Off Wing Opinion

Yesterday, Tom Benjamin took a closer look at the reported labor agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA, and had this to say:

1) The deal significantly reduces the influence of player agents on salary levels and increases the influence of the NHLPA and the collective bargaining agreement. The NHLPA is being turned into a much more traditional union, a union that actually negotiates the wage of the various classes of employees. One clause reported by Elliote says the deal will "limit the salary of any single player to 20% of the team cap figure in any year".

Does Jarome Iginla need a player agent to negotiate a salary for him? Why does he need Don Meehan?

2) While the new economic system increases the influence of the NHLPA the past year has clearly demonstrated that the NHLPA has no power. They sacrificed a year - and $1.2 billion - so they could concede every single important issue. Anyone who suggests the NHLPA should have taken the February offer is wrong because there was no February offer, but there is absolutely no doubt that the NHLPA could have signed this deal last September.

That makes the NHLPA a worthless organization, not because there was a miscalculation, but because it has no power. This is a far more critical point going forward than a Goodenow miscalculation. It means that he could not calculate it correctly and firing him won't change anything. It means that the NHLPA gives the owners whatever they want or the NHLPA fights and loses. That's the lesson of this labour war.

Color me confused. Stick with me here.

Isn't it generally acknowledged that the players got the best of ownership with the labor agreement they completed in 1995? If that's the case -- and no one will seriously argue that it's not -- you would have to conclude that the NHLPA was far more powerful then than it is today. Arguably, when you look at the history of the game, it's also fair to suggest that the players were never more powerful vis a vis ownership than they have been in the last ten years.

But now Tom is telling us that the deal the NHLPA is about to put to a vote is a bad deal for everybody involved: That goes for the union leadership, the superstars, the muckers and grinders and all their agents.

Which begs the question: What in the world happened over the last ten years that shifted the balance of power so decisively in favor of ownership? And why is the NHLPA about to conclude an agreement not even remotely in the best interest of its membership?

From where I sit, there are only two possibilities:

1) Bob Goodenow, who was such a hard-ass genius back in 1995, has suddenly gone all soft and mushy in his heart and his head; or

2) Ownership was telling the truth when they said they couldn't tolerate large operating losses any longer.

In other words, the financial facts on the ground changed, and the NHLPA's leverage evaporated over the course of a lost season.

Granted, this doesn't get ownership off the hook for all of the gross incompetence we've seen business-wise over the last ten years. Then again, it isn't like the players didn't benefit, as all of that expansion money more or less went directly to player salaries.

If somebody has another plausible explanation, I'd like to hear it. But as far as I'm concerned, either the entire NHLPA leadership deserves to be turned out, or I would have to conclude that they were essentially powerless to prevent such a disastrous outcome.

From Helene Elliot of the LA Times:

The NHL and the players' association have agreed in principle on a new collective bargaining agreement that will feature a hard salary cap linked to 54% of league revenue, a 24% rollback of existing contracts and qualifying offers, and a provision that will limit the salary of any single player to 20% of the team cap figure in any year, sources familiar with the labor negotiations said Wednesday.

The agreement, which is expected to be announced next week, also includes an NBA-style escrow provision under which 15% of each player's paycheck will go into an escrow account until revenue is calculated after each season. If league-wide spending on salaries exceeds 54% of revenue, the difference between the salaries paid and the negotiated percentage will be paid to teams from the escrow account. If teams spend less than 54%, the escrow money will revert to players.

Things are going to start moving very quickly on a lot of fronts, I would imagine. Stay tuned. Thanks to the diligent Jay Kumar for the pointer.

For those of you turned off by the rantings of Jeremy Roenick, there are other NHL players who are looking to make amends. In particular, Sean Avery of the LA Kings, who gave a very revealing interview to Bill Plaschke of the LA Times.

On the lockout:

An NHL labor agreement ending a yearlong lockout will be announced soon

Via Tom Benjamin, I found this TSN article on the proposed NHL rule changes that have been submitted to the league's GMs by the newly formed competition committee. I'm happy to go through them one at a time.

