Posts tagged “CBA”

On Disciplining Outcomes

Posted by on . No comments

Update: Added a couple more thoughts to the end after publishing. - Matt

Per the CBA (Exhibit 8):

6. Factors In Determining Supplementary Discipline

In deciding on supplementary discipline, the following factors will be taken into account:

  1. The type of conduct involved: conduct outside of NHL rules; excessive force in contact otherwise permitted by NHL rules; and careless or accidental conduct. Players are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
  2. Injury to the opposing Player(s) involved in the incident.
  3. The status of the offender, and specifically whether he is a “first” or “repeat” offender. Players who repeatedly violate NHL rules will be more severely punished for each new violation.
  4. The situation of the game in which the incident occurred: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game.
  5. Such other factors as may be appropriate in the circumstances.

My emphasis. So, for the record, the concept of using outcome of a play as a determining factor in supplemental discipline is enshrined in the CBA.

But if you cast your gaze to the point a. above, you start to get the sense that the injury angle is being overplayed.

I wonder if that’s because the NHL knows it can’t ignore injurious hits and the bad optics they present, while at the same time foolishly discounting the damage a hit that doesn’t cause injury does on the optics front. Clinging to the old mindset about the game as a way of trying to have its cake and eat it too. Skating past hits that end up not causing injury used to work, but that strategy’s starting to fail. The NHL doesn’t get it.

A shame.

(h/t Cotsonika)

Extrapolating Positive Labor News

Posted by on . No comments

Nick Cotsonika points out that last night’s announcement from the PA and League is a positive development in their relationship. As he says, “the union and the league fought over money – millions of dollars – and they got a deal done quietly.” He still sees plenty of cause for pessimism (as I do) about a larger CBA deal being reached by September 15th, but he’s right that this isn’t a negative sign, at least.

Something to cling to before the next public, inevitably nasty, clash.

A Kind of Retraction of the Retraction

Posted by on . 2 comments

Stupid CBA’s frying my brain today. I was sort of right to begin with before I faked myself out. I think I’ve got it right now (correct me if I’m wrong).

This post by George had me go to the CBA to plow through the legalese for this crap from Article 50:

50.5 (h) (ii)
A Club shall be permitted to have an Averaged Club Salary in excess of the Upper Limit resulting from Performance Bonuses solely to the extent that such excess results from the inclusion in Averaged Club Salary of (i) Exhibit 5 Individual “A” Performance Bonuses and “B” Performance Bonuses paid by the Club that may be earned by Players in the Entry Level System and (ii) Performance Bonuses that may be earned by Players pursuant to Section 50.2(b)(i)(C) above, provided that under no circumstances may a Club’s Averaged Club Salary so exceed the Upper Limit by an amount greater than the result of seven-and-one-half (7.5) percent multiplied by the Upper Limit (the “Performance Bonus Cushion”).

If you’re still awake, that just says if a player qualifies for a bonus under some terms (relevant in this case: one year deals following 100 days on IR, as with Mitchell), the team can go over the cap a bit for that year.

Later:

50.5 (h) (iii)
At the conclusion of each League Year, the amount of Performance Bonuses actually earned … shall be determined and shall be charged against the Club’s Upper Limit and Averaged Club Salary for such League Year. To the extent a Club’s Averaged Club Salary exceeds its Upper Limit as a result of [entry-level or veteran performance bonuses], then the Club’s Upper Limit for the next League Year shall be reduced by an amount equal to such excess

(B)
For the 2010-11 League Year, all of the above-described Performance Bonuses that could be earned by the Players under SPCs with a Club shall be counted against such Club’s Upper Limit for that League Year (with no opportunity for the Clubs to “carry over” any charges to their Upper Limit for the following League Year), unless the NHLPA extends this Agreement for one additional year to September 15, 2012, consistent with Section 3.1(b) of this Agreement, in which case accounting for the above-described Performance Bonuses in the 2010-2011 League Year shall be treated as set forth in paragraph (ii) above.

Because the PA did extend the CBA, we’re under the terms in the first quote (50.5 (h) (ii)). Earlier in Article 50, it says cap hit is calculated by max bonus potential, so the Wings have to account for the possibility of Mitchell (and Modano) earning all of their bonuses now.

Put it all together and you have a situation where the Wings can calculate their payroll to a point over the cap for this year with bonuses and pay those bonuses on next year’s cap. Mitchell could still make a base salary of $1.2 million if Meech is moved and Abdelkader gets a cap hit of $875,000.