When we sit down and look back on this entire CBA mess and where we were in July and where we are now five months later, it's hard to believe we're not seeing NHLers on ice.
All you have to do is look at what the league offered this week and what the players countered with to see just how close the two sides are.
The single, biggest issue remains the NHL's insistence that moving forward, no player contract can be longer than five years.
Love how Larry Brooks kept asking The Commish, Gary Bettman, why 5 years was so damn important to the league.
"That's the hill we'll die on," Bettman replied.
What war movie was that from? Clint Eastwood directing Bettman on Porkchop Hill or was it Heartbreak Ridge?
The players, of course, want 8 years. That was their response.
Me? I don't see why this is an issue toward losing a CBA. The clubs say that contracts longer than 5 years can hurt teams financially, especially, if they need to get out of them, although didn't our hardline owner-friend Craig Leipold pen mind-boggling 13-year deals this summer to Ryan Suter and Zach Parise?
The players say that they are trying to "protect" the middle class segment of NHLers who might only get five years in the NHL and would be hard pressed to get another deal, so if they could sign longer, they would have some insurance if they fall into that borderline class late in their contract.
My thought is this: a team can re-sign a player for 7 years, under the league's proposal. Take their entry deal plus a 7-year re-sign and now that player is 9 years in the league which is at or above the average NHL player longevity, depending upon which generation of NHLers you look at.
I don't see why the NHLPA can't live with 5 years. Nor do I see what the difference is between a 10-year CBA and 8-year or 9 or even 7 because the player share is already agreed upon at 50/50 and can't get better.
Ten years allows everyone to recover from this financial mess. It gives your sponsors time to come back and see stability. It gives your game time to grow again. No one wants to go through this again, especially, people behind the scenes paying for TV rights and such.
If revenues grow, the salary cap grows, the players' ability to earn more dollars goes up and in every case that we have seen - hockey included - long-term CBAs right now seem to benefit the players.
Honestly, I feel that Ray Ratto, my CSN colleague from San Francisco, got it right when he said what has happened here is that the CBA negotiations have become a test of wills between NHLPA boss Donald Fehr, who never loses, and BOG boss Jeremy Jacobs, who has never lost, either.
Like Eklund, I believe we are much closer to a resolution than we are to losing the season. You can't get this close to an agreement and then back off and let another season get cancelled.
When Bettman said his side needed to "take a deep breath" he was really saying, "we're both gonna walk away from the table for a few days, collect our thoughts and get together again."
The owners won't let this CBA die in a hotel room in NYC.
And the players won't allow it to happen, either.
To me, the NHL's childish rejection/pull from the table/stop negotiations was a page right from Bob Batterman's CBA playbook used by both the NBA and NFL at his law firm, Proskauer Rose.
Fehr recognizes that. So does every one else.
There mess has one or two rounds of talks to go, but we gotta get it done for a Jan. 1 drop the puck.
The next discussions could be a neutral site - maybe Chicago.
I've said from the start, I felt the lockout would cost us a large chunk of the season, but never the entire season.
I still believe that we will cram in a 50-game free for all that everyone is gonna love.
*
Here's more hockey on CSNPhilly.com:
click here
REVENUE SPLIT (*Resolved*) – split was 57% players, 43% owners in previous CBA
NHL: 50% owners, 50% players
UNION: 50% owners, 50% players
MAKE-WHOLE PROVISION (Nearing resolution) – money committed from owners to players to offset losses caused by reset to 50-50 split; NHL’s highest offer had been $211 prior to this week
NHL: $300 million
UNION: “We have an agreement on what we call the transition payments, which came out of what the owners called the ‘Make-Whole’ proposal a number of weeks ago,” Don Fehr said Thursday. “We believe that issue is or should be resolved.” Union previously had wanted $393 million so presumably backed off that number.
LENGTH OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (Nearing resolution) – last agreement was five years, plus two extra years players opted into, for seven total
NHL: 10-year agreement, with a re-opener clause after Year Eight
UNION: Eight-year agreement, with a player opt-out option after Year Six
LENGTH OF PLAYER CONTRACTS (Still far apart, but closer) – previously unlimited
NHL: Five years, but teams can re-sign own unrestricted free-agents for up to seven years
UNION: Eight years
CONTRACT VARIABILITY (Still apart, but nearing resolution) – refers to difference in player’s salary year-to-year; previously, year’s salary could decrease by no more than 50% of the lowest year’s salary in the contract’s first two years
NHL: Maximum 5% annual variance from initial year’s salary
UNION: For contracts seven years or longer, the lowest year salary must be at least 25% of the contract’s highest year salary. Also, Don Fehr: “We have made proposals for what we call a cap benefit recapture … if the player does not perform in any years of a contract that he’s otherwise fit to play, we re-compute what the cap benefit would (be) by averaging those years in, and then the club has that cap charge over the remaining years of the contract.”
PLAYER PENSIONS (Tentatively resolved *)
NHL: Content to address pensions once major issues of revenue and contracting rights are agreed upon.
FEHR: “We believe and we hope we have an agreement on the pension plan for the players, which will be funded out of player money,” Don Fehr said. “We have an agreement on it. That’s a good thing.”
COMPLIANCE ISSUES (Nowhere close) – refers to compliance buyouts (teams allowed to buy out one player contract without that money counting against the salary cap) and escrow limits (player contributions rise or decrease depending on whether league hits or misses estimated revenue each season)
NHL: No compliance buyouts or escrow limits
UNION: Proposed compliance buyouts and escrow limits
Dec. 7 – Players react to NHL tactics in anger all over the league but many believe it’s all part of the NHL strategy to break their resolve and forge a divide between them and Fehr. They still think a season will occur.
Philadelphia Flyers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»