On the Wings

According to TSN, the Wings will anounce that they have signed Mike Babcock, 42, to a multi-year contract sometime next week. It is speculated that the MLB All Star Game in Detroit is the reason the Wings delayed the announcement. Stay tuned…

With all the uncertainties swirling about the 2005-2006 season, the question of whether Steve Yzerman will return for a 22nd season with the Wings hasn’t been the focus of many Wings fans. GM Ken Holland hopes to meet with Yzerman, 40, before the end of July and get him to return for one last season. Says Holland:

“We want him back. He’s a tremendous leader, we still believe he’s got some real good hockey left in him. I think he should go out playing the game on the ice.”

Though it is easy to ask Yzerman to return, things will get tougher at the negotiating table. The Captain was slated to make $4.5 million last season. The NHLPA has been fighting to have those contracts counted, but the NHL is unlikely to concede on that and subject teams to even more widespread buyouts than already predicted. When Yzerman meets with Holland, it will take a balance between offering him enough money so as not to insult him and not over-doing the reputation/legacy salary. He will certainly have to take a significant pay cut - probably in the range of $1-1.5 million.

Rumor is that Yzerman is unsure about returning, but wants to be guaranteed a prominent role on the team rather than become a Slava Fetisov-like figurehead on his retirement tour. Holland echoes this sentiment:

“He can make us a better team. When you think of the Detroit Red Wings, you think of Steve Yzerman. I think he should go out playing the game on the ice.”

Of course Holland is referring to Yzerman’s severe eye injury in the Calgary series, which has to be a factor in his return next season. Not only in that Yzerman wants to go out on his own terms, but that symptoms of the injury could affect the return. Reports of his recovering from the injury are always qualified with statements that he is still sensitive to light and still experiencing symptoms, however slight they may be. He has also become an instant advocate of the visor since the incident, and it is unclear how wearing a visor will affect his game.

Yzerman is scheduled to participate in Team Canada’s Olympic training camp a month from now, which will likely be the benchmark of Yzerman’s decision. Having only played in charity games and low-key skates since the injury, this will be Yzerman’s first real hockey in almost a year and a half. I expect him to make his decision closer to the camp, when he at least knows he has the legs to get out there and skate.

–In other Wings news, we now know that Brendan Shanahan will exercise his $3 million option for next season, as was expected. The $2.28 million post-rollback is likely as good as Shanny can expect coming off a disappointing season, while also considering the top salaries will be in the neighborhood of $6 million.

As for Barry Smith, Holland promises to put the good word in for the associate coach:

“I’m going to tell the next head coach that Barry has a great feel for the game, has a passion for the game. He does a great job with X’s and O’s and can bring to the coaching staff a very valuable trait.”

The chances that Barry sticks around are about as good as Lewie accepting his scouting offer. If anything, I’d give a better chance to Joey Kocur taking up his old role as video coach for the Wings…sorry Joey. An interesting note: the Wings still list Barry and Joe as coaches on the team website, but if you check the Mighty Ducks’ website they have erased Babcock and his assistants from the site. Could mean nothing, but I think it shows the Wings are still interested in bringing those guys back.

If not, Babcock might bring along his assistants from Anaheim: Lorne Henning, committed Islander player and assistant coach, and Paul MacLean, who actually played for the Wings during the 1988-89 season. I wouldn’t buy much stock in their arrivals yet, but it’s a good time to at least learn their names.

And a bit of a surprise from Chris Chelios. Chelios is discussing the possibility that he will have to shop around the NHL for a team that can afford him and his 43 years of age:

“In my position, being my age, with the (salary) cap, that pretty much gets me out. The hard thing is having to relocate the family. I want to play really badly, but it’s just going to be an issue of how many teams I can play for; that’s a tough thing. It’s got to end somewhere…I’ve played for 20 years, I’m not worried about a thing. I’d love to play, but if I don’t, it won’t be the end of the world. I still have the (minor league) Motor City Mechanics, so I don’t have to leave home.”

I guess the biggest surprise is that Chelios sounds like he’s not willing to accept a severe pay cut to stay with the Wings, at least if other teams are offering him more - that’s my interpretation. Seems a bit early to be talking like that anyways. Also part of the surprise is that I never would’ve figured he would return after such a long lockout and being so old. I know in my 2005-2006 Red Wings payroll analysis, I didn’t mention Chelios at all.

UPDATE 7/12 7:59 am

TSN:

“There is all sorts of talk that players will have to renegotiate their contracts to get underneath the salary cap…that is not going to be allowed. Players are not going to be allowed to renegotiate their contracts. They are stuck with the deal unless they are bought out.”

That would kill the Wings if deferrments/re-negotiations weren’t allowed…are players allowed to “donate” their money on the side back to the Wings to avoid buyouts? Unofficial re-negotiations you might say…

DetNews: Wings interested in Nikolai Khabibulin and Chris Osgood

The drumbeat for the movement is started, led in part by a Canuck fan who claims

“If all the NHLPA can do is concede on all issues, having a union is silly.”

While they did concede on the biggest issue, they could in fact win more of the lesser issues in the form “better qualifying offers, better arbitration, better minimums, better pension, and better free agency” (Glenn Healy). And the rumored “New Deal” published by the LA Times says “No luxury tax, but revenue sharing through a complex formula under which the top 10 revenue-earning teams will give a percentage of their revenue to small-market teams.” Sounds like something the NHLPA would love. I’d wait before claiming “all the NHLPA can do is concede on all issues.”

Then there’s word that Phoenix Coyotes defenseman David Tanabe is uncertain that the new CBA will be ratified:

“I get a sense that everybody wants to play. Whether or not that means a new CBA gets done is still up for question. I still think that a deal needs to get done by the players’ vote, and some are rumoring that it is 50/50 among the players as to whether or not it gets done by the player vote.”

So what happens if the CBA is rejected by the players? Unless the sides can scramble to put together an agreement, the NHL would likely declare an impasse. Once the NHL declares an impasse (and it’s a myth they need approval for this), the NHLPA likely would go to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and file a charge that the NHL was bargaining in bad faith all along. This would put a hold on NHL operations, and could mean up to two years of court cases (if appealed, and ultimately brought to the US Supreme Court). So even if the NHL declares and impasse and imposes its own terms of employment, lawsuits and appeals by the NHLPA could delay the start of a season (even with replacement players) for up to two years.

Even if the NLRB rules in the NHL’s favor, it’s not over. The NHLPA could decertify itself and file anti-trust lawsuits against the owners, charging collusion in “establish[ing] rules, constraining the mobility of players from one club to another.” The NHLPA would not be bound by the terms of the implemented CBA and it would be up to individual players whether to become replacement players.

Or the NHLPA could just vote no on the new CBA and decertify itself immediately, which is what I think Tom Benjamin is getting at. He’s under the assumption that it would automatically become a free market system, but it would just mean the NHL imposes its own employment rules and the players are accepting those by dissolving their union (unless they want to fight more and file lawsuits). Part of his argument is that the NHL salary will have to compete with European salaries, which is true but only to a certain extent. Whether young Canadians go overseas for their hockey careers is not a guarantee, even with a disparity in some salaries. The NHL would be a big enough revenue machine to keep salaries competitive, and players would stay for the competition in play. In all likelihood, European leagues would only be able to support one or two NHL-competitive salaries per team at best, so it wouldn’t be an all out exodus.

Then the TB argument turns to increasing player salaries as an average at the expense of NHLPA jobs:

“Cut the league in half - that’s enough votes to decertify - and player salaries will soar even if the players are held by some miracle to 54% of the revenue…Under the proposed deal the players get 750 jobs at $1.22 million each. Let’s suppose, they do decertify. Say six teams spend $75 million, 18 teams spend $30 million and six teams go out of business. The result - 600 jobs and $1.65 million ALS. Should the 600 best players subsidise the sad sack franchises and 150 other players by giving up $400,000 a year?”

I doubt enough players would back an effort at reducing franchises in the long run by continuing to drag this league through the mud and decertifying. The NHL has a lot of marginal players who would fear losing their jobs if indeed decertification meant contraction. 43.8% of players made less than $800,000 in 2003-2004, and it’s not like a lot of us would notice if Krystofer Kolanos no longer played for the Coyotes. As a fan, it would be great to get the league down to 24 teams, assuming it increases the skill level and enjoyment for fans. But I don’t think the players as a whole will be bold enough to decertify and risk losing all bargaining leverage as well as NHLPA member jobs when teams go bankrupt. They would have to live under an NHL-imposed system (which would be inevitably fixed in the owners’ favor) and the hope for a free market system is likely not realistic when there isn’t a league overseas that could compete with the NHL’s revenue/salary projections (beyond an individual basis of signing one or two NHLers per team).

Back in September, TB said “[Decertification is] the nuclear bomb in this dispute.” True, it is a great threat mechanism - the threat of years of court cases is an excellent way to leverage the NHL. But are we really calling for bombs away when the negotiating process is likely done? After thousands of hours of negotiations and what Stan Fischler calls Bettman’s own “War and Peace,” it seems to be nothing but a sham tactic.