What likely CBA changes will happen that would help Flyers

[BobDailey]

Ah yes its time again for the war of words between the rich men and corporations whose teams are playthings as much as they are profit centers/tax loss writeoff centers.

Frankly I like the fact Donald Fehr is there to ruffle the physical and mental midget commissioners feathers as well. The only downside is he is going to try and protect jobs in markets that are LOSERS and exist on league subsidies or ownership

Now I feel better and on to the real issue

Sane people will pretty much expect Pronger to be done and something to have to be done with the space cowboy goalie

Based on the fact that the everyone knows the CBA is

1) Wholly inadequate relating to over 35 years old contract players injuries/retirment

2) It previously allowed one time buyouts

3) Player movement between NHL/AHL due to AHL vets salaries restriction is problematic

4) Too limiting in regards to maximum number of player contracts with growing numbers of injuries

What do you think will happen that will benefit the Flyers in the new CBA or renewal of some existing terms in the CBA

Edited January 16, 2012 by BobDailey

[brelic]

If the owners demand non-guaranteed contracts, there will be a strike. That issue is as much a non-starter as the cap was last time around, and they lost an entire season because of it. A few summers ago, it was brought up as a potential negotiating issue:

http://sports.yahoo....?urn=nhl-176056

In thinking about next year's cap drop, we recommend a great analysis and news roundup by George James Malik on Snapshots that deals with several issues, including how the NBA's recent cap drop works as a harbinger for the NHL's. But he also points to an Adam Proteau piece from The Hockey News that should send a chill through hockey fans worried about another potential labor war in the next CBA negotiation:

Certain people in the industry believe the league is going to attempt to remove guaranteed contracts in the next labor negotiations - a move that almost certainly would result in another work stoppage. If that happens, I think the owners will be in for a far rougher public-relations ride than they experienced in the canceled 2004-05 season.

The salary cap was held up by Gary Bettman as a panacea for virtually all of the game's financial issues, but the league's collective playing field remains almost as uneven as it did before the lockout. And though many fans say they'd "play for free" if they could, I think even the most hardened heart out there would concede that, given the physical sacrifices made by NHLers in their day-to-day on-ice duties, guaranteed contracts are a fair and deserved contractual stipulation.

And from a more recent source:

http://sports.nation...-nhls-next-cba/

In a perfect world, the NHL would love to see guaranteed contracts right out the window, or perhaps marginally more attainable, a formula somewhat like the NFL has whereby some of the money in a contract would be guaranteed with the remainder having to be earned.

One well-informed agent said straight-up: “You won’t have hockey for the next three years if they try to take guaranteed contracts away. With what we’re finding out in terms of the impact of injuries like concussions and even the lesser performance after serious injuries, there’s absolutely no way the players are giving up guaranteed deals.”

Realizing that this is one issue which could galvanize the players where nothing else could given their traditional bonehead indolence in learning the issues, the league may simply try to put term limits on deals, although neither the teams, the players nor the agents like being told what contracts they can and can’t sign.

For the 35+ contracts, there is a belief that maybe existing contracts would fall under new rules/loopholes in the next CBA:

Like when

Chris Pronger(notes) signed his new contract with the Philadelphia Flyers, and the well-documented conflict between the structure of the deal and the 35-and-over clause in the CBA could have ramifications years down the line. Forget whom his defensive partner might be next season; his contract has gotten the biggest headlines of the summer, following his trade from the Anaheim Ducks

But in examining the Pronger issue in today's edition,

Larry Brooks of the NY Post looks ahead to both the expected decrease in the salary cap and the next CBA, which is expected to be negotiated around 2012. In doing so, he wonders how many current NHL contracts will be dramatically altered or eliminated in "bridging the gap" between the current CBA and the new one -- which promises to be an uncomfortable battle between the PA and the NHL.

Brooks writes that the Flyers won't suffer the $4.921 cap hit when Pronger is likely retired in 2016 -- the aforementioned goof in signing him before the 35-and-over clause kicked in -- because the current CBA won't be in use by then. So the assumption is that by 2012, when Pronger is 38, there's a chance the Flyers could clear the rest of the cap hit through some new CBA-influenced contract loophole, like a one-time buyout.

From Brooks:

The Flyers will not take the hit because the CBA will be long extinct by that time, with another round of rollbacks and amnesty buyouts expected to bridge the gap between the current labor agreement and whatever comes next.

There are no guarantees, of course, but no one knows the fate of contracts that run beyond 2011-12, which is when the CBA will expire once the NHLPA exercises its pro-forma option to extend the deal through that season.

It would, however, be a shock if the league doesn't recalibrate as part of a battle that's certain to include a laundry list of givebacks from the union intended to shrink the cap. Indeed, several general managers have told Slap Shots they believe a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful.

