View Single Post
10-26-2012, 10:22 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
So my question to the pro owner crowd is, What IS the NHL offering in any of their proposals in terms of any sort of give-back to induce them to agreeing to a deal?

NHLPA - What are you offering us to get us to agree to that?
Doesn't shortening ELCs mean that young players can sign a new, richer contract?

Originally Posted by Neil Patrick Harris View Post
This this this. They were planning southern expansion since the Ziegler years. They even had the ridiculously high expansion fees already planned out.
Anaheim and Florida debuted in Bettman's first season, as did the newly relocated Dallas Stars. The NHL was at 26 teams. Bettman approved moves for Winnipeg(Phoenix), Quebec(Colorado), and Hartford(Carolina), approved four expansion teams (Nashvile, Minnesota, Atlanta, Columbus), and approved the move of Atlanta(Winnipeg).

Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
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?
Redden's salary didn't count on the cap, but it did count against the Players' Share. The same is true of all one-ways not in the NHL.


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.
But that's what NYR did with Redden, or CHI with Huet.

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.
The reason they didn't have to pay him is because they made an agreement with his Swiss club that they would pay his contract. He was still under contract and could have been called up were he needed.

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.
What? That's even LESS player friendly. It's basically "Ok, ELCs can be three years, but they will only be worth two years' pay."

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.
Good in theory. In practice you get the New York Yankees.

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.
The floor needs to be lowered, not eliminated. Instead of $16m, make the difference something like "40% of the cap, to the nearest million". That puts the salary floor on a $59.9m cap at $35.9m.

Remember, if the PA gets 50%, and all HRR is exactly $3.3b, that's an average of $55m per team; the floor for this season was originally set at $54.2m. The cap should be closer to the 50-60 range than the cranked-up 70m it ts at/was going to be at.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote