Four non-essential but needed NHL changes
In addition to the three primary issues that are at the crux of the ongoing NHL lockout, there is also a litany off less urgent but still important issues that need to be addressed by the NHL with the NHLPA. Some are directly tied to the CBA, while others are matters that affect future NHLPA members.
Once the lockout's truly contentious issues get resolved -- whenever that will be -- these topics need to be figured out as well. Here are four such issues, listed in descending order of immediate importance.
1.
NHL Realignment
The re-constitution of the NHL's six divisions into four mini-conferences was originally slated to take effect for the 2012-13 season. However, in early January, the NHLPA blocked the change on the basis that the League had failed to address player concerns over increased long-distance travel for some teams. Donald Fehr also claimed the system would favor teams in certain divisions and disfavor others in regard to their mathematical chances of making the playoffs.
In reality, the union's decision to block the realignment plan was the opening skirmish of the lockout war that is ongoing nearly a calendar year later. The communication on both sides was deliberately faulty, and was a harbinger of bad things to come when the CBA expired and the lockout was implemented.
The NHL, which was obligated to obtain NHLPA approval of any realignment plan, tried to dictate the terms without seeking any union input. The League wanted the union to simply rubber-stamp the plan. If the union refused, it would put Fehr and the PA in a bad public light (so at least it would be an early PR victory).
Meanwhile, the union could not have cared less whether the realignment plan was actually good for the game as a whole. They also showed total disregard for the fact that realignment would benefit the players who are on the teams with the most difficult travel schedules under the present alignment. The NHL's plan would have spread the travel around a little more equitably.
The cover reasons given by the union for rejecting the plan were as flimsy as the current rationales for opposing a 10-year CBA and everyone losing additional paychecks this season over five/seven year contract maximums on future contracts. It was all about making a statement that the Fehr-led PA wouldn't be pushed around by Gary Bettman.
Sounds familiar, right? The NHL's dictatorial approach and the NHLPA's stubbornly holding on to comparatively minor "negotiating points" that merely delay resolution even further have become ongoing nightmares.
With a shortened schedule of divisional and conference-based games likely to be set upon the resolution of the lockout, there also should be a realignment plan implemented as part of the final agreement. Without it, some teams will have light travel all season, while the teams that are geographically the furthest from the rest of the teams on their current division will get slammed.
In my opinion, there needs to be some immediate realignment. Perhaps the two conference, six division format would have to be retained this season but that does not mean a bit of adjustment can't be made to put some teams a little geographically closer to the teams they'll play on the road.
At a bare minimum, the Winnipeg Jets need to be immediately moved out of the Southeast Division and the Dallas Stars out of the Pacific Division. This would still require two other short-term adjustments to balance off the number of teams in each Division.
Perhaps Columbus could go to the Southeast for one season (geographically wrong but at least it's an eastern time zone), the Stars could go to the Central, the Canucks to the Pacific and the Jets to the Northwest (not perfect, but it's the same time zone as the Wild and the Jets would keep the three Canadian-based team setup of the current Division even with the Canucks moving). The Atlantic and Northeast alignments could remain as is.
The original realignment plan for 2012-13 called for the establishment of four mini-conferences. There would be two seven-team conferences in the east and a pair of eight-team conferences in the west.
One conference was to consist of the Flyers, Penguins, Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Capitals and Hurricanes. The other seven-team conference would contain the Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Senators, Bruins, Sabres, Panthers and Lightning.
The third conference would have included the Stars, Red Wings, Blues, Blackhawks, Blue Jackets, Predators, Wild and Jets. The westernmost conference would have the Kings, Ducks, Sharks, Coyotes, Avalanche, Canucks, Flames and Oilers.
Over the course of a full 82-game schedule, the seven-team conference clubs would have played one another six times (three home and three away). In the eight-team conferences, each club would play each either five or six times in a season on a rotating basis; three teams would play each other six times (three home, three road) and four teams would play each other five times (with one team getting an extra home game). This process would reverse the next year. An eight-team conference club that plays a particular opponent six times in one season would play that team five times the following season.
The Stanley Cup playoff format would also have changed from the current setup. The top four teams in each conference would play each other in the first two rounds. The resulting conference champions would then compete in the Stanley Cup semifinals and finals. The best-of-seven format for each round would remain.
