Changes You'd Like in the New Collective Bargaining Agreement

By Glen Miller

I recently read an article up on The Hockey News written by Adam Proteau discussing some of the changes he would like to see made to the new CBA when it is negotiated, hopefully before the summer of 2012. Today he included a second piece with a few of the changes that Toronto GM Brian Burke has recommended. This got me thinking a little bit about some of the things that could be improved come the next round of negotiations. I also thought I would give you, the loyal readers, a chance to voice your opinions as well. What changes would you like to see in the new CBA?

I know the current CBA doesn’t expire officially until September of 2012 but it’s a slow period around here and I also thought that after 4 seasons we have had enough time to evaluate the CBA and make some recommendations on improving it. To me it almost seems as if it was just yesterday they were playing the first season of this current CBA. It’s hard to believe that it has already been 4 years but at the same time I realize that the next three years until the current CBA expires will likely fly by as well so now is a good time to give this topic some thought.

The biggest change that the new CBA brought to the game was the Salary Cap. As I’m sure we all know, this institution provides for both a salary cap ceiling and a salary cap floor; the amounts of each were to be determined by “Hockey Related Revenues”. This gave franchises the assurance that NHL payrolls would never account for more than a set percentage of the revenues that the league was generating. The bone given to the NHLPA was the floor which mandated that every team in the NHL would spend a minimum in player salary. This system was designed to create a fair, more level playing field for all 30 teams in the NHL. Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked as advertised.

Just like their contemporaries in every other league with a salary cap system, NHL Managers quickly found ways to circumvent the salary cap system. The big thing that some Managers are doing is signing players to ridiculously long term, front-loaded contracts; so long that the neither the team nor the player has a realistic expectation that the player will be around at the conclusion of the term. Two examples of this type of contract are the deals signed this off-season by Marian Hossa with the ‘Hawks and the extension awarded to Chris Pronger by Philadelphia. In both cases, the terms of their contracts will see the players reach the age of 42 before expiring. The clubs front-loaded the deals so that the players will receive most of the money in the first half of the deal; the period that they will likely still be active. Hossa for example receives salaries of $7.9 million per for each of the first seven seasons, a period which currently at age 30, Hossa is still likely to reach as an NHL player. So instead of paying fair market value for the players the clubs will be on the hook for substantially less of a cap hit than they would have if they had signed the player to a more conventional contract.

Philly may have goofed though by signing Pronger to a seven year deal which accounts for roughly a $5 million cap hit per. There is a provision that penalizes a team’s salary cap number for the full duration of a contract if they sign a player 35 or older and that player retires after the first year. So, if Pronger plays 4 seasons of his new deal (the period in which Pronger will earn most of his salary) and retire at age 39, the Flyers would still be on the hook for the cap hit for the remainder of the cap hit. The Flyers are arguing that since Pronger was actually 34 when he signed the extension that provision of the CBA doesn’t apply. The NHL counters that the since the extension doesn’t actually take effect until Pronger turns 35 that the provision indeed applies.

Proteau mentions in his article that it is likely that a “term-limit” will be placed on contracts in the new CBA. You know, I find this exceptionally humorous. The NHL owners fought for and won a salary cap in the last round of negotiations because they felt they needed a cap to control the out of control spending on free agents; the same out of control spending that is perpetrated by NHL GM’s who report to their respective owners. Now the GM’s (presumably with the approval of their owners) have found a way to bypass the spending limit by awarding front-loaded, long-term deals. Now the owners want to negotiate a way to keep GM’s (and THEMSELVES!!!!!) from circumventing the salary cap that they pushed for because these same GM’s and owners couldn’t control their OWN spending. JEEZ!!!!

Two items that Brian Burke was quoted as desiring to change in the new CBA is the “Four-Recall Rule” and the inability of teams to pick up part of the salary for players traded away. The Four-Recall Rule means that teams can only recall 4 players from their AHL affiliate after the NHL trade deadline up until the point in which the AHL affiliate is eliminated from the playoffs or eliminated from contention for the playoffs. This can handicap a team in the playoffs in terms of depth. A team whose AHL affiliate is in the playoffs may not be able to have players called up to the big club during the playoffs if the parent club has already used their 4 call-ups. I agree with Burke on this one. Injuries can happen and for a team to have to play with a short bench because of a rule designed to protect the fans of AHL teams would be preposterous. Unfortunately, that’s what it is all about when you are a minor league affiliate of another pro team.

The other item in which Burke would like to be changed in a new CBA is the right of a team to pick up part of the salary of a player who is dealt to another team. He theorizes that this would make it easier for teams in the salary cap world to make trades. For example, if a big market team wanted to move a player with a large salary to a small-market team in order to create cap space then they would be allowed to pick up part of the salary with no effect to the salary cap. Currently, many teams that do not spend to the cap limit do so because of self-imposed budget restrictions. Basically, it has nothing to do with assuming the cap hit; it has everything to do with not being able to pay the remaining salary. That would not be an issue if Burke gets his wish.

I have to say that I again agree with Burke. Some argue that allowing this would benefit the big-market teams at the expense of the small-market teams. I say that if the small-market teams play their cards right and insist on the big-market club not only picking up a portion of the salary but also including other assets then the small-market club benefits. The bottom line is that teams are successful because they are well-run. Yes, being able to spend to the cap limit is advantageous when it comes to retaining your own players but invariably tough decisions will need to be made by every team, big and small; it is the smart GM’s and the well-run franchises that make the right decisions more often than not.

Another change that many people are pushing for is the elimination of no trade clauses in contracts. Dany Heatley and Mats Sundin have recently invoked their no trade clauses to block their teams from trading them to a destination that they didn’t want to go. I say too bad. These clauses were negotiated in good faith. The teams and the owners keep looking to the CBA to prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot. If they want to negotiate a no trade clause into a contract to help entice a free agent to sign with them then they are just going to have to live with that. I for one would like to see GM’s held accountable for bad negotiating and make them pay for their own mistakes.

There you have it people; some thoughts from other sources on potential changes to the CBA. I have offered my opinions on these ideas so how about offering your opinions. What about your own ideas for the new CBA. Speak up hockey fans, I can’t hear you!!!