Confirmed with Link: Lockout VI - Game On! Rejoice! Players to vote Saturday.

[Cool Hand Luke]

My prediction: Deal gets done this weekend, and is announced on Monday January 7th. Training camp starts January 8th and the season starts Tuesday January 15th for a 52 game season. Cap will stay the same this season and drop to 62 million next season.
Just a feeling.

 

[Anthrax442]

This contract should have a clause that if there is no new deal at the end of the one they are negotiating now, the players will automatically take a paycut of 35% and the owners will have to pay out 10 Mil per team to some charity or something. Some hared financial repercussions so this doesn't happen again.

 

[indigobuffalo]

Leafs Board: CBA Discussion Thread

Check out the link to the highlights of the latest CBA proposal being discussed between the NHL and NHLPA.



It looks like Burke wins on some of the key issues he has been talking about in the media for a few years now.

Modification to "Four-Recall Rule" to remove limitation on "number of transactions" following the Trade Deadline; replace with limitations on the total number of Recalls on roster at any one time after the Trade Deadline.

and

"Cap Advantage Recapture" formula applicable to existing long-term contracts (in excess of 6 years) for years in which Player is retired or fails/refuses to perform under his NHL SPC.

So the hammer falls on the teams that circumvented the cap, and there will no longer be that BS rule on calling up prospects late in the season!

There were a couple other key points that make things interesting:

Ability for Clubs to retain/allocate Salary and Cap Charges in the context of Player Trades within specified parameters.

Should encourage more trading or at least make it more reasonable so that trades occur earlier in the season, rather than only after Christmas.

Clubs can operate with an effective Upper Limit of $70.2 million in 2012/13; must come into compliance with $60 million Upper Limit for the start of the 2013/14 season.

The Salary Cap will remain where it's at for the rest of this season but will plummet to $60M for next year. This is a great scenario for the Leafs, who have amazing flexibility with so few players signed to long-term deals.
I think the nay-sayers may grumble a bit louder about the Grabovski contract though.

I'd like this thread to focus on the highlights of the CBA and specifically how it affect the Maple Leafs.

 

[Hurt]

My prediction: Deal gets done this weekend, and is announced on Monday January 7th. Training camp starts January 8th and the season starts Tuesday January 15th for a 52 game season. Cap will stay the same this season and drop to 62 million next season.
Just a feeling.

I'll just work off yours. Deal (if there is one, at all) struck sometime this week, January 12th start of camp, first game January 19th, a Saturday. 48 game season.

 

[Rare Jewel]

Salary retention and a limit on term of contracts?


It's as if Burke might have come up with the new CBA

 

[Hurt]

We have a CBA/Lockout thread. Please use it. Merged.

 

[indigobuffalo]

Salary retention and a limit on term of contracts?


It's as if Burke might have come up with the new CBA

That's true, he was part of the team that put it all together, but it's great to see that through the negotiation process those are things that've managed to stick. Particularly the salary retention clause.

Although it hurts our chances a bit at landing Luongo, it is nice to see the smugness of some fans and GMs knocked down a peg or two. I should have made a list of all the people who told me I was insane to think that the NHL wouldn't just grandfather in all the cap circumvention contracts and just close the loop-hole so others couldn't repeat it...

Be nice to PM them all...

 

[Mess]

You have to wonder why the PA wasn't offering anything feasible or worth negotiating, months ago.

Its a 100% giveback for the PA on all issues in the CBA, so why would they be serving up things that negatively effect them, without getting something to their benefit in return?

They went to 50/50 HRR very early after the ridiculous NHL initial offer of taking their current 57% HRR and offering them 43% in the new deal.

 

[Hurt]

Its a 100% giveback for the PA on all issues in the CBA, so why would they be serving up things that negatively effect them, without getting something to their benefit in return?

They went to 50/50 HRR very early after the ridiculous NHL initial offer of taking their current 57% HRR and offering them 43% in the new deal.

~$700 million lost in salaries. Who are they hurting but themselves? I don't believe FOR A SECOND this nonsense about them caring about some kid coming up in 5 years to play in the NHL. It's a dog eat dog league.

 

[Anthrax442]

Its a 100% giveback for the PA on all issues in the CBA, so why would they be serving up things that negatively effect them, without getting something to their benefit in return?

They went to 50/50 HRR very early after the ridiculous NHL initial offer of taking their current 57% HRR and offering them 43% in the new deal.

The players did very well for themselves after the last lockout, they can't complain about that.

 

[indigobuffalo]

~$700 million lost in salaries. Who are they hurting but themselves? I don't believe FOR A SECOND this nonsense about them caring about some kid coming up in 5 years to play in the NHL. It's a dog eat dog league.

