Robert Bortuzzo Receives Maximum Fine
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
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
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
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?
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.
- A team can retain up to 50% of a player’s average salary (including bonuses);
- The retained salary amount is uniform over the full length of the player’s contract;
- A team can retain up to three players’ salary at one time;
- A team cannot have more than 15% of the salary cap devoted to retained salary;
- A team cannot retain salary on a player who is already subject to two current retained salary transactions;
- 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;
- 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);
- Retained salary obligations apply to any cap advantage recapture amounts; and
- 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).
NHL Salary Cap Raised To $75 Million
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.
Latest On Salary Cap Limits For 2017-18
There has been much speculation over the past few months over where exactly the upper limit of the NHL salary cap will land for the 2017-18 season. Some have claimed it will remain flat, but a new report from James Mirtle of The Athletic (subscription required) refutes that. Because of the revenue that the league has generated over the past year, Mirtle writes:
It’s important to note here that there’s actually no scenario where the cap goes down or stays flat at $73-million.
Mirtle’s sources tell him that the most likely number for the cap will be $75MM, a relatively low bump but one that could be crucial to teams already pressed to the limit. The Chicago Blackhawks for example are already projected to be over the cap by more than $4MM for next season, while others like the Ducks, Red Wings and Kings could all desperately use a few extra million to work with. It also means that the cap floor is likely to increase at least slightly, meaning teams like Carolina and Arizona, currently projected for less than the 2016-17 floor, will need to do some work to increase their payroll for next season.
The decision on the upper limit comes down to whether the NHLPA exercises its full 5% escalator as it has traditionally done. This year, as Mirtle writes, the players’ union is considering not pushing it up as far as possible because of the escrow issue that has been brought up several times. Not only is the amount of escrow players are losing off each paycheck determining this specific decision, but negotiations on a whole between the two sides when it comes to the next CBA. It has been widely speculated that the players may use their 2019 termination deadline to opt-out of the current agreement in 2020, which could potentially cause another work stoppage for the league should a new deal not be ironed out.
Either way, the expected increase in the salary cap for next season will come as a breath of fresh air for several teams hoping to make an impact in free agency this summer, and for those with several high-priced restricted free agents to sign this summer (see: Tampa Bay, Nashville). For other clubs, like Toronto and Edmonton who will have to pay their young talent over the next few seasons, any increase above $75MM would also be welcome. According to Mirtle, should the NHLPA use the entire 5% the cap would sit somewhere around $77.5MM, a large increase from last season.
Snapshots: CBA, Getzlaf, Ekman-Larsson, De La Rose
While the expiration of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement is still several years away (the earliest expiration date is September 15, 2020), NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly has already brought up one element that the owners will be looking to tweak. Speaking at the Sports Lawyers Association Annual Conference, Daly told the attendees, including Liz Mullen of the Sports Business Journal (Twitter links), that they will be looking to redefine the definition of Hockey Related Revenues, more commonly referred to as HRR, which set the salary cap and floor. He clarified that they want to make definitions more precise and that it wouldn’t necessarily mean that they would be looking to exclude (or include) certain income as part of HRR.
On the union side, Steve Fehr, special counsel for the NHLPA, noted to Mullen (Twitter link) and others in attendance that the biggest issues they intend to look at are escrow and cap management issues. Escrow has risen sharply since being instituted to the point where some expect that the players won’t exercise their cap inflator next month in an effort to reduce the percentage that is withheld off of each pay.
CBA talks are still probably another couple of years away but we’re already starting to hear what some of the key points will be when discussions get underway.
Elsewhere around the hockey world:
- Ducks center Ryan Getzlaf has been fined $10K for a homophobic remark uttered during Thursday’s Game Four against Nashville, the league announced. The fine is the maximum allowed under the CBA.
- There will be two Ekman-Larssons in the Coyotes organization next season. Arizona’s AHL affiliate in Tuscon announced the signing of defenseman Kevin Ekman-Larsson to a one year, minor league contract. He is the younger brother of Coyotes blueliner Oliver Ekman-Larsson. The 22 year old has spent the past two seasons with Tingsryds AIF of the Swedish Allsvenskan.
- Canadiens center prospect Jacob de la Rose is drawing interest from the SHL, he told Värmlands Folkblad’s Johan Ekberg (link in Swedish). However, the pending RFA noted that his priority is to remain playing in North America and that talks have already started with Montreal on a new contract. He played in just nine NHL games this season, the fewest in his three years with the Canadiens.
