View Single Post
Old
09-17-2012, 04:51 PM
  #52
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
Cap circumvention issues and such are minor points, though. The reason the owners want player costs to come down further is because the cap floor is too high for the stragglers. There's nothing any owner could do about that under the old CBA.

...

And, as I said before, it's hard to condemn anyone for giving out crazy contracts when there's really no other way to do it, at this point. That's the double-edged side of a capped environment. If you're not spending to the cap, you're not trying to compete barring unusual luck with ELC timing or coaching etc.

...

Also, wrt to the "commitments already made" part of it for the "no rollbacks" PA talking point, I have trouble drawing a hard line there when the proposal is to increase escrow withholding to get around it. It's a rollback, but escrow is already there so it's not like a player is ever guaranteed his full contract. I have no problem with it if it means the cap ceiling and floor are just effectively moved further apart. The players would still have a chance to get their full values if growth were good (and if the stragglers weren't forced to spend as much as they currently are). But then I've long thought that the floor and ceiling were too close together so I'm probably just predisposed to liking that solution.
I don't disagree with any of this EXCEPT the notion that the solution should be the responsibility of the players. Yes they should care, but they are not the cause of problem, nor should resolving it fall mainly on their shoulders. If the old CBA didn't anticipate that the very strategy owners claimed to need for success would in fact lead to success, that seems shortsighted.

And I don't know that I blame them for giving out crazy contracts... what I blame them for is now complaining that players need to help them undo what they've done. Going forward, I have no issue with changing the terms so they are forced to control themselves/are better able to be competitive.

I also agree with further separating the cap floor and ceiling and with reshuffling revenue sharing. Seems entirely reasonable to me. I think 50-50 makes a lot of sense. But the proposal to drop players' shares by 15 percent or whatever it was is just downright BS.

But the escrow argument, to me, feels like a red herring. When negotiating their contracts, players take that into account. It's quite another thing to ask players to give back salary, whether to escrow or just to owners. Now admittedly, I don't fully understand the NHL's escrow system, so I will reserve further comment on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
@CaliCapsFan

The teams exploiting the cap loopholes aren't the ones clamoring for a new CBA because they're losing money (aside of possibly NJ). The rift between the "haves" and the "have nots" is what's causing the new for a restructured CBA, as the "haves" revenue is increasing at a rate where the "have nots" can no longer afford to spend the salary floor each season.

That leaves four basic solutions:
Lower the players' cut of revenue (NHLPA doesn't like that one)
Lower the cap floor (NHLPA won't like that one)
Increase revenue sharing (Rich owners don't like that one)
Contraction (Neither party wants that one)
That's true. But the problem for ownership is that they all agreed to the now-expired CBA and they are negotiating as a single block against the players, rather than as factions amongst themselves. They built a system that they couldn't all play in equally. so the problem is among the owners. It's not the players' job to fix it. Ownership should not be able to have it both ways. Since the players can go play elsewhere, forcing the owners hands is the only way they have power.

FWIW, tho, NHLPA is willing to discuss lowering their share of revenue. Just not 10+ percent. The revenue sharing should absolutely increase, precisely because the problem is inequity among the franchises and the rich owners should bear more of the burden for supporting the struggling franchises than should players, IMHO. Personally, contraction or at least relocation of the likes of Phoenix and Florida also makes a ton of sense.

californiacapsfan is offline