Jeremy Laura: If you could change the CBA, what would you address?

delete

first off, remember this is the world according to me so.....

Plain and simple I would get rid of the salary cap. If you own an asset/business and want to spend money on it, then so be it. As a compromise, I would allow buyouts, but not have them count against a team's salary cap, i.e. players would get their buy-out money, but it would not go against the team's cap. As it is now, players like Couturier and TK are never going to win a cup. No one forced them to sign so maybe they are getting what they deserve/wanted.....

If the first point can't be done, I would reduce the max contract to 5 years and eliminate NTC and NMC

I would also eliminate in season tournaments (and maybe even out of season - if I am paying someone to play hockey for my team then they are only going to play for my team)

first off, remember this is the world according to me so.....

Plain and simple I would get rid of the salary cap. If you own an asset/business and want to spend money on it, then so be it. As a compromise, I would allow buyouts, but not have them count against a team's salary cap, i.e. players would get their buy-out money, but it would not go against the team's cap. As it is now, players like Couturier and TK are never going to win a cup. No one forced them to sign so maybe they are getting what they deserve/wanted.....

If the first point can't be done, I would reduce the max contract to 5 years and eliminate NTC and NMC

I would also eliminate in season tournaments (and maybe even out of season - if I am paying someone to play hockey for my team then they are only going to play for my team)
- mr4tno

I definitely agree on in season tournaments. I think if you remove the cap you have to restructure the revenue sharing. I.E. - a team can’t claim a negative revenue but have a maxed out roster. The cap is an interesting discussion, and I think it would legitimately close some teams down. Toronto, New York, Boston, Montreal and Edmonton could all spend like crazy (if they earn the money, that’s their prerogative). The teams that spend to or near the cap and can’t actually afford it would have to be adjusted. As for buyouts, I think that’s a much trickier endeavor. If teams would pay 100% of the salary owed, maybe. Right now it’s 1/3 paid for younger players and 2/3s for players (I believe over 25). So a player gets a big 2nd deal, like a DeAngelo. His buyout saw him get 1/3 of the salary he signed for. The others get 2/3. To waive the penalty the team should have to pay the full amount owed. I think it was Juan Gonzalez who at one point was making a full salary from 2 or 3 different teams but not playing. *MLB owners threatening a lockout if they can’t get ahold of capping salaries on the next CBA. It’s an interesting discussion and it would definitely change the landscape of the league

Welp, crud. Just came in from mowing to see the news about Augy. I'll say it now, NIL will destroy top-tier player's draft status with the team that drafted them....does that make sense? We're going to lose him. Here's what I'd change: if a team loses a drafted player, the team gets a compensatory draft-pick based on total NIL the player accrued. Add on another draft pick commensurate w/the contract value the player signs for w/the new team. So, Augy's got $5m in NIL, DRW loses draft rights and Augy signs w/Tronno (just 'cause I wanna stir up some crap today....I'm feelin' that way) for $3m x 5, =$15m= Tronno's next 1st pick, no protection.

Gonna have to play hard ball because teams are going to be fleeced by NIL. Maybe penalized the schools as well?

Welp, crud. Just came in from mowing to see the news about Augy. I'll say it now, NIL will destroy top-tier player's draft status with the team that drafted them....does that make sense? We're going to lose him. Here's what I'd change: if a team loses a drafted player, the team gets a compensatory draft-pick based on total NIL the player accrued. Add on another draft pick commensurate w/the contract value the player signs for w/the new team. So, Augy's got $5m in NIL, DRW loses draft rights and Augy signs w/Tronno (just 'cause I wanna stir up some crap today....I'm feelin' that way) for $3m x 5, =$15m= Tronno's next 1st pick, no protection.

Gonna have to play hard ball because teams are going to be fleeced by NIL. Maybe penalized the schools as well?
- mcmastermike1968

Here’s where the NCAA didn’t think this through. To be a pro football or basketball player, you have to leave school to be drafted. NHLers can enter school as drafted prospects. Now, kids that played in the CHL can change to the NCAA DIV I as long as they haven’t signed their ELC. If you go back to that Augustine article, I found 2 NIL opportunities he was part of. One was set up by the school, the other by a new clothing line. Add to this that you can change schools every year, or this past year football players transferred right before playoffs. The “education” means nothing (though some will argue that for some sports it was always iffy). One coach (anonymity) told me the NCAA won’t address the abuses because they can’t afford another federal court loss. That’s what led to NIL and it cost them billions. I don’t know if Augustine is gone or not. He could realistically make more playing in college than in the AHL. CHL players can definitely make more. We’ll see the impact in the fall. The big schools have scouted the WHL, QMJHL, OHL and European leagues. State has a Hobey Baker winner who just shut down Tampa over ELC dispute, Augustine returning, and can afford to stack the roster. U of M the same. Ferris, Northern, Tech, all DIV I, can’t. I do blame Bettman for not addressing this as soon as it was announced. If I understand correctly, teams do get a compensatory pick if a collegiate player waits out their rights but I could be wrong. Regardless, if Augustine becomes the goalie he looks like he will be, that’s small comfort

Excellent read!!

Ending Olympic participation would be short-sighted in my opinion.

It's by far the biggest global tournament/event in the sport. Even just in North America more people watch Olympic hockey games than NHL games. Then factor in how huge the Olympics are overseas. It's no contest.

I get why owners and even some fans gripe about shutting down the league for a couple of weeks and risking some extra injury exposure. The downsides are real and they aren't trivial.

But the Olympics are absolutely the premier promotional event for ice hockey on the global stage. If the goal is to grow the game, grow current and future sources of NHL revenue, inspire more kids to play and strengthen the long-term talent pipeline, the NHL has to participate. Sucking it up for a few weeks every four years seems like a pretty small investment compared to what you get, though it requires NHL decisionmakers to be capable of longer-term thinking.

Ending Olympic participation would be short-sighted in my opinion.

It's by far the biggest global tournament/event in the sport. Even just in North America more people watch Olympic hockey games than NHL games. Then factor in how huge the Olympics are overseas. It's no contest.

I get why owners and even some fans gripe about shutting down the league for a couple of weeks and risking some extra injury exposure. The downsides are real and they aren't trivial.

But the Olympics are absolutely the premier promotional event for ice hockey on the global stage. If the goal is to grow the game, grow current and future sources of NHL revenue, inspire more kids to play and strengthen the long-term talent pipeline, the NHL has to participate. Sucking it up for a few weeks every four years seems like a pretty small investment compared to what you get, though it requires NHL decisionmakers to be capable of longer-term thinking.
- Sven22

The games are losing viewers, and even with pro leagues playing in Basketball and Hockey both sports are declining (except for the WNBA). The IIOC goes through events every year trying to figure out what will bring people to the screen, and we get breakdancing for the summer. A lot of empty stadiums when the games are overseas. I do not think they are effective at any significant level to grow the game. That’s opinion, but the number of people who just don’t care about the games isn’t. The addition of streaming has padded the numbers, but it still sees a general malaise and doesn’t justify the expense or risk.

Excellent read!!
- TrueGrit

Thanks for that!