Pending Restricted Free Agents And Offer Sheets
It’s been four years since the last offer sheet in the NHL, but that hasn’t stopped the speculation surrounding them.
The past two years leave little clue to what could happen this summer. Two summers ago saw several major moves made to avoid the threat of an offer sheet, then last summer saw seven high-end players go the entire summer without a new contract with no whisper of an offer sheet.
Leon Draisaitl, David Pastrnak, Mikael Granlund, Ryan Johansen, Viktor Arvidsson, Evegeni Kuznetsov, Alexander Wennberg, and 23 more 30-plus point scorers are restricted free agents this summer. Those seven names all scored more than 59 points this past season, and would be plug-and-play options on most NHL clubs. And while the official compensation has not been reported for the upcoming season, last season it broke down this way (per Elliott Friedman):
| Less than $1.23MM | No compensation |
| $1.23MM to $1.87MM | Third-round pick |
| $1.87MM to $3.75MM | Second-round pick |
| $3.75MM to $5.63MM | First and third-round picks |
| $5.63MM to $7.51MM | First, second and third-round picks |
| $7.51MM to $9.38MM | Two firsts, a second and third-round picks |
| Over $9.38MM | Four first-round picks |
The price to acquire a marquee name would realistically be two first-round picks, a second, and a third. Arguably, none of those players are in line to make more than $7.5MM on their new deals with their current clubs, but offer sheets need to be high enough to discourage the player’s club from matching, leading to overpaying players. It’s for that reason that offer sheets are so rare; no GM can afford to harm their team’s reputation among their peers (or take part in a barn fight). Additionally, offer sheets raise salaries and no team owner wants to be seen as responsible in the next CBA talks. Back in the mid-90s, Colorado Avalanche superstar Joe Sakic signed an offer sheet with the New York Rangers that raised the standard salary for NHL stars from $3MM to $7MM.
On TSN 690 in Montreal, where fans and media are speculating about a potential offer sheet for the Oilers’ big center Draisaitl, TSN Insider Darren Dreger shot down rumors. Dreger believes the Oilers know what it will likely take to sign Draisaitl and 2018-RFA Connor McDavid and are willing to sacrifice players like Jordan Eberle and perhaps even Ryan Nugent-Hopkins in order to keep their two young stars together. As mentioned above, offer sheets harm working relationships and with other big names becoming available from Edmonton for cap purposes in the coming few years, it doesn’t make sense to rule one’s team out of those discussions.
Realistically, the threat of an offer sheet is a more effective way to acquire a player. In 2015, the Bruins and Blackhawks traded Dougie Hamilton and Brandon Saad quickly to avoid being hit with an offer sheet. In the Blackhawks’ case, losing Saad for draft picks would have lead to future trades to replace him. Acquiring actual NHL players and prospects (like Artem Anisimov and Marko Dano) is more valuable than the risk associated with draft picks because the GM knows exactly what he’s getting back.
While fans and media love to speculate about offer sheets, the combination of losing several high draft picks, CBA issues, and the guarantee of harming the franchise’s reputation, it’s understandable why offer sheets are close to extinct.
2020 World Cup Tied To New CBA
While the 2016 World Cup of Hockey wasn’t as successful as the NHL and NHLPA had hoped, it was a promising first step for a tournament that had been dormant since 2004. Now according to Gord Miller of TSN, who is commentating the IIHF World Championship currently, the 2020 tournament may be in jeopardy.
Miller tweets that the World Cup is “unlikely” should the NHLPA opt out of the current CBA—which they can do in September 2019—and don’t have a new agreement in place in time for the 2020-21 season. The 2004 tournament was followed by a lockout, a situation that will not be allowed to happen again.
There has been speculation for months (if not years) that the NHLPA will utilize their opt-out clause due to the growing concern over escrow and the NHL’s stance on the Olympics. When the NHL tried to bargain a CBA extension for Olympic participation, it was met with a resounding rejection from the players. Executive Director Donald Fehr at the time told the Canadian Press that there was “no appetite among players to extend the agreement.”
As Pierre LeBrun of TSN clarifies, neither side wants to hold the World Cup before they “turn the lights off” on a season, and have been in agreement on that part since the September tournament. It’s interesting though, that not only will the next negotiations impact league play but international competition as well. The 2019 opt-out dates—September 1st, 2019 for the league, and September 19th, 2019 for the players—will some of the most important since the last lockout to determine the future of the league.