# Smaller goalie equipment, including 11 inch pads.

Sounds good to me, as long as it can be accomplished without compromising safety (which seems to be the case). We don't need any more goalies retiring without the use of their glove hands anymore.

# The reinstitution of the tag-up offside rule.

Ok by me.

# Moving the goal lines back two feet towards the end board to create more room in front of the net instead of behind it.

Everything old is new again.

# The calling of more penalties more consistently, specifically for obstruction on players with and without the puck and not just in the netural zone.

I'll believe it when I see it. No, check that. I'll believe that once it can be measured and verified.

# The institution of a shootout to eliminate tie games in the NHL. Before going to the shootout, though, overtime would be modified to include one five-minute period of four-on-four overtime and, if still tied, a three-minute period of three-on-three. If, after eight minutes of overtime, the game is still tied, then it would go to a shootout.

In general, I'm in favor of the shootout. But this format strikes me as something of a gimmick, and most likely a case of asking for something ridiculous in order to get what you really want. As far as I'm concerned, adding on a second five-minute OT period if a game remains tied would be fine with me, followed by a shootout. Come to think of it, I'd even settle for two five-minute OT periods without a shootout.

# The winner of the game - in regulation time, overtime or the shootout - would receive two points for the victory. The loser, regardless of when the loss occurred, would receive no points.

If we're going to wins and losses, why not throw out points altogether?

# The blue lines would be made fatter, as per the American Hockey League experiment this season, to slightly increase the size of the offensive zones.

It might not help, but I can't see how it could hurt.

# The centre red line will be removed for the purposes of allowing two-line passes.

I'm sure my friend Joe Tasca will say that this is something that coaches will learn to scheme against, but I have to say I'm in favor. Then again, I'd like to see the rule tested out in a minor league first for an entire season before foisting it on the NHL.

# Goaltenders will only be permitted to handle the puck in a designated area directly behind the goal net, as per the AHL experiment this season.

I didn't like this the first time I heard about it, and I don't like it now.

# A modified form of no-touch icing, where the first player to cross the goal line - not to touch the puck - will dictate whether icing is called. In other words, if the defensive player gets to the goal line first, icing will be called. If the offensive player gets to the goal line first, no icing will be called. Also, when icing is called, the team that iced the puck will not be permitted to change lines.

Sounds fine to me.

# Any player in the defensive zone that shoots the puck directly out of play will receive a two-minute minor for delay of game. In the past, only the goalie was penalized for shooting the puck out of play.

Not a bad idea at all. In fact, it's the sort of idea that makes you wonder why it wasn't proposed a long time ago.

# Automatic fines to the coach and suspensions to the player for any fight with an instigator in the last five minutes of the game.

Sounds like a rule change designed primarily to placate American sports columnists who don't watch much hockey at all in the first place. Still, I don't have much of a problem with it at all.

Overall, it's probably important to reinforce a point that I've made before: That everyone involved with the NHL has served as a poor steward of the game. And now that the game is in big trouble, panic is setting in, and all sorts of wacky ideas that have the potential to alienate the core of the fanbase are going to get floated.

Which is why I laughed when I read this:

A number of GMs told TSN said they're "frustrated" and even "angry" at effectively being replaced as the body that recommends rule changes to the NHL board of governors.

"A lot of guys (GMs) aren't happy at all," one GM told TSN. "In fact, they're furious. This competition committee could have been integrated with the GMs, but it looks like it's a replacement type of thing. It's going to be very interesting to see how this dynamic is going to work."

Now, if these folks had actually been paying attention for all these years, the league might have tackled these problems "NFL-style", so to speak. Incremental change on a year-by-year basis will always be more acceptable than a radical reshaping of the game -- something the NFL has turned into an art form.

Then again, as I've said before, desperate times call for desperate measures -- even measures that during normal deliberations would seem categorically insane. That's the boat the NHL finds itself in now, and I'm wondering what we might see next Fall once the league stops bailing.