Given how pressed for time the NHL and NHLPA are to get a new CBA in place in time to salvage a shortened season, immediate radical realignment may not be in the cards. But that doesn't mean there can't be the aforementioned divisional alignment tweaks to fix the most blatant inequities of the existing setup.
2.
Injury retirement exemption from over-35 contract rules
The NHL needs to put an end to the charade of teams circumventing the over-35 contract rules by annually putting older players whom they know are physically unable to play on long-term injured reserve until the player's contract expires. Long-term injured reserve (and the corresponding salary cap allowance) does not exist as a means of getting around cap hits for such players.
Personally, I would like to see the over-35 rules done away with entirely, and all contracts treated the same. I know why the over-35 regs are in place: to prevent teams from signing older players to long-term, back-diving contracts they know will not be played in their entirety but were created to reduce the player's cap hit.
If there is a five/seven year contract maximum established in the next CBA with no more than a five percent variation in annual real-dollar salary, that pretty much takes care of the problem in most cases.
At a bare minimum, there needs to be a mechanism under which a player on an over-35 contract can retire without cap penalty if he suffers a legitimate career ending injury. Take the case of Chris Pronger: He suffered an ocular concussion as a result of a stick to the eye and then sustained severe post-concussion symptoms that linger a year later. That injury had nothing to do with the player's age. It could have happened just as easily to an 20-year-old on an entry-level deal as easily as a long-tenured veteran on an over-35.
Perhaps the CBA could call for an independent medical evaluation that cannot be performed by NHL team doctors, a player's personal physician or a specialist recommended by the player's agent. If it is found that the player has a legitimate career-ending injury, he should be permitted to retire with pay and the cap hit removed.
I know what people who oppose this idea will say: Part of the risk of signing an older player to a multi-year deal is the risk of an injury from which he will not be able to return. I can see the logic of this to a degree in terms of being wary of players who have had repeated knee operations, bad backs, or an older goalie with chronic hip issues.
But for something like post-concussion syndrome a or freak on-ice accident where someone is unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know why there needs to be a cap consequence if the player has to retire immediately. Whom does it benefit to essentially force clubs to go through the facade of LTIR for multiple years?
3.
CBA changes to European drafting/signing rules
I am not going to get into the issues surrounding the demise of the NHL-IIHF international transfer agreement. Suffice to say, there was a standardized agreement with all the major individual European hockey federations in place at the time the last CBA was created and now there is not. There is also not likely to be an over-arching agreement created in the foreseeable future.
Instead, the NHL has formal transfer agreements in place with some countries' federations and informal or no agreements with others.
As a result, the timetable under which NHL teams hold onto the contractual rights of players drafted from Europe presently depends on which national federation's jurisdiction the player falls at the time he is drafted.
Here's an example of the complications and disparities this situation has created. The NHL has an agreement with Svenska Ishockey Förbundet (the Swedish Ice Hockey Federation). As a result, NHL teams have a two-year window to sign drafted players under SIF jurisdiction, just as there is a two-year limit to signing players selected from the OHL, QMJHL or WHL.
On the flip side, the NHL does not have an agreement in place with the Czech federation. As a result, drafted players who were playing in the Czech Republic in their draft year were in long-term limbo in terms of the time frame that an NHL team retained his rights after the draft and when he could be eligible to sign a free-agent contract.
What this meant in practical terms: In 2011, the Flyers lost the rights to unsigned Swedish draftees Simon Bertilsson (drafted 2009) and Joacim Eriksson (drafted 2008; rights got extended an extra year while an NHL-SIF agreement was being reached). Meanwhile, at the same time the Flyers lost the rights to those more recently drafted players, the NHL still recognized Philadelphia as holding the rights to Czech goaltender Jakub Kovar, who had been drafted back in 2006 but was never signed.
In the case of players drafted from the KHL or its MHL developmental league, signability is a major question mark for many players. A lot of these players have no interest in playing in the American Hockey League, especially on the AHL salary portion of a standard entry-level NHL contract. However, that does not mean that the players may not eventually be candidates for the NHL. Montreal Canadiens defenseman Alexei Emelin is an example.
Another consideration of the rights-holding timetable is one from a hockey development standpoint. A player drafted from a Swedish or Finnish U20 team may prove to be a long-term prospect for the NHL but only a select few will get enough ice time in Elitserien or SM-liiga by age 20 to be ready for North American pro hockey. Two years is simply not enough evaluation time for the majority of these players.
