[Discussion] Start Planning For Expansion and A Lockout/Stoppage.

[TheGuardian_]

Both could happen the same year/season.

Just about no one is even hinting about a possible stoppage, which is really odd as Bettman has a 100% record of lock outs for each CBA and there are much bigger issues to be addressed from the players side this time leading to a higher probability of maybe even a strike.

 

Seattle expansion will have to be considered for the protected players list, what happens if that season has a labour stoppage? This is a big question, what about the player contracts, does that year suddenly not count? Do they count a year off the term and if they do, does that add a year to players time in the NHL? That hits hard if the Nucks have a bunch of young players just getting their 3rd year. And you know Canuck luck, that it will be counted and the Canucks will have 10 young prospects and will not be able to protect them all.

 

Now most fans seem to think this is a long way off, it isn't, at the end of next season either side can declare what is going to happen in the 2020/21 season, that is the projected Seattle expansion year and with a labour dispute it may be delayed one year.

 

That was the bad side, the good side might be if there is a stoppage then there will be a year's worth of draft picks selected with no standings to use so they might use the previous year or years standings and if the Nucks are still near the bottom they could pick up an extra top 5 draft pick.

 

It sound far off but really it is only 2 years to go.

[goalie13]

It's a big assumption that even if there was a stoppage, that it would mean an entire lost season.  Out of four labour stoppages so far, only one has resulted in a lost season.

[Fanuck]

At the last round of GM meetings it was widely reported that many GM's are already on top of the long-range planning needed for their franchises to absorb another expansion draft hit.  Seattle will likely want/request similar expansion criteria that LV received meaning all GM's now know what to expect (or should know anyway).  No team is going to be able to avoid being hit - the trick is to minimize the hit to the organization.  At the last expansion draft, it's clear from the secretive back-room dealings that some teams overpaid to protect specific players while other teams got away with losing completely expendable assets and came out of the deal pretty much unscathed as far as franchise depth goes.  I'm confident JB has things under control in this regard and before people start freaking out, remember - our club will lose a player no matter what.  The sooner we accept that the better we are do deal with it when it happens.

 

As far as the next CBA goes, the various owners will still have the thoughts of the recent $500, 000, 000.00 LV expansion fee as well as the rumored $600, 000, 000.00 - $700, 000, 000.00 it will rake in from the Seattle fee.  Not to mention the boost to league-wide revenue gains from TV deals and franchising revenue gained whenever there are expansion teams added.  Owners will likely not want to mess with the financial success the NHL has recently experienced.  I don't see a major work stoppage imo.  Escrow, Contract Length, Buyout regulations, Player Salary Bonus structures, NMC/NTC regulations and maybe the Olympics.....none of these things I imagine would be deal-breakers for either side in an of themselves and they are the major concerns going into the next CBA according to several articles I've read. 

 

 

[Warhippy]

25 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

It's a big assumption that even if there was a stoppage, that it would mean an entire lost season.  Out of four labour stoppages so far, only one has resulted in a lost season.

Look at these contracts and their production vs length cap hit

 

Lucic.  

Eriksson 

Alzner

Price

Sekerac

Brouwer

Parise

Perry

Ryan

Seabrook

 

I actually suggested over 2+ years ago that we'd see an ensuing lockout or extended negotiations based on an inability for owners/gms to control themselves.  As well the amount of money the players just paid in to escrow as well as the "cap escalator" is pissing players off to no end

 

We just watched Corey Perry make $8.625 million for 49 points.  Toews $10.25 million for 52 points.  I firmly believe we'll see another lockout or series of late season extended negotiations which will result in a fight over escrow, cap amounts potential maximum monetary amount contracts and more will occur within the next 14 months.

 

The most likely scenario is there will be some fine tuning with a promise of 1-2 more compliance buyouts over a year or two for GMs.  

 

teams with cap space that can take a 5 to 7 million anchor contract with serious term left (ryan/perry/seabrook/lucic/toews) would be wise to leverage as much of a return as possible looking at these contracts knowing that there's a potential round of buyouts in their future that will not affect the team.  If there's a player out there right now that is under performing on their contract that can provide a body with a buyout of 1-3 years and return a 1st and or solid prospect in a multiple pieces trade...it'd be smart to consider it

[goalie13]

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I actually suggested over 2+ years ago that we'd see an ensuing lockout or extended negotiations based on an inability for owners/gms to control themselves.  As well the amount of money the players just paid in to escrow as well as the "cap escalator" is pissing players off to no end

Agreed.  At the core of it, isn't that what was behind every lockout?

