Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: CBA Thoughts, Line Combos

I'm on board with those lines. I am rooting for Ben to win that 4C spot, so we can move Talbot up to 3W with Coots and Read. I do think Read and Simmonds will flip flop from the 2nd and 3rd lines. We all know how Lava changes things up in-game. Rinaldo as the 13th forward, drawing in for Wellwood when needed on the 4th line, Sestito and Shelley to the A.

Meltzer for Commish!

Outstanding summary.

Agree that both sides pretty well already know what the numbers need to be in order to get a deal done. There will be some disruption to the preseason but the regular season will go ahead as scheduled.

I don't think the difference between cap max and cap floor makes that much difference except for those five or six teams that are struggling. The Edmonton Oilers probably have the most exciting prospect potential of any team in the league. They have already begun to look in their future stars signing Hall and Eberle to six year deals. This is the direction that all teams are going and you assume that every team will have to max out on their future players. Even a supposedly problematic team like Nashville will not let their star players walk for a few million bucks. They will sign the stars and squeeze the lower salaries of the roster.

with the D and Bryz, we may need to wear seat belts cause it will be a bumpy ride

I wish both sides would seem a bit more eager to get things settled.

The same old strategy of 'they'll give in first if we wait it out' doesn't work, but it's still the main card that is played. Oh well...

Things I agree with in your CBA idea

-- Adjust the required maximum gap between the cap floor and ceiling. Make it $20 million instead of the current $16 million. If you really want to go out to $24 million, I'm OK with that - but I think there's a point at which the players will say "no" so it really depends on how much of a spread they're willing to take.

-- Grandfather-clause all current contracts in terms of length and free agent eligibility timeframes but adjust the entry-level contracts and free agent eligibility (both RFA and UFA) to what the NHL proposed for all draftees from 2013 and onward. I don't see major adjustments here aside from contract lengths to the extent that it becomes necessary to worry about fitting existing contracts into the new rules - and even that won't be so bad that there's a big issue.

Things I don't agree with

-- Keep the cap ceiling fairly close to the current temporary $70.2 million. If the owners are really going for a 50/50 split on HRR, there's no way to have a cap at $70.2 million unless you call for a $40 million spread between the ceiling and floor ... and I can see both the players and some of the small-market owners resist that big of a spread.

-- Keep the team-related revenue sharing virtually as is. There's just no way to pull this off, especially if you don't control how the cap grows. As it stands, you could make the cap between the ceiling and floor $30 million and as long as high-revenue teams grow faster than low-revenue teams, there will eventually be a point where the floor once again gets pulled higher than the low-revenue teams can afford. [I am OK with limiting revenue sharing in part or in whole when an eligible team overspends the midpoint, though; if you need the money to be financially viable, going out and spending to the cap isn't showing an attempt to do your part to make that happen.]

-- Fund the large-scale cap floor drop and small-scale ceiling drop NOT by adjusting the escrow percentage of current contracts. Without seeing the numbers here, it's hard to make a call on this. However, I'd change escrow in a substantial way. As it stands now, when the owners overpay the players, the players have to give it all back via escrow; I'd change that so that the owners are on the hook for 50% of the difference, so they have some skin in the game on trying to control costs [and if they underpay the players, they only have to make up half the shortfall].

Other:

-- Change the current entry-level system. I'm OK with giving teams 3 years to sign European players, and I'm even fine with letting their entry-level contracts slide at age 20 [but still max 2 years that it can slide]. There's no reason to give teams 3 years to sign CHL players, though. The eligibility change for CHL players to be in the AHL isn't really a CBA thing, it's something that will have to be worked out between the NHL and CHL.

-- Tweak the current waiver rules. I'm OK with this conceptually, but there needs to be more details here. There's no way there's going to be 5-year ELCs, though - not unless the owners make a major concession somewhere else. I'm also OK with either revising the recall waivers rule or eliminating it completely ... though I can also see having it apply to just players on 1-way contracts.

