Thread: My CBA proposal
View Single Post
09-17-2004, 09:15 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
It was almost eerie reading your post. I started off rolling my eyes thinking not another proposal when i realized I could of written much of what you wrote almost to the word. I feel i have a unique opportunity to challenge my own ideas. Man you're such an idiot

Originally Posted by MS
1) Target average salary of $1.6 million, target average team payroll of $38 million.
Seems like a great target, but this of course would be linking expenses to designated revenues. If that hurdle is overcome, the rest would seem easy.

Originally Posted by MS
I think the NHL as we know it is a quality product and the league doesn't need a facelift, just a way to stabilize salaries 15-20% below current levels
Bettman claims they need something different. His claim that the league is not competitive because the Stanley Cup winner comes from a top payroll team, well duh, and others only have cinderella runs, seems a clear lie and makes me think he is holding the weaker position for not saying all teams have the goal and opportunity to become a big enough revenue team to support a multiple cup winner. Even Tampa Bay. Sure, like Colorado, they may have to make some strategic decisions, but the opportunities to make them are there. Not being able to at all times afford all their players I dont think is a sign the system is unfair Sotnos.

Originally Posted by MS
1. Luxury Tax
It still seems the intent you have is to punish rather than to raise a little money for robin hood redistribution Like a GST rebate. A child tax benefit.

What is the purpose of the punishment? Certainly not because their spending affects competitivenes. IF you are to accept that there are winning and losing teams, is it fair to manage the margin by which they win by given the actual competitive parity we see.. Yes when Ottawa played Nashville last year, they relaxed their game a bit. But they lost too. And now Nashville has arrived where we cant take them lightly anymore. Exept that they're not divisional games.

The other problem with luxury tax proposals of course is that they really need to be modelled. The owners would say, if you think the result will be what you say, guarantee it, for if the market doesnt turn out as you had anticipated, hardly an improbable idea, the luxury tax was an empty failed gesture. If you make them too strict, it is likely to have a perverse side effect somewhere else.

Originally Posted by MS
a) there is a salary floor of $30 million. Teams may choose to spend under this amount, but if so forfeit any claims to shared revenue. Likewise, teams with payrolls over $38 million have no claim on this revenue.

Although the idea of needing a salary floor seems to me we have a poorly conceived marketplace, perhaps add here, spending over $38mil and not having any playoff appearances disqualifies your eligibility, because now they are just being stupid or spending gamblingly at their own risk.

Originally Posted by MS
5. Restricted Free Agency

a) teams must present a qualifying offer representing 80% of the base value of the final year of the player's previous contract, or the player becomes an UFA.
Im still struggling with this one. Teams always have the right to offer that player 80% of his salary. Its just no longer an exclusive right. If you have failed as management and gotten a player ahead of his worth, it seems reasonable to waive him if you want to lower his salary. And after all, this is a player you are unhappy with. Why such a worry about protecting his exclusive negotiating rights? Why should you be rewarded with rich rfa compensation for him anymore?

Ottawa lost Bonk because we didnt feel he was worth $4mil. Im sure we would of kept Joe Thornton at that price. But even at a lower price, we werent going forward with Bonk in his role. If someone else wants to, feel free. Is the fear that rich teams will be able to load up with overpaid underachievers?

Originally Posted by MS
6. Arbitration
Players eligible for arbitration have had their leverage to negotiate their market value presumably removed. If these players getting too much, perhaps the answer lies in manipulating their leverage somehow.

thinkwild is offline