View Single Post
10-30-2012, 02:46 PM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by llamapalooza View Post
The important figure is a (57-43)/(57) = 24.6% reduction, because that is the amount of their individual paycheck that a player would have lost under the original proposal.
This isn't true. The union and players want this to be true, they desperately need this to be true, but it's not. That's not how player salaries are calculated.

This is the #1 biggest most important distinction that needs to be made. That calculation is incorrect and does not represent in any way the salary reduction that players face.

Gross player salaries are (under the 2005 CBA) calculated exactly equal to their share of HRR. However, that's gross player salaries, not the salaries paid to an individual. Since contracts do not all expire in the same year, for any year where there the salary cap is in true effect (meaning, not this season if a deal is reached since there will be cap exceptions to fit salaries), this is the formula to calculate pay reduction (still talking about gross and not individual):



7% * HRR / HNS

Where OS is "original salary" and represents players on existing contracts and HNS is "hypothetical new salary" and represents the salaries players would have received under the old system when their contracts expired.

Players on existing contracts are entirely unaffected by salary reductions except in the first year where there is an approximately 9% escrow clawback (note, this is pretending that the NHLPA's crying and grandstanding hasn't irreparably harmed the league because these are the only figures I have to work with). Anyone on a 6 year or longer contract is completely unaffected by any changes except in the first year, which can be resolved via out of pocket "make whole" provisions. (Note, those players who require another contract eventually could be indirectly affected by the impact these negotiations have on the next CBA) So, Parise, Suter, Crosby, Luongo, Kovalchuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Hall, Eberle, Doughty, Karlsson, and all those other people on contracts that still have 6 years remaining are almost entirely unaffected by these negotiations.

Now here's the big kicker, for players whose contracts would expire in the first two years of the new CBA, they're facing a much much smaller pool of money for free agent signings. They can reasonably argue that they'll get less than "fair market value" for their deals because of the time period when they sign. This works in exactly the same way (except reverse) as the contract explosion the past two offseasons. When the cap rose rapidly, teams had so much room to bid on so few players, or to re-sign their own stars before they hit free agency. When the cap rises slowly (which is effectively how this would be implemented as there are no salary rollbacks) teams won't have as much money to throw around. Those players that teams would usually easily retain might hit free agency, broadening the supply there and driving down new contracts and teams still will have very little cap space to spare and won't be able to offer much. These players will suffer almost the entirety of any salary reductions.

There's also another wave of players of note though. Considering that behavior, and assuming that contracts will be handed out normally during that time, where does that leave players whose contracts expire in the later years of such a CBA? Depending upon how many contracts with longer than 1-2 year term are issued during those first 3 years, the contracts on the back half of the CBA could face the same rising effect as we saw in offseason 2011 and 2012. With so many players tied up in smaller contracts, and so many of those overpayment deals coming off the books from 2011 and 2012, it's possible that these players will actually see a pay increase over what they might have seen under the 2005 CBA. The most likely scenario is that they see a small pay cut (think 2%-4%) but it will be nothing like the cut players in the first part of the deal would receive.

In summary, trying to boil the numbers down to "all players are going to lose x% of money" is not only overly simplified, it's intellectually dishonest and strongly implies that players are signed to deals that owners are trying not to honor. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

squidz* is offline