Thread: OT: Kovalchuk a UFA
View Single Post
Old
08-09-2010, 09:52 PM
  #41
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 23,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
My bad then. Still, we do see former franchise players sign betweem 700k/2m in the last few seasons, so giving league minimum isn't that much of a problem as to circumvention is concerned. IMO, the circumvention happens when the contract is signed for years where it is obvious the player won't play and is only added to thin out the cap hit. That's the nuance that has to be considered.
Completely agreed. As for the 700K/2M, that isn't the ABSOLUTE minimum though, is it? That's a tiny difference that I think is kind of a big deal, even if it borders on semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I do see that as a problem and we've touched (posters here) this subject before. Thing is, player compensation is calculated with the players's true salaries, and the total revenues (the 57% share), whereas the cap is counted with cap hits, aka averaged salaries. If he still plays at that time, his averaged salary will still be in league norms, I think that's why they don't see it as a problem, as the league minimum is set as a cap hit measure, and has nothing to do with player compensation. Player compensation is almost always lower than the mid-cap at season's end, that's why it keeps going up. IMO, it's the NHLPA who should have a problem with the 550k salary in 15 years from now, as it would lower player compensation, as it would be counted as a 6/7 mil (+/-) cap hit.
Wait a second. I understand what you're saying, but the wording here implies that you can (for example) sign a player to a contract that pays a salary of $300K one year, and $800K because the "average" (cap hit) is at or above the minimum threshold. I think we both know this isn't the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Like I said, it isn't the case. It is tied, but not as normally thought, there's true salaries and player compensation, and then there is cap max, cap min, averaged salaries (cap hit) and cap floor mid and roof. The latter's value is defined by the former's differential at year's end.
My point isn't HOW they're tied, though. It's about the fact that admitting that the minimum now may be the same as the minimum 15 or 17 years from now in some way suggests the possibility of revenue stagnation. You've highlighted the other major factor concerning 35+ contracts and 40 year old players. I think Bettman is just as concerned with anything that possibly reflects poorly on or suggests negatively about revenues, the "state of the game", and/or the possible feasibility of future expansion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
It wasn't a rule that was circumvented, but the "idea" behind a capped league. The NHL showed that Kovy's contract had ALL the earmarks of a circumvention, whereas for all other similar contracts (front-loaded), the players cannot be denied playing the average retirement age for star players which is between 35-40. The validity lies in the fact that those players could play at that age, whereas it is obvious Kovy won't be playing till he's 44.
It's a good thing that they can use this kind of interpretation without having to directly say: "Sorry Kovy, we don't believe you'll be able to play at age 40/42/44, so this is bupkiss."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I don't laugh at a 1 mil league minimum. It is quite a possibility. I didn't mention this before in this response, but I'm not sure there is a definite % for the league minimum, like there is for the league max (20% of total cap). If it were the case, the league minimum would be close to 750k right now, and it isn't. The league minimum hasn't gone up, contrarily to the total cap (low, mid, high) and the player max cap. The league minimum at the start of the CBA was 1/80 of a team's max cap. So logically, a 80 mil cap would have a 1 mil minimum for players under a future CBA. We could hit a 80 mil cap in less than 10 years if revenues keep increasing by 5% yearly.
All the more reason that the league would want to avoid sore thumbs like 500K contracts sticking out in the future if this, indeed, becomes the case. Again, I'm not really concerned with where the mins/maxes come from. I'm pretty sure that the league min HAS gone up, though in consecutive CBAs. I want to say in my lifetime on the internet, the min has gone from about $450K to about $500K to the $550K it is today. That may not be linearly tied to the cap, but it shows (to Bettman's pleasure almost as much as the NHLPA and its clients, I'm sure) that the trend is upwards, not downwards or horizontal.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now   Reply With Quote