View Single Post
11-23-2012, 02:48 PM
Registered User
Proto's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,812
vCash: 833
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Except that's demonstrably untrue. The NHL's offers in September and October of 2004 which Hamrlik is suggesting they should've taken would've had players taking about 15% less in revenue per year than they ended up getting. So they lost nothing in terms of money in the long run. And it's hard to argue that Hamrlik lost much personally. Would he have gotten a $5.5 million deal in 07-08 if the NHLPA accepted the NHL's offer of a $31-33 million cap? Doubtful.

Then you have the contract rights they gained. The NHL's final offer in Feb 2005 (i.e. their absolute best offer) included the following:

-No contracts longer than 3 years
-UFA age of 30 years old
-a drop dead date in early October for unsigned RFAs whereby if they didn't sign a contract that was offered to them they'd be ineligible to play the rest of the season.
-4 year ELCs with a hard cap at $1.1-1.6 million including all bonuses
-$300K minimum salary

I don't see a logical argument that they'd have been better off settling for what the NHL was offering either in terms of money or contract rights.
Yeah, I think there was also an offer of a hard cap at 50 million somewhere around February of 2005.

The fact that the league wanted a hard cap and the players went with a lower one and linkage is telling: the players have known for a long time that the NHL lies through its teeth about revenues. Sort of like how Bettman comes out now and implies the league is losing money when they demonstrably are not.

Proto is offline