Potential Changes to the CBA

[TheJackBurton]

On his 32 bits podcast there are two major changes being discussed and one other incredibly interesting one:

26. On Friday morning’s podcast, I suggested the likely solution for playoff LTIR is you can’t dress a playoff lineup above the cap number. Your overall roster can be whatever, but the game lineup has to be under the ceiling. A couple of people — who are much smarter than I am — reached out to say that this year provided hints to another option: Kane didn’t play Game 1 of the playoffs, while Tyler Seguin returned for the final game of the regular season after missing four-and-a-half months. There is at least one executive who suggested that if you can’t play Game 82, you should be forced to miss time in the playoffs. We will see which option is chosen.

This is something many of us on here have suggested and is an easy solution that I can't imagine anyone would have an issue with. Your 23 man roster has to be cap compliant in the regular season, there is literally no reason it can be millions over in the playoffs. None. It will be good to see the change made so that idiotic loophole is gone.

27. With more time to look into it, here’s my read on state taxes: in the 2010s, the dominant teams were Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh. Those aren’t no-tax states, with California among the highest and Pennsylvania not far off. This is a different decade: led by Florida, Tampa Bay and Vegas — with Dallas consistently there. I think this new CBA will be four or five years. If things stay the same, we could see movement to address it. But there wasn’t desire to change something that has only been at its apex for half a decade.

At some point this is going to have to be addressed. This isn't a matter of slight tenths of percentage in areas, you are talking millions of dollars in difference with teams. LA and NY can kind of get past it because of the marketing dollars, but that's not something a team like Winnipeg can offer. They have to deal with Canadian taxes, paying their contracts in American dollars, rarely getting salary breaks because of the taxes, while they see teams in no state taxes pay below market value on multiple players because they pay significantly less yearly in taxes.

28. Other possibilities in the new CBA: Both sides are mulling over the idea of one year fewer on contract length maximums (from eight years to seven on your own player, and seven to six when you sign from another team). There’s a discussion about teams being able to carry a “permanent personal EBUG,” so you always have a third goalie you are able to practice with or use in an emergency, even on the road. This wouldn’t be an AHL goalie, but more of an actual EBUG style. I’m curious to see how it looks if it happens.

I think this one will be super effective. 6 years max on UFA contracts will have a major impact on players wanting to stay with their teams, it will also reduce teams signing a 34 year old to a 7 year contract that they know they and the player have no intention of honoring just to keep the salary down.

All in all I like where the next CBA may very well be headed and those are significant changes and needed ones as well.

[moose-and-squirrel]

On his 32 bits podcast there are two major changes being discussed and one other incredibly interesting one:

26. On Friday morning’s podcast, I suggested the likely solution for playoff LTIR is you can’t dress a playoff lineup above the cap number. Your overall roster can be whatever, but the game lineup has to be under the ceiling. A couple of people — who are much smarter than I am — reached out to say that this year provided hints to another option: Kane didn’t play Game 1 of the playoffs, while Tyler Seguin returned for the final game of the regular season after missing four-and-a-half months. There is at least one executive who suggested that if you can’t play Game 82, you should be forced to miss time in the playoffs. We will see which option is chosen.

This is something many of us on here have suggested and is an easy solution that I can't imagine anyone would have an issue with. Your 23 man roster has to be cap compliant in the regular season, there is literally no reason it can be millions over in the playoffs. None. It will be good to see the change made so that idiotic loophole is gone.

27. With more time to look into it, here’s my read on state taxes: in the 2010s, the dominant teams were Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh. Those aren’t no-tax states, with California among the highest and Pennsylvania not far off. This is a different decade: led by Florida, Tampa Bay and Vegas — with Dallas consistently there. I think this new CBA will be four or five years. If things stay the same, we could see movement to address it. But there wasn’t desire to change something that has only been at its apex for half a decade.

