|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 20, 2005 5:42:34 GMT -5
... Other big winners in the new CBA will be European players, whose rights now come into line with their North American counterparts. Late-blooming Europeans will now have to be signed as free agents because the new deal stipulates that they can only be drafted until the age of 22. More importantly, teams will have only two years after they draft a European to sign him, the same way it is with North Americans. Previously, teams could draft Europeans and basically hold their rights in perpetuity.The compensation grid for teams losing restricted free agents has also changed, with a maximum award of four first-round draft picks instead of five for a player signed to a deal worth more than $5 million per year. For those making under $1 million, the cost is one third-round pick. Compensation increases in accordance with the player's salary. The new arbitration rules are so complex that the league has given GMs just the rudimentary information and told them they will be filled in later. Basically, teams will now be able to take players who made more than $1.5 million to arbitration when previously the arbitration decision was exclusively up to the player. A player can be taken to arbitration by his team only once in his career and teams can take only two players to arbitration in any given year. It was also thought that the NHL would go to a baseball-style arbitration where the players submits a number and the team submits a number and the arbitrator chooses one or the other, but that won't be the case. When it comes to drug testing the league intends to crack down, but the CBA will give any cheaters ample time to get drugs out of their systems. The new deal calls for drug testing to begin Jan.15, 2006 and run through the end of the regular season only. Players can be randomly tested — but not on game days — twice a season, but cannot be tested until they receive an orientation session for the Performance Enhancing Substances Program. Revenue sharing will also be a major part of the new deal, with the top-10 revenue teams sharing with the bottom 15. But the "player compensation cost redistribution system" will also receive funds from general league revenues to the tune of $300 million, the player escrow and playoff revenues. But because a team is a low-revenue producer doesn't mean it will be guaranteed revenue sharing as a reward for running its organization poorly. The new deal stipulates that recipients will be "subject to performance standards." The new NHL have a competition committee, the new deal also calls for a broadcasting and marketing committee, whose aim will be to ensure the players get maximum exposure and increase their accessibility. - tinyurl.com/e2z6k* # The average of a player's salary remaining on his contract is applied to the cap each season. For example, if a player has a three-year deal paying him $2 million, $3 million and $4 million, $3 million will apply each year for purposes of the cap. # During the off-season, teams are allowed to have a payroll up to 110 per cent of the cap, a maximum of $42.9 million. # If a team goes over the cap in any year because of bonuses that are paid out to players, any amount it is over is applied to its payroll for the next season. # Teams can be over the cap during a season, but will not be allowed to call up injury replacements or make trades until they are in compliance with the cap.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 20, 2005 8:31:18 GMT -5
Good research Mr. B
It looks like the players scored some victories and the owners scored some victories with this CBA. In other words, a compromise... which is the way it should have been viewed from the beginning.
It's too bad the season had to be cancelled to achieve these results but we now need to look forward and hope the new structure benefits the game (and not just the owners and/or players).
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jul 20, 2005 9:21:35 GMT -5
The Mark Streit clause?
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 20, 2005 11:08:54 GMT -5
The Mark Streit clause? Negotiation is a two way streit.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 20, 2005 13:54:50 GMT -5
The Mark Streit clause? Negotiation is a two way streit. Only in Oztraalia.
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jul 20, 2005 22:24:58 GMT -5
The Mark Streit clause? I have not seen any of the 600 plus pages, but the old rules seem to be retro to 2003 and 2004 draft picks to some degree. I honestly don't see the Habs sitting on Rue Mark Streit any longer than two years anyway. Guys like Heino-Lindberg, Korpikari and Grabovski would make for some interesting decisions. I see all of them factoring into the organization in some form in the future, maybe not all with the big club. Sure sucks not to be able to nurse those kind of picks for a number of years in the future. I would imagine this is a big plus for drafting close to home, especially with late round picks. Ah, the new world is upon us...
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 21, 2005 6:59:11 GMT -5
The Mark Streit clause? I have not seen any of the 600 plus pages, but the old rules seem to be retro to 2003 and 2004 draft picks to some degree. I honestly don't see the Habs sitting on Rue Mark Streit any longer than two years anyway. Guys like Heino-Lindberg, Korpikari and Grabovski would make for some interesting decisions. I see all of them factoring into the organization in some form in the future, maybe not all with the big club. Sure sucks not to be able to nurse those kind of picks for a number of years in the future. I would imagine this is a big plus for drafting close to home, especially with late round picks. Ah, the new world is upon us... I was thinking the exact same thing with NCAA players and the lowering of the UFA age. Maybe not so much for the first round guys, but do you really want to draft a college player in say, the 3rd round on? Chances are he's going to finish his degree (which, given the odds of him making the NHL and the lowered salary that is coming to him, is not a bad idea), so he'll be outside of your control for about 3 years. Say another couple of years in the AHL, and he could be 23-24 before he hits the show. Like Mike Komisarek is already turning 24. Means he'd be a UFA a mere three years later...