-- Tweak the current waiver rules. I'm OK with this conceptually, but there needs to be more details here. There's no way there's going to be 5-year ELCs, though - not unless the owners make a major concession somewhere else. I'm also OK with either revising the recall waivers rule or eliminating it completely ... though I can also see having it apply to just players on 1-way contracts.
- Irish Blues

Thanks for the response! You make good points.

Regarding ELCs, the current NHLPA members -- on the whole, not everyone -- care about their own situation far more than about players who have yet to be drafted.

Same thing for union management. Fehr is more worried about maintaining the support of his current constituents than ones who are not even members of the PA yet.

As such, I can absolutely see the union members being willing to concede on 5-year ELCs so long as all current players on ELCs are grandfathered at 3 years.

The only ones who are REALLY opposed to it, for obvious reasons, are the influential players' agents. They'll have something to say about it, but they also have to keep their current clients as happy as possible.

Regarding the entry-level system:

1) The NHL is basically going to dictate the next agreement with the CHL; the CHL has no real leverage.

2) I said three year signing window for CHL and Europe for the sake of uniformity. I'd be fine with keeping CHL at two years and seeing the window for European league players extended to four years. I figured three for each was the middle ground, and there are also some CHL prospects whom teams would like to sign but feel could use an overage season in junior hockey or else are blocked by the non-sliding contracts on the reserve list.

I wish both sides would seem a bit more eager to get things settled.

The same old strategy of 'they'll give in first if we wait it out' doesn't work, but it's still the main card that is played. Oh well...
- tangent_man

Personally I think we'll miss hockey to what extent who knows. Gary just can't assume fans especially the casual one will come back to watch.

Outstanding summary.

Agree that both sides pretty well already know what the numbers need to be in order to get a deal done. There will be some disruption to the preseason but the regular season will go ahead as scheduled.

I don't think the difference between cap max and cap floor makes that much difference except for those five or six teams that are struggling. The Edmonton Oilers probably have the most exciting prospect potential of any team in the league. They have already begun to look in their future stars signing Hall and Eberle to six year deals. This is the direction that all teams are going and you assume that every team will have to max out on their future players. Even a supposedly problematic team like Nashville will not let their star players walk for a few million bucks. They will sign the stars and squeeze the lower salaries of the roster.
- spatso

I'll be absolutely shocked if the regular Season starts on time.

I'm on board with those lines. I am rooting for Ben to win that 4C spot, so we can move Talbot up to 3W with Coots and Read. I do think Read and Simmonds will flip flop from the 2nd and 3rd lines. We all know how Lava changes things up in-game. Rinaldo as the 13th forward, drawing in for Wellwood when needed on the 4th line, Sestito and Shelley to the A.
- Rocktane

I agree those lines will work to start. But, it's not really a new revelation. It essentially the same group, and similar lines as last year... With the exceptions; Voracek hopefully found a home, Schenn plays strong (and as Bill said hopefully healthy), Feds takes Talbots 3rd line winger roles - which allows Talbot to be the 4th line center.

Regarding the 4th line... I hope Sestito stays healthy and gets some minutes. I liked what he brought to the ice last year. Sure, he's going to have some bad plays / bad penalties, but he needs to settle in... In games vs tougher opponents, I'd favor him over Wellwood on the 4th line. I think teams would dread playing a line of Sestito/Talbot/Rinaldo.

Any thoughts on PK and PP.

PK: Giroux/Talbot, Coots/Read or Feds (?)

PP: Giroux/Hartnell/Simmonds, Briere/Voracek/Schenn

I'll be absolutely shocked if the regular Season starts on time.
- MJL

I have been close up to a few labour negotiations. Everything going on between the NHL and the NHLPA is far too functional and orderly to spin badly out of control. Their disagreements are polite and courteous. The NHL has made a big move off of their first low ball offer. The PA is being somewhat tenative because they know their next counter pretty well locks the process into a final dance arrangement that has already been scored.