At some point this is going to have to be addressed. This isn't a matter of slight tenths of percentage in areas, you are talking millions of dollars in difference with teams. LA and NY can kind of get past it because of the marketing dollars, but that's not something a team like Winnipeg can offer. They have to deal with Canadian taxes, paying their contracts in American dollars, rarely getting salary breaks because of the taxes, while they see teams in no state taxes pay below market value on multiple players because they pay significantly less yearly in taxes.

28. Other possibilities in the new CBA: Both sides are mulling over the idea of one year fewer on contract length maximums (from eight years to seven on your own player, and seven to six when you sign from another team). There’s a discussion about teams being able to carry a “permanent personal EBUG,” so you always have a third goalie you are able to practice with or use in an emergency, even on the road. This wouldn’t be an AHL goalie, but more of an actual EBUG style. I’m curious to see how it looks if it happens.

I think this one will be super effective. 6 years max on UFA contracts will have a major impact on players wanting to stay with their teams, it will also reduce teams signing a 34 year old to a 7 year contract that they know they and the player have no intention of honoring just to keep the salary down.

All in all I like where the next CBA may very well be headed and those are significant changes and needed ones as well.

not holding my breath on that first one

[TheJackBurton]

On his 32 bits podcast there are two major changes being discussed and one other incredibly interesting one:

26. On Friday morning’s podcast, I suggested the likely solution for playoff LTIR is you can’t dress a playoff lineup above the cap number. Your overall roster can be whatever, but the game lineup has to be under the ceiling. A couple of people — who are much smarter than I am — reached out to say that this year provided hints to another option: Kane didn’t play Game 1 of the playoffs, while Tyler Seguin returned for the final game of the regular season after missing four-and-a-half months. There is at least one executive who suggested that if you can’t play Game 82, you should be forced to miss time in the playoffs. We will see which option is chosen.

This is something many of us on here have suggested and is an easy solution that I can't imagine anyone would have an issue with. Your 23 man roster has to be cap compliant in the regular season, there is literally no reason it can be millions over in the playoffs. None. It will be good to see the change made so that idiotic loophole is gone.

27. With more time to look into it, here’s my read on state taxes: in the 2010s, the dominant teams were Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh. Those aren’t no-tax states, with California among the highest and Pennsylvania not far off. This is a different decade: led by Florida, Tampa Bay and Vegas — with Dallas consistently there. I think this new CBA will be four or five years. If things stay the same, we could see movement to address it. But there wasn’t desire to change something that has only been at its apex for half a decade.

At some point this is going to have to be addressed. This isn't a matter of slight tenths of percentage in areas, you are talking millions of dollars in difference with teams. LA and NY can kind of get past it because of the marketing dollars, but that's not something a team like Winnipeg can offer. They have to deal with Canadian taxes, paying their contracts in American dollars, rarely getting salary breaks because of the taxes, while they see teams in no state taxes pay below market value on multiple players because they pay significantly less yearly in taxes.

28. Other possibilities in the new CBA: Both sides are mulling over the idea of one year fewer on contract length maximums (from eight years to seven on your own player, and seven to six when you sign from another team). There’s a discussion about teams being able to carry a “permanent personal EBUG,” so you always have a third goalie you are able to practice with or use in an emergency, even on the road. This wouldn’t be an AHL goalie, but more of an actual EBUG style. I’m curious to see how it looks if it happens.

I think this one will be super effective. 6 years max on UFA contracts will have a major impact on players wanting to stay with their teams, it will also reduce teams signing a 34 year old to a 7 year contract that they know they and the player have no intention of honoring just to keep the salary down.

All in all I like where the next CBA may very well be headed and those are significant changes and needed ones as well.

not holding my breath on that first one

The way he says it, it sounds like it's all but a foregone conclusion they are just working out how best to fix it.

[Red7]

Get rid of the cap and you don’t have these problems. The league almost destroyed itself to get a cap, but left loopholes big enough to drive a Zamboni through.

LITR isn’t always the silver bullet some people think it is. Let’s say a player’s cap hit is $6.5 million. Now, LTIR may give you $6.5 million in cap space, but it doesn’t give you an additional $6.5 million to spend. They still have to pay the player on the LTIR the $6.5. Teams like the Blues maybe be maxing out by spending to the cap to begin with. On the other hand, teams like Vegas might have a lot more resources.

[TAFKAP]

I'm sorry but the state taxes is overblown. FLA, Vegas, and TBL, are attracting players because they have a chance to win. Why don't the people who point at Florida having such a HUGE advantage, point at Nashville and Seattle? Tennessee and Washington don't have personal income tax either. If it's such a huge advantage, why doesn't it affect other sports? The Cowboys, Dolphins and Titans aren't havens for Championship football.

[TheJackBurton]

I'm sorry but the state taxes is overblown. FLA, Vegas, and TBL, are attracting players because they have a chance to win. Why don't the people who point at Florida having such a HUGE advantage, point at Nashville and Seattle? Tennessee and Washington don't have personal income tax either. If it's such a huge advantage, why doesn't it affect other sports? The Cowboys, Dolphins and Titans aren't havens for Championship football.

They do point at Nashville. Seattle is still in its infancy but already has attracted players an expansion team likely wouldn't have.


Yes, right now it's exacerbated because of Florida, but to me it has shone a light on it. Many of Tampas and Floridas players have taken multiple millions less to re-sign there because of:

1) Yes they've been winning

2) They pay a millions less in taxes over the lifetime of the contract

You can sit and say it's not a big deal, but if you are talking the difference between paying 2 million in taxes and 1.25 million in taxes, which are you choosing?

What the other is, if the exact same player (let's take names out of it) signs a 6 million dollar contract in Florida when he would likely sign a 8 million dollar contract in Toronto, now Florida/Tampa/Nashville/Seattle/Dallas/Utah have an additional 2 million they can spend(if they so choose) than the other teams who would need to pay the 7/8 million to keep/sign that player.

Get 4/5 players to do the same thing, all of a sudden you can sign another 5 million dollar player for depth that other teams can't.

It's a snowball effect that few teams can use.

[DawgDad]

My take:
They absolutely need to Cap the playoffs. It's a stain on the integrity of the sport.
I'm all for lower taxes, which is why I live where I do. Others should be as wise. I do believe the flat cap has opened players eyes to lower tax markets.
Good with the other suggestions.

Add:
The NHL needs to be a physical game. Intent to injure is something else entirely. Penalties need to be far more severe.

[Bubble4427]

Get rid of the cap and you don’t have these problems. The league almost destroyed itself to get a cap, but left loopholes big enough to drive a Zamboni through.

LITR isn’t always the silver bullet some people think it is. Let’s say a player’s cap hit is $6.5 million. Now, LTIR may give you $6.5 million in cap space, but it doesn’t give you an additional $6.5 million to spend. They still have to pay the player on the LTIR the $6.5. Teams like the Blues maybe be maxing out by spending to the cap to begin with. On the other hand, teams like Vegas might have a lot more resources.

Insurance pays the LTIR. The hockey team is on the hook for roughly 20% (I read that somewhere).
LTIR IS a the silver bullet if teams exploit its loopholes….

[wiscrev]

I'm sorry but the state taxes is overblown. FLA, Vegas, and TBL, are attracting players because they have a chance to win. Why don't the people who point at Florida having such a HUGE advantage, point at Nashville and Seattle? Tennessee and Washington don't have personal income tax either. If it's such a huge advantage, why doesn't it affect other sports? The Cowboys, Dolphins and Titans aren't havens for Championship football.

They do point at Nashville. Seattle is still in its infancy but already has attracted players an expansion team likely wouldn't have.


