Jan Levine: Artemi Panarin drops bombshell in Instagram post, film at 11 CBA negotiations may have just gotten a lot more interesting

I don’t care for the influence agents have with regard to league and player agreements ... both in hockey & baseball.
But that’s where we are.

The owners are going to want to keep escrow, the players will want the salary cap to rise. I think the compromise will involve 1 or 2 compliance buyouts. I hope this can get worked out, but it is a very complex issue and will be difficult to predict the full outcome.
Unlike baseball, the negotiations so far between the players and owners have been reasonable and cordial --- lets hope this continues...

Smells like another lockout... Yay!

The owners are going to want to keep escrow, the players will want the salary cap to rise. I think the compromise will involve 1 or 2 compliance buyouts. I hope this can get worked out, but it is a very complex issue and will be difficult to predict the full outcome.
Unlike baseball, the negotiations so far between the players and owners have been reasonable and cordial --- lets hope this continues...
- TommyGTrain

I don’t pretend to really get this but isn’t the escrow just the owners holding back part of salary until the actual profits are figured and the player and owner split us calculated? I’m not sure why this is such a significant issue to the players.

Also when Panarin talks about the owners equity growing I assume he means the value of the teams; but that’s sort of irrelevant since the question is operating profits. How much your business is worth and how much money it is making for you are different. The owners shouldn’t make less because the value of the team if they sold it has grown.

I don’t pretend to really get this but isn’t the escrow just the owners holding back part of salary until the actual profits are figured and the player and owner split us calculated? I’m not sure why this is such a significant issue to the players.

I listen to a lot of hockey pods, it's usually former players that speak the most freely about this issue. As they should, they don't have any backlash to face. Escrow seems to impact the guys at the very top (Panarin) and the guys at the very bottom (league minimum player) the most. Nobody likes it; I'd be pissed if my employer held back 10% or more of my salary because of reasons.

Smells like another lockout... Yay!
- MeltingPlastic

No one is gonna cry for the Billionaire owners losing $$$ when the vast amount of the people have been laid off, lost their jobs, lost their businesses. All sports are gonna be forever changed like the world has been. When people find out that 7 trillion dollars have been "stolen" from America shTs gonna go bro....another story for another day.

It’s easy for Panarin to whine after he signed his 80 million dollar contract....when he signed it he knew full well that the dollar Implication was with regards to escrow. I don’t feel sorry for him at all. It’s the middle tear guys that will pay if the salary cap drops to what would amount to a 30 % reduction in the overall cap amount of 81.5 million....teams will Only be able to afford one or two guys like Panarin and then a bunch of 1,000,000 dollar guys. As far as compliance buyouts, that’s just lost money for the owner....why should they flip for the bill in this case? The system is designed for competitive balance and for protection of a profitable industry which is good for everyone including Panarin.

It’s easy for Panarin to whine after he signed his 80 million dollar contract....when he signed it he knew full well that the dollar Implication was with regards to escrow. I don’t feel sorry for him at all. It’s the middle tear guys that will pay if the salary cap drops to what would amount to a 30 % reduction in the overall cap amount of 81.5 million....teams will Only be able to afford one or two guys like Panarin and then a bunch of 1,000,000 dollar guys. As far as compliance buyouts, that’s just lost money for the owner....why should they flip for the bill in this case? The system is designed for competitive balance and for protection of a profitable industry which is good for everyone including Panarin.
- landros 2

As you know I'm mostly on the players side, though most of the time I wouldn't shed a tear for the upper earning players losing a little bit. However, these are unprecedented times. Whatever you think of Covid, players are potentially risking their livelihoods every time they would step out on the ice. A player like Kakko for example has an underlying condition and hasn't made the big money yet. If he would somehow get it and be one of those patients that are suffering long term damage following his illness, his career could very well be over before he earns any of the big money. The most billionare owners (and let's be real several are owned by corporations ala the Flyers) are risking is having to make another tax write off.

It's always the quiet ones you have to watch out for....Panarin is the last player i expected to say something like this

this lottery situation confuses me, I read Larry Brooks column about it and I still dont think I could explain it

If teams stop handing out crazy contracts to keep star players then a reasonable cap could be enough. Why can't the league put a strict ceiling on a players salary like $5 mil per with an $75 mil cap then owners take less escrow. Then more money could be spread around to keep all the teams players. If Panarin and his ilk can't live on $5 mil minus lower escrow and taxes then he has to try and find a job that will pay him more. This won't happen due to the so called free enterprise system, egos and greed of he players, owners and agents.

If teams stop handing out crazy contracts to keep star players then a reasonable cap could be enough. Why can't the league put a strict ceiling on a players salary like $5 mil per with an $75 mil cap then owners take less escrow. Then more money could be spread around to keep all the teams players. If Panarin and his ilk can't live on $5 mil minus lower escrow and taxes then he has to try and find a job that will pay him more. This won't happen due to the so called free enterprise system, egos and greed of he players, owners and agents.
- islansjet

yeah! I dont understand why we cant put a cap on player contracts of 5 million a year either dammit

If teams stop handing out crazy contracts to keep star players then a reasonable cap could be enough. Why can't the league put a strict ceiling on a players salary like $5 mil per with an $75 mil cap then owners take less escrow. Then more money could be spread around to keep all the teams players. If Panarin and his ilk can't live on $5 mil minus lower escrow and taxes then he has to try and find a job that will pay him more. This won't happen due to the so called free enterprise system, egos and greed of he players, owners and agents.
- islansjet

Why is it greed on the players part? For the most part, franchise values of teams have gone up significantly over the past decade. The Rangers alone are worth 1.65 billion. Even the "small market" Islanders are north of 500 million. I've argued for years that if anything, the players are underpaid by a factor of several times.

Nobody blinks an eye when Tom Cruise makes 100 million for his next feature film, but how dare the players make anything north of a couple million when they help generate hundreds of millions in revenue annually to the franchises they play for.

Why is it greed on the players part? For the most part, franchise values of teams have gone up significantly over the past decade. The Rangers alone are worth 1.65 billion. Even the "small market" Islanders are north of 500 million. I've argued for years that if anything, the players are underpaid by a factor of several times.

Nobody blinks an eye when Tom Cruise makes 100 million for his next feature film, but how dare the players make anything north of a couple million when they help generate hundreds of millions in revenue annually to the franchises they play for.
- 2sticks1puck

I did when I saw his hiney

NHL Draft Lottery is tonite!
The best outcome (strictly from a Rangers standpoint) would be all top 3 lottery picks going to teams A-H. This is mathematically VERY unlikely, but hey, its 2020 and such a screwed up year so you never know...

NHL Draft Lottery is tonite!
The best outcome (strictly from a Rangers standpoint) would be all top 3 lottery picks going to teams A-H. This is mathematically VERY unlikely, but hey, its 2020 and such a screwed up year so you never know...
- TommyGTrain

what does this mean, the A-H thing

what does this mean, the A-H thing
- jimbo83

aren't those the 8 teams still playing in the playoffs that lose in the first round?

OK raise your hand if you think Panarin wrote this al by his lonesome.

what does this mean, the A-H thing
- jimbo83

What TPC said...

From Brooks' column, my comments in italics:
There will be separate drawings for each of the top three selections. If the top three picks all go to the ne’er-do-wells — Detroit, Ottawa, Los Angeles, Anaheim, New Jersey or Buffalo — that will be that and the eight qualifying-round losers will select in inverse order of their season point totals. But, if a “placeholder” wins any of the first three picks, there will be another lottery between the qualifiers and the first round of the 16-team playoffs to determine the team’s identity. (the placeholder is the A-H mentioned in the comments above)

The Rangers could wind up with the first-overall pick and a shot at Rimouski left wing Alexis Lafreniere as a “placeholder” if they lose the qualifier (best chance, as they would be in the A-H bucket). They would have a second shot at it if they defeat Carolina, Toronto loses to Columbus in the qualifier and both the Leafs and ’Canes emerge with a top-three selection. (both situations need to occur due to the conditions associated with the pick)

In that case, the Maple Leafs would keep their pick through conditions of their prior trade (Patrick Marleau) with Carolina and the Blueshirts would get the Hurricanes’ pick. But you wouldn’t know that Friday; you’d only know that “placeholders” were in the top three. (stay tuned for the lottery, because if the bottom seven land all three picks, all of this is moot)

From Brooks' column, my comments in italics:
There will be separate drawings for each of the top three selections. If the top three picks all go to the ne’er-do-wells — Detroit, Ottawa, Los Angeles, Anaheim, New Jersey or Buffalo — that will be that and the eight qualifying-round losers will select in inverse order of their season point totals. But, if a “placeholder” wins any of the first three picks, there will be another lottery between the qualifiers and the first round of the 16-team playoffs to determine the team’s identity. (the placeholder is the A-H mentioned in the comments above)

The Rangers could wind up with the first-overall pick and a shot at Rimouski left wing Alexis Lafreniere as a “placeholder” if they lose the qualifier (best chance, as they would be in the A-H bucket). They would have a second shot at it if they defeat Carolina, Toronto loses to Columbus in the qualifier and both the Leafs and ’Canes emerge with a top-three selection. (both situations need to occur due to the conditions associated with the pick)

In that case, the Maple Leafs would keep their pick through conditions of their prior trade (Patrick Marleau) with Carolina and the Blueshirts would get the Hurricanes’ pick. But you wouldn’t know that Friday; you’d only know that “placeholders” were in the top three. (stay tuned for the lottery, because if the bottom seven land all three picks, all of this is moot)
- airjan23

What TPC said...
- TommyGTrain

Never heard that before.

Aparently someone ghost writes very well for Panarin!

Aparently someone ghost writes very well for Panarin!
- HenryHockey

I aint 'fraid of no ghost