Contract Question

[MarioLives]

If the league is locked out for the whole season, does the year count against a year of a players contract?

[meow]

Yes sir.

[Idoit40fans]

That would presumably be determined if the CBA was ever agreed upon.

[mikey287]

That would presumably be determined if the CBA was ever agreed upon.

Correct.

[Pitt87]

That would presumably be determined if the CBA was ever agreed upon.

Correct.

I don't see how its related to any CBA, former or future. If they play, it counts. If they don't, it doesn't. Injured players are still getting paid and any non-salary items are also still payable, like signing bonuses & buyout payments, per the former CBA. Guys that haven't met their third year to satisfy the entry level contract requirements will just 'slide out' one year if there is not an NHL season, regardless of length.

So... if they come back for half a season in January, players would get prorated per game and it would count as the 'year' of their contract. If no season at all, contracts push out to the following year.

The only question I have... if contracts agreed upon under the current CBA are invalid under a new CBA, would they need to be renegotiated? I would think that they would take case by case, which means a deal like Sid's may be addressed and pass, but the Parise/Suter deals could be in question, for example. I would assume that, under any circumstance, that they would still need to abide by a new cap/floor, if necessary.

[mikey287]

If a season is to be had, then yes, contracts would count...that much is obvious. If there is no season, it adds complication to it. Some players did play, technically, like those sent to the AHL...so, there is some debate there. It probably wouldn't count, but you can't be 100% sure untiil it happens...

As for your last point/question, they wouldn't renegotiate them, they would probably alter them in some way...like Jagr's contract from pre-2004, Alfredsson's three option years at the end of his contract from pre-2004, Marc-Andre Bergeron requesting to get paid in Canadian Dollars so his contract value fluctuated (or whatever he did, something stupid like that), etc. All altered in specific ways to account for the hard cap.

[Pitt87]

If a season is to be had, then yes, contracts would count...that much is obvious. If there is no season, it adds complication to it. Some players did play, technically, like those sent to the AHL...so, there is some debate there. It probably wouldn't count, but you can't be 100% sure untiil it happens...

As for your last point/question, they wouldn't renegotiate them, they would probably alter them in some way...like Jagr's contract from pre-2004, Alfredsson's three option years at the end of his contract from pre-2004, Marc-Andre Bergeron requesting to get paid in Canadian Dollars so his contract value fluctuated (or whatever he did, something stupid like that), etc. All altered in specific ways to account for the hard cap.

AHL time doesn't count for anyone - be it against contract or toward veteran status for RFA or entry level players - if there is no NHL season. Even if you have a two-way component to your deal, its contingent on an NHL season taking place.

So... they all get scaled the same way, or is there some sort of arbitration/mediation for each one?

[mikey287]

I imagine they'd be handled singularly.

Also, I'm not sure why you're so certain and dismissal of the "year not counting" thing in 2004-05, because I don't think you're right. I do believe that year counted as an accrued season towards free agency for non entry-level players...

[Idoit40fans]

If a season is to be had, then yes, contracts would count...that much is obvious. If there is no season, it adds complication to it. Some players did play, technically, like those sent to the AHL...so, there is some debate there. It probably wouldn't count, but you can't be 100% sure untiil it happens...

As for your last point/question, they wouldn't renegotiate them, they would probably alter them in some way...like Jagr's contract from pre-2004, Alfredsson's three option years at the end of his contract from pre-2004, Marc-Andre Bergeron requesting to get paid in Canadian Dollars so his contract value fluctuated (or whatever he did, something stupid like that), etc. All altered in specific ways to account for the hard cap.

AHL time doesn't count for anyone - be it against contract or toward veteran status for RFA or entry level players - if there is no NHL season. Even if you have a two-way component to your deal, its contingent on an NHL season taking place.

So... they all get scaled the same way, or is there some sort of arbitration/mediation for each one?

That wasn't the case last time. The aforementioned alfresson signed a 5 year contract(with options) after the 03-04 season. It expired after the 08-09 season. 5 years, 4 years played in the NHL.

[Pitt87]

If a season is to be had, then yes, contracts would count...that much is obvious. If there is no season, it adds complication to it. Some players did play, technically, like those sent to the AHL...so, there is some debate there. It probably wouldn't count, but you can't be 100% sure untiil it happens...

As for your last point/question, they wouldn't renegotiate them, they would probably alter them in some way...like Jagr's contract from pre-2004, Alfredsson's three option years at the end of his contract from pre-2004, Marc-Andre Bergeron requesting to get paid in Canadian Dollars so his contract value fluctuated (or whatever he did, something stupid like that), etc. All altered in specific ways to account for the hard cap.

AHL time doesn't count for anyone - be it against contract or toward veteran status for RFA or entry level players - if there is no NHL season. Even if you have a two-way component to your deal, its contingent on an NHL season taking place.

So... they all get scaled the same way, or is there some sort of arbitration/mediation for each one?

That wasn't the case last time. The aforementioned alfresson signed a 5 year contract(with options) after the 03-04 season. It expired after the 08-09 season. 5 years, 4 years played in the NHL.

Unlike 2004, NHL & owners have committed to honoring existing contracts that meet the CBA criteria.

[Idoit40fans]

THanks for the news...you should have broke the news that a CBA was agreed upon in the Pens' forum.

[mikey287]

That would presumably be determined if the CBA was ever agreed upon.

Correct.

If they play, it counts. If they don't, it doesn't.

Thought it sounded kinda fishy...and sure enough, it came from the deep blue sea...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409424

If a full season is lost to a lockout, a player loses that entire year on his contract even though no hockey is ever played. That means that a lost year does not somehow carry over to the following year. The year is gone; the money is gone.

[Pitt87]

That would presumably be determined if the CBA was ever agreed upon.

Correct.

If they play, it counts. If they don't, it doesn't.

Thought it sounded kinda fishy...and sure enough, it came from the deep blue sea...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409424

If a full season is lost to a lockout, a player loses that entire year on his contract even though no hockey is ever played. That means that a lost year does not somehow carry over to the following year. The year is gone; the money is gone.

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense; players are employed for a year, and paid for a season. Contract confirms employment in a year, and pays for participating.

Interestingly, since we started talking about this player contracts have come into question as the key negotiating point. On its face, the 50/50 split nullifies player contracts because its less than the total of player salaries. The 'Make Whole' agreement, which seeks a 50/50 split in return for non-salary compensation for current contracts. For this to be the case, it assumes that contracts would need to be changed in the new CBA:

Owners have attempted to address players' concerns with a "Make Whole" provision that guarantees $211 million going back to players retroactively for the money they would lose in the first two seasons of the deal. Their payment is based on a projection that the league's revenue will grow by 5%, and they would provide $149 million to bring the players up to where they were last season. In the second season they would receive $62 million.

I am starting to think that players are putting a lot at risk and not taking the outs they have available...