Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Taro T

The Looming Lockout: 2020

Recommended Posts

Bumping this thread because of a discussion in another thread.

I have a question about how contracts are handled in a lockout. I've never given it much thought before.

How do lockouts affect free agency status for players?

Say I have a player who will be an RFA at the end of the coming season, then the season gets locked out. Do I have to negotiate a deal with this player as if they had played during that lockout season? If so, does that help or hurt me as a GM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Bumping this thread because of a discussion in another thread.

I have a question about how contracts are handled in a lockout. I've never given it much thought before.

How do lockouts affect free agency status for players?

Say I have a player who will be an RFA at the end of the coming season, then the season gets locked out. Do I have to negotiate a deal with this player as if they had played during that lockout season? If so, does that help or hurt me as a GM?

I'm pretty sure they treat it as if the year never happened. So if a player has 3 years left on his contract and the lockout cancels an entire season, the player still has 3 years left on his deal. I don't believe RFA status or years of service towards UFA status would change so if a guy had one year before becoming an RFA and then the lockout cancelled a season they would still have one year to become an RFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Bumping this thread because of a discussion in another thread.

I have a question about how contracts are handled in a lockout. I've never given it much thought before.

How do lockouts affect free agency status for players?

Say I have a player who will be an RFA at the end of the coming season, then the season gets locked out. Do I have to negotiate a deal with this player as if they had played during that lockout season? If so, does that help or hurt me as a GM?

If there is a season long lockout, that would be addressed in the new CBA.

A "short" half season lockout would be expected to count that entire 1/2 season as a full season for pension and FA issues.  Though, the new CBA could change all the thresholds - say 6 years to UFA rather than 7, max contracts 6/7 years rather than 7/8, etc.

A new CBA could definitely reduce Max contract length, so it would behoove the Sabres to lock up Dahlin for 8 (if he's willing) come July.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

If there is a season long lockout, that would be addressed in the new CBA.

A "short" half season lockout would be expected to count that entire 1/2 season as a full season for pension and FA issues.  Though, the new CBA could change all the thresholds - say 6 years to UFA rather than 7, max contracts 6/7 years rather than 7/8, etc.

A new CBA could definitely reduce Max contract length, so it would behoove the Sabres to lock up Dahlin for 8 (if he's willing) come July.

Okay, that's what I was wondering. I'm just trying to think about how the lockout could affect trading for RFAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, darksabre said:

Okay, that's what I was wondering. I'm just trying to think about how the lockout could affect trading for RFAs.

Doubt the lockout will significantly effect trades for RFA's.  The Seattle draft will likely have more of an effect.

Would expect to see an even higher %age of RFA deals next off season than this one being ST as nobody (players nor teams) wants to find themselves saddled with a deal that would've been bad under the new CBA.

Haven't heard that things will be more adversarial than last time, though Don Fehr thrives on that.  So, can't see an agreement prior to a lockout happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it for what it's worth, but in an article for the Athletic about the possibility of a WCoH tournament being held in place of a '21 NHL ASG; Scott Burnside claims he's hearing neither the NHL (by 9/1) nor the NHLPA (by 9/15) will terminate the CBA early which would move the lockout back 2 years to 2022 when the current CBA "officially" ends (barring the 2 sides both agreeing to extend it beyond the current expiration date; which seems impossibly unlikely).

Will believe that when we're hearing on 9/17 that neither side opted out.  But, at least 1 person expects Bettman's &  Fehr & the groups they represent can play nice together.  Again, fwiw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Take it for what it's worth, but in an article for the Athletic about the possibility of a WCoH tournament being held in place of a '21 NHL ASG; Scott Burnside claims he's hearing neither the NHL (by 9/1) nor the NHLPA (by 9/15) will terminate the CBA early which would move the lockout back 2 years to 2022 when the current CBA "officially" ends (barring the 2 sides both agreeing to extend it beyond the current expiration date; which seems impossibly unlikely).

Will believe that when we're hearing on 9/17 that neither side opted out.  But, at least 1 person expects Bettman's &  Fehr & the groups they represent can play nice together.  Again, fwiw.

Moving it back would certainly seem to increase the liklihood of there being NO lockout, right?

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thorny said:

Moving it back would certainly seem to increase the liklihood of there being NO lockout, right?

I can’t imagine the NHL bringing in an expansion team then not having a season their second year. That sounds pretty bad for business. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thorny said:

Moving it back would certainly seem to increase the liklihood of there being NO lockout, right?

Absolutely it would.  But, don't forget that the NHLPA is still headed by Don Fehr.  (And Bettman is still the commissioner.). An increased likelihood is not the same as a good chance of no likelihood. 

And I'd guess that IF the PA doesn't opt out this month, they'd expect they actually have some increased leverage in '22 due to Seattle being brand new and not wanting to lose 1/2 a season right after playing only 1.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Taro T said:

Take it for what it's worth, but in an article for the Athletic about the possibility of a WCoH tournament being held in place of a '21 NHL ASG; Scott Burnside claims he's hearing neither the NHL (by 9/1) nor the NHLPA (by 9/15) will terminate the CBA early which would move the lockout back 2 years to 2022 when the current CBA "officially" ends (barring the 2 sides both agreeing to extend it beyond the current expiration date; which seems impossibly unlikely).

Will believe that when we're hearing on 9/17 that neither side opted out.  But, at least 1 person expects Bettman's &  Fehr & the groups they represent can play nice together.  Again, fwiw.

Actually I stated this earlier, do that would make two people.

i defer to Taro regarding all things CBA, but I just don’t think the climate is right for either side to opt out at this time.

The players major problems with current CBA(mostly escrow and hockey related revenue) are just not easy rallying cries for the general public to get behind and I don’t think there is a block of owners that think their plurality is strong enough to push forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Actually I stated this earlier, do that would make two people.

i defer to Taro regarding all things CBA, but I just don’t think the climate is right for either side to opt out at this time.

The players major problems with current CBA(mostly escrow and hockey related revenue) are just not easy rallying cries for the general public to get behind and I don’t think there is a block of owners that think their plurality is strong enough to push forward.

I'd agree with that, but I believed that 6 years ago as well.  Until Fehr lets an instance to be an ass pass by unaccepted, won't believe he will / can do so.  (Hope you and Burnside are right.  Wouldn't put a penny on it as betting on these guys being willing to burn it all down has been the correct play every single time since Eagleson was ousted (and his legacy is a huuuuugge part of the distrust from the players' perspective still to this day).)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Escrow will cause the next lockout. The players hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Escrow will cause the next lockout. The players hate it.

As long as there is a hard cap, the players will have the choice of escrow or cutting the owners a check when on paper salaries exceed the players' share of revenues.  Escrow isn't going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

As long as there is a hard cap, the players will have the choice of escrow or cutting the owners a check when on paper salaries exceed the players' share of revenues.  Escrow isn't going away.

Never said it was, I said the players hate it and they want it changed in some way. They mention it a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Never said it was, I said the players hate it and they want it changed in some way. They mention it a lot. 

Greed on both sides, distrust on both sides, and Bettman's and Fehr's distain for each other will cause the next lockout. 

We'll know in the next 4 weeks for certain whether that happens in October '20 or October '22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Escrow will cause the next lockout. The players hate it.

 

And I hate paying taxes. They just don’t understand that math. Alternatives to escrow are even worse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those with an Athletic subscription, Sean Gordon had a good article over viewing a fair number of reasons that each side might want no and might not want to reopen the CBA early.

Lots of good comments after the article as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 9:42 PM, Taro T said:

For those with an Athletic subscription, Sean Gordon had a good article over viewing a fair number of reasons that each side might want no and might not want to reopen the CBA early.

Lots of good comments after the article as well.

Never showed up in my feed.  I'll search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is that the NHL basically deferring to the players on whether or not the CBA needs to be re-negotiated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, darksabre said:

So is that the NHL basically deferring to the players on whether or not the CBA needs to be re-negotiated?

We'll know by Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to understand the language around this.

What does it mean to "re-open" the CBA?

If both parties choose not to re-open the CBA, what happens?

If the NHLPA elects to re-open the CBA now that the NHL has declined, what happens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...