View Single Post
11-14-2012, 03:31 AM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Please expand.
A number of things skew results to less, most notably fringe NHLers, AHL call ups, and prospects who don't make it but are test driven in the NHL. Most of these players would be earning the same, no matter what happens with the negotiations. When these statistics were collected is a major factor as well.

Most players who will share this pie being fought over have a career that lasts double that, or more.

Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Incorrect. Forwards hit their primes much earlier. By the time they're 27-28, they are on the decline. Defensemen peak a bit later and the decline isn't as steep. Obviously, of all skaters, they comprise about a third of the roster.
Scientific research has been done to prove that hockey players hit their prime at the age of 27, and their prime lasts until 32. How that corresponds to points is a side matter, but they don't start declining at 27. Not to mention many players don't take until 27 to hit UFA, and it doesn't matter anyway, because paying on past production is exactly what owners have proven to do and the contracts are guaranteed.

Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If there were no benefit to teams by virtue of the RFA designation, why would owners care? Heck, Burke rambled on and on about that third contract. Check in with him.

The ELC proposal, last time I checked was a team option after the first two years, but I haven't kept up with that particular detail.
Of course the RFA years hold a benefit. It is years that you get your player and your development money pays off.

That doesn't mean the players don't get paid. Right now, the owners get a 3-year ELC for cheap, and then a lot of players ask for bigger longer-term contracts. They are overpaid in the beginning and underpaid in the end. If we push the ELC back to two years, the owners only get two-years cheap, and the players are separated into two groups.

The first group, the stars, that excel in the first two years, get that big contract one year sooner. They end up making more money overall. The second group, good players that the teams want to re-sign, but did not produce as stars, get a bridge contract for a couple years at a price in between the ELC and what would have been their big contract. And then their 3rd contract would likely be bigger than the big contract they would get under the current system. They end up making the same money overall.

The only thing this does is allow owners to more accurately match production with salaries in any given year. It doesn't hurt the players. It can actually help them if they play well.

I don't know anything about owner options. This change has never really been presented as a non-negotiable part anyway.

Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The individual cap under the last CBA was 20% of the cap. With the share of HRR being reduced, the individual cap will do down commensurately. That's really beside the point to the discussion at hand. The point isn't that the league is changing the rate, but that an individual cap already exists. If you actually read my post carefully, you may discern that I said there are two sets of restrictions on salary in place-- the cap overall and the individual cap. There is no need to further restrict player mobility when one considers the career lengths and how carefully crafted the structure is to exploit that point.
No, it would still be 20% of the cap. It would just change with whatever the cap is, as it always has.

Nevertheless, the max has never been hit, so it is irrelevant.

So we have an irrelevant individual cap, and a collective cap that gives the players more jobs and arguably has increased their salaries too.

Obviously there are reasons to further restrict contracts. There are cap-circumvention issues, insurance issues, and just general flexibility that owners need to have when they are handing out guaranteed contracts.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote