Headlines

Go To MLB Trade Rumors
Go To Hoops Rumors

CBA

Poll: Fairness In NHL’s Fines And Suspensions?

at CDT | by 6 Comments

In a season where penalties are down, there has been a surprising amount of newsworthy fines and suspensions early on in 2017-18. The unfortunate thing for the NHL is the only common theme between these instances of league punishment seem to be inconsistency and a lack of sense.

Three players – Steven Stamkos, Kevin Hayes, and most recently Matt Dumba – have been fined $5,000 apiece this season for water squirting. It’s not exactly a lethal offense, but is probably worthy of a minor infraction. Except, Alex Killorn received the same $5,000 fine in the same game as Stamkos’ and Hayes’ water fight for viciously jabbing Hayes until he received a slashing penalty. J.T. Brown and Steven Kampfer then riled up the benches with a long, intense fight and received no additional penalty minutes outside their matching majors and no fines. In a separate instance the other night, Patrick Kane also received a $5,000 fine. His offense: this two-handed swinging slash on Nick Ritchie which could have been much worse had it landed cleanly.

The curious thing about all of these fines is that they are the maximum under the NHL CBA. This came up earlier in the season as well, when Robert Bortuzzo’s received the max fine of just over $3,000 for pinning down and repeatedly cross-checking Brock Nelson. So in summary, water squirting has been a fine-able offense three times this season, and for the same maximum amount as slashing and more than the maximum amount for cross-checking.

Then, there are suspensions. The ten-game ban for perennial bad guy Radko Gudas was well-earned, while the ten-game suspension for leaving the bench handed out to Luke Witkowski is a tried and true policy. Yet, Witkowski was responding to this jab from Matthew Tkachuk which more or less also happened off the ice. For that offense, Tkachuk received only a one-game suspension. As minor a “spear” as it might have been, Tkachuk still made contact with a player off the ice, but the NHL thought Witkowski stepping back on the ice to have words with Tkachuk was ten times worse? Tkachuk was back in the spotlight the other night, drawing a four-game suspension for Gabriel Landeskog, who NHL Player Safety even acknowledged was not intending to hurt Tkachuk, so much as get him away from the puck.

On it’s face, the NHL’s fines and suspensions – a product of both the league and NHLPA – seem inconsistent at best. But what say you? Do you think these are isolated incidents? Or a pattern of inequitable punishment?

[Mobile users click here to vote!]

Snapshots: Free Agency, Soshnikov, Scandella

at CDT | by Leave a Comment

While all eyes are on John Tavares of the New York Islanders as we get closer and closer to July 1, 2018, Craig Custance of The Athletic examines the impressive list of other top names headed for unrestricted free agency next summer. Custance updates us on the current situations for each one, including interesting notes on several impending KHL free agents.

The most intriguing one out of Russia will once again be Ilya Kovalchuk, who last year wasn’t able to find a deal because of the rights New Jersey still held. Those rights will expire after the season because he’s now 35, making him free to sign with anyone in the league. Custance expects it to take “a multi-year deal in the $6 to 7 million range,” but notes that he is still seen as a potential impact player around the league. Kovalchuk has 20 goals and 36 points in 31 games for St. Petersburg this season.

  • Also from The Athletic, Pierre LeBrun speaks directly to Toronto Maple Leafs GM Lou Lamoriello about the recent Nikita Soshnikov recall, and how it was partially forced by a clause in his deal that would have allowed him to go back to Russia. Interestingly, Lamoriello tells him that even had Soshnikov been assigned to the KHL the Maple Leafs would have retained the ability to recall him at any time. Instead, the team brought him up and are excited about how he’s played this season in the minor leagues. With 12 points in 14 games for the Toronto Marlies, Soshnikov was arguably their best player so far this year.
  • Marco Scandella has been fined $5,000 for slashing Patric Hornqvist last night, the maximum amount allowed under the CBA. It’s not the first time Scandella has been disciplined by the Department of Player Safety, as he was fined and suspended previously for checks to the head. Some New York fans might even be familiar with his slashing prowess (h/t @myregularface) from his days with the Minnesota Wild.

Gary Bettman Speaks On Olympics, CBA

at CDT | by Leave a Comment

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman took the stage today in Toronto at the PrimeTime Sports Management conference, and was asked a multitude of questions regarding the upcoming 2018 Olympic Games and the possibility of expansion in the future. Emily Kaplan of ESPN was there and reported on the highlights, including one particularly chilling Olympic answer.

One: [IOC President] Thomas Bach said if you don’t go to Korea, you can’t come to Beijing. Well, OK. Thank you. The second is, if the Winter Olympics comes back to North America, I’m not saying we’d go, but it’s a different equation.

Gary BettmanThe mention of Beijing of course refers to the 2022 Olympics set to be held in China, a Games that there is no guarantee the NHL will return for. There is clearly a desire from the players to go to the international tournament, as stars from Alex Ovechkin to Connor McDavid to Drew Doughty have all expressed their disappointment this year. Not every player gets many chances to represent his country at a tournament as highly-regarded as the Olympics, but perhaps the NHL is trying to change that. Bettman brought up the World Cup, a NHL-NHLPA owned event that had a so-so reception from the hockey world last fall. The league wants to hold that tournament every four years, which would essentially replace the Olympics in some sense.

It is interesting that Bettman mentioned the North American factor, as just today Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi spoke to reporters including Donna Spencer of the Canadian Press about the city’s potential 2026 bid.

It’s council’s choice, it’s Calgary’s choice, but if we choose to bid, we’ll win. The question is, is it right for Calgary right now? If it’s right for Calgary, then we will go all guns in. I think that we will have an incredibly powerful bid and I think we’ll win.

The return of the Winter Olympics to Canadian soil would surely come with public outcry for the league to return, and Bettman has obviously already had discussions about that exact scenario. There is by no means a guarantee that Calgary submits a bid (in fact, today’s comments may lean towards them abandoning the project) but it is nice to hear that the league admits it would be a different situation should they come back to North America.

Interestingly, the current President of the IIHF Rene Fasel also announced that he will retire from his position in 2020 when his term is up. While there is no indication that would change anything between them, the IOC and the NHL, it could spark at least some more dialogue on how to get the best players in the world back competing.

Much of the Olympic and World Cup talk though revolves around what will happen in 2019 when both the NHL and NHLPA have opt-outs from the current CBA. That would cancel the agreement in 2020, meaning a possible work stoppage is again on the horizon. Bettman talked about how he hates work stoppages, but would do whatever is needed to secure a solid future for the game. With a dispute over escrow becoming the main talking point between the two sides, the next two years should be filled with hard-nosed negotiations and media mud-slinging. For fans of a sport that’s seen a season and a half already lost to work stoppages in the last 15 years, the possibility of another one is a crippling thought.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images

Stamkos, Killorn, Hayes Fined By NHL

at CDT | by 4 Comments

The punishment doesn’t always fit the crime, especially in the NHL’s fine system. In early October, some fans were outraged when St. Louis Blues defenseman Robert Bortuzzo received a fine of just over $3,000 for repeated cross check to the back of New York Islanders forward Brock Nelson. The fine was the maximum amount prescribed by the NHL collective bargaining agreement, but many felt that such a relatively small amount of money was not nearly enough for a fairly brutal showing by Bortuzzo.

Now, the script has flipped. Tampa Bay Lightning forwards Steven Stamkos and Alex Killorn and New York Rangers counterpart Kevin Hayes have all been fined $5,000 for a conspiracy of… water squirting? TSN reports that in Thursday night’s game the trio all engaged in what the league has defined as unsportsmanlike conduct. Hayes got the affair started when he sprayed Killorn with water from the Rangers’ bench prior to the pair taking the ice. On the ensuing face-off, Killorn retaliated with multiple jabs directed at Hayes, for which he received a slashing penalty. In defense of the perceived wrong to his teammate, Stamkos went the “eye for an eye” route and sprayed water at the Rangers bench. All three were determined to be equally guilty in the affair, while J.T. Brown and Steven Kampfer, whose fight was heavily endorsed by their respective benches, received no share of the blame.

Objectively, it seems silly for water squirting to warrant a $5,000 fine, even if that amount is equivalent to roughly $5 for the majority. However, in the context of Bortuzzo’s maximum $3,000 fine for cross-checking, it seems that the league has their priorities out of alignment. A re-haul to the fine structure in the CBA may be need to be addressed at the table during the league’s next bargaining, if not sooner.

Robert Bortuzzo Receives Maximum Fine

at CDT | by 3 Comments

The NHL Department of Player Safety was working quickly today. During the matinee match-up between the St. Louis Blues and New York Islanders, Blues defenseman Robert Bortuzzo was handed a double-minor for repeated cross-checks to the back of Isles forward Brock Nelson. (video) Not long after the end of the game, Player Safety announced that Bortuzzo would be fined $3,091.40, the maximum fine under the CBA.

While a seemingly random and not overwhelming amount, the fine is not without some effect. Bortuzzo’s salary for the 2017-18 season is just $1.15MM, which prorated to an 82-game schedule, is about $14K a night. Bortuzzo not only served his four minute penalty this afternoon, he also lost nearly a quarter of his game check. It’s not a major loss, but then again for a simple cross-checking penalty following an admittedly major hit from Nelson, it does send a message. The NHL is working toward cleaning up the game and even a small fine such as this may help to eliminate a violent, pointless penalty like Bortuzzo’s.

Nevertheless, St. Louis – and Bortuzzo – will take a fine over a suspension any day. With five starters already on the injured reserve, including defenseman Jay Bouwmeester, the Blues can ill afford another loss. Bortuzzo also saves that other 75% of his per game that he would otherwise lose with a one-game suspension for example. With that said, the bruising blue liner will have to watch his step for the remainder of the season; chances are Player Safety won’t be as nice to a repeat offender.

NCAA Free Agent Rules

at CDT | by Leave a Comment

Some of the most intricate rules in the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement have to do with player draft rights. Depending both on where the player was when drafted, and the path he takes after being selected exclusive negotiating rights can be held for anywhere between two years and indefinitely. When it comes to players joining the NCAA ranks, it gets even trickier.

We saw one of the less often used tactics earlier this summer, when Cal Petersen declared he would not return to Notre Dame for his senior season. Since Petersen had been drafted four years ago, the Buffalo Sabres were given 30 days in which to sign him or lose his exclusive negotiating rights. The Sabres couldn’t get him under contract, and a month later the Los Angeles Kings scooped him up. Petersen could use this tactic because of the year he spent in the USHL after his draft, pushing his scheduled graduation to five years out from his draft year.

But this isn’t the method you want to hear about today. Will Butcher and Alex Kerfoot lead a group of players who will see their draft rights expire today after completing their senior seasons, and will be allowed to sign with any team in the NHL tomorrow, August 16th. Though their free agency is being widely reported as starting today, teams actually retain their negotiating rights through the end of day.  From Section 8.6(c)(i) of the NHL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement:

If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.

Though it’s quite possible that teams are already talking to the upcoming free agents—probable even, despite not technically being allowed to do so—they won’t be signing with anyone until tomorrow. Since this version of the CBA was introduced only Robbie Russo signed right away, inking with the Detroit Red Wings on August 16th nearly immediately after becoming a free agent. Last year we saw John Gilmour lead the pack by signing with the New York Rangers on August 18th, before Thomas DiPauli and Jimmy Vesey followed on the 19th to Pittsburgh and New York respectively.

While Butcher and Kerfoot are exciting players, and should sign within a few days of becoming free agents we will have to wait for one more day before anything can be officially announced. For now, they’re still tied to the Colorado Avalanche and New Jersey Devils.

*Note: Kerfoot actually could have used the method described in Petersen’s case to become a free agent last summer, since he played an additional season in the BCHL after being selected by the Devils in 2012. For ease of reading we did not include all of the CBA provisions, but if you’d like to read more about why his rights are held through and including August 15th, check out Section 8.6(c)(iii). 

Mutual Terminations And Their Value To Players

at CDT | by Leave a Comment

Over the last three seasons in particular, we’ve seen a number of so-called “mutual terminations”. In fact, we’ve seen more mutual terminations over this period than buyouts. They are just as they sound – when a player and team decide their prior arrangement is no longer agreeable, the teams cut ties entirely. The benefit for the team is that the cap hit of the player is cancelled out entirely. The benefit for the player is that they then have the opportunity to seek employment with a different franchise or a different league. Unfortunately for players, such an agreement may not be totally in their favor.

