With the brief GM meetings wrapping up, Elliotte Friedman had some recent updates about the current NHL and NHLPA talking points in his written <a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-where-do-the-penguins-go-from-here/">32 Thoughts column</a> this week. As is often the case, as a team that spends to the cap the CBA and potential loopholes or closing of said loopholes will matter significantly to how the Toronto Maple Leafs operate in the new bargaining agreement that is just 1 and 3/4 seasons away.
<blockquote>13. Deputy commissioner Bill Daly didn’t give much about CBA negotiations, because there’s not much to say, yet. While GMs were asked for a wish list, several admitted they are well aware this is a “peacetime” negotiation. The NHL and NHLPA desire to get a deal done, there are no fundamental core issues to send negotiations off a cliff.</blockquote>
The first piece of news is probably the best place to start and that is there aren&#8217;t issues to send the negotiations off a cliff. Right now, both the league and the PA members are thriving. Gambling revenue and expansion fees are lining the owners&#8217; pockets and escrow, and the flat salary cap are no longer barriers to the happiness of the players. While both sides certainly have a lot they&#8217;d be looking to tweak or take back from the other side, the fact that most NHL players have relatively short careers and the league can&#8217;t further risk losing its present status in the North American sports hierarchy a work stoppage seems unlikely.
Thought 13 continued&#8230;
<blockquote>So, they know that if the players seriously object to something like shorter contract-term limits, it’s probably not happening. If there’s one thing they’d like (at least the ones I’ve spoken to), it’s something along the lines of: when you submit your lineup for a playoff game, it should be under the salary cap. No problem with carrying extra bodies. But once the puck drops, the ceiling is the max.</blockquote>
Thought 13 really had a lot crammed into it, so let&#8217;s start with the idea of shorter contract-term limits.
While a player like Auston Matthews has already chosen to go with less than max term and to bet on himself in a rising salary cap world, it is understandable that NHLPA at-large would strongly oppose any further restrictions on contracts and not be fans of something that limits longer term financial security of the players.
It&#8217;s also worth noting that GMs like Brad Treliving have certainly used the longer available term to help flatten out the AAV on players like Chris Tanev and it will likely be something we see utilized on John Tavares&#8217; contract as well.
Term is everyone&#8217;s friend, but also everyone&#8217;s enemy as the latter part of contracts certainly make it hard for players to live up to their perceived value and there becomes an increased effort to move players who often went into the contracts with stability as part of the draw.
There are other solutions that could be explored here, potentially making buyouts friendly from both a team and player perspective, option years on contracts, franchise players, etc. but in all likelihood the current system is already a compromise and generally inoffensive so it will probably go untouched.
As for the cap compliant playoff lineups&#8230;
I&#8217;m torn on this idea because on one hand this really levels the playing field and closes the LTIR loophole in an interesting way. If you load up at the trade deadline and then bring back your LTIR&#8217;d player for the playoffs, having to choose a lineup that fits under the cap and potentially excluding decent players to make it work is damned interesting and playing who&#8217;s in and who&#8217;s out on the lineup card adds a lot of excitement to game day.
On the flipside of that, this seems like it has the potential to further dilute the entertainment value of the NHL trade deadline, which is already running on fumes thanks to risk aversion of most NHL GMs. A day that is already limited to dealing mid-round draft picks for bottom pairing defencemen and middle six wingers can&#8217;t take the hit of teams potentially not being able to use their stacked roster in the playoffs.
From a Leafs perspective, keeping as many CBA loopholes as possible open is in their best interest given that they have the money to spend. It may be frustrating that teams like the Lightning and Golden Knights game the system better, but the Leafs still take advantage of it and Toronto sports fans wouldn&#8217;t deal well with a worse trade deadline.
<blockquote>14. As for players, obviously they’d love to get a piece of expansion money, but I don’t believe that’s feasible. What is important to them is having more say and control in growing revenues. That’s a very reasonable ask, especially since the new generation is willing to push more and more.</blockquote>
While I can appreciate that the players should probably get a cut of this, it is also worth pointing out that each team the league expands it creates 50 new player contracts in the league and that&#8217;s good for the PA from both a job security and growth perspective. Careers will last longer (in theory), and career earnings will go up even if expansion fees don&#8217;t find their way into hockey related revenue.
Whether they get a cut or not, the NHLPA should have a bigger say in where teams end up as struggling teams have the potential to impact the growth of hockey related revenue. The players should have concerns about teams potentially being placed back in Atlanta or Arizona and their membership should be satisfied with the expansion club&#8217;s proposed strategy for building a sustainable fanbase for their organizations before giving it the green light.
And that being said, if the NHLPA does get a say on where to expand, pushing for a second team in Toronto would make a lot of sense for them.
<blockquote>15. The tampering warning was interesting. As a player, I’d see it as a necessary evil if you’re not going to have the free agency dating period. If I’m going to be making a decision about what’s best for my family and career, I’d rather stealthily make it with some preparation as opposed to a flood of information and take-it-or-leave-it offers on July 1.</blockquote>
Tampering is an interesting one and example that Elliotte gives in his column is the John Tavares contract.
It is unreasonable to ask someone to make a multimillion dollar decision that could impact the next seven years of your life on a single day and that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s either in the best interest to continue with the blind eye approach and get things done in the shadows or bring back the discussion window.
There is a definite advantage for the players in being able to give more time to an important decision, but it also seems like it will save GMs from themselves and avoid impulse buys like John Klingberg.
If the league did draw a hardline on tampering the potential upside could be that we would see increased trading of players rights in the days leading up to free agency and for an organization like the Leafs that saw countless unrestricted free agents walk out the door for nothing in the past decade, the idea of picking up anything in the process has some appeal.
<blockquote>16. As one manager said, “No topic is taking up more air than the CHL-NCAA ruling.” That’s because there are still so many unknowns, and the right answers aren’t coming next week. The NHL is determined to stay out of it, aside from things that directly affect it, and those will be dealt with in CBA negotiations.  The big one is how long teams keep draft rights. Right now, it is four years NCAA, four years Europe, two years CHL.</blockquote>
Right now, there seems to be a lot of different ways the CHL-NCAA ruling could play out, but the draft rights aspect is perhaps the most interesting one. It may be a non-issue as NCAA teams will know what they are getting into and if they bring in CHL players they know they may only have them for a short window of time. It also provides a bit more security to drafted players who go unsigned to have a place to play against their peers rather than 16-year-olds and show their growth and have more opportunities to sign professional contracts as free agents.
For a team like the Leafs that is light on draft picks and heavy on scouting budget, the opportunity to pick free agents out of a more competitive NCAA seems like a win. It still seems too early to know how exactly everything will play out in this new arrangement and that&#8217;s likely why the league and PA will sit back and observe what happens at the prospect level before determining how to mandate things at the pro level.

With the brief GM meetings wrapping up, Elliotte Friedman had some recent updates about the current NHL and NHLPA talking points in his written <a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-where-do-the-penguins-go-from-here/">32 Thoughts column</a> this week. As is often the case, as a team that spends to the cap the CBA and potential loopholes or closing of said loopholes will matter significantly to how the Toronto Maple Leafs operate in the new bargaining agreement that is just 1 and 3/4 seasons away.
<blockquote>13. Deputy commissioner Bill Daly didn’t give much about CBA negotiations, because there’s not much to say, yet. While GMs were asked for a wish list, several admitted they are well aware this is a “peacetime” negotiation. The NHL and NHLPA desire to get a deal done, there are no fundamental core issues to send negotiations off a cliff.</blockquote>
The first piece of news is probably the best place to start and that is there aren't issues to send the negotiations off a cliff. Right now, both the league and the PA members are thriving. Gambling revenue and expansion fees are lining the owners' pockets and escrow, and the flat salary cap are no longer barriers to the happiness of the players. While both sides certainly have a lot they'd be looking to tweak or take back from the other side, the fact that most NHL players have relatively short careers and the league can't further risk losing its present status in the North American sports hierarchy a work stoppage seems unlikely.

Thought 13 continued...
<blockquote>So, they know that if the players seriously object to something like shorter contract-term limits, it’s probably not happening. If there’s one thing they’d like (at least the ones I’ve spoken to), it’s something along the lines of: when you submit your lineup for a playoff game, it should be under the salary cap. No problem with carrying extra bodies. But once the puck drops, the ceiling is the max.</blockquote>
Thought 13 really had a lot crammed into it, so let's start with the idea of shorter contract-term limits.

While a player like Auston Matthews has already chosen to go with less than max term and to bet on himself in a rising salary cap world, it is understandable that NHLPA at-large would strongly oppose any further restrictions on contracts and not be fans of something that limits longer term financial security of the players.

It's also worth noting that GMs like Brad Treliving have certainly used the longer available term to help flatten out the AAV on players like Chris Tanev and it will likely be something we see utilized on John Tavares' contract as well.

Term is everyone's friend, but also everyone's enemy as the latter part of contracts certainly make it hard for players to live up to their perceived value and there becomes an increased effort to move players who often went into the contracts with stability as part of the draw.

There are other solutions that could be explored here, potentially making buyouts friendly from both a team and player perspective, option years on contracts, franchise players, etc. but in all likelihood the current system is already a compromise and generally inoffensive so it will probably go untouched.

As for the cap compliant playoff lineups...

I'm torn on this idea because on one hand this really levels the playing field and closes the LTIR loophole in an interesting way. If you load up at the trade deadline and then bring back your LTIR'd player for the playoffs, having to choose a lineup that fits under the cap and potentially excluding decent players to make it work is damned interesting and playing who's in and who's out on the lineup card adds a lot of excitement to game day.

On the flipside of that, this seems like it has the potential to further dilute the entertainment value of the NHL trade deadline, which is already running on fumes thanks to risk aversion of most NHL GMs. A day that is already limited to dealing mid-round draft picks for bottom pairing defencemen and middle six wingers can't take the hit of teams potentially not being able to use their stacked roster in the playoffs.

From a Leafs perspective, keeping as many CBA loopholes as possible open is in their best interest given that they have the money to spend. It may be frustrating that teams like the Lightning and Golden Knights game the system better, but the Leafs still take advantage of it and Toronto sports fans wouldn't deal well with a worse trade deadline.
<blockquote>14. As for players, obviously they’d love to get a piece of expansion money, but I don’t believe that’s feasible. What is important to them is having more say and control in growing revenues. That’s a very reasonable ask, especially since the new generation is willing to push more and more.</blockquote>
While I can appreciate that the players should probably get a cut of this, it is also worth pointing out that each team the league expands it creates 50 new player contracts in the league and that's good for the PA from both a job security and growth perspective. Careers will last longer (in theory), and career earnings will go up even if expansion fees don't find their way into hockey related revenue.

Whether they get a cut or not, the NHLPA should have a bigger say in where teams end up as struggling teams have the potential to impact the growth of hockey related revenue. The players should have concerns about teams potentially being placed back in Atlanta or Arizona and their membership should be satisfied with the expansion club's proposed strategy for building a sustainable fanbase for their organizations before giving it the green light.

And that being said, if the NHLPA does get a say on where to expand, pushing for a second team in Toronto would make a lot of sense for them.
<blockquote>15. The tampering warning was interesting. As a player, I’d see it as a necessary evil if you’re not going to have the free agency dating period. If I’m going to be making a decision about what’s best for my family and career, I’d rather stealthily make it with some preparation as opposed to a flood of information and take-it-or-leave-it offers on July 1.</blockquote>
Tampering is an interesting one and example that Elliotte gives in his column is the John Tavares contract.

It is unreasonable to ask someone to make a multimillion dollar decision that could impact the next seven years of your life on a single day and that's why it's either in the best interest to continue with the blind eye approach and get things done in the shadows or bring back the discussion window.

There is a definite advantage for the players in being able to give more time to an important decision, but it also seems like it will save GMs from themselves and avoid impulse buys like John Klingberg.

If the league did draw a hardline on tampering the potential upside could be that we would see increased trading of players rights in the days leading up to free agency and for an organization like the Leafs that saw countless unrestricted free agents walk out the door for nothing in the past decade, the idea of picking up anything in the process has some appeal.
<blockquote>16. As one manager said, “No topic is taking up more air than the CHL-NCAA ruling.” That’s because there are still so many unknowns, and the right answers aren’t coming next week. The NHL is determined to stay out of it, aside from things that directly affect it, and those will be dealt with in CBA negotiations.  The big one is how long teams keep draft rights. Right now, it is four years NCAA, four years Europe, two years CHL.</blockquote>
Right now, there seems to be a lot of different ways the CHL-NCAA ruling could play out, but the draft rights aspect is perhaps the most interesting one. It may be a non-issue as NCAA teams will know what they are getting into and if they bring in CHL players they know they may only have them for a short window of time. It also provides a bit more security to drafted players who go unsigned to have a place to play against their peers rather than 16-year-olds and show their growth and have more opportunities to sign professional contracts as free agents.

For a team like the Leafs that is light on draft picks and heavy on scouting budget, the opportunity to pick free agents out of a more competitive NCAA seems like a win. It still seems too early to know how exactly everything will play out in this new arrangement and that's likely why the league and PA will sit back and observe what happens at the prospect level before determining how to mandate things at the pro level.

Expansion fees, Cap compliant playoff rosters, tampering are some of current CBA talking points

Recent articles from Jon Steitzer

Breaking News