Yes, right now it's exacerbated because of Florida, but to me it has shone a light on it. Many of Tampas and Floridas players have taken multiple millions less to re-sign there because of:

1) Yes they've been winning

2) They pay a millions less in taxes over the lifetime of the contract

You can sit and say it's not a big deal, but if you are talking the difference between paying 2 million in taxes and 1.25 million in taxes, which are you choosing?

What the other is, if the exact same player (let's take names out of it) signs a 6 million dollar contract in Florida when he would likely sign a 8 million dollar contract in Toronto, now Florida/Tampa/Nashville/Seattle/Dallas/Utah have an additional 2 million they can spend(if they so choose) than the other teams who would need to pay the 7/8 million to keep/sign that player.

Get 4/5 players to do the same thing, all of a sudden you can sign another 5 million dollar player for depth that other teams can't.

It's a snowball effect that few teams can use.

3) There's always sunning on the beach.

[TAFKAP]

I'm all for lower taxes, which is why I live where I do. Others should be as wise.

I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to respectfully give an opposite take. My father in law thought a lot like you. Grew up in the Chicago suburbs, good career, good retirement well deserved. He said he'd never pay Chicago taxes in retirement, and didn't. Sold the house packed everything and moved to Nevada. 6 months later found out he had lung cancer that got to his lymph nodes and moved to his brain. In Chicago we could have visited, our kids could have as well. Nevada wasn't happening, and the only one who made it out there was my wife, and only once before the end. They hadn't even gotten involved in the local church yet so he was cremated and his memorial service was at their old church in suburban Chicago, 1.5 years after they moved. My wife's step mom was completely alone throughout because they were so far from their friends and family. Some things are worth paying for. IMHO

[TAFKAP]

I'm sorry but the state taxes is overblown. FLA, Vegas, and TBL, are attracting players because they have a chance to win. Why don't the people who point at Florida having such a HUGE advantage, point at Nashville and Seattle? Tennessee and Washington don't have personal income tax either. If it's such a huge advantage, why doesn't it affect other sports? The Cowboys, Dolphins and Titans aren't havens for Championship football.

They do point at Nashville. Seattle is still in its infancy but already has attracted players an expansion team likely wouldn't have.


Yes, right now it's exacerbated because of Florida, but to me it has shone a light on it. Many of Tampas and Floridas players have taken multiple millions less to re-sign there because of:

1) Yes they've been winning

2) They pay a millions less in taxes over the lifetime of the contract

You can sit and say it's not a big deal, but if you are talking the difference between paying 2 million in taxes and 1.25 million in taxes, which are you choosing?

What the other is, if the exact same player (let's take names out of it) signs a 6 million dollar contract in Florida when he would likely sign a 8 million dollar contract in Toronto, now Florida/Tampa/Nashville/Seattle/Dallas/Utah have an additional 2 million they can spend(if they so choose) than the other teams who would need to pay the 7/8 million to keep/sign that player.

Get 4/5 players to do the same thing, all of a sudden you can sign another 5 million dollar player for depth that other teams can't.

It's a snowball effect that few teams can use.

3) There's always sunning on the beach.

Donde' esta La Playa?

[DawgDad]

I'm all for lower taxes, which is why I live where I do. Others should be as wise.

I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to respectfully give an opposite take. My father in law thought a lot like you. Grew up in the Chicago suburbs, good career, good retirement well deserved. He said he'd never pay Chicago taxes in retirement, and didn't. Sold the house packed everything and moved to Nevada. 6 months later found out he had lung cancer that got to his lymph nodes and moved to his brain. In Chicago we could have visited, our kids could have as well. Nevada wasn't happening, and the only one who made it out there was my wife, and only once before the end. They hadn't even gotten involved in the local church yet so he was cremated and his memorial service was at their old church in suburban Chicago, 1.5 years after they moved. My wife's step mom was completely alone throughout because they were so far from their friends and family. Some things are worth paying for. IMHO

That's sad.