In the 2016-17 season, there were exactly 10 mutual terminations. Most of them flew under the radar, even for the most avid of hockey fans. The players concerned were David Rundblad (Chicago), Ben Johnson (New Jersey), Mason Raymond (Anaheim), Calle Andersson (New York Rangers), Nicklas Grossmann (Calgary), Axel Blomqvist (Winnipeg), Matt Carle (Nashville), Matia Marcantuoni (Arizona), Gregory Campbell (Columbus), and Jonathan-Ismael Diaby (Nashville). Not a single one of these players competed in another NHL game last season. That’s a success rate of exactly 0% on the player end. Regardless of one’s opinions of these particular players’ hockey abilities, the likelihood of them seeing game action prior to termination was much higher. (It should be noted that Carle announced his retirement, while Johnson was incarcerated, so it’s more like 0-for-8)

Rundblad was forced to return to the Swiss-A League, where he found moderate success with Zurich HC. Andersson also made a return appearance in the Swiss League, playing 26 games as a depth forward. Grossman played 28 games in the Swedish Hockey League with the lowly Orebro, while Blomqvist played only 7 contests for the SHL’s Sodertalje. Campbell, luckily, was employed by the Jackets as a player development coach. Raymond was an interesting case, as he refused to report to the San Diego Gulls due to family issues, which made the arrangement less “mutual” than the others. He signed a contract with SC Bern in June.

Each of these players struggled to find meaningful employment elsewhere while two didn’t find any whatsoever (Marcantuoni & Diaby). It’s understandable as to why a player would want to stay in game action, considering that every player subject to mutual termination is necessarily under the age of 35. Maintaining the physical standards of a pro hockey player is difficult, and being benched for the majority of a season can be crippling to future success. Still, there are solid hockey players on this list who saw marginal benefits from negating the remainder of their contracts. Seven contests for Sodertalje doesn’t really qualify as meaningful. And the story from past seasons is much the same. If you look through the 2015-16 list, most are essentially out of hockey at this point. None have played over 40 contests in a season for a serious foreign league outside of Petr Zamorsky for the SHL. Most terminated players don’t even see over 20 games total after this arrangement.

In the negotiations for a new CBA, this sort of maneuvering might become an issue of contention. Management loves this loophole, as it allows cap and total contract space with no repercussions to the organization. Still, there is an element of strong-arming to this arrangement, one in which the player rarely, if ever, comes out on top. Unless the player has a prior arrangement already in place, it’s a risky proposition. It will be interesting to see how often this strategy will be utilized in 2017-18.

Making Your Case At An Arbitration Hearing

at CDT | by Leave a Comment

With the salary arbitration figures for Tomas Tatar and Colton Parayko leaking today, it is worthwhile to take a look at what actually goes on at an arbitration hearing. Salary arbitration determines a player’s salary through a hearing governed by a third-party arbitrator. The arbitrator takes all the permissible evidence into account in deciding how much a player should be paid per year. This section outlines three key elements of that process: term, permissible evidence, and the decision.

Term

The party being brought to salary arbitration chooses whether the decision is for one or two years. If a team chooses, however, they are restricted to one year if the player is eligible for unrestricted free agent the following year.

Evidence

Parties can present witnesses, affidavits (sworn written testimony), documents, statistics, and any other relevant evidence during the hearing, subject to certain restrictions (see more below). The CBA suggests the following preferred evidence:

  • the player’s overall performance in previous seasons;
  • number of games played in context of injuries or illnesses (or lack thereof);
  • length of service in the league or with the team;
  • how much a player contributed to the success/failure of his team last season;
  • special qualities of leadership or public appeal relevant to his team responsibilities (i.e. the intangibles).
  • performance of players considered comparable to the player in question by either party; or
  • compensation of players considered comparable to the player in question by either party.