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 21, 2005 9:33:10 GMT -5
I have not seen any of the 600 plus pages, but the old rules seem to be retro to 2003 and 2004 draft picks to some degree. I honestly don't see the Habs sitting on Rue Mark Streit any longer than two years anyway. Guys like Heino-Lindberg, Korpikari and Grabovski would make for some interesting decisions. I see all of them factoring into the organization in some form in the future, maybe not all with the big club. Sure sucks not to be able to nurse those kind of picks for a number of years in the future. I would imagine this is a big plus for drafting close to home, especially with late round picks. Ah, the new world is upon us... I was thinking the exact same thing with NCAA players and the lowering of the UFA age. Maybe not so much for the first round guys, but do you really want to draft a college player in say, the 3rd round on? Chances are he's going to finish his degree (which, given the odds of him making the NHL and the lowered salary that is coming to him, is not a bad idea), so he'll be outside of your control for about 3 years. Say another couple of years in the AHL, and he could be 23-24 before he hits the show. Like Mike Komisarek is already turning 24. Means he'd be a UFA a mere three years later... This CBA is so short sighted that it's going to change the game for the worse and no one will notice for about three years. Why would any team want to nurse players like Ward? Why would any team leave 24 year olds on their AHL roster unless they are dirt cheap fillers? This CBA will bring the level of player development a step down. Why? Because no team is going to waste more then a few years on a player. In theory, we should have better player development because less emphasis on BUYING a team but in REALITY this far shorter free agency rule will make sure that any player that is not NHL ready/developed by 23 is done like dinner. How's that for as short sited CBA?
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 21, 2005 15:15:12 GMT -5
There are some players who develop late, some like Ryder who surprise, some like Johnnie Bower who make the NHL late, but overall it's a bad bet.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 21, 2005 17:10:57 GMT -5
More CBA tidbits. * -Revenue-sharing where the top 10 money-making clubs donate to a fund shared by the bottom 15 teams - anywhere from $3 million to $8 million per club. -Restricted free agents have until Dec. 1 to re-sign with their teams otherwise they cannot play in the NHL for the duration of the season. - tinyurl.com/896lg* The entry-level cap drops to $850G per year, and those deals will be three-way — meaning they can be sent to the ECHL as well as the AHL. Trades cannot include cash as part of the transactions, and contract renegotiations are only permitted in the final year of a deal. - www.nypost.com/sports/50574.htm
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jul 21, 2005 17:43:35 GMT -5
This CBA is so short sighted that it's going to change the game for the worse and no one will notice for about three years. Why would any team want to nurse players like Ward? Why would any team leave 24 year olds on their AHL roster unless they are dirt cheap fillers? This CBA will bring the level of player development a step down. Why? Because no team is going to waste more then a few years on a player. In theory, we should have better player development because less emphasis on BUYING a team but in REALITY this far shorter free agency rule will make sure that any player that is not NHL ready/developed by 23 is done like dinner. How's that for as short sited CBA? I dunno. I think good GM's will make it work for them. If you move the draft up to age 19 as it supposedly proposes, then you have to sign a draftee by the time he is 21. The new entry level contracts are 4 years in length, so you have the guy on a lower contract (likely even two way if you play your cards right) until he is 25. If he hasn't worked out by age 25 for the team, then they can gratiously cut the cord. Guys like Ryder, Garon and some of the Hab prospects of old would still be within the organization somewhere by the time they had their break-out year. Is it really that bad to start to think elsewhere if a 25 year old hasn't fully made the cut yet. Heck, in a Hainsey situation where he is 24, you could just sign him to another 1 year or 2 year deal and see if he finally sticks. I really don't see that this new deal has to be so short-sighted in all cases if a good GM plays it right.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 21, 2005 19:20:21 GMT -5
If you move the draft up to age 19 as it supposedly proposes, then you have to sign a draftee by the time he is 21. The new entry level contracts are 4 years in length, so you have the guy on a lower contract (likely even two way if you play your cards right) until he is 25. If he hasn't worked out by age 25 for the team, then they can gratiously cut the cord. Guys like Ryder, Garon and some of the Hab prospects of old would still be within the organization somewhere by the time they had their break-out year. Yes, but, do you even bother wasting cap room on a guy like Ryder, who's probably never going to make it ? The round he was drafted in won't exist anymore, so I guess people guessed it would be a waste of time. The problem is, I think teams won't care nearly as much about that 25 year old when they know that 2 years after his breakout season, he might fly the coop. Just when he reaches those best, productive years, he might choose to leave for whatever reason he may have. So when the guy is 23 and in the AHL, the team might just play him as an AHL 3d liner, strictly for depth purposes, and essentially sacrifice his development to give more chances to younger guys. Yup, a 2 year deal in which the Habs invest time and effort to make him become an NHLer, he does so, accepts a 1-year qualifying offer and goes off. Lesson learned, next time a kid seems to be a borderline case, just sign a mid-level veteran from elsewhere. Teams won't invest in players if they can't benefit, either through playing time or trade value. Some GMs will find ways to make it work, but I think overall developmental efforts will go down, which is terrible for a league often lacking a legit 30-team talent base.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 21, 2005 19:27:29 GMT -5
next time a kid seems to be a borderline case, just sign a mid-level veteran from elsewhere. Teams won't invest in players if they can't benefit, either through playing time or trade value. But where are all these mid-level veterans going to come from? If every team decides not to develop their pre-NHLers "just in case they take a flyer" then there won't be anyone to grab on the FA market.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 22, 2005 4:30:01 GMT -5
...Based on 54 per cent of the take on a projected $1.7 billion (all figures U.S.) in revenues in 2005-06, the salary cap per team is expected to be $39 million, with a floor of $21.5 million. But if the league's revenues get back to the $2 billion level they were at before the lockout, the floor increases to $27.5 million per team and the ceiling to $43.5 million. Revenue figures will be determined by independent auditors instead of the owners. NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said yesterday that through the negotiating process, the players had coaxed the league into acknowledging about $100 million more worth of hockey-related revenues than it had in the past from sources including stadium naming rights, arena concessions and local broadcast contracts. - tinyurl.com/apuz9
|
|