Entry level contracts being reduced to two years is a plus for the players. And I believe they got the ability to get an outside opinion medically on injuries at the team's expense.
lol. that is not a plus for the players; the league is the one offering it and the players rejecting it, what does that tell you? For every Sidney Crosby who gets to RFA earlier (which by the way almost certainly gets most players there without arbitration rights, so their second contract becomes take it or leave it), there are 15 players in the minors who miss out on a 3rd season as NHL property. It's not good for players. Ooh boy, second opinions for terrible team doctors, yippee. Cut my paycheck 15% and I get to get second opinions? Why not just bring up ending double rooms for players on the road?
How much can the owners possibly offer as an 'improvement'? They're not going to offer 60% HRR, they're not going to reduce the FA age to 25.
They could do a lot of things, they simply choose not to. The potential for no-trade clauses on RFA contracts, for instance. Increased payouts for buyouts. Full amnesty buyouts. The ending of re-entry waivers and no one counts on the cap until they make $250,000 US per year in the minors, instead of $105,000 as is being proposed now. An increase in the minimum NHL contract, which was a big thing in the last agreement that no one talks about now. Bump it to $600,000, say. The re-introduction of player options in contracts. There are a billion small things the NHL could give the union if you sat and thought about it.
Edited by Triumph, 21 November 2012 - 12:07 PM.