That's a cynical understanding of a unionized workforce.

Have you ever worked for a business where you've been represented by a union? The work done by unions affects not just the workers covered and protected by the union but there are ripple effects that force non-unionized businesses to remain competitive with the unionized businesses.

There's a lot more to it than simply getting benefits or some degree of job safety.

And how can you so staunchly assume that NHL players would be so un-caring about the plight of others when so many of them are heavily wrapped up in charitable organizations, particularly programs like Right To Play, where they might be a little more invested in the upcoming youth and the issues they face in trying to become NHL players themselves.

I mean, the very notion you're presenting posits that no one in the history of the world should have ever gone on strike or be locked out for the purpose of negotiating on a contract because everyone in the world should only care about themselves...

 

[Mess]

~$700 million lost in salaries. Who are they hurting but themselves? I don't believe FOR A SECOND this nonsense about them caring about some kid coming up in 5 years to play in the NHL. It's a dog eat dog league.

Only way to end the Owners lockout is to accept a bad deal by the PA to save that lost money to date.

Are you suggesting they should have accepted bad earlier offers, particularly the ones that removed $450 mil in guaranteed contracts in "make whole" that the NHL was not willing to honour after signing previously? By holding out PA has now reacquired $300 mil of that make whole money.

Besides what are there 250+ locked out players playing in Europe that are getting paid and that is cutting into lost lockout money? How much $$ have the Owners lost in comparison by locking the doors and shooting themselves in the foot in lost revenue while Arenas remain dark?

Like I said earlier every time the PA submitted a proposal the NHL said "NO" and walked away pouting rather than negotiating. I'm losing count how many "take it or leave it - final offers" from the NHL there have been now 4, 5 6? Seems that their best final offer keeps changing with each passing day, and those attempted bully tactics were fruitless and nothing more than delays for fans waiting for hockey to return.

 

[paulster2626]

Only way to end the Owners lockout is to accept a bad deal by the PA to save that lost money to date.

Are you suggesting they should have accepted bad earlier offers, particularly the ones that removed $450 mil in guaranteed contracts in "make whole" that the NHL was not willing to honour after signing previously? By holding out PA has now reacquired $300 mil of that make whole money.

Besides what are there 250+ locked out players playing in Europe that are getting paid and that is cutting into lost lockout money? How much $$ have the Owners lost in comparison by locking the doors and shooting themselves in the foot in lost revenue while Arenas remain dark?

Like I said earlier every time the PA submitted a proposal the NHL said "NO" and walked away pouting rather than negotiating. I'm losing count how many "take it or leave it - final offers" from the NHL there have been now 4, 5 6? Seems that their best final offer keeps changing with each passing day, and those attempted bully tactics were fruitless and nothing more than delays for fans waiting for hockey to return.

No, the real question is whether or not the PA could have arrived at whatever result they're left with when all this is over much earlier than January 2013.

By refusing to negotiate, and instead drawing up basic frameworks on Fehr's toilet paper, I believe the PA missed out on a whole lot of paychecks that they didn't have to.

 

[Budsfan]

This is all about money and who gets what but I would like to see them get it right, at least to some degree anyway and plug the holes like cap circumvention and contract length, It's obvious that neither side, wants a reduction of Teams and Players, which is pivotal in having a working League IMO.

This agreement, is shaping up to being another patchwork CBA and unless they concentrate less on the money and more on the hard and hopefully well enforced rules, or this will all fall apart again in the future.

It appears they have some framework in place, probably on mostly how to split up the HRR but lets hope they can get the rest of a solid CBA done and the next CBA can be agreed upon without another lockout.

 

[paulster2626]

Check out the link to the highlights of the latest CBA proposal being discussed between the NHL and NHLPA.



It looks like Burke wins on some of the key issues he has been talking about in the media for a few years now.


So the hammer falls on the teams that circumvented the cap, and there will no longer be that BS rule on calling up prospects late in the season!

With the retirement thing though - this only decreases Luongo's value does it not? Or could there be something of a lesser penalty for a team who a player with a CCC (cap circumventing contract - I just made up a new acronym) is traded to.

 

[Mess]

Today is a pivotal day as the PA has until midnight today to file their "disclaimer of interest" to disband the union.

If the talks go south they may be forced down this road, and if talks continue to proceed well we might see NHL hockey this year.

This is likely the driving force behind the NHL's willingness to exchange proposals and attempt to get a deal done to avoid the potential consequences of the PA filing that court case.

 

[indigobuffalo]

No, the real question is whether or not the PA could have arrived at whatever result they're left with when all this is over much earlier than January 2013.