 

I just think it's a huge jump that TheGuardian seems to be making to assume that the next CBA automatically means a lost season.  I do see there being several contentious issues on both sides, but I also believe that the issues aren't big enough to warrant another lost season.  I predict it won't get that far.

[BowtieCanuck]

It would be absolutely mental for the league to expand and have a lockout in the first season for an expansion team.

[Warhippy]

27 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

Agreed.  At the core of it, isn't that what was behind every lockout?

 

I just think it's a huge jump that TheGuardian seems to be making to assume that the next CBA automatically means a lost season.  I do see there being several contentious issues on both sides, but I also believe that the issues aren't big enough to warrant another lost season.  I predict it won't get that far.

I also doubt for a moment we see actual regular season games lost.  But I do see more compliance buyouts coming and a prolonged summer of discussions and bargaining

[Tre Mac]

1 hour ago, BowtieCanuck said:

It would be absolutely mental for the league to expand and have a lockout in the first season for an expansion team.

We're talking about the NHL here so it's not surprising.  Knowing our luck we'll lose a William Karlsson type player and they'll lockout when were a perennial SC contender. 

[coastal.view]

well i kinda think

the one big pressing issue to be resolved

is the penalties that have been applied to the so called luongo type contracts

it's time to erase those

as those contracts are now ancient history and will not be repeated

so what is the point of the penalties any longer

only a few teams have exposure

[Wilbur]

2 hours ago, Fanuck said:

At the last round of GM meetings it was widely reported that many GM's are already on top of the long-range planning needed for their franchises to absorb another expansion draft hit.  Seattle will likely want/request similar expansion criteria that LV received meaning all GM's now know what to expect (or should know anyway).  No team is going to be able to avoid being hit - the trick is to minimize the hit to the organization.  At the last expansion draft, it's clear from the secretive back-room dealings that some teams overpaid to protect specific players while other teams got away with losing completely expendable assets and came out of the deal pretty much unscathed as far as franchise depth goes.  I'm confident JB has things under control in this regard and before people start freaking out, remember - our club will lose a player no matter what.  The sooner we accept that the better we are do deal with it when it happens.

 

As far as the next CBA goes, the various owners will still have the thoughts of the recent $500, 000, 000.00 LV expansion fee as well as the rumored $600, 000, 000.00 - $700, 000, 000.00 it will rake in from the Seattle fee.  Not to mention the boost to league-wide revenue gains from TV deals and franchising revenue gained whenever there are expansion teams added.  Owners will likely not want to mess with the financial success the NHL has recently experienced.  I don't see a major work stoppage imo.  Escrow, Contract Length, Buyout regulations, Player Salary Bonus structures, NMC/NTC regulations and maybe the Olympics.....none of these things I imagine would be deal-breakers for either side in an of themselves and they are the major concerns going into the next CBA according to several articles I've read. 

 

 

Can't stress this enough.  You lose more revamping the roster to be "expansion draft proof" than if you just accept you'll lose a player.

[combover]

I could see another lock out And another buy out allowance to help Gary’s pets in the USA get out from some terrible contracts.

 

expasion and sucks I hope it’s sooner than later.

 

[JeremyCuddles]

Benning is smart. He said at the last expansion draft that there's no point throwing assets at them to protect people. Cause instead of losing just one guy, you are losing multiple guys. Take the hit. Make adjustments after. Look at Montreal, they lost 2 guys cause they didn't want to lose Beaulieu for nothing so they traded him for a 3rd. Then Vegas took someone anyway cause guess what? They are gonna take someone anyway. Lol. So if we are gonna lose someone no matter what, why throw 3 assets at them to save 1? Anyone we'll have exposed isn't worth losing 2 or 3 assets to protect.

 

Worst case scenario likely is we lose Markstrom. Edler might be gone so we won't have to protect him. Even if he isn't gone his next contract will allow us to expose him if necessary since I doubt we give him a NMC. Tanev might be gone, but even if he isn't we'll just protect him. We are so thin on defense I highly doubt anyone we expose gets taken off our blue line. Sedins are gone. Two fewer people to protect there. Eriksson can be exposed by then. We will most likely be in a spot to protect all our important pieces with where we are in our rebuild. Just gotta make sure we don't hand out any NMCs between now and the Expansion draft. And hope the league doesn't modify the rules to include forced protection on NTC contracts which I doubt they will do.

