NHL CBA Talk

Big Ev wrote:
There is no chance there is a full season lockout. Missing a month or so wouldn't be the end of the world.

Donald Fehr is the head of the NHLPA, not much reason to be optimistic, although sky isn't falling yet.

OK City would be something else though.

NEELY wrote:They shouldn't miss any time at all. Everyone is making money hand over fist right now and losing time because other want more money is disgusting. I won't support the NHL in any financial sense if they miss a single game.

Not true. There are a lot more teams losing money than those making money. The cap has helped parity (initially) but it has hurt the teams in smaller markets in terms of trying to make a profit.

NEELY wrote:OK City would be something else though.

"OK City"? Oklahoma City? How is that related to the CBA negotiations?

Heh, the Leafs could make the playoffs with a 66 game schedule.

Riprock wrote:Heh, the Leafs could make the playoffs with a 66 game schedule.

Good point. Can't wait. I *want* the Sens to play them in the post-season.

The Sens need to be able to beat the Leafs in a playoff series, but no matter how much better the Sens are as a team, the Leafs hold a psychological intimidation over them it seems. Even though the teams are completely different than the last time they met, the pressure to win is there for Ottawa, not to mention that the series would be a 7-game road trip for Ottawa.

Riprock wrote:The Sens need to be able to beat the Leafs in a playoff series, but no matter how much better the Sens are as a team, the Leafs hold a psychological intimidation over them it seems. Even though the teams are completely different than the last time they met, the pressure to win is there for Ottawa, not to mention that the series would be a 7-game road trip for Ottawa.

How many players are left on the Sens that remember this first hand, though? Alfie, Phillips, Neil. Spezza only played 3 games. No-one left on the Leafs.

NHL owners asking a lot more. Not only are they asking for 46% of revenue going to player salaries, but they are also proposing a re-definition of Hockey-Relates Revenues that would count toward the gross revenue.

They are also calling for a maximum of 5 years for contracts and no-more salary arbitration.

Riprock wrote:The Sens need to be able to beat the Leafs in a playoff series, but no matter how much better the Sens are as a team, the Leafs hold a psychological intimidation over them it seems. Even though the teams are completely different than the last time they met, the pressure to win is there for Ottawa, not to mention that the series would be a 7-game road trip for Ottawa.

Was it also their goaltending which was stellar in those series...

Both sides had better tread very carefully when negotiating this next contract.

The contract before the last one, most NHL fans were on the side of the players. This last one, the fans were on the side of the owners.

But if they walkout or lockout this time, the fans will be on NO ones side.

What can you say about extremely weathly owners and players (in general) that can't seem to settle a contract without a lockout or a strike. Those players (for the most part) make more in a year than most of their fans make in a lifetime.

They risk losing a lot of what they have gained in the States. Quite a few of those fans could and probably would just stop watching. Canadian fans always go back as it's in our blood.. but would it be enough is enough? Could some of their Cdn fans just stop watching?

Both sides risk losing a lot more than they will be gaining.

I predict the following will be the pillars when all is said and done:

--- 50/50 split of revenue
--- no change in FA eligibility
--- 7-10 year contract limit
--- no change in signing bonuses
--- entry level deals to be 4 years
--- elimination of the cap floor, or a serious lowering of it

Book it.

shabbs wrote:I predict the following will be the pillars when all is said and done:

--- 50/50 split of revenue
--- no change in FA eligibility
--- 7-10 year contract limit
--- no change in signing bonuses
--- entry level deals to be 4 years
--- elimination of the cap floor, or a serious lowering of it

Book it.

You are forgetting contract structure. There was talk about making the salary and the cap hit the same -- i.e. you are paid the same in each year of a multi-year deal. Signing bonuses would have to stay, of course. I think UFA eligibility will change from 7/27. You have college "kids" starting their pro careers when they are 22-24 and are UFA just a few years later.

Don't forget realignment and the Olympics. Those are second-tier issues but they will be resolved before the puck drops. The players also want a change in supplemental discipline.

wprager wrote:You are forgetting contract structure. There was talk about making the salary and the cap hit the same -- i.e. you are paid the same in each year of a multi-year deal. Signing bonuses would have to stay, of course.

Yeah, I don't see that happening.

shabbs wrote:I predict the following will be the pillars when all is said and done:

--- 50/50 split of revenue
--- no change in FA eligibility
--- 7-10 year contract limit
--- no change in signing bonuses
--- entry level deals to be 4 years
--- elimination of the cap floor, or a serious lowering of it

Book it.

That actually looks pretty good for both sides. I'd like to see them structure the cap increases differently too. The cap rises too quickly.

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:You are forgetting contract structure. There was talk about making the salary and the cap hit the same -- i.e. you are paid the same in each year of a multi-year deal. Signing bonuses would have to stay, of course.

Yeah, I don't see that happening.

Stupid thing is, the GMs/owners already have control over this. They can unilaterally control the length and structure of the contracts, although is they *ask* about it and the players turn it down, then if they actually *do it* they would be accused of collusion.

So things like this they really need to just not talk about.

I wouldn't be opposed to longer ELC's and a lower or no floor. If a team doesn't want to spend, they shouldn't have to. It creates more problems than it does benefits.