With all this in mind, I think there should be a flat time limit -- four or five years -- set for holding the rights of players drafted from Europe, whether or not the NHL team has a formal transfer agreement with a particular federation.
4.
Entry-level contract slide rule and AHL age eligibility
The NHL's transfer agreement with the Canadian Hockey League (OHL, WHL, QMJHL) has expired. Establishing a new agreement -- which has been on hold while the NHL focuses on the lockout -- is NOT part of its Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NHLPA in and of itslef. Rather it is a separate agreement between the NHL and CHL.
However, there are two aspects of the NHL-CHL agreement that filter into the CBA.
First, it is specified that teams maintain the rights of players drafted from the CHL for two years, whereas the rights to players drafted from NCAA college programs (or whom are NCAA-bound players in the season following their NHL draft selection) are retained for the duration of their college-hockey eligibility.
I do not see any changes taking place in this area. However, the second aspect of the NHL-CHL agreement that spills over into the CBA is one that could change soon.
In conjunction with the NHL's agreement with the CHL come the entry-level contract slide rule. Under this rule, the start of an already-signed entry-level contract is delayed by a season if an 18-year-old or 19-year-old player is returned to his junior team prior to playing 11 NHL games.
A related part of the slide rule pertains to the NHL-CHL agreement that bars CHL-eligible prospects from playing in the AHL until they turn 20 years of age. The AHL honors this agreement, but under-20 CHLers who have finished their junior seasons can join AHL clubs for the stretch drive and/or Calder Cup playoffs.
During the current NHL lockout, there have been exceptions made for teenage players who spent all of last year in the NHL -- such as Edmonton's Ryan Nugent-Hopkins -- to play in the AHL rather than going back to their CHL clubs.
Within the NHL, there has been a push by many teams for the NHL to insist on tweaks to the AHL eligibility rules for CHL-affiliated players who may be AHL-ready as teenagers but are not yet NHL-ready. The proposal that has gained the most traction is one to allow drafted players with three seasons of OHL/WHL/QMJHL experience -- in some cases, 18-year-old players but usually 19-year-olds -- to be eligible for AHL assignment at the behest of the NHL club.
Accomplishing this change would require a certain amount of cooperation from the NHLPA. The CBA would have to say something to the effect of the slide rule remaining in place if a signed player is returned to his junior team but the first year of the entry-level contract kicking in (just as it would after 11 NHL games) if the 18-year-old player is assigned to the AHL per the terms of an NHL-CHL transfer agreement.
One would think that this change would be agreeable to the NHLPA without any hassle. After all, it would accelerate the entry-level contract service timetable for some players. There is really no downside for the PA to rubber stamp that change. But that hasn't stopped the PA before from holding up things that may actually benefit its membership.
***********
Five Phantoms games added to TCN broadcast schedule in Philadelphia
Over the course of the NHL lockout, multiple people have asked me if there was any plans for Comcast to broadcast any Phantoms AHL games, so that Flyers fans could at least see players such as
Sean Couturier and
Brayden Schenn.
Well, it has finally happened. While there will not be any games added to the more prominent Sportsnet broadcast schedule, there will be five games shown in the Philadelphia area on the Comcast Network (TCN). The schedule will be as follows:
Dec. 15: Phantoms vs. Manchester Monarchs (LA Kings) 7 p.m.
Dec. 22: Phantoms @ Bridgeport Sound Tigers (NY Islanders) 7 p.m.
Jan. 12: Phantoms @ Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins (Pittsburgh) 7 p.m.
Feb. 2: Phantoms @ Wilkes-Barre/Scranton 7 p.m.
Feb. 22: Phantoms vs. Wilkes-Barre/Scranton @ Wells Fargo Center 7 p.m
If the NHL lockout is settled in time to save the 2012-13 season, only the first two games would feature current Flyers players assigned to the AHL. By January 12, one would figure there will either be an NHL season already underway or just about to get underway. If not, that would be about the point where full-season cancellation would be a reality.
**************
Kindle users: Please sign up for Flyers Buzz. For more information
click here.
Click below to follow me on Twitter:
Philadelphia Flyers Blogger •NHL.com • 
Join the Discussion:
»