[TheGuardian_]

4 hours ago, goalie13 said:

Agreed.  At the core of it, isn't that what was behind every lockout?

 

I just think it's a huge jump that TheGuardian seems to be making to assume that the next CBA automatically means a lost season.  I do see there being several contentious issues on both sides, but I also believe that the issues aren't big enough to warrant another lost season.  I predict it won't get that far.

One thing I  have been looking at is player contracts, there is a dip in salary for the 2020 season and many now have big signing bonuses, some agents seem to be thinking this as well.

 

There are huge items this time, certainly the escrow which grows yearly, the Olympics, a increase in percentage, draft rules, new FA rules, new RFA rules, the league has said no getting rid of guaranteed contracts, why bring that up at all unless, a bigger share of expansion and movement fees.

There has been a stoppage every CBA negotiation, agents are tailoring contracts with that year minimizing financial loss for their clients, look at Horvat's contract, is there any reason for that year to be reduced so much? Monahan gets a 3.5 mil signing bonus that year with a reduced salary. Even Benning contract is for 2 years with an option, 2020. Most of Newport Sports contracts are including a reduction for that year/season and then they go up the following year 2021/2022.

 

The Canucks holding prospects out could be to get around a labour stoppage or even expansion requirements, certainly it makes sense for Pettersson or any of the others to spend one more year getting bigger or get more ready if this is the case, even if they hold them out long enough so the required number of games isn't achieved.

 

Other contracts with a big dip that year

TARASENKO, PARAYKO, PASTRNAK, MARCHAND, RADULOV, BISHOP, KUZNETSOV, OSHIE, ELLER,  SEABROOK, MURPHY, MALKIN, PALAT, JOHNSON,  HEDMAN, VORACEK, GAUDREAU, BACKLUND, ZIBANEJAD, SUBBAN, EKHOLM, LINDHOLM, FOWLER, BURNS, VLASIC, JONES, SCHEIFELE, LITTLE, EHLERS, EICHEL, RISTOLAINEN, BARKOV, EKBLAD, YANDLE, MATHESON, DROUIN, ALZNER, PRICE, DRAISAITL, LUCIC, SLAVIN

 

All these more recently signed contracts have some form of reduction/savings in that one year, either in the form of a signing bonus and reduced salary, s signing bonus is due July 1 of that year so it is likely there would be no strike/lock out prior to the start of the season making that bonus payable for that year, the reduced salary would mean the value of the contract would not be too eroded by missing that year.

 

While there are many contracts that don't have this year as being different, it is significant they number that do and what will future contracts have?

 

[goalie13]

3 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

One thing I  have been looking at is player contracts, there is a dip in salary for the 2020 season and many now have big signing bonuses, some agents seem to be thinking this as well.

I agree that players and agents have been planning ahead, but to me it's more like insurance.  I don't buy house insurance because I am planning for my house to burn down, it's just in case.

 

I have nothing against being prepared, I just think it's too early to write off the season already.

[TheGuardian_]

57 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

I agree that players and agents have been planning ahead, but to me it's more like insurance.  I don't buy house insurance because I am planning for my house to burn down, it's just in case.

 

I have nothing against being prepared, I just think it's too early to write off the season already.

Other contracts with a big dip that year

TARASENKO, PARAYKO, PASTRNAK, MARCHAND, RADULOV, BISHOP, KUZNETSOV, OSHIE, ELLER,  SEABROOK, MURPHY, MALKIN, PALAT, JOHNSON,  HEDMAN, VORACEK, GAUDREAU, BACKLUND, ZIBANEJAD, SUBBAN, EKHOLM, LINDHOLM, FOWLER, BURNS, VLASIC, JONES, SCHEIFELE, LITTLE, EHLERS, EICHEL, RISTOLAINEN, BARKOV, EKBLAD, YANDLE, MATHESON, DROUIN, ALZNER, PRICE, DRAISAITL, LUCIC, SLAVIN

 

All these more recently signed contracts have some form of reduction/savings in that one year, either in the form of a signing bonus and reduced salary, s signing bonus is due July 1 of that year so it is likely there would be no strike/lock out prior to the start of the season making that bonus payable for that year, the reduced salary would mean the value of the contract would not be too eroded by missing that year.

 

While there are many contracts that don't have this year as being different, it is significant they number that do and what will future contracts have?

 

Also significant is the number of contracts ending that year, some teams have no contracts going past that year or only a couple that go one or two years unless it is a mega deal contract.

