here's an idea I've had for a CBA "solution", just looking for some feedback. Personally I'm not sure the whole thing has to be rewritten, just a few parts here and there.
Keep the current CBA, with the following changes:
(1) Initial contract performance bonuses capped at 1.5 mil total per season, or the level of performance bonuses would be raised (from 20 goals to 25, 60 points to 70, etc) with no limits on rookie bonuses. Rookie cap tied to draft position, but will start at a significantly higher amount than the current 1.2 (thereabouts) per season. Maybe #1 overall is worth 1.9 mil cap, 2-3 1.85 mil, 4-8 1.8 mil, and so on (in some form, not necessarily following that pattern exactly.
(2) Draft age raised to 19, via an agreement in the CBA. No more opting in, everyone is eligible at age 19, and every player HAS to be drafted to play before age 22, after which time everyone (Europeans included) are strictly UFA's. All rookie contracts to be 3 years long for drafted players.
(3) Arbitration starts for everyone at age 22
(4) Qualifying offer is 75% of the previous contract
(5) UFA age drops to 29
any dollar spent above $52 mil (just an initial guess at a number) has to be matched on a dollar for dollar basis and will go into a pot to be split equally amongst all 30 NHL teams.
- calculated based on the cost of a team's roster per game, summed for all 82 games.
since teams will be receiving 1/30 of their own money back, plus a share of whatever other teams spend above the threshold, it would have the effect of lowering the dollar per dollar contribution to effectively something lower, maybe 80-90 cents on the dollar.
- higher draft age means more certainty in the player quality you are receiving, important when you are shelling out the big bucks
- can cut salary of overpaid players via 75% qualifying offer, which IMO is one of the main problems with the current CBA
- no hard cap, teams with big money can still go ahead and spend it if they have it
- lower UFA age, more freedom for players
- guaranteed contracts still exist
- earlier arbitration
Any thoughts? I'm sure I've missed some things, but here's hopefully a decent start anyways.
From just a quick glance, it seems that you have many of the elements that I'm hoping for in a new CBA. Here are some quick thoughts on the matter though:
-It is unlikely the draft age will be raised. If you do, then you are discriminating based on age on people who are of the age of majority. I think there would be some serious legal ramifications.
-I am a big backer of a luxury tax system, so I like that. I would rather see the threshold amount be lower, and be tiered, so as you move higher on the scale, you will be paying more. The initial tier would start at a lower rate than a 100% tax, however, it would escalate to that point.
-With a proper luxury tax system in place, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the UFA age lowered.
-I'm a little reluctant to drop the arbitration age, however, I'd probably like to analyze the impact of such a change if it was my call.
-The qualifying offer of 75% is probably a little too drastic. I like the idea thrown out earlier of giving teams the option of making a qualifying offer (10% raise) or going to arbitration. It allows them to retain the rights of players who's play has declined, and are coming off contracts where they were overpaid.
I like you idea, it's similar to what i would like to see. But only a few changes. I think the cap number should be lowered to 45 million. Plus if they are over, they dont get any of that money.
70% of the money gets divided equally by all teams not over that 45 million dollar cap. The other 30% gets spilt between the truely small market teams.
But there is also one factor. Teams who recieve that money just cant pocket it. They have to put the majority (75%) back into their teams. This will hopefully help the small market teams to keep their stars.
Under your system, they would not be allowed to lower their payroll, even though it's the smart hockey decision. This team would continue to maintain a $35 million dollar payroll even though it's not money well spent
Personally, I'm not a fan of mandating spending by the smaller market teams. We've seen quite a few teams manage to achieve success with small payrolls, and I think that it many situations, teams that would have to spend money wouldn't necesarrily improve their teams.
My preference is that teams that receive money are forced into achieving certain performance requirements. In order to receive the money you must, for example, have reached the playoffs at least once in the last 3 years, or won a playoff round at least once in the last 5.
This lets each team decide on what the optimal payroll should be for their team, while still ensuring that they remain competitive.
Just my 2 cents.
I would be really hard to regulate. But it's better than a small market owner pocketing all that money, and still selling off his star players. And crying broke.
MLB has a simular system, where the cheap owners just pocket the Yanks money. And continue to give away all there players. It's best for the fans of the NHL for these teams to do something to keep these players.
Besides putting money back into their teams is more than just NHL payroll. Hiring better scouts/coaches, including full time European scouts. Signing prospects earlier, even if they play in the AHL. Cover loses if they are running in the red. Make the arena safer. Give money to local charities to help expand the game. It can be done.
-it's extremely simple
- teams that want to spend can go ahead and do so, I don't see why NYR shouldn't be able to have a 65 mil dollar payroll if they want to.
This kind of change would not affect the players who perform (we can see that even with the current system of 100/110%).
but a big area where I personally think money is wasted is a guy like Niedermayer, who made 2.1 a couple years in a row because that was his qualifying offer way back when. If his salary can be cut to 1.6, then 1.3 mil, it goes a long way towards helping to stabilize payroll. If you perform, you still will get your money. Additionally, if a player doesn't like that qualifying offer, they can always opt for arbitration and get a "fair" arbitrated settlement that way.
I think the Buy Out Clause should also be changed, it seems too high at the moment, if the players want the potential for a huge contract, they should also accept that if they don't perform they could lose it.
Then again I have not really thought through the true implications of it, but I think that could be a whole different thread (maybe someone could start up a set, for example go in to salary caps in the first one, then discuss the different systems (luxury tax (tiered or not), hard cap etc) I would love to do it but don't think I would think things through enough)
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 AM.|
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.