More details on the new CBA courtesy of Larry Brooks today. The big news is a one-time exception for buyouts this summer that will allow high payroll teams to get under the cap -- the buyout, at two-thirds the contract value after the 24% rollback, will not count against the cap this one time. That throws new light against all speculation about how various teams will adjust existing contracts to the cap. Also factored into this type of speculation are a couple of other items we hadn't seen before (at least not definitively): free agency remaining at age 31 this year, and all 2004-05 contracts wiped out, as the NHL has always wanted.
Other details: payroll range between $22.5 and $39.5 million, to include salaries and benefits; the escrow mechanism the NHL needs to add teeth to its 54-55% revenue linkage; and revenue sharing meaningful enough for Brooks to characterize as "measurably greater than the league's large-revenue clubs are comfortable with." Unresolved issues remain salary arbitration and how injured players are treated under the cap. One notable detail, though not fully specified by Brooks, is that there will be a one-time exception to the new entry level salary structure for players already drafted but not yet signed, presumably a tactic to keep top prospects like Alexander Ovechkin from finding more lucrative rewards outside the NHL.
The impact of the one-time buyout provision on the Rangers, according to Brooks, could look something like this: "The Rangers have interesting calls to make on Bobby Holik ($6.726M each of the next two seasons) and Darius Kasparaitis ($3.344M this year, $3.268 next, and $3.116M for 2007-08), and even on 2004 summer signee Michael Nylander ($2.28M each of the next three seasons). An immediate Garden investment of $19.99M would cut the Rangers' cap obligations to essentially the $4.18M they're going to be charged for Jaromir Jagr and allow the team to start all over."
What the game looks like on the ice when the NHL resumes has been a hot topic the past few weeks, what with all the possible new rules that have been under discussion and under experimentation. Two changes are a lock -- shootouts and tag-up offsides. We still don't get these, either one. Although shootouts will undoubtedly be exciting, Alan Hahn of Newsday (in an article in favor of shootouts) notes that they will take place "after five minutes of numbing, defensive-oriented four-on-four." And here we thought four on four overtime was one of the most exciting new additions to the game. We just don't understand why they don't try extending OT to ten minutes before trying something as unconventional as shootouts.
On tag-up offsides, we thought we were a minority of one to oppose what everyone else thinks is a no-brainer. But now USA Hockey has come down against it as well. Not for the same reason -- they believe the game will be better off with players forced to handle the puck in the neutral zone while their teammates clear the zone rather than be given free dump-ins. While we agree 100% with that, we have a more convincing reason to oppose the rule -- the trap. The defense dumps the puck in, essentially giving up possession while their team clears the zone and regroups in the neutral zone. With the opposition given some free time to set up a break-out play, there is no choice but to set up a trap in the neutral zone -- going in on the forecheck while the other team is already countering would be a terrible decision.
Couldn't agree more about the trap-generating possibility of the tag-up offsides rule. I think they are sacrificing game flow for fewer whistles. I highly doubt tag-ups will be used for their intended purpose -- namely, to tag up and get back on the forecheck. But do you think elimination of the red line or The Bowman Line would at least provide some means to counteract the dump-and-trap? A botched dump-in could easily mean a breakaway in the other direction. I'm not positive this would work, but it might.
Posted by: Nick | June 19, 2005 at 03:54 PM
...and i couldnt agree more about the shootouts. I've been wanting *at least* 10 minutes of OT, for as long as there has been 4-on-4 OT. I actually think they could go a full period of 4-on-4. Im sure they would complain about travelling schedules, late night games, etc., but there's no reason that travel could not be factored in ahead of time, and with the condition of todays atheletes, I think they are missing a prime opportunity to bring some "playoff-like" excitement to the regular season.
Posted by: [saget] | June 20, 2005 at 11:35 AM
I think part of the issue with OT is there are no commercials and it makes broadcasts run over sometimes as it is. I agree with you guys in principle, but I don't think there's any way they can sell a longer overtime to networks.
At least there won't be any more ties, though.
Posted by: Limey | June 20, 2005 at 05:08 PM