[JM_]

5 hours ago, Fanuck said:

xt CBA goes, the various owners will still have the thoughts of the recent $500, 000, 000.00 LV expansion fee as well as the rumored $600, 000, 000.00 - $700, 000, 000.00 it will rake in from the Seattle fee.  Not to mention the boost to league-wide revenue gains from TV deals and franchising revenue gained whenever there are expansion teams added.  Owners will likely not want to mess with the financial success the NHL has recently experienced.  I don't see a major work stoppage imo.  Escrow, Contract Length, Buyout regulations, Player Salary Bonus structures, NMC/NTC regulations and maybe the Olympics.....none of these things I imagine would be deal-breakers for either side in an of themselves and they are the major concerns going into the next CBA according to several articles I've read. 

 

 

I think this is correct, I'm sure it came up in the Seattle discussions. I doubt they would have started the campaign and will write the 650 mil cheque to sit and do nothing for a year. It would really put a damper on sales.

 

I could see a possible walk out for a part of the season due to escrow issues but not a lost season. Buttman wants to go to the next Olympics anyway to grow the game in China.

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Both could happen the same year/season.

Just about no one is even hinting about a possible stoppage, which is really odd as Bettman has a 100% record of lock outs for each CBA and there are much bigger issues to be addressed from the players side this time leading to a higher probability of maybe even a strike.

 

Seattle expansion will have to be considered for the protected players list, what happens if that season has a labour stoppage? This is a big question, what about the player contracts, does that year suddenly not count? Do they count a year off the term and if they do, does that add a year to players time in the NHL? That hits hard if the Nucks have a bunch of young players just getting their 3rd year. And you know Canuck luck, that it will be counted and the Canucks will have 10 young prospects and will not be able to protect them all.

 

Now most fans seem to think this is a long way off, it isn't, at the end of next season either side can declare what is going to happen in the 2020/21 season, that is the projected Seattle expansion year and with a labour dispute it may be delayed one year.

 

That was the bad side, the good side might be if there is a stoppage then there will be a year's worth of draft picks selected with no standings to use so they might use the previous year or years standings and if the Nucks are still near the bottom they could pick up an extra top 5 draft pick.

 

It sound far off but really it is only 2 years to go.

 

8 hours ago, Fanuck said:

At the last round of GM meetings it was widely reported that many GM's are already on top of the long-range planning needed for their franchises to absorb another expansion draft hit.  Seattle will likely want/request similar expansion criteria that LV received meaning all GM's now know what to expect (or should know anyway).  No team is going to be able to avoid being hit - the trick is to minimize the hit to the organization.  At the last expansion draft, it's clear from the secretive back-room dealings that some teams overpaid to protect specific players while other teams got away with losing completely expendable assets and came out of the deal pretty much unscathed as far as franchise depth goes.  I'm confident JB has things under control in this regard and before people start freaking out, remember - our club will lose a player no matter what.  The sooner we accept that the better we are do deal with it when it happens.

 

As far as the next CBA goes, the various owners will still have the thoughts of the recent $500, 000, 000.00 LV expansion fee as well as the rumored $600, 000, 000.00 - $700, 000, 000.00 it will rake in from the Seattle fee.  Not to mention the boost to league-wide revenue gains from TV deals and franchising revenue gained whenever there are expansion teams added.  Owners will likely not want to mess with the financial success the NHL has recently experienced.  I don't see a major work stoppage imo.  Escrow, Contract Length, Buyout regulations, Player Salary Bonus structures, NMC/NTC regulations and maybe the Olympics.....none of these things I imagine would be deal-breakers for either side in an of themselves and they are the major concerns going into the next CBA according to several articles I've read. 

 

 

Seattle is going to pay 650 million for their expansion fee with the same format Vegas had with their picks.  

 

Personally despite Bettmans record of clashing with the NHLPA and vice versa, I don't see another labour dispute in the future, there simply isn't a major issue this time.  The players continue to receive raises at a rate much higher than inflation and the average joe, the owners keep making big stacks of cash, why would they disrupt that?  

 

Also you'd have to have some serious brass balls to ask a new owner for over half a billion dollars, and then straight faced tell them they have to delay opening night because they plan to take the players to the cleaners again.  They already did that, they got cost certainty, linked revenues to salaries etc. 

 

There may be some secret group of GMs that pine for the olds days when you could spend your way out of trouble (like CHI and always the Rangers) but they will surely add another buyout to help with that, players don't care about that.  

