View Single Post
09-12-2004, 12:24 AM
Registered User
pld459666's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 19,188
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by txpd
I could not disagree with this post more.

1. the 5% roll back was a one time roll back that would have been swallowed up immediately by the automatic salary increases that are part of the current cba. If arbitration and the automatic 10% increase for players under the league average are not removed(and they are not part of this offer), that 5% roll back is back in the players pocket by the next season.
The roll back was on all salaries from now until the end of their contracts. Holik, for instance, would have his annual salary reduced from 9 million to 8.5 million. And like I said since it was an initial offer, they probably would accept a bigger reduction.

2. when you say, "I don't understand why we have to take responsibility out of the owners hads for agreeing to some of these outrageous contracts". Lets keep in mind that by and large "the owners" are 3 to 5 owners that can afford to spend the rest of the teams under the table and another 3 to 5 owners willing to take a loss to try and compete on the ice to keep his franchise value and place in the local sports market high. the rest of the owners are along for the ride. the higher salaries go the less they can afford. As this current cba has evolved the top teams aquired a constantly increasing percentage of the marquee players while the bottom teams increasingly became a collection unknown players. Last year's stanley cup finals was a promoters disaster, Inginla and 20 no names verses, St Louis & Lecavalier and 18 no names.
The 3-5 teams you are referring to are problems no doubt, but they are problems to themselves as the players they seek to obtain are 31+ year old players. Since Iginla or St. Louis or Lecavalier cannot use a Holik contract as leverage in their own negotiating I assume you are talking about the small market team like Anaheim that plopped down 10 mill a year for Karyia? Or the Islanders handing Yashin what amounts to 2 5 year contracts worth 90 million?

3. "start blaming the current situation on the players for asking for as much as they want". Nobody is saying that. However, what they are saying is that the owners should be allowed to say that they have been paying too much and need to cut back. the players are saying, "hey!! you can't do that! you offered it and you have to keep paying it with a raise every year"
And if this summer has shown you anything, it's that the owners have been saying no and the contracts that have been signed for the most part, on average, have been lower than in years past. The exception to that rule is Toronto and we'll see how that turns out. Regardless of the circumstances the owners have the ability to say no and they are negotiating responsibly for the first time in years. I applaud them for their fiscal responsibility. All they need to do now is police themselves and stop looking to forcing a system that police's themselves on the players

4. "Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?". When you say that do you forget about teams like Boston say they wont pay $8.5m to Bill Guerin and $7m to Jason Allison and then get cut to pieces by their fan base for not being willing to make a commitment to winning?
Are you forgetting about lower revenue teams like Edmonton that regularly trade off their best players as they mature into arbitration eligible players because they can no longer afford the new salaries they would get? For every team like Toronto and Detroit that is loading up with all stars with big contracts at the trade deadline there are two teams that simply have to give up their franchise players for draft picks and prospects because they can't or won't pay the outragious prices.
No I don't forget about the teams like Boston, and I feel for the teams like Edmonton, but if they are going to allow the players to take the hammer out of their hands then again it's their own fault. The fact of the matter is that the owners fought to have arbitration in this system, it's backfired on them due to other small market teams like Anaheim and the Islanders for some of the contracts that they have handed out. The Rangers made their bid for the RFA in Sakic a few years ago and we remember how that worked (and in all honesty may have beet the spark to start the fire). Colorado matched (wisely I might add). But Carolina, another small market team went after Feds with an offer that paid him 28 million in one year. Based on history it seems like the small market teams are more at fault for the current situation than are the bigger market teams like NYR, DET, PHI.

Quote: are in a very distinct minority that believes that offer, which increased the luxury tax threshold from $40m to $50m, was a good offer.
Again, it's an offer that is deserving of consideration and more deserving of a counter offer. God forbid the owners take it upon themselves to be responsible for overstepping a specific threshhold. It's all part of negotiating, the owners could have easily said "Hey, the last offer was 40, we need to get back to that number" But guess what? that would mean that the owners would have to come out of pocket for anything above that threshold something that they are unwilling to do. Again, it's putting responsibility off on the players when they are not the ones fully responsible for the situation the NHL is in.

There's a happy medium, but in Bettman thinks that a cap is it, then he's wrong. The owners of teams like the Rangers and Capitals and Islanders and Anaheim and Carolina and Det are going to have to say that we agree that X is a number that we cannot exceed and we will not go above that. And if they do there should be stiff penalties in place. Here's where I have a problem with the players proposal, they are looking at a nominal 5% of every dollar over 50 million as a luxury tax. I'd say that it should be dollar for dollar on anything above the threshold, whatever that number would be agreed to. It, in and of itself, would more or less act as a cap as say the Rangers were working under that system this year, based on the protion of the season that they were way over the cap, they would have had to pony up an additional 20+ million (and that's at the 50 Million threshold) Det would be at 20+ million and the Flyers would be between 15-20 million themselves. Sh!t, even the small market Devils would have had to pay some taxes.

When all was said and done the league would have had to redistribute over 100million to the smaller market teams.

So here we are, for arguments sake, the League and Players agree to a 12% rollback on all salaries saving the league an immediate 200 million, Arbitration is eliminated and UFA is brought down to 29 or 30 years of age, the Luxury Tax threshold is set at 45 million and the penalty is dollar for dollar. We go into this next season, and the league would have anywhere between 50-100 million in Luxury Tax money to be re-distributed to the teams that are struggling financially.

just an opinion, but it seems like a system that could work if only the owners would take responsibility for their failings as business owners.

pld459666 is online now