Thread: We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Originally Posted by Kubrick

I think it's hilarious that the owners are "prepared to die" on an issue that they have full and total control over, length of player contract. Since the owners cannot be trusted to control their own actions, they're willing to flush another season down the drain.

If all the owners start giving 5 years max you can bet your toenails the nhlpa would scream collusion.

Can we all just agree to stop posting in here, unless something important happens? I don't want to have to keep checking every 45 seconds. I haven't seen my fiancee in days...

Originally Posted by santiclaws

You have got to be kidding me - Cross Checks Blog - ESPN

Interesting read, especially:
"Or maybe Fehr just managed to infuriate the most player-friendly owner in the league, Ron Burkle, a man who has won labor awards for his work in his private business life but somehow finally found a place where his negotiating expertise was unable to penetrate. Yes, the Pittsburgh Penguins' owner absolutely wanted to explode Wednesday night."

Originally Posted by aragorn

If all the owners start giving 5 years max you can bet your toenails the nhlpa would scream collusion.

Yup. Unless there is an agreement in place, there's no way they could do such a thing.

Originally Posted by aragorn

If all the owners start giving 5 years max you can bet your toenails the nhlpa would scream collusion.

so put the 5% variance in place and the "free" market corrects itself.

Originally Posted by Kubrick

so put the 5% variance in place and the "free" market corrects itself.

The 5% variance that the players didn't want to agree to either:

Originally Posted by Kubrick

so put the 5% variance in place and the "free" market corrects itself.

This part, I don't quite follow. I can agree that the free market (such as it is) would correct itself to a significant degree from an owners' perspective, but I'm having trouble understanding how having one (limiting the salary percentage variance in this example) means not needing the other (limiting the contract lengths). Putting a 5% variance in place would go a long way towards ending the front-loading and back-diving of contracts. It should end some of the once-popular salary cap circumventing shenanigans for good, and it puts relatively cash-poor teams on more equal footing with the filthy rich teams who are otherwise better able to pay a lot more in the early years of a contract. But without an express limitation on contract length, rich teams are still in an advantageous position to trump other contract offers simply by offering more term, and they're much, much more able to absorb the consequences when they make mistakes. Even more so, if concepts like buyouts and burying players in the minors are retained in the new CBA.

I don't have a hard time believing the owners when they say the issue of contract lengths is by far the most important contracting issue for them.

Originally Posted by AWL

This part, I don't quite follow. I can agree that the free market (such as it is) would correct itself to a significant degree from an owners' perspective, but I'm having trouble understanding how having one (limiting the salary percentage variance in this example) means not needing the other (limiting the contract lengths). Putting a 5% variance in place would go a long way towards ending the front-loading and back-diving of contracts. It should end some of the once-popular salary cap circumventing shenanigans for good, and it puts relatively cash-poor teams on more equal footing with the filthy rich teams who are otherwise better able to pay a lot more in the early years of a contract. But without an express limitation on contract length, rich teams are still in an advantageous position to trump other contract offers simply by offering more term, and they're much, much more able to absorb the consequences when they make mistakes. Even more so, if concepts like buyouts and burying players in the minors are retained in the new CBA.

I don't have a hard time believing the owners when they say the issue of contract lengths is by far the most important contracting issue for them.

How have contract term limits helped the NBA?

Originally Posted by AWL

This part, I don't quite follow. I can agree that the free market (such as it is) would correct itself to a significant degree from an owners' perspective, but I'm having trouble understanding how having one (limiting the salary percentage variance in this example) means not needing the other (limiting the contract lengths).

The contract will not "dive" quickly enough to make it a viable tool. The idea on current contracts was that the players will be retired at the end, in large part because the contract will simply not be worth that much money. If you put a 5% cap on year-to-year declines, even a long contract will be worth a considerable amount and you would run a very significant risk of a player well past his prime taking up both a roster spot and valuable cap space in order to still get his fat paycheck. In addition, I believe (I could be wrong) they already agreed on a new CBA provision which will make contracts for retiring players stay on the books for cap purposes. Combine those things and the diving contract makes no sense as an attempt to circumvent the cap.