Here is the basic problem. If a solution is found too easily some players, agents or owners will think that their side conceded too much. Both Bettman and Fehr need the pressure of the last minute to convince their stakeholders they got the best deal possible.

Fehr is very strong. He does not have to beat Bettman to win. He just needs to get a good deal for his members. Bettman has already proven that he can impose his will. Because they are two strong men and they have the confidence of their members, they can steer this process to an outcome that will make everyone, including the fans happy. It takes a two hour meeting to resolve all the contentious issues once the signal is given that it is time to move forward.

I have been close up to a few labour negotiations. Everything going on between the NHL and the NHLPA is far too functional and orderly to spin badly out of control. Their disagreements are polite and courteous. The NHL has made a big move off of their first low ball offer. The PA is being somewhat tenative because they know their next counter pretty well locks the process into a final dance arrangement that has already been scored.

Here is the basic problem. If a solution is found too easily some players, agents or owners will think that their side conceded too much. Both Bettman and Fehr need the pressure of the last minute to convince their stakeholders they got the best deal possible.

Fehr is very strong. He does not have to beat Bettman to win. He just needs to get a good deal for his members. Bettman has already proven that he can impose his will. Because they are two strong men and they have the confidence of their members, they can steer this process to an outcome that will make everyone, including the fans happy. It takes a two hour meeting to resolve all the contentious issues once the signal is given that it is time to move forward.
- spatso

It has zero to do with the negotiations being functional, orderly, and polite and courteous. There most likely is going to be a lockout, and the Season delayed. It's just a question of how long.

I agree those lines will work to start. But, it's not really a new revelation. It essentially the same group, and similar lines as last year... With the exceptions; Voracek hopefully found a home, Schenn plays strong (and as Bill said hopefully healthy), Feds takes Talbots 3rd line winger roles - which allows Talbot to be the 4th line center.

Regarding the 4th line... I hope Sestito stays healthy and gets some minutes. I liked what he brought to the ice last year. Sure, he's going to have some bad plays / bad penalties, but he needs to settle in... In games vs tougher opponents, I'd favor him over Wellwood on the 4th line. I think teams would dread playing a line of Sestito/Talbot/Rinaldo.

Any thoughts on PK and PP.

PK: Giroux/Talbot, Coots/Read or Feds (?)

PP: Giroux/Hartnell/Simmonds, Briere/Voracek/Schenn
- leon neon

I would like to see Giroux spend far less time on the PK. Not at all a fan of Sestito. And I personally would never have both Sestito and Rinaldo in the lineup in a game , on the same line. Or any line for that matter.

It has zero to do with the negotiations being functional, orderly, and polite and courteous. There most likely is going to be a lockout, and the Season delayed. It's just a question of how long.
- MJL

We'll see. Too many young players signing contracts (Hall, Turris, Eberle) this past week. Obviously some teams and agents are anticipating something happening in the near term, especially as it relates to younger players. Could be wrong but I think the framework of the deal is pretty well set out. If the players want to fight it will be to protect the kids on ELCs signed next year. Look at all the first round picks from this year and last year that have been signed in the last few months. There really isn't anything left to fight about. Neither Fehr or Bettman have to win. Their legacy is established. Both of them will come out of this looking very good.

The mere fact that everyone is running around saying the sky is falling and Fehr and Bettman stay calm and deliberate tells us they have these negoyiations in cruise control.

2) I said three year signing window for CHL and Europe for the sake of uniformity. I'd be fine with keeping CHL at two years and seeing the window for European league players extended to four years. I figured three for each was the middle ground, and there are also some CHL prospects whom teams would like to sign but feel could use an overage season in junior hockey or else are blocked by the non-sliding contracts on the reserve list.
- bmeltzer

I thought about 4 years for European players when I put together my proposal back in February, but U don't know if the NHLPA would let players get treated that differently based on who the player's amateur team was at the time he was drafted. That said, I'd be fine with 4 for Euros - but if the offer is "2 years or 3 years" I can see the players say "we'll take the 2 years to protect the CHL guys."