By refusing to negotiate, and instead drawing up basic frameworks on Fehr's toilet paper, I believe the PA missed out on a whole lot of paychecks that they didn't have to.

You're just refusing to actually read what Mess wrote... the whole point is that with each of the NHL's "take it or leave it" offers, the NHLPA came out with just a little more, everytime.

The financial loss to the players is exaggerated, as Mess indicated, based on the fact several hundred players are playing in Europe.

The whole idea of this "The PA should have taken the first offer they got" nonsense is tired...

 

[indigobuffalo]

With the retirement thing though - this only decreases Luongo's value does it not? Or could there be something of a lesser penalty for a team who a player with a CCC (cap circumventing contract - I just made up a new acronym) is traded to.

Well the highlights don't go into the specifics, but the last time that this article was clarified, the penalty was applied against the team signing the player, regardless of what team that player plays for at the time they retire.

So if that has held up, it actually has a neutral effect on Luongo's value to the other 29 teams but to Vancouver, it increases their need to extract maximum value from any trade involving him.

Which is an interesting situation that I can't think of any parallels for in historical context (other than the obvious desire from any GM to get maximum value when trading).

My guess would be Luongo still goes extremely cheap and Mike Gillis is going to get burned alive no matter how good of a deal he gets in a trade.

 

[ULF_55]

This contract should have a clause that if there is no new deal at the end of the one they are negotiating now, the players will automatically take a paycut of 35% and the owners will have to pay out 10 Mil per team to some charity or something. Some hared financial repercussions so this doesn't happen again.

No, if there is no deal at the end of the contract they continue to play under the terms of this contract that everyone is agreeing to.

Why would you suggest any reduction when they will be agreeing to a reduction again this time?

 

[ULF_55]

With the retirement thing though - this only decreases Luongo's value does it not? Or could there be something of a lesser penalty for a team who a player with a CCC (cap circumventing contract - I just made up a new acronym) is traded to.

It increases his value if they apply the retirement cap to the signing team, which is what was suggested earlier.

If the team that has him (at the time he retires) has to include his cap then for a team like the Islanders or Coyotes it could be godsend. They could have his cap and use it to hit the floor without paying out any money. They only have to have the retirement cap space they don't have to pay it.

 

[Budsfan]

It increases his value if they apply the retirement cap to the signing team, which is what was suggested earlier.

If the team that has him (at the time he retires) has to include his cap then for a team like the Islanders or Coyotes it could be godsend. They could have his cap and use it to hit the floor without paying out any money. They only have to have the retirement cap space they don't have to pay it.

The retirement cap your talking about would be the only reason I would make a trade for Luongo but unlike the Islanders and Coyotes, the Canucks would really hate a deal like that and it would probably greatly affect their future, trying to sign players and stay under the cap.

 

[ULF_55]

The retirement cap your talking about would be the only reason I would make a trade for Luongo but unlike the Islanders and Coyotes, the Canucks would really hate a deal like that and it would probably greatly affect their future, trying to sign players and stay under the cap.

If the Canucks are on the hook for Luongo's deal, he'll be more expensive to land. He does have a NTC though so he controls where he'll go.

These retirement deals are going to be a bugger for some teams, but they'll also enable teams to hit the floor without paying money out, so it depends on whether these are have or have-not teams.

A have-not team might like being able to pay less, and keep ticket prices in the toilet.

 

[Budsfan]

If the Canucks are on the hook for Luongo's deal, he'll be more expensive to land. He does have a NTC though so he controls where he'll go.

These retirement deals are going to be a bugger for some teams, but they'll also enable teams to hit the floor without paying money out, so it depends on whether these are have or have-not teams.

A have-not team might like being able to pay less, and keep ticket prices in the toilet.

Your quite right but it also brings up a problem, signing players for 6 years and 7 years, if they would accept a straight 5 year contract, all this could be avoided and teams trading for a player, would simply take that entire contract and not have any transference, of part of that contract, going back to the originating team.

 

[ULF_55]

Your quite right but it also brings up a problem, signing players for 6 years and 7 years, if they would accept a straight 5 year contract, all this could be avoided and teams trading for a player, would simply take that entire contract and not have any transference, of part of that contract, going back to the originating team.

I think we'll see the contract limits at 7, which is not the problem contracts length. It is the 12-15 year deals that are the problem.

The older contracts are the only ones I think will be a problem, with how they back dive.

 

[4evaBlue]

This is likely the driving force behind the NHL's willingness to exchange proposals and attempt to get a deal done to avoid the potential consequences of the PA filing that court case.

So you're expecting the talks to come to a halt tomorrow, since the NHL has no reason to negotiate anymore after calling the players' bluff?