Rumored Proposal to Save Season

[calgARI '07]

So this appears to be the frame work for a deal that the owners are tabling and the players are supposedly voting on today.

$40 million dollar soft cap with a dollar for dollar tax.

A hard cap will kick in at 50 million, which includes tax money (essentially a $45 million cap)

Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be except from the hard cap.

The UFA age will be lowered to 28 years old

The players 24% roll back is part of the deal.

Rookie cap $850k plus $850k in bonus. An unnamed amount will be available for exception numbers.

Arbitration is available only once per career. Teams can take one player to arbitration once a year.

Qualification of players at 100% of current salary.

Luxury tax funds will be split amongst teams under the cap (undisclosed at this time).

Everything is great except the franchise player part coupled with the 28 year UFA age which, as a fan of a small market team, would hurt them very badly with Iginla turning 28 on July 1st.

[KenP]

Can you translate some for me?  Also, what is the quality of this offer compared to other deals that have been passed around?  How constrictive is the $40M or $50M?

Hard vs Soft salary caps

UFA age

Qualification

[Steve M]

From your post and your handle I take it you're from Calgary.  If so I can understand why you have such in depth hockey knowledge as a sophomore.  From what I've read about Iginla, he seems like the type of guy who will probably want to stay in Calgary, given that he never asked for a trade in spite of all the Flames' lean years up until now.

[calgARI '07]

UFA stands for Unrestricted Free Agency.  Under the last CBA, the age was 31, so when you become a free agent (July 1st is when contracts expire) at or after that age, a player can sign anywhere he chooses without any compensation to his last team (except a draft pick awarded by the NHL).

When a player's contract expires prior to UFA age, he is a Restricted Free Agent.  To retain the rights of a restricted free agent (under a certain salary threshold which was at 4 million in the last CBA I believe), a team must tender a qualifying offer to that player prior to July 1st.  Players can either accept or reject that offer, but regardless, if the team makes the offer, then they retain that player's rights.  Until the last two summers it was almost unheard of for teams not to tender qualifying offers.  In 2003, Anaheim chose not to tender Paul Kariya a qualifying offer and he became a UFA and signed with Colorado.  Under the last CBA, qualifying offers had to be a 10% raise on the previous base salary, thus guarunteeing all players raises even if they had been vastly underachieving.

The salary cap issue is clearly the biggest in this entire feud.  A salary cap can go hand in hand with a luxury tax.  At 40 million, there is sort of a cap, except teams can go over that cap and pay a tax to the league.  If they go over by 5 million, then they owe another 5 million in taxes.

This is by far the most intensive offer put forward by either side.  I really think there is a good chance of it flying.  You can just see how unsubstantial the players' proposal of December was by asking for ONLY a 24% rollback in salaries.  This has the rollback plus tons of mechanisms to generally keep those salaries at a managable level.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:

 From your post and your handle I take it you're from Calgary.  If so I can understand why you have such in depth hockey knowledge as a sophomore.  From what I've read about Iginla, he seems like the type of guy who will probably want to stay in Calgary, given that he never asked for a trade in spite of all the Flames' lean years up until now.[/q]

I'm actually from Ithaca, but am a life long Flames fan and watch every game religiously for years.  I like to think the same thing about Iginla but his agent is Don Meehan who has a history of always taking the most money he can find.  Flames fans have been predicting - with sadness - Iginla's exit for a while.  He is currently without a contract so whatever contract he gets in wake of a new CBA will certainly show how much he wants to be in Calgary.  

Luckily, Calgary has a franchise player coming to town as soon as the NHL resumes again in Dion Phaneuf.  Think Scott Stevens with much higher offensive upside.  Most people thought that he was the best player in the world last year not playing in the NHL as a 19 year old.

[Greg Berge]

Iginla has a Cornell connection, btw.  He was the other key player in the trade that sent Nieuwendyk to Dallas.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

 Iginla has a Cornell connection, btw.  He was the other key player in the trade that sent Nieuwendyk to Dallas.[/q]

other key player?  who was the other one?  Corey Millen?  Iginla was THE key player in the deal.  Al Coates (Flames GM when it happened) turned down some deals that looked a lot better at the time, most notably Mike Keenan's offer Chris Pronger and others for Nieuwendyk.  I was infuriated when the deal went down because Nieuwendyk was my favorite player and the reason I liked the Flames in the first place, but I'm feeling pretty good about it now.

[KenP]

Trying to compare the $40/$50 million to status quo.  What are the current team payrolls?  Highest?  Lowest?  Average?

[pfibiger]

I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.

[pfibiger]

Ken,

here's a table w/ all the payrolls:

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

lowest is Nashville w/ 23.2 million, highest is Detroit w/ 77.8 million.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]pfibiger Wrote:

 I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.[/q]

O I get it now!  Anyways, it was Nieuwendyk for Millen and Iginla.  Iginla remained in juniors after the trade but was signed during the playoffs and he stepped in on the first line and got a goal and an assist in two playoff games.  He wouldn't play another NHL playoff game until last spring.

[Greg Berge]

[Q]pfibiger Wrote:

 I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.[/q]

Correct.

[KenP]

Okay, so the average last year was $44.0 M.  12 teams were over, 18 teams were under.  With the 24% rollback, 7 of those 12 teams would still be over the $40 soft cap, and 3 would still be over the $50 hard cap (Stars, Rangers, Red Wings).
[q]Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be excempt from the hard cap.[/q]Does this mean I could pay Iginla $40 million per year, and it wouldn't be factored in?

Also, I don't see anything about signing bonuses.  What's to stop the top teams from offering outlandish signing bonuses, and sign them to long-term minimum contracts?

[calgARI '07]

[Q]KenP Wrote:

 Okay, so the average last year was $44.0 M.  12 teams were over, 18 teams were under.  With the 24% rollback, 7 of those 12 teams would still be over the $40 soft cap, and 3 would still be over the $50 hard cap (Stars, Rangers, Red Wings).
[Q2]Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be excempt from the hard cap.[/Q]
Does this mean I could pay Iginla $40 million per year, and it wouldn't be factored in?

Also, I don't see anything about signing bonuses.  What's to stop the top teams from offering outlandish signing bonuses, and sign them to long-term minimum contracts?
[/q]

This is a gray area.  Nobody knows how the Franchise Players will fit into the luxury tax.  Most people seem to think after $50 million, they are included in the tax threshold.  
Off the top of my head I don't know what players are free agents from Dallas, NYR, and Detroit, but I would imagine they are below $50 million when factoring that in.

[CUlater 89]

As an aside, from what I can tell from the postings here, "soft cap" is not the correct term.  It sounds like that is the level above which a luxury tax is to be imposed.  A soft cap is what the NBA had -- a salary cap that a team can go over in order to re-sign its own players.  A hard cap is what the NFL has -- no going over it.