There might also be talk around eliminating the front-loaded deals meant to circumvent the cap (Kovalchuk, Hossa, Pronger, etc):

It's expected that the NHL might attempt to fight these front-loaded, long-term deals like the Pronger one in the next CBA as being something bad for hockey. It's not an easy argument to make, when they allow teams to retain their talent at a reasonable price rather than having players poached by huge-money offers elsewhere (an essential plank in the competitive balance platform for the NHL). They also allow strong teams to thrive, giving the NHL powerhouses instead of a collection of B-grade teams.

Also, the salary cap floor is expected to be an issue by either eliminating it or lowering it:

http://sports.nation...-nhls-next-cba/

[Flyguys03]

Nothing I would guess. I can't see them doing a buyout period unless the new cap goes down significantly. I would also be shocked if there isn't a work stoppage. They can't even come to terms on ******* realignment...

[brelic]

Nothing I would guess. I can't see them doing a buyout period unless the new cap goes down significantly. I would also be shocked if there isn't a work stoppage. They can't even come to terms on ******* realignment...

I think the work stoppage will come down to whether or not non-guaranteed contracts are on the table.

In terms of buyout, there really should be no reason to have one, but the big market teams (i.e. the ones who actually keep the league alive) will want one to get out of the stupid contracts they keep giving out, and can use that as leverage over something a small market team might want (i.e. lower cap floor or no floor). So, I could see a buyout period on that basis.

[terp]

Indeed, several general managers have told Slap Shots they believe a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful.

I don't think this is going to apply to Pronger because, unless I'm mistaken, teams can't buy out guys on LTIR. However, depending on the length of the strike (right now I'm kind of counting on it), it very well might be relevant for Timonen, Briere, and (if there is any justice) Bryzgalov. I very much expect there to be a one time buy out amnesty because it helps the big market clubs and isn't seen as a big deal by the small market clubs, especially in the context of a cap roll back.

I agree that any attempt to make contracts non guaranteed amounts to a declaration of nuclear war by the owners. In fact, given the medical revelations that are circulating right now, NFL players ought to re think the issue.

[Dynamo 47]

Ah yes its time again for the war of words between the rich men and corporations whose teams are playthings as much as they are profit centers/tax loss writeoff centers.

Frankly I like the fact Donald Fehr is there to ruffle the physical and mental midget commissioners feathers as well. The only downside is he is going to try and protect jobs in markets that are LOSERS and exist on league subsidies or ownership

Now I feel better and on to the real issue

Sane people will pretty much expect Pronger to be done and something to have to be done with the space cowboy goalie

Based on the fact that the everyone knows the CBA is

1) Wholly inadequate relating to over 35 years old contract players injuries/retirment

2) It previously allowed one time buyouts

3) Player movement between NHL/AHL due to AHL vets salaries restriction is problematic

4) Too limiting in regards to maximum number of player contracts with growing numbers of injuries

What do you think will happen that will benefit the Flyers in the new CBA or renewal of some existing terms in the CBA

My take is the same it has been for years prior to and after the lockout and it's so simple in it's form

REMOVE THE SALARY CAP

If the bigger market teams want to spend more implement a luxury tax or a weighted salary cap scale based on a percentage of the league revenue they generate.

The NHL is successful when the big market or traditional hockey market clubs are successful. The casual fan is more likely to tune in to a Flyers - Wings or Rangers - Blackhawks matchup then they would a Columbus - Tampa or Phoenix - Florida final. Heck even die hards might not tune in for those latter matchups.

Why should successful teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Le Habitants, Leafs, Red Wings, etc. be penalized or put on equal footing to support Bettman mistakes in trying to put hockey in every city?

I stand by my assertion that the NHL is a niche league and does much better ratings wise and exposure wise when the top markets are playing. So give the teams that are or were keeping the league afloat a little advantage or remove the cap entirely.

[brelic]

My take is the same it has been for years prior to and after the lockout and it's so simple in it's form

REMOVE THE SALARY CAP

If the bigger market teams want to spend more implement a luxury tax or a weighted salary cap scale based on a percentage of the league revenue they generate.

The NHL is successful when the big market or traditional hockey market clubs are successful. The casual fan is more likely to tune in to a Flyers - Wings or Rangers - Blackhawks matchup then they would a Columbus - Tampa or Phoenix - Florida final. Heck even die hards might not tune in for those latter matchups.

Why should successful teams like the Flyers, Rangers, Le Habitants, Leafs, Red Wings, etc. be penalized or put on equal footing to support Bettman mistakes in trying to put hockey in every city?

I stand by my assertion that the NHL is a niche league and does much better ratings wise and exposure wise when the top markets are playing. So give the teams that are or were keeping the league afloat a little advantage or remove the cap entirely.

That makes sense only if you go through a contraction. And I don't just mean 1 or 2 teams, I think more like 10 if you want to remove the salary cap. Even that might be enough.

Do you think the NHLPA will ever agree to a proposal that cuts 33% of its members' jobs?