Back to Fehr and the EL players: yes, he is looking out for the interests of the current players - but he's shown he doesn't just look at the current moment when putting together a deal, he's looking out for those who will eventually join the union down the road. To that end [as I mentioned in Ek's new post], I can't see him selling out the young guys who've yet to hit the league and saying "... but one day, maybe you'll get to join the rest of the group." Maybe he does it if the players get significant concessions in other areas, but considering they're being asked to take a 50/50 split of HRR, I can easily see Fehr say "that should be more than enough to give you a chance to make teams viable, we're not doing all the work for you."

Finally, on the NHL-CHL agreement: yes, the NHL may well drive those negotiations - but I just wanted to point out that it wasn't a topic for discussion between the NHL and NHLPA [unless the NHLPA really wants to interject here for some reason; the potential effect on younger players due to the AHL's rules regarding spots available for players over a certain GP threshold might be cause, but that's a long argument to make].

The mere fact that everyone is running around saying the sky is falling and Fehr and Bettman stay calm and deliberate tells us they have these negoyiations in cruise control.
- spatso

Back in '94 Fehr and Selig were relatively calm, even if somewhat agitated when discussing the status of negotiations. Actions mean little; words mean a lot - and if they're not talking the same language and they're far apart on issues, they can both look incredibly relaxed in front of the cameras and it tells you nothing about what's really going on.

Back in '94 Fehr and Selig were relatively calm, even if somewhat agitated when discussing the status of negotiations. Actions mean little; words mean a lot - and if they're not talking the same language and they're far apart on issues, they can both look incredibly relaxed in front of the cameras and it tells you nothing about what's really going on.
- Irish Blues

and Fehr and Bettman stay calm and deliberate tells us they have these negoyiations in cruise control.

And that neither is a hockey fan.

BTW, here's where 5-year ELCs could backfire on teams in short order.

Right now, teams are limited to 50 contracts [excluding players in juniors]. You figure 23-25 of those 50 slots are going to guys in the NHL, and another 25 or so are to guys in the minors or in juniors. With a 5-year ELC, the number of available contract slots will decrease as you're tied up with the EL guys and the NHL guys - as an example, if you sign half of your draft class each year to an ELC, in 5 years that's 17-18 guys under contract; after the 23-25 on the NHL roster, you have a whole 7-10 contract slots left for guys you want in the AHL [including guys coming off an ELC]. Who gets squeezed in the process?

Additionally, if a guy has a contract you can't just cut him for sucking. On a 3-year ELC, there are some guys you know you don't want to keep around at the end; if you have to keep him around for 5 years instead, that's 2 years you're stuck having to pay him. Buyouts are not an option, because they're based on the NHL salary and so they'd be more expensive than just paying the AHL salary ... but, in the meantime he's possibly taking up a roster spot in the minors you'd like to have for someone else and he's definitely eating up a contract slot you might want free to sign someone else.

Or, maybe you've got a guy on an ELC and you realize "you know what, he's OK but I don't want to have to pay him $900K to be in the NHL, he's not that vital." In the current system, when that ELC expires you can get him down to $550K-$600K one-way and he'll bite on the security of having those dollars wherever he plays; in a 5-year ELC, if you want him on the NHL roster you're going to have to pony up an extra $300K-$350K above what you'd maybe like to pay [and what you would have paid in the current system].

Sure, the really top-end guys will come more cheaply for 2 years ... but otherwise? It potentially eats up contract slots [which limits flexibility], and forces overpayment of players you might want at a cheaper price or not at all.

BTW, here's where 5-year ELCs could backfire on teams in short order.

