So who is bummed about the lockout? II
View Single Post
11-11-2012, 08:41 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Originally Posted by
Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. How many players enter the league at age 18 each year? There's around 3-6 of them. Over a 6 year CBA we're talking about 18-36 players affected out of 700-900 players in the league. Even those in the 3% of the league that are potentially affected, they're not necessarily meaningfully affected either, only if they sign maximum length deals. Ultimately, that's not really likely. Furthermore, once again, this doesn't affect how much the players are paid, it only affects a few individuals. The actual purpose of a lot of this is to redistribute income within the NHLPA, pushing money from being paid to RFAs back to UFAs to earn.
Beyond that, a more typical scenario than your extremely rare 18 year old issue is one like Cal Clutterbuck. If he'd come up under the NHL's proposed system, he'd have a 2 year ELC, and would have been up for re-signing after just 80 NHL games instead of 154. In that situation, the team likely signs him for 2 years instead of 3. Now, instead of being paid $1.5MM in 2011-2012, he would have been on a brand new contract following his 19 goal, 34 point season and at the height of his value. He probably ends up with a 5 year contract (to buy out a UFA year) with an AAV around $3MM minimum. Instead of making around $13.5MM in his first 9 years, he makes around $18MM. There are more players in Clutterbuck's situation in regards to this than those extremely rare players negatively affected.
no you missed the point, NHL wants to take away as much power away from players as they can when it comes to negotiating contracts
it takes away from players the ability to fight back sooner when dealing with negotiations.
Regarding a player like Clutterbuck, its also likely he gets a shorter contract because the team could bet on the history that he can't maintain that level of physical wear on his body and he goes thorough some hot cold periods (as he does) he gets injured (as he does) and the team comes back when he's 25 with no arbitration rights and says we'll offer you a 5 year deal at lower value then we would have in the case you could file for arbitration and his choices are to take it (making him 30 when it expires) or hold out and damage your value. you know of the old famed line, "lets see if you can keep up those numbers"
i don't know why you are fighting my point that Arbitration is important to players and is a big win for them in being able to extract max value.
there are so many more situations then just the 18, 20, 25, in almost every case a team can get a player to 25 and reduce the value on their "money deal" because they have no way of fighting back other then holding out/demanding a trade
when combined with other parts that the NHL is proposing arbitration is a key for teams in negotiations. you don't think players would love to get arbitration rights at age 24, or 23? just as NHL wants to get rid of it all together.
again pushing a players negotiating strength one year further, combined with a new way to help teams keep contracts lower (less years to prove your self) it's all part of the system in which owners have more power then players and are able to get closer to their number
yes players will still be paid, many will still be paid a large sum, but when NHL wants to get a 50/50 revenue split, AND are trying to get more power in contract negotiations they won't be able to get ALL they are asking for if they want anything resembling a season, they will have to give something back to the players which is exactly my point.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by forthewild