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

Originally Posted by santiclaws

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.

I don't disagree with a single word you wrote there. But I alluded to as much in my first post. My broader point was simply that among the various contracting issues, salary cap circumvention was but one of the many underlying concerns. So even if salary cap circumvention becomes a thing of the past, there remain other concerns, such as fostering competitive balance, limiting the downside risk of "bad" contracts, etc.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

Why does the NHLPA not agree with both 5 year limit and 5% variance? What is the potential financial damage the players face with both of these limitations in place?

Without the ability of the gm's to decrease the AAV of these contracts against the cap it shortens the pool of money first and foremost. Secondly don't forget this is also meant to limit that 2nd contract where gm's risk losing a developed player to FA. Doughty's deal aside the variance issue will not allow not only a ramp on the backside but a ramp on the front side. The overall effect of the variance limit is it will absolutely prevent a player from signing a longer term deal in general, not talking about 8-10 year deals. Moreso we are talking about the player that might get a 4 year deal will now only get 3.

Originally Posted by jammer06

Without the ability of the gm's to decrease the AAV of these contracts against the cap it shortens the pool of money first and foremost. Secondly don't forget this is also meant to limit that 2nd contract where gm's risk losing a developed player to FA. Doughty's deal aside the variance issue will not allow not only a ramp on the backside but a ramp on the front side. The overall effect of the variance limit is it will absolutely prevent a player from signing a longer term deal in general, not talking about 8-10 year deals. Moreso we are talking about the player that might get a 4 year deal will now only get 3.

Sort of how like it used to be until these anomalies of 10 year deals started cropping up in the past five years? Players used to always get 3-4 year deals and there was never an issue. It has only become one now that players see that they can make a ton more money up front with these BS deals and their retirement years being worked into them.

Originally Posted by FishMonger

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...

and she appreciates it

Originally Posted by Bollocks

Seriously, NBA? The NBA's CAP is soft and is just a cosmetic feature IMO. It has exceptions that are basically intentional loopholes and exceeding the CAP means that the league gets richer (winky wink, so they're basically happy if as many teams exceed it as possible), and that's IT. So what does the contract term limits help the NBA? Nothing, because having basically ONLY contract term limits doesn't really help.


Why does the NHLPA not agree with both 5 year limit and 5% variance? What is the potential financial damage the players face with both of these limitations in place?

The recently expired NHL CBA allowed the richest teams in the league to circumvent the cap at will with back-diving contracts featuring tacked on years, Long-Term Injured Reserved exemptions and by stashing bad contracts in the AHL or overseas.

The reality is the top revenue teams operated under a soft cap system. Even with a 5 year contract limit and a 5% variance, if the same loopholes for swallowing bad contracts are in the next CBA, the big market teams will continue to operate under a different standard than the rest of the league because they can afford to.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

Sort of how like it used to be until these anomalies of 10 year deals started cropping up in the past five years? Players used to always get 3-4 year deals and there was never an issue. It has only become one now that players see that they can make a ton more money up front with these BS deals and their retirement years being worked into them.

There is a flip side to this however. With the rate of revenue growth that was in the last CBA many of those long term deals turned into discount deals in the prime years (by comparative salaries) and were locked in longer. While the overall money when initially signed seemed big, the longer terms actually spread top players money out. Overall the dynamic of selling a tattoo for team success will no longer be in a few gm's handbags when they have to keep pulling it out every three years.

Originally Posted by Ice24

and she appreciates it

She ran off to New York with another woman.

There was an afro involved.

Originally Posted by Kubrick

How have contract term limits helped the NBA?

The NBA is a whole different ball of wax, a whole different system and ultimately not that relevant to these NHL labor talks.

Let me just start with the premise that contract term limits can both help and hinder. If you're a GM (or an owner) in any sport, in general you'd ideally want to lock up your best performing players to very long contracts (up to the point where their productivity goes downhill) and your least valuable players tied to very short contracts. Without a crystal ball, there will always be a certain degree of guesswork in determining which players should get long contracts and which should get short contracts. As such, mistakes are inevitable: some players will vastly overperform their contracts, but many more will underperform their contracts.

By insisting so strongly on a maximum contract length of 5 years, the NHL seems to be making at least two points: they want to protect teams against the ever-present downside risk of underperforming players and they want to maintain some semblance of competitive balance because not every team could offer $100M+ contracts. Would this exert downward or upward pressure on salaries as a result? I'm not sure. With certain notable exceptions, the NHL's salary cap is a hard cap and contract decisions are a near zero-sum game overall. Coupled with a defined revenue sharing ratio, if there was too much downward pressure on salaries, the players would simply have all escrowed amounts refunded to them and possibly be paid additional amounts over and above their contracts to reach a collective 50% (or to reach whatever ratio is ultimately agreed upon). There could in fact be upward pressure too: some GM's might be enticed to offer a higher annual salary, knowing that their teams can only be on the hook for a maximum of 5 years if a player's productivity disappoints. It's therefore difficult, if not impossible, to draw definitive conclusions on the contract term limit in isolation. Suffice it to say, however, the NHL clearly believes it's beneficial.

Originally Posted by kings13

I am sick of people using this statement as a reason to be for the players. The only reason Fehr would want to do this is to shift the power back to them. It would have given them the ability to strike whenever the negotiations weren't going their way, and when they thought it would serve them the best, like right before the beginning of the playoffs.


I think Fehr has got you played for that same sucker...

lol
what santi said