View Single Post
11-13-2012, 07:42 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,076
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I think it's clear that it does.

The winners include the ones with longer careers. If you're expecting a long career, you win from an agreement that includes revenue sharing, because that decreases the odds of another lockout in 5 years.

The losers, I think the biggest losers, are likely to future members of the NHLPA. It's common in these negotiations for current workers to negotiate away the privileges of future workers. So, for example, we might see 5-year ELCs, which would be a transfer of wealth from future players to current players who happen to still be around in the future.

I did not attempt a complete list of winners and losers.

I think if the NHL was more Machiavellian, they might offer to raise the minimum salary to $750,000 or even $1,000,000, and maybe shift the minimum length to 2 years. That's a trivial change for the owners, but it could divide the NHLPA. They could also change the retirement rule which penalizes players older than 35.

ETA: If player share is reduced from 57% but current contracts are honoured, then the biggest winners are whoever has a long-term contract, and the biggest losers are whoever has a short-term contract. However, if revenues grow really fast, cap inflation will lead to salary inflation, and players with current contracts may end up being underpaid, as happened after the last lockout.
Thanks, all very good points.

In your last example, the impact on a guy like Subban could be significant. If a large number of teams are already at or near the limit of the new cap and the current contracts had to be honoured, then what happens to those unsigned players?

It's complicated

HCH is offline