 

There is a significant portion of the NHLPA that gets squeezed hard to pay the star salaries which is a result of the cap mechanism, but it's not large enough for them to vote to strike against the cap again, and if they do they already know what happened last time  (they made Concession of a 20% rollback in salaries, Bettman replied that was a good start plus added the cap and a bunch of Draconian terms effectively beating Goodenow with his own olive branch) and it's too fresh for them to test the owners again.

 

Finally overall for quite some time dealings between the two groups have been low-key.  Fehr seems to run a clean house, is informed and organized unlilke previous regimes.  

 

Not losing sleep over it, plus if somehow we do end up losing a good player that means we have a great top six and first and second pairing given we have no NMC left .... And let's be honest losing Sbisa wasn't as bad as what other teams lost, and he hardly playing in the playoffs....

[Rush17]

If they stop the league again as our team is entering into our startup phase... I'm gonna be pissed. 

 

Hate to lose a year due to their poor management. Start meeting now to get the ball rolling.

[TheGuardian_]

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 6:44 PM, IBatch said:

Personally despite Bettmans record of clashing with the NHLPA and vice versa, I don't see another labour dispute in the future, there simply isn't a major issue this time.  The players continue to receive raises at a rate much higher than inflation and the average joe, the owners keep making big stacks of cash, why would they disrupt that?

There are many huge issues this time around, the escrow being the biggest.

 

Escrow

Expansion/movement money

Olympics

FA

 

 

 

 

[IBatch]

18 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

There are many huge issues this time around, the escrow being the biggest.

 

Escrow

Expansion/movement money

Olympics

FA

 

 

 

 

How are these major issues?  The Cap was a major issue, one the owners were willing to lock out for.  Olympics, well Benning has all but stated they would go next time, if he re-negs I doubt the players feel strongly enough as a unit to make this a strike worthy action, but if they do I'd support them.  FA?  The players already are becoming UFAs younger than ever.  Don't think the league considers this a big issue, teams still get two contracts out their younger players.  

 

The only issue IMO that would cause another work stoppage is if the players decide as a group they simply can't work under the cap, and ask for the owners to remove it.  This could happen for two reasons:

 

1.  The largest demographic of players in the NHL are the middle class citizens.  

2. 10% of the NHL takes up 40% of the available cap space.  Second contracts for servicable journeymen are not as big as they used to be pre-cap percentage wise, as GMs are forced to cut and trim pay cheques to pay their superstars, or star players and still make it under the cap.  Often good players that deserve more take less to stay with their team, or find themselves traded anywhere, including a rebuilding team.  Not exactly job security, your reward for playing well for a good team up against the cap is not a raise and a long term contract, instead a one way ticket out of there. 

 

To me this is where the cap fails, along with creating a playing field that is too vanilla, and removing the rivalry factor between certain clubs.  

 

Kane, Toews, Crawford, Keith, Seabrook should have had a crack at becoming one of the better teams ever, the short year was one of the most dominant performances the NHL has seen since some of the 90s Detroit seasons.  It was so good they were named the 13th best team ever, going up against some amazing teams (Detroit was 8).  Imagine if they kept Byfuglien, Saad, Panarin etc...they would likely still be contending for cups.  Instead those five players collectively count for half the entire cap..silly right?

 

It's creating a class system like the NHL has never seen.  Guys that get a second contract and before would get a fair third are finding themselves without work because GMs need to play their rookies or find cheaper alternatives that usually aren't as affective.  

 

Its not like the money isn't there, because it is.  If Baseball can have quarter plus billion dollar payrolls and TO can pay a guy 33 million for two years to hit home runs and he's batting .145, no big deal....sure they play more games with a bigger haul at the gate but NHL salaries pale in comparison.

 

So in summary, I really don't see any of those major issues, escrow is accounting the players signed up for, since the cap started the cap has more than doubled, everyone is making money except for a few of Bettmans favorite failures he just won't let go (unless he plans to finally stop eating crow and moves ARI or CAR to Quebec).

 

Ferh when asked about the cap has always politely stated that the players stil would prefer the old system or one without the cap.  But not in a way that is combative or worrisome like his predecessors.  

 

I expect they will mostly deal with some of the problems owners and GMS have under the cap, like increasing or allowing a few more buy-outs.  Maybe add a clause that the cap only works until a week before the trade deadline, then it's a free market again and the teams have until the start of the following year to get back under the cap...that would make it a significant event again, instead of the boring,anti-climatic one it's become ... Bigger and more meaningful trades would be possible again.