Jump to content

Photo

CBA Talks


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 jagknife

jagknife

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,507 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:18 PM

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.
  • 0

NewKeeperSig.png of each of Toronto's 6 shots on goal in Game 6


#2 lucifer91

lucifer91

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 887 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:56 PM

Its kind of real 'low ball' offer. But they know its a negotiation and fully expect the players to counter. Maybe seven year limit on contract.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3 lucifer91

lucifer91

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 887 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:58 PM

10 seasons is a bit much though, puts the player past his prime
  • 0
Posted Image

#4 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:29 AM

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.


So it seems, based upon their starting position, NHL is willing to settle for a revenue split of 52% NHLPA, 48% owners. That will be a tough pill to swallow for the players, but it is smething they might be willing to do if the NHL drops the escrow requirement.

I can't see the union caving on the length of time before players become free agents. They might trade that off for contract length limits of 7-8 years. Can't see salary arbitration going away as there is no good system to replace it with. I also don't see the entry level conract length being increased, especially if the union caves on the revenue split.

Looking back, it is amazing how well the last labor deal ended up for the players (so well in fact that they want to continue with it, and the owners are looking to get a better deal this time around). The players fought to avoid the cap, but the fact that a salary floor was implemented and the cap/floor have kept rising at ridiulous paces have basically caused parity in the league and been much better for the players than they ever coud have imagined.

I just hope they can resolve this without missing any games. Fehr is a very tough negotiator and is good at what he does, and based upon his past history with the MLBPA, he is not afraid of taking these things to the mat (hell, the strike he led in 1994 resulted in a World Series being cancelled).
  • 0
Posted Image

#5 justdo3043

justdo3043

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,042 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 09:36 AM

in my mind this prob means a shortened season cause thats really low balling it...5 year max contract
  • 0
"The $297,297 Kovalchuk missed today is money he will never, ever get back. And the more cheques he misses, the better the deal is going to have to be for the players to justify him sitting out. And unlike the owners, the players can direct their leadership to get a deal done regardless of how disadvantageous it is to them."

#6 DevilNurn

DevilNurn

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,131 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:05 AM

Looks like the NHL isn't a fan of the Parise/Suter deals, frankly I'd be inclined to agree. I mean, not quite to 10 years before UFA and max 5 year contract, but to the principles.
  • 1

#7 Masked Fan

Masked Fan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,100 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

Can't see salary arbitration going away as there is no good system to replace it with.

I can see it dropped, (but not so much if the UFA time gets pushed higher.)
Sure there is. You don't like their Qualifier, don't sign it and go somewhere else to play, if there is actually someone making you an offer that is.

I see a LOT of room for negotiating with all the terms in play.
  • 0

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is!
Posted Image
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


Posted Image
2009 Chico


#8 Devs1965

Devs1965

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:58 AM

The 5 year for entry level contract may be a bit to long for a player to wait, by 3 years you got a good read most of the time on a player. Asking them to play at what could be bear minimum contract, I don't know is this too long? I see a potential downside to this but I agree these lifetime UFA BS contracts have got to get more realistic.
  • 0

#9 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,412 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:32 AM

I can see it dropped, (but not so much if the UFA time gets pushed higher.)
Sure there is. You don't like their Qualifier, don't sign it and go somewhere else to play, if there is actually someone making you an offer that is.

I see a LOT of room for negotiating with all the terms in play.


Essentially that would get rid of restricted free agency and that's a problem. If they were to get rid of arbitration they would at least need to add a cap discount for re-signing RFA's.
  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#10 Masked Fan

Masked Fan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,100 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:59 PM

Essentially that would get rid of restricted free agency and that's a problem. If they were to get rid of arbitration they would at least need to add a cap discount for re-signing RFA's.


Nah, it just gives owners a little more power in this aspect of negotiating with a RFA, it wouldn't get rid of them, just give them less ability to bite back. Like a qualifying offer would either have to be accepted of rejected still, but now instead of going to arbitration with an unsatisfying qualifier, you would go onto the market, still as a RFA if they wanted to keep some sort of compensation in place. They'd just have to hash over scenarios and values for these RFA's.
  • 0

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is!
Posted Image
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


Posted Image
2009 Chico


#11 Marshall

Marshall

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,370 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:49 PM

I can see it dropped, (but not so much if the UFA time gets pushed higher.)
Sure there is. You don't like their Qualifier, don't sign it and go somewhere else to play, if there is actually someone making you an offer that is.

I see a LOT of room for negotiating with all the terms in play.


Don't sign it? The player doesn't have to sign it, the team just has to make the qualifying offer to retain the rights + protect from offer sheets.
  • 0

Winner of the 2009-10 Slava Fetisov Award For Best International Poster
Winner of the 2011-2012 RD Avatar Award


#12 halfsharkalligatorhalfman

halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:59 PM

So it seems, based upon their starting position, NHL is willing to settle for a revenue split of 52% NHLPA, 48% owners. That will be a tough pill to swallow for the players, but it is smething they might be willing to do if the NHL drops the escrow requirement.

I can't see the union caving on the length of time before players become free agents. They might trade that off for contract length limits of 7-8 years. Can't see salary arbitration going away as there is no good system to replace it with. I also don't see the entry level conract length being increased, especially if the union caves on the revenue split.


