NHL Contract Question. Do You know the Answer? I don't..

[R3aL]

Just curious couldnt find it online.

Why cant teams renegotiate contracts? Why cant they be changed if both parties of the contract are willing?

To me it doesnt make sense.

For example:

Luongo, he is willing to throw his contract away and negotiate a new contract, he said he wishes he could do that. Why cant he? Ownership and Gillis would love to do that? So would the rest of the league searching for a number 1.

It would not cost the league any money? It wouldnt negatively affect the league?

I think their should be a rule where renegotiated contacts can happen, it only makes sense.

Does anyone know why this isnt possible? Its really bugging me

Thanks

[goalie13]

It's in the CBA.

I think of it as the Yashin rule. Before they added this rule a few CBA's ago, players (like Yashin) would hold out for a better deal even though they had a contract. Teams would be forced to either renegotiate the deal or trade them to a team that would then renegotiate.

In my opinion, it's a good rule. Player hold-outs used to be an annual event.

[R3aL]

I still dont get it, to me its the same as a NTC

[RonMexico]

The Players Union would want nothing to do with that. They want salaries to stay as high as possible so they collect the highest amount of dues possible. Who in their right mind is going to negotiate a decrease in pay anyways? Just to help the team out so they can trade him? Too late for that Luongo. You were the dummy who signed the long term contract, deal with it. Show some forward thinking next time and realize that you are replaceable.

[goalie13]

I still dont get it, to me its the same as a NTC

[RonMexico]

Let's look at it this way...

Say that the Canucks sign Joe Plumber as a reclamation project, and they give him a 3 year, $1M per year deal.  In year 1 he has an amazing season scoring 40 goals.  During the summer he (and his agent) decide he is worth more than he is getting paid.  When the next training camp rolls around, Plumber sits out demanding the team gives him a better deal.

It puts the team in an impossible position.  Either they give him the raise that he wants, or they trade him to some one that will, even though he still has two years left on his deal

[elvis15]

How about a real world example: Burrows.

Burr was on a great value contract for awhile and if those contracts weren't guaranteed and non-negotiable after being signed, he could have held out a training camp and refused to play unless we paid him more.

You have accurately described how it works in the NFL....except the team has an out; they just cut you.

[PlayStation]

Then teams like the Penguins could ask players like Crosby and Malkin to drop down their salaries for a year so they could add even more pieces and go for a run. Then up the contracts the next year.

[goalie13]

You have accurately described how it works in the NFL....except the team has an out; they just cut you.

[MANGO]

Let's look at it this way...

Say that the Canucks sign Joe Plumber as a reclamation project, and they give him a 3 year, $1M per year deal. In year 1 he has an amazing season scoring 40 goals. During the summer he (and his agent) decide he is worth more than he is getting paid. When the next training camp rolls around, Plumber sits out demanding the team gives him a better deal.

It puts the team in an impossible position. Either they give him the raise that he wants, or they trade him to some one that will, even though he still has two years left on his deal

[goalie13]

But the OP stated that both parties have to agree to the deal. So if a player was to hold the team hostage, then it wouldn't be mutual. The team then could hold the player to the original contract.

Personally, if a player is getting traded, that should nullify the contract with said team. Kind of like getting fired as a coach or anyone else on the planet. Of course to do this, would require a massive restructure of the draft/trade/sign player system.

[Peaches]

Maybe you can only renegotiate a contract if the player gets less from it?

[MANGO]

In theory, that would have been true before, but it never worked that way. Technically it was mutual, but the team was never happy about it. If the team tried to hold the player to the original contract he would just sit out until they caved or traded him. And the trade was always to a team that was more than happy to give the player a new deal.

The start of every season there always used to be someone, somewhere, that was pulling this stunt and sitting out for a better deal. The rule preventing teams and players from tearing up existing contracts was one of the best things that came out of the 2005 CBA.

[Dogbyte]

Collusion on both the player and the owner can happen, especially with the cap. Therefore illegal.

[hudson bay rules]

Contracts used t be renegotiated all the time but I only ever recall them going in the players favour.

[lmm]

How about a real world example: Burrows.

Burr was on a great value contract for awhile and if those contracts weren't guaranteed and non-negotiable after being signed, he could have held out a training camp and refused to play unless we paid him more.

NHL contracts are guaranteed, and who would want to chance of losing a prime asset (like Burrows) for nothing if that player held out for more money?

[R3aL]

So what if the CBA included a

Clause that can be included in contracts that allows a renegotiation of a contract if it fulfills a

Set criteria: amount of money, term, mutual agreement, league approval and maybe a few more criteria requirements perhaps.

[goalie13]

So, the league didn't want to be responsible for holding player accountable for their contracts. So they passed it off to the NHLPA, who didn't want to be responsible for holding players accountable for their contracts....which is totally outrageous on the NHLPA's part. And so the league changed the rules ,so you cant manipulate the situation(a contract) at all.

short story....there a bunch of lawyers who don't want to be accountable.

[elvis15]

how about another real world example- Luongo

He has just played 3 years of a 12 year deal where he earned 10 mil per

but his cap hit was 5.3

if they tear up his deal now the Canucks were over cap for the last 3 years.

how many 1st round picks would the Canucks be willing to forfit for being overcap for 3 years?