Thread: My CBA proposal
View Single Post
09-18-2004, 11:22 PM
Callng out the crap
me2's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,104
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by thinkwild

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?
Yes and no.

RFAs are cheaper than UFAs. If rich teams are able to load up on cheaper released RFAs then it blows salaries apart for everyone. Lets say the Canucks take a stand on the Sedins that they aren't worth the 10% in qualifier becaue their points when down that year. At $1.3 they are cheaper than UFA replacement so Philly cuts Leclair and Amonte and wins the bidding war for the Sedins at $3m/y each. Next contract the Sedins now sign the $3m RFA qualifier. Bingo every young player in the league will now use the Sedins $3m RFA qualifier as leverage. That's bad on teams trying to hold salaries down, what are they supposed to do walk away from all these young players? Umberger for instance got rookie max from Philly because he was a UFA, really he didn't deserve 60-70% of that. Come next deal he'll get his $1.3+10% and every medicore prospect will use that as a bargaining chip.

Also if teams let cheap players walk because they are 10-15% overpaid they have to replace them somehow. That means trading away valuable assets and damaging a team to replace a player over a few $100K. On the otherhand, if they don't do it they end up blowing the salary budget because every player on that team now wants and extra 10-15%. Net effect is simply inflation.

Tom Benjamin's entire argument is that if you should try and build a cheap young team using the fact that younger players are underpaid compared to older players and UFAs. A policy of letting players walk when are up for a 10% raise they don't deserve blows that plan out of the water because you can't replace them for the same price, and if you constantly give in you get too much inflation.

Teams need a way to deflate salaries of underperformers without losing their rights. I'd think the currect CBA could be made to work (with a few minor tweaks such as 100% qualifiers) if there was a salary rollback of 30%+ to restore salaries to appropriate levels. Unfortunately the NHLPA wouldn't agree to that (can't blame them) nor will they entertain ways are allowing teams to stop inflation.

me2 is offline