NHL CBA Update: What’s on the Table?

Hat tip to Brandon Worley of “Defending Big D” for the following list of “what we know has been ironed out and what is supposedly on the table.”

  • A 10-year CBA with an opt-out clause after eight years.
  • A five year term limit on all new contracts; teams would be able to sign their own players for seven years.
  • $300 million in “make whole,” with $50 million of that going toward pensions.
  • A 5% year-to-year variance limit on all new contracts.
  • Free agency and arbitration rules would stay the same (27 years old or 7 years pro).
  • The 50-50 split between players and owners that would reach 50% share by year three or four of the deal.

We also know prior to this week’s meetings the two sides had (as per Kevin McGran of The Toronto Star) reached “common ground”: on the following:

Change the free agent calendar, meaning the market would open on June 15 or 48 hours after the awarding of the Stanley Cup — the players want whichever is later — instead of July 1. Arbitration dates may change as well.

 • Allow cap space to be included in transactions, to encourage trades and get teams out from under heavy contracts.

 • A joint health committee.

 • Eliminate re-entry waivers.

 • A neutral, third-party arbitrator to deal with appeals for on- and off-ice discipline.

 • Minimum roster requirements to avoid situations where teams dress fewer than 18 players to save salary cap room.”

It remains to be seen what ultimately ends up in the final version. For now, cross your fingers, NHL fans, and hope they reached an agreement soon.


  1. Seems what is here is what everyone has written

  2. Yes Scott. Much like a recap.

  3. I like all of the agreed upon items, especially moving up the free agent signing period. I’ve always thought that free agents should be signed before the draft. This way, a team can trade a draft pick for a player to make up for a player that they lost to free agency, or weren’t able to sign.

    The Kings specifically come to mind. We chased Gaborik, Brad Richards, and Kovalchuk in recent years. If we could have gone into the draft knowing that we weren’t getting one of those guys, we could have potentially traded the pick for a player.

    Instead of a neutral third-party arbitrator to review suspensions, why not have a “veterans committee” made up of retired players that is selected by the NHLPA?

  4. Also, while this is more of a rules change, how about a rule that a game cannot end on a penalty taken by the team leading? This would exclude coincidental penalties. Thus, a team that’s leading 3-2 that takes a hooking penalty with 5 seconds to go has to serve the full two minutes. This rule would not apply if the team going on the power play couldn’t tie the score by scoring on the power play(s).

    And on penalty shots, how about letting the team decide whether to take the penalty shot or take a two minute power play?

    Sorry this is of topic, but the resent positive nature of the talks have me thinking about hockey again. Now I need a good trade rumor.

    • I like the idea of serving the full 2 or 5min penelty no matter the time. Good way too avoid last second delay of game-hookings etc. But if it happens, atleast you get your fair chance to equal the score – very resonable.