Thread: News Article: 4 more years of Gomez?
View Single Post
03-22-2012, 10:25 AM
Ozymandias's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
It's not a notion we created. It has happened in the past. If the changes to the CBA are big enough that existing salary structures don't fit anymore, then there is almost a requirement for it. Say for example if they lower the player percentage and hence lower the salary cap. Teams which have signed up to a $70M salary cap and are suddenly looking instead at a new one of $60M will need some kind of mechanism to achieve compliance.

And in that scenario, compliance buyouts ought to be more attractive to the PA than a rollback across the board. A few players have to pound the pavement, but they get to do so with millions of dollars of buyout money in their pocket. And the existing contract standards and comparables for the vast majority of players don't have to go through a couple of years of re-inflation to get back to the present values.

Also, even without that, the players do receive a fixed percentage of the overall league revenue atm. So if Gomez and a few of his albatrossic buddies are sucking up millions and millions of that money, then the rest of the league gets less. If they were instead to be bought out with no cap ramifications, then all the rest of the players would get more.

And managers... well, they never change, they will always want the quickest fixes possible, so of course would not object to this opportunity. Maybe a few teams who have their ships in perfect order would object on the basis of their rivals having a bit of an advantage, but again this is all going to come months after the free agent period anyway, so it's not like teams will be able to quickly re-invest their savings into any significant competitive advantages in the short-term.

I could see the amnesty/compliance buyouts coming. Or they might just offer a new buyout window under something like the existing rules when the new CBA comes into play - where you don't get a total free pass on the cap hit of bought out players. But a second opportunity to do it, given the uncertainty that is likely to surround the upcoming June 15th window.

Personally, I don't see any need for big CBA changes, and I don't see why they shouldn't just essentially extend the existing CBA and then forego all this stuff. But I don't get any solid sense either whether either side is pushing for big changes or not. It's all too murky to do anything but speculate wildly atm.
I don't think they can't do without both if there changing revenue %. The league will never bring down the cap without a rollback or some other form of leveling effect, as the new cap would need to fit with % of player salaries, and compliance buyouts just won't do the trick, as there wouldn't be enough players bought out to reach the player % of total revenues. You said a 'few players to pave the way with buyouts', but I don't think you fully appreciate the amounts it would represent to cut out 9 mil out of the max team cap, and the fact that prior compliance buyouts weren't in a continuing system, hence, weren't cap deductible per se (no extended penalties).

And what happens if the CBA is signed AFTER most players have signed on the market after July 1st on the present forecasted 69 mil cap? Only a rollback can be applied then IMO. The only true measure remains the rollback, especially if we're talking 69 to 60 which represents 270 million in player salary for a single season.

But even with a rollback, players will ask for compliance buyouts, so will teams, as this will leave more money on the market, while also including money already paid for in the buyouts which will appear in total player compensations, but not on the cap. But that has to happen before July 1st.

Thing is though, players lost too much in the last negociations and now have Donald Fehr. Because the NHL players have the highest % in total revenues vs other major sports, people assume that the league has a strong argument, but I'm not sure about that, as the NHL (players and owners) is making a lot less money than the MLB and NFL, and the 50% the NBA receive is because the league was in financial trouble, which the NHL isn't. Players were the ones making the biggest concessions last time around, it has helped the league and owners prosper, much more than the players did. 7 years later, players are making about 400 million more than they previously did before the cap, but owners on the other hand, have raised a measily 400 mil of total revenues into around 1,4 billion in total revenues this year. In 7 years, players have gained 400 and the league, 1 billion. IMO, there won't be any cut back on the cap, nor will there be any rollback, they might agree on a lower per year increase on the cap (less than the present 5%), so that they could gradually cut down the player % from its present 57%, closer to the desired 50%, and less quickly so the players might agree to something around 52-54%.

Another avenue they could use to lower player revenue % is by gradually upgrading the margin between cap floor and cap ceiling so as to 'lower' expenses (player %) all the while increasing the ceiling every year to accomodate the increase in revenues.

IMO, compliance buyouts will become automatic if the cap structure is changed in the slighest, but not because of a change in player revenue % per se. Unless there's no market to unload the players also.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote