mc79hockey.com

Where we can tell that the Oilers are reading our site, even if they won’t talk to us

July 13th, 2009

So much for idiot proof

From Larry Brooks:

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.

A significant drop in the salary cap seems pretty likely to me - there’s a story floating around out there involving a leaked NBA memo cautioning its member teams that their salary cap will be down significantly for the 2010-11 season. I don’t see Brooks’ idea as being very likely to happen though. The PA would have to agree to this and I have a hard time imagining that they would. I kind of see this as a different issue than applying the 5% escalator. Unless a majority of NHL players are without contracts at the end of a given year, it’s never in the interest of the membership as a whole to have the escalator applied. The majority of players would always benefit from a smaller cap, as they’ll get a larger piece of the pie. Still though, agreeing to that is a bit academic - it’s not hard numbers or anything.

A 15% hit is something real. It’s not some ethereal thing that will only come into play at the end of the year. Assuming Brooks’ sources are right though, and such a request will be made, one has to be impressed by the brass balls on NHL management. A year of hockey lost to get an idiot proof CBA, and it takes five years to get to the point where they return, cap in hand, to ask the majority of the players to make concessions to help them get out of the fix.

I’ve mentioned this before, but the way to avoid having to deal with this issue was percentage contracts. As I said in February:

Amend the CBA so that it provides that contracts are expressed in terms of percentage of cap, not absolute dollars. This is, in my view, desireable because it means that general managers would be focused on what percentage of a team’s payroll a player should earn - something that is (in theory, right Dustin Penner?) their strength - rather than having to figure out what percentage of cap is appropriate for that player AND THEN figure out what that amount will be in the 2015-16 season or whatever.

This is also, in my view, desireable from the position of the PA as a whole. Right now, they’re fighting one another for every dollar. If the cap jumps suddenly or falls suddenly, a certain group of them get an unearned windfall - if it jumps a lot, those players who are free agents will get a huge benefit over those who have signed longer term contracts, in that that largesse will be rained upon them. If it falls suddenly, those who have guaranteed contracts already will get a windfall in that the ones without contracts are left fighting over the diminished cap space that remains.

This is more true than ever, I think. The PA should demand this in the next CBA, just to prevent demands like 15% rollbacks and issues like the cap escalator from arising and dividing their membership.

April 19th, 2009

Junior Aged Players and the AHL

Section 8.7 of the CBA reads as follows:

8.7 Age 18 and 19 Players

(a) During the first two seasons next succeeding the draft of an age 18 Player, the Club he signs an SPC with must first offer him to the club from which he was claimed before it may Loan him.

(b) During the first season next succeeding the draft of an age 19 Player or a Player who reaches his 19th birthday between September 16 and December 31, inclusive, of the year of the Entry Draft, the Club he signs an SPC with must first offer him to the club from which he was claimed before it may Loan him.

“Loan” is a defined term under the CBA.

“Loan” means the transfer of a Player from a Club’s Active Roster, Non-Roster, Injured Non-Roster or Injured Reserve List to the roster of a club outside the NHL.

Read the rest of this entry »

February 8th, 2007

The NHLPA Investigation: Part I

I found something interesting on the internet the other day: a copy of the NHLPA constitution. I’m a bit of a wonk for documents like this - I find it profoundly aggravating to read stories in the paper about these sorts of things without having an opportunity to read the source documents because I don’t particularly trust the media to understand or express the essence of the documents.

Even better, I found a copy of the recently dismissed action that Chris Chelios, Dwayne Roloson and Trent Klatt brought against the NHLPA, Ted Saskin, Trevor Linden, Vincent Damphousse and Bill Guerin. The document I came across (you can see it here but this is a .pdf link), which would be called the Statement of Claim in Canada is described here as a Verified Complaint. Although their claim was struck on jurisdictional grounds, I’d imagine that these complaints will be the ones investigated by Sheila Block.
Roli and Co. raise nine separate issues. They allege as follows: Read the rest of this entry »