Please Allow me to clarify something: The article I read said that the NHLPA & The NHL both have the "Option" to terminate the CBA after this upcoming season. In other words, this is not an option that has to have mutual approval. If either side decides to do this then there is a more than 90% chance of a stoppage. The one thing I forgot to mention is that the other reason the players are disgruntled is because of the 2018 Olympics not being on the table this time around.
One of the things the article mentioned is that the NHL (The league) has a net worth of Four Billion Dollars while the NFL (The League) has a net worth of Sixty-two Billion Dollars while MLB has a net worth of Thirty-Six Billion Dollars. Because of this, there is only so much money to go around. And that is a problem the owners face.
If I were to read between the lines I would have to conclude that Gary Bettman is the major problem here. True the NHL had it's problems as a league prior to him being named a commissioner but it seems that ever since he has come into the league there has been more ciaos than harmony. I lost count of the lockouts because of him. Plus he wants to expand the league which is a drain on the talent pool of a hard game to play while putting teams in venues that don't support hockey. The imbalance of teams from the east to the west with the absurd travel schedule of the western teams is a joke. He puts a team in Vegas which is good but he snubs Seattle . HUH? Quebec is looking to get back into the NHL but he won't move any failing teams to that venue & allow them to thrive. This guy has flipped the script. He is supposed to be working for the owners but it seems that it is the other way around. Then he wonders why he gets booed every time he makes a public appearance. I see no reasonable answer in sight.
If GMs don't want to live with the potential problems of NTC/NMC players, they don't have to offer the clause or sign the player.
Again a situation where ownership creates the problem and then expects the players to solve it for them.
Forgiving enough that it's survived two previous "kill the sport" lockouts in the past 15 years and is now more valuable and profitable than ever.
For that matter, the owners have been accused of trying to "kill the sport" since the first expansion.
or, when you have an organization that consists of 31 separate franchises competing for talent and success but not directly for dollars, drift towards short term decision-making is inevitable, and requires centralized control to rein in. Centralized control from a party that is not specifically interested in the talent level or success of a given franchise, but the health and vitality of the organization as a whole.
I have been and will be offended at the suggestion or reality of salary roll-backs, but outside of that, I would have zero problem with the league saying, "NTC's will only be allowed to cover up to 2 years of any contract, NMC's are completely forbidden, salaries will be limited to 10% of the per-team cap ceiling, and a maximum 6 year duration. all existing contracts are grandfathered, but all new deals will follow these rules."
salary roll backs are the only angle i can see players being expected to solve problems for ownership. and i am against those roll backs. beyond that, go nuts, NHL. it doesn't help anyone that a third of the league will be hamstrung for the next 5 years because of bad deals. yes, it's their own GMs' faults, but it still reduces the quality of the NHL product overall, and thus I'm good with the NHL looking to solve it unilaterally. chicago basically had to put itself in perpetual cap hell to produce their cup champions, but now have no real choice but slowly rot away for the next half decade. detroit tried to keep its salary levels under control, which was admirable, but they did it with movement-restricted (but largely cheaper than normal) deals, and are now going to rot for the attempt. is that good? i get that they reap what they sow, and this is the bed they made, and all sorts of other cliches, but....is it good for the league to have teams basically check out of competition for years at a time due to contract-related logjams? wouldn't it be great if there was some kind of structure that would keep experiments like that from happening and dragging down the NHL's overall product?
one thing i'd like to see, and i think it'd go a long way towards fixing a good bit of this...maybe to the point of being the only change that needs to be made: remove the cap hit for all buy-outs. any buy-out at all simply goes away, in terms of the team's cap number. unlimited caphit-free normal-course buy-outs available each summer. who benefits from tightly controlled buyouts with significant cap consequences? who'd be hurt?
lastly, i've said it before, but with this talk starting up again, i'll repeat: i think professional sports players' unions are one of the least funny jokes of the last 100 years. it's a perversion, an idea for the good of the common worker that had no leverage and required protection being applied to some of the richest people on the continent. the minimum wage of an NHL player is $650,000. when the average doctor and lawyer look like paupers next to the least talented NHL player, my heart is a LONG way from breaking for them, no matter what concession is asked.
I’m going to use the New York Rangers as an example because this is the team that I follow, but this post deals pretty much with all thirty-one NHL teams.
I receive push notifications on my Android phone for subjects that I am interested in. One of those subjects is the NHL. The last push notification I received concerning the NHL stated that after this upcoming season the NHLPA has the option of terminating the current CBA. This option is also extended to the NHL. So, if the NHLPA terminates the CBA it is a work stoppage. But, if the NHL terminates the CBA it is a lockout. (Po-ta-toe - PoTah-toe) The article goes on to say that around ninety-five percent of the players are disgruntled because of the fifteen percent escrow they are forced to pay the owners and this is the main reason the CBA may be terminated early.
The reason I am bringing this up is to 1. To prepare everyone for another lockout and 2. To talk about a second amnesty buyout that is sure to be on the negotiating table. This was brought up in the article and it sounds like something that will probably fly for the second time.
The reason I am bringing this up is because just about every NHL team has at least one contract that they would love to get off the books, but they can’t because they don’t want to carry a negative cap hit for ex amount of seasons.
The Rangers have one of those in Marc Staal. He is carrying a five + million dollar contract for the next four years and if he were to be bought out, the cap hit would extend for eight years and would be money that they are charged with but can’t use. Not Good!
I will say this; if I were a GM in this league, I would propose at the next GM’s meeting that the No move, No trade contracts be off the table. This helps all thirty-one NHL clubs. The players have this as leverage but if all the GM’s said “NO” to this then the teams would be able to operate without a gun to their collective heads. The notion that a player is not capable of playing for a team or is not in their plans but has to remain because of that stupid agreement is crazy. These guys are not hurting for money but yet they continue to milk every penny they can get without any regard for other players on the team. Normally I side with the players, but in this case I have to go with management on this one. They cry because they are being underpaid, but this is the sport they chose in a league that only has a net worth of four billion dollars and is fourth or fifth in popularity.