As stated above, this list is subject to certain restrictions.  The CBA prohibits parties from introducing or using the following:

  • any contract signed outside restricted free agency, including one signed after a team exercises a walk-away right;
  • any contract of a player not considered a comparable by either party;
  • any contract otherwise permissible that is signed less than three hours before the hearing starts.
  • qualifying offers;
  • the negotiation history between the parties, including any offers made;
  • testimonials, videotapes, newspaper columns, press game reports, or similar materials;
  • references to walk-away rights;
  • any award issued by an arbitrator that preceded a team exercising its walk-away rights;
  • a team or NHL’s financial condition;
  • a team’s salary cap (or floor) situation;
  • any salary arbitration award issued in ’05-’06; or
  • compensation information for salary arbitration awards issued before July 22nd 2005.

There are three main takeaways from the evidentiary rules. One, the arbitrator’s decision is based largely on a player’s stats and intangibles, and the compensation received by players with similar stats and intangibles. Two, visual evidence such as highlight reels and game tape do not factor in to the arbitrator’s decision. This makes any determination strictly fact-based. Finally, if, during a players hearing, a comparable player signs an otherwise admissible contract, that contract cannot be used as evidence by either party.

Decision

The arbitrator’s decision comes within 48 hours after the hearing closes. The decision states:

  • the contract term (one or two years as mentioned above);
  • NHL salary to be paid by the team for that term;
  • whether it is a two-way contract, and how much the player is paid in the AHL; and
  • a statement explaining the decision.

Walk Away Rights

A team may reject an arbitration decision in a player-elected salary arbitration if the award is $3.9MM or more per year. That threshold increases by the same percentage rate that the average league salary increases.

A team does not have unlimited walk away rights. Rather, the number of times a team can reject a decision is tied to the number of decisions issued. A team facing up to two decisions has one walk away right. A team facing three of four decisions has two walk away rights. Finally, a team facing five decisions has three walk away rights.

The consequences of rejecting a decision depends on whether the club elected a one or two year term. If the decision is for a one year term, the player immediately becomes an unrestricted free agent. If the decision is for a two year term, the player and team enter into a one year contract for the salary awarded. The player becomes an unrestricted free agent at the end of that year.

Who’s Playing On Another Team’s Dime?

at CDT | by 5 Comments

The most recent CBA introduced retained salary transactions—trades where a team trade a player but agree to pay a percentage of his salary. This is ideal when a team wants a player but will have trouble fitting him in under the cap. The ability to retain salary comes with restrictions, however, so let’s briefly look at how retained salary transactions work before looking at which players are subject to them.

  1. A team can retain up to 50% of a player’s average salary (including bonuses);
  2. The retained salary amount is uniform over the full length of the player’s contract;
  3. A team can retain up to three players’ salary at one time;
  4. A team cannot have more than 15% of the salary cap devoted to retained salary;
  5. A team cannot retain salary on a player who is already subject to two current retained salary transactions;
  6. If a team acquires a player with retained salary, then trades him while also retaining salary, the second retained salary agreement cannot modify the initial retained salary agreement;
  7. Teams cannot reacquire a player within a year of trading him if it agreed to retain salary in the initial transaction (unless the player’s contract terminated);
  8. Retained salary obligations apply to any cap advantage recapture amounts; and
  9. Retained salary obligations still apply if a player is bought out or loaned to an AHL club. The NHL team would pay a portion of the player’s AHL salary (if applicable).

Read more

NHL Salary Cap Raised To $75 Million

at CDT | by Leave a Comment

The NHL’s salary cap ceiling has been raised by $2 MM to $75 MM, according to NBC and various sources. The NHLPA voted on this decision back on June 16th according to TSN’s Pierre Lebrun, and the results of that vote resulted in next season’s total. The floor (or minimum) will be set at $55.4 MM.

The increase is slightly less than what many fans had hoped for, though the figure had been floated around for quite some time. This is only a 2.6% increase in the ceiling, which is less than the option the NHLPA could have opted for – an automatic 5% yearly increase. The stagnation in the cap overall is concerning to many teams who are very near the cap and/or have players due raises in the near future.

Many teams have been operating under the assumption that the ceiling would be around this number, so it shouldn’t affect any single organization too greatly. The team that will be most impacted is the Chicago Blackhawks, who are already over that ceiling. Teams such as the Washington Capitals and Tampa Bay Lightning highlight a group that will struggle to get a compliant roster in the near future with such little room to maneuver.

Pro Hockey Rumors is not affiliated with National Hockey League, NHL or NHL.com

Do not Sell or Share My Personal Information

scroll to top