50 year contracts and (b) save themselves from themselves with respect to blowing through cash.

The only compromise is to let contracts be whatever length they want and to make a firm range for maximum variance in salary for the life of the contract.

Now getting the sides to agree to a number for what that maximum variance can be is a different issue...and why we are where we are at.

There won't be a season this year, for sure. Not certain to have one next year either.

[cardsfan04]

They're meeting again today, and federal mediators are back.

Also, I heard yesterday that at least 4 teams have told their arena staffs to be on standby to come back to work. Could just be precautionary, but that certainly isn't a bad sign.

With as close as they seem to be, I'm optimistic that they'll hammer a deal out relatively soon. Of course, I've thought that a few times previously. But, I'm really hopeful again this week.