View Single Post
06-25-2012, 06:22 PM
Buddy The Elf
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 10,332
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
The system clearly isn't working for the owners and with the CBA expiring they have every right to fix it since they are losing money as a whole.

Like I mentioned in my other post, this contract is a perfect example as to why the leagues salary structure and inflation is flawed and unsustainable. Stoll was paid roughly the same four years ago to be a 60 point second line center as he was this week to be a 25-30 point (fair projection, IMO) 3rd line center. What if Stoll had come even close to living up to his previous contract. How much would he be getting if he were a 65 point center?

The owners got absolutely fleeced in the last CBA, the cap floor is 20% higher than the cap ceiling was in 2006. Some players like Jarret Stoll, Jason Garrison, Ville Leino, Dan Hamhuis and Christian Ehrhoff will benefit greatly from this and signed/will sign extremely bloated contracts for what they bring to the table. Jonathan Quick is also very fortunate that he can start negotiating on July 1st before the new CBA again drastically changes the salary structure. It sucks for a guy like Dustin Brown who was grossly underpaid in his last contract and will not be able to negotiate until July 1st, 2013.

Since Stoll came to the Kings in 2008 he will be paid 17.66 million through this year, for largely mediocre hockey. Dustin Brown on the other hand, who has been one of the Kings best players will have earned only 15.5 million over the same time span.

The problem is, there are way to many contracts around the league like Stoll's and not enough like Brown's to counter the losses and lack of value teams are getting from contracts.

The only thing keeping owners in the game is that franchise values continue to rise, the problem is, it's not easy to just turn around and sell a franchise valued in the nine figures, the buyers market is extremely limited and in some places non-existent. Plus the league itself rightfully wants committed owners and not people who are going to buy the team with the intention to flip them a couple of years later.
I'm not smart enough to know where the problems lie. However, if the system is flawed, why did the owners agree to it in the first place and the renew it a few years later? I mean they should take some responsibility and from what I understand, the NHL players get a higher percentage of the revenue than other prosports. If that is the case and owners are losing money, I would imagine that is something that should be negotiable. I don't even know exactly what that means or how big of an issue it is. But at the end of the day, I really don't care about the semantics. If the owners and players want to fight in the sand box again, they'll be coming back to an empty school when the fight is over.

The one thing that does make me a bit nervous is the fact that the NHL union has the guy who I guess was pretty instrumental in the baseball lockout from the 90's. That doesn't bode well.

EDIT: In regards to Brown, you are choosing an anomaly. If Brown signed a 2 or 3 year deal when he was younger, he'd be making more now when he eventually re-signed. He went for the long term security and ended up becoming more valuable down the line. I get what you are saying about inflation of the salaries but I don't think choosing Brown is a good comparison.

Last edited by Buddy The Elf: 06-25-2012 at 06:28 PM.
Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote