View Single Post
Old
10-01-2003, 03:06 AM
  #3
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by speeds
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



Luxury Tax:

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.


Owners perspective:

- 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

Players perspective:

- 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.
Very good post speeds...Things make sense and I think the players would be wise to sign somehtng like this...I think this plan goes easy on then...

My only concern would be the luxury tax...As was the case with baseball, I believe the players' union (correct me if I'm wrong) was against this since in a way, it would indirectly prevent the escalating salary...I do like the fact that larger payroll teams get relief by way of 1/30 coming back to them...

Also, I would think the better trade off for no salary cap would be to not guarantee contracts...I never understood guaranteed contract and no one will ever convince that they are good...If I get paid $50,000 a year to do a job and I don't do it, then I get fired or let go...Plus, when something is guaranteed to you, where is the incentive to perform....

Just my 2 cents

Yanner39 is offline