Right now, teams are limited to 50 contracts
- Irish Blues[excluding players in juniors]. You figure 23-25 of those 50 slots are going to guys in the NHL, and another 25 or so are to guys in the minors or in juniors. With a 5-year ELC, the number of available contract slots will decrease as you're tied up with the EL guys and the NHL guys - as an example, if you sign half of your draft class each year to an ELC, in 5 years that's 17-18 guys under contract; after the 23-25 on the NHL roster, you have a whole 7-10 contract slots left for guys you want in the AHL [including guys coming off an ELC]. Who gets squeezed in the process?

Additionally, if a guy has a contract you can't just cut him for sucking. On a 3-year ELC, there are some guys you know you don't want to keep around at the end; if you have to keep him around for 5 years instead, that's 2 years you're stuck having to pay him. Buyouts are not an option, because they're based on the NHL salary and so they'd be more expensive than just paying the AHL salary ... but, in the meantime he's possibly taking up a roster spot in the minors you'd like to have for someone else and he's definitely eating up a contract slot you might want free to sign someone else.

Or, maybe you've got a guy on an ELC and you realize "you know what, he's OK but I don't want to have to pay him $900K to be in the NHL, he's not that vital." In the current system, when that ELC expires you can get him down to $550K-$600K one-way and he'll bite on the security of having those dollars wherever he plays; in a 5-year ELC, if you want him on the NHL roster you're going to have to pony up an extra $300K-$350K above what you'd maybe like to pay [and what you would have paid in the current system].

Sure, the really top-end guys will come more cheaply for 2 years ... but otherwise? It potentially eats up contract slots [which limits flexibility], and forces overpayment of players you might want at a cheaper price or not at all.

I've always been a believer that certain mechanisms ought to be in place for a team to get out of a contract with an under-performing player. Not just bury them in the minors.

I've always been a believer that certain mechanisms ought to be in place for a team to get out of a contract with an under-performing player. Not just bury them in the minors.
- JoeRussomanno

Wade Redden says he agrees.

I don't mind the 5 yr ELC to me it would allow a team more time to evaluate a player before handing out a big money deal for some players on a limited body of work & will keep salaries down for a little bit instead of getting out of control.

I'd go as far as 5 yr ELC with only 1 more restricted year beyond that as a compromise for the players instead of the 3 yr ELC and 4 more years of being resticted now.

I've always been a believer that certain mechanisms ought to be in place for a team to get out of a contract with an under-performing player. Not just bury them in the minors.
- JoeRussomanno

There's one in place. It's called a buyout. If you want something else, give the players the option to void a contract and become a UFA if/when they're assigned outside the NHL and the player is on a 1-way contract. Of course, in that scenario you have to come up with a mechanism to handle the difference [if any] between what a player has been paid to date while in the NHL and the amount the team has incurred against the cap. This isn't difficult [for each year voided, the team incurs a cap charge equal to the difference between the player's cap hit and the player's salary] but it would have to specifically be in there to prevent gaming of the cap.

The unilateral cutting of guys on some arbitrary "we think you suck / we don't like the contract now?" criteria? The players will fight that tooth and nail.

We'll see. Too many young players signing contracts (Hall, Turris, Eberle) this past week. Obviously some teams and agents are anticipating something happening in the near term, especially as it relates to younger players. Could be wrong but I think the framework of the deal is pretty well set out. If the players want to fight it will be to protect the kids on ELCs signed next year. Look at all the first round picks from this year and last year that have been signed in the last few months. There really isn't anything left to fight about. Neither Fehr or Bettman have to win. Their legacy is established. Both of them will come out of this looking very good.

The mere fact that everyone is running around saying the sky is falling and Fehr and Bettman stay calm and deliberate tells us they have these negoyiations in cruise control.
- spatso

Bettman and Fehr seem to be in cruise control because the real negotiations haven't begun. They will really start after the lockout and into the scheduled start of the Season.