I had to bring my elderly Mom down here to the Atlanta GA metro area from St. Louis. That was hard, she wanted to stay in her home but her friends and family in the area had all died off or moved away. It became unsafe, even with in-home help. My son, an ironworker, boomed around the Country for several years, now has settled his family in Phoenix. That's hard, but we talk a lot and Facetime. My Mom always understood why I moved away, just like I understand and support what my son is doing. It's still hard, the separation.

Back to hockey. I would acknowledge there isn't one size fits all. Many Canadian players probably prefer playing in Canada. Over the years many have settled in St. Louis. A few of the old Flames actually settled here in Atlanta. If a team has a competitive disadvantage maybe the league needs to look at that, but for instance what disadvantage does Toronto or Montreal really have due to taxes? Calgary wasn't attractive to Tkachuk but some players are from that area. Winnipeg won the President's Trophy. The league is going to create big problems if they try to tax or penalize teams for being in low tax rate States. The world isn't equal and never will be, value is judged differently by different people.

[TAFKAP]

I'm all for lower taxes, which is why I live where I do. Others should be as wise.

I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to respectfully give an opposite take. My father in law thought a lot like you. Grew up in the Chicago suburbs, good career, good retirement well deserved. He said he'd never pay Chicago taxes in retirement, and didn't. Sold the house packed everything and moved to Nevada. 6 months later found out he had lung cancer that got to his lymph nodes and moved to his brain. In Chicago we could have visited, our kids could have as well. Nevada wasn't happening, and the only one who made it out there was my wife, and only once before the end. They hadn't even gotten involved in the local church yet so he was cremated and his memorial service was at their old church in suburban Chicago, 1.5 years after they moved. My wife's step mom was completely alone throughout because they were so far from their friends and family. Some things are worth paying for. IMHO

That's sad.

I had to bring my elderly Mom down here to the Atlanta GA metro area from St. Louis. That was hard, she wanted to stay in her home but her friends and family in the area had all died off or moved away. It became unsafe, even with in-home help. My son, an ironworker, boomed around the Country for several years, now has settled his family in Phoenix. That's hard, but we talk a lot and Facetime. My Mom always understood why I moved away, just like I understand and support what my son is doing. It's still hard, the separation.

Back to hockey. I would acknowledge there isn't one size fits all. Many Canadian players probably prefer playing in Canada. Over the years many have settled in St. Louis. A few of the old Flames actually settled here in Atlanta. If a team has a competitive disadvantage maybe the league needs to look at that, but for instance what disadvantage does Toronto or Montreal really have due to taxes? Calgary wasn't attractive to Tkachuk but some players are from that area. Winnipeg won the President's Trophy. The league is going to create big problems if they try to tax or penalize teams for being in low tax rate States. The world isn't equal and never will be, value is judged differently by different people.

I agree 100%

[Red7]

Get rid of the cap and you don’t have these problems. The league almost destroyed itself to get a cap, but left loopholes big enough to drive a Zamboni through.

LITR isn’t always the silver bullet some people think it is. Let’s say a player’s cap hit is $6.5 million. Now, LTIR may give you $6.5 million in cap space, but it doesn’t give you an additional $6.5 million to spend. They still have to pay the player on the LTIR the $6.5. Teams like the Blues maybe be maxing out by spending to the cap to begin with. On the other hand, teams like Vegas might have a lot more resources.

Insurance pays the LTIR. The hockey team is on the hook for roughly 20% (I read that somewhere).
LTIR IS a the silver bullet if teams exploit its loopholes….

Contrary to popular belief, insurance is not bought for every contract. In the case of Krug, if his condition is/was a chronic one, it may have been excluded. Between the premiums and deductibles, the cost of insuring a deal maybe prohibitive. For teams with the resources, LTIR IS a silver bullet. For smaller market teams like the Blues, those loopholes are not as available. While the value of the team has grown, it’s profitably has not matched that growth.