That's a reasonable guess for the final CBA, and that would certainly take missing half the season to make happen. If it's true that most NHL teams lose money in the regular season, then there's no reason why that wouldn't happen too.
  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

#13 Masked Fan

Masked Fan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,100 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:54 PM

Don't sign it? The player doesn't have to sign it, the team just has to make the qualifying offer to retain the rights + protect from offer sheets.

hmm not quite, by making the qualifier, the team retains the right to match a signed offer sheet for 7 days. If the player doesn't sign the qualifier, he remains an RFA and can negotiate with other teams. He can get offers from other clubs, and the team he's on can choose to match it or let em walk. Granted, the new team would have to give some sort of compensation, but I can see that being adjusted too.
  • 0

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is!
Posted Image
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


Posted Image
2009 Chico


#14 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,412 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:25 PM

Nah, it just gives owners a little more power in this aspect of negotiating with a RFA, it wouldn't get rid of them, just give them less ability to bite back. Like a qualifying offer would either have to be accepted of rejected still, but now instead of going to arbitration with an unsatisfying qualifier, you would go onto the market, still as a RFA if they wanted to keep some sort of compensation in place. They'd just have to hash over scenarios and values for these RFA's.


This would give more power to the players. It would essentially make them unrestricted free agents.
  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#15 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:55 PM

so a player would sign an entry level of 5 years... then sign a 5 years maximum contract... then it would bring him DIRECTLY to free agency as an unrestricted free agent... there would be no way around it unless you sign him 4 years or something...

i really dont think the players will agree with a 5 years entry level contract especially when you saw guys like Tavares, Stamkos and Doughty cashing in BIG MONEY at 21 years old... of course owners would like it... i'd certainly like to have Larsson and Henrique costing 1,8m COMBINED for 5 years lol

personally to be fair to everyone i'd keep the entry level at 3 years, 7 years max contract and i'm not to sure of the period players should play before reaching UFA... im glad we got Kovy in his prime but it sucks to see Zach go in his prime too lol

Edited by SterioDesign, 14 July 2012 - 11:57 PM.

  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#16 LucifersDog

LucifersDog

    Broken Record

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,786 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:01 AM

There will have to be some concessions made by the owners to get the NHLPA to agree to these proposed changes that only financially favour the owners. Changing what is considered NHL revenue reduces the pot for the players and then the cuts in percentages and the increased length of the contracts only spells LOCKOUT for the NHL next season.

I hope the owners understand they are working with cracked eggs.

Edited by LucifersDog, 15 July 2012 - 08:02 AM.

  • 0

#17 Masked Fan

Masked Fan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,100 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:19 AM

This would give more power to the players. It would essentially make them unrestricted free agents.

But... they are not UFA's
UFA's signing elsewhere nets no compensation for the original team, these RFA's signing elsewhere get the original team draft picks from the new team.
  • 0

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is!
Posted Image
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


Posted Image
2009 Chico


#18 Devil Dan 56

Devil Dan 56

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,031 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:23 AM

But... they are not UFA's
UFA's signing elsewhere nets no compensation for the original team, these RFA's signing elsewhere get the original team draft picks from the new team.


This is how it already works now. Players don't have to sign the qualifying offer. By removing arbitration, you just increase the chance of hold outs.
  • 0
Official NJDevs.com Keeper of Gory Corey Schwab, Mike Peluso, Troy Crowder, Jeff Frazee, and Rich Shulmistra.
"The Devils are that zombie that takes an ax to the skull, a bullet to the temple and is set on fire … and yet keeps lumbering along to the annoyance of all the other zombies." - Puck Daddy

#19 Masked Fan

Masked Fan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,100 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:29 AM

This is how it already works now. Players don't have to sign the qualifying offer. By removing arbitration, you just increase the chance of hold outs.

Which is why I can see it going the way of the Dodo.
By removing arbitration, I think it adds power to the owners to not have to pay higher $$ for a player. Now, I have not been a close follower of the arbitration, but I do not recall ANY player being taken to arbitration by the team to save money, it is mostly, if not always, the player seeking more money.

I'm going to see what google knows about that stat. Posted Image
  • 0

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is!
Posted Image
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


Posted Image
2009 Chico


#20 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:31 PM

Which is why I can see it going the way of the Dodo.
By removing arbitration, I think it adds power to the owners to not have to pay higher $$ for a player. Now, I have not been a close follower of the arbitration, but I do not recall ANY player being taken to arbitration by the team to save money, it is mostly, if not always, the player seeking more money.

I'm going to see what google knows about that stat. Posted Image


Players have been taken to arbitration to try to reduce their contract. I can't remember the last time it happened - Parise was threatened with it last year, and Mason Raymond was threatened with it this year but he settled. Basically it's a good way to get a player really angry at you, to trash him in an arbitration hearing.

Arbitration isn't going away. I wonder if they will try to change to baseball-style arbitration where the team names a number, the player names a number, and the arbitrator selects one of those numbers. In hockey, the arbitrator can award anything within the range that the team and player pick, leading players to ask for the moon and teams to ask for nothing.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users