Adrian Dater-Gary Bettman deserves ALL of the blame
View Single Post
10-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Originally Posted by
So i'll answer you another question...also good for anybody who thinks that:
What the owners can give?
Players got a lot, and i mean a lot of money already.
The got fist-class plane and 4-star hotel paid
They all got top of the class facilities to work-out
They got 100 persons taking care of everything for them
They got guarenteed contract even if they sucked like Gomez
They can have contract with NMC, NTC and no maximum lenght
Some can even force a trade to the teams they want
They got the best medical care in the world paid for them
They got their insurance paid for them
They even got all their equipement needs paid for them
They even keep all the money they make from sponsorship (even if it's HRR)
What can the owners give back to them?
Well, they gave what they could.....ELC bonus don't count on the cap (more money for the players). No more contract bury in the minors or any other league. (that's good for the players).
They can trade unhappy players with bad contract (by allowing money trade). Instead of throwing them out of league (Redden, Souray, Huet)
Do you think having a maximum of 5 years on the contract will help the owners?
Most of the owner gives longer contract to reduce the amount of money given.
Actually now, it will only about the amount given, not the terms.
Not sure it sill help the players.....but it sure won't help the owners.
BUT, it will be good for the league...every teams will have a chance to sign the big UFA available = excitement!
Most of the top line item listing is industry standard in terms of Professional Sports world wide. They are getting nothing out of the ordinary as it relates to the Professional Sporting world. Guaranteed contracts aside.
NMC and NTC's are willingly given by teams. during the process of negotiating contracts. Teams are not obligated to include them. Downside they don't get a certain player. Either way, there is NO OBLIGATION to give one out.
Additionally, there is no obligation to trade a player that HAS a NTC or a NMC. If a player insists on the inclusion of such a clause, the team doesn't have to move him. Because they do is 100% an election made by the team. They have no obligation to do so.
Burying contracts in the minors actually HELPS the players. The ones that are significant enough to discuss are one way deals that pay the player 100% of his contratc. Example #1 - Wade Redden has made 13 million playing in the minors. He's not good enough to be an everyday NHL'er, yet he plays in the minors and is still paid his NHL Salary. How does that negatively affect players? Teams do not have the ability to bury anyone in another league. They can send him to the minors via the waiver route, or they can elect to go over-seas thus forefitting his salary which is 100% an election made by the player. Huet case in point was not sent overseas so Chicago didn't have to pay him. That was the choice HE MADE. The Hawks benefitted from that in that they didn't have to pay him. Distinction is the election of the player to go overseas.
Yes, I believe limiting contract terms does help the owners as they are now no longer tied to money being paid to the players who's skills are taking a serious nose dive and are not obligated to play players absurd sums of money well beyond their usefull shelf life.
think about the massive long term contracts that have been given out. the first 5 years is where the teams paid out the largest sums of money. It's going to hurt the team because now we are going to see more 10+ million dollar guys and less opportunity for teams to retain other talent.
I'm not advocating 15 year deals for everyone, in my head I believe any player should be able to sign a contract before the age of 30 that does not take him beyond his 35th birthday. You limit contract lenghts but still allow doe the 10 year deals if a team and player is willing to enter into such a deal.
And no, not every team is going to be able to play in the deep end of the UFA pool. Until the NHL decides to get serious on revenue disparity, there are going to be teams under any Salary Capped scenario in which you will have Have's and Have Not's.
What can the owners give back?
Lets start by leaving the ELC's alone. Leave them at stay 3 years, but reduce the amount of bonus money they can make. Continue to not count it against the Cap.
As mentioned above, allow contract lengthts to be determined by the "No contract shall take a player past his 35th Birthday" rule. This would allow players the ability to sign long term deals, but not long enough that everyone knows they will not continue to play. Think any player is going to be willing to play for league minimum at 30-35?
Tweak the Arb. Process. It's not flawed in its idea, but it is flawed in it's application and the Arbiters that make their ruling. Any system that does not allow for both party walk away rights is wrong. Any stsyem that has a 99% success ratio for one side (that side being the players) is flawed. It needs to be tweaked and the teams need to do a better job arguing on the teams behalf because that is where decisions are rendered.
Allow teams the ability to exceed the cap with a dollar for dollar penalty on each dollar spent above the cap with all additional revenue put into the Revenue sharing pool. Ensure that tehre is significant oversight to make sure that that money is put back into the ON ICE product.
Get rid of the cap floor. Teams have been FORCED to keep up with the jonses by having a floor of 16 million below the cap. Half the team that have lost money would be cut in half if they weren't forced to keep up. Not only that, but that would also act as a drag overall % of money the NHLPA got.
Finally, offer an 8 year CBA that provide a two year step down approach to 50/50 with 6 years flat 50/50. It will allow revenue to grow to the point where the players salary will still pay him the 96%-97% contract value he has received the last 6 years.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pld459666