View Single Post
09-17-2004, 05:56 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
IMO, in determining player salary, it would be useful for GM's and teams to know what the NHL and the other teams think (as a group) about a given player's value... It would be useful to have a formal player assessment available by the NHL - so that there is the potential for better player salary decisions...
The lawyers seem to have a pretty good handle on it now dont you think?

Originally Posted by Tom Benjamin
The NHL needs the union more than the players do.
Geez, they should be paying dues.

Originally Posted by Tom Benjamin
Some people seem to think that the existing CBA is structured so the players would get more than they would get in a completely open market. It is hard to tell whether this is true or not. I doubt it, but maybe. I'm sure they would get more in a completely open market than they will in a "salary cap at $31 million" world.
With players under 31 not having the leverage to negotiate their current system market value, its tempting to come to the conclusion they're not getting their free market value. Does this seem a areasonable statement to make?

Originally Posted by Tom Benjamin
A player like, say, Simone Gagne is worth a lot more in Philadelphia than in Edmonton in the sense that the Flyers will generate more revenue with him and they can afford to pay more. But they do not pay more for him. That would be very silly. They do not pay more for Gagne than they have to pay for him.

The Flyers have exactly the same leverage over the player as the Oilers do. They pay what the market says they should pay. If Gagne went to arbitration, the Flyers can enter Oiler contracts to support their case. Gagne's agent can't reject those contracts because he is worth more in Philly than in Alberta.
And as you had mentioned before, Iginla, Théo, and Jovo are the current setters of the salary bars, all from small market Canadian teams. Although with Vancouvers franchise on the market evidently being sold for a similar value to Philadelphias, its categorization as small market must now be suspect at best.

Seems Holik and Lapointe are setting nothing. And the arbitration comparables are being set by small markets in Canadian dollars. And all arbitration is deciding is whether they should get 55% or 65% of their market value anyway.

Originally Posted by djhn579
I know this wouldn't solve all the problems, but could the NHL pass a by-law that if an NHL team lost more than $5M in any one season, or has lost money for 3 straight years, or has a combined loss of over $10M over a 5 year period, the NHL could put a control board over that teams finances, with the goal of ensuring decisions are made to keep the team competetive and profitable? The nunbers of course are debatable, and what constitutes profit or loss would need to be defined.

This would not be directly aimed at lowering salaries, but maintaining the NHL's long term viability

Or put them under the control of a bankruptcy trustee perhaps and force them to sell. losses at their expense, to someone more capable?

If the teams are legitimately losing money or struggling by 5 or 10mil because of systemic inequities, a very light luxury tax, designed to raise $60mil rather than punish, and perhaps even matched by a player contribution for harmony sake, could provide a fund worthy teams can dip into. A market corrrecting fund. THis seems reasonable to me

thinkwild is offline