HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

throwing the young guys under the bus

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-20-2005, 06:10 PM
  #1
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,014
vCash: 500
throwing the young guys under the bus

correct me if im wrong (and please explain why i am)
but would a cap starting after 3 years or after 6 years just be another example of the Unions willingness to toss the younger players under the bus? It smacks of "we got ours and we will keep it, you can have the salary cap when we are gone"

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 06:37 PM
  #2
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,387
vCash: 500
When Daigle and all the rookies were getting the astronomical rookie contracts, there was an uproar, how can such unproven players make so much. Players will get better and deserve raises, but if you start them so high, things will spiral out of control.

So we get a rookie cap. And rules to slow down the ability of young players to get raises until they reach free agency (which we have learned is a good thing for sports, not a bad one that you would intuitively think)

The result is that fans accuse the union of throwing rookies under the bus. Fine. Rookies are free agents and we'll cap them when they are 31.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 07:15 PM
  #3
MePutPuckInNet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
i think all the proposals so far have been completely ridiculous regarding entry level guys.

i understand fully the need for their to be a decrease in their salaries as well as a decrease in their bonus'. however, i think it's absurd to cut out the performance bonus' entirely. If a guy performs well throughout the year and hits some of the benchmarks, why shouldn't he be rewarded for that? i'm not saying anyone should be making Daigle-like dollars. But, c'mon.....let's try and be fair.

and you say they can be free agents when they're 31? or what if the age is lowered to 28? so what? what about guys who are entering the league when they're 20-21 years old? with no arbitration, and the owners wanting young players signed to longer entry level contracts.....they're looking at 7-10 years at making $850,000......IF they even are able to sign for the top dollar, which will be damn few of them to begin with. Tell me how this is right?????

It sure seems like good reason for all the higher level talent to go elsewhere....why not play in Europe???? What's to keep them in the NHL??? Does the NHL need to have even FEWER talented players than it already has????? Gawwwd....this irritates me soooooooo much.... :mad:

MePutPuckInNet is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 08:46 PM
  #4
barnburner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
I don't think the position of the NHLPA is really one of just sacrificing the younger players - it is mainly about taking care of the big contract "star" players.
A solid, but not overly talented 3d line player is never going to have an opportunity to get a 8 or 10 million dollar a year contract. The money he will lose in the lockout is far greater than he would have lost over the course of his career working under a cap.
Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to take until some time well into what would have been next season before enough of the "average" players step up and demand a voice and force a change in the approach of their association.

barnburner is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 08:52 PM
  #5
Traded13
Registered User
 
Traded13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: England
Posts: 6,176
vCash: 50
I agree that the bonuses shouldn't be removed.. I also see how it could be a tool for GM's to snag players. So, what needs to be done is for the league to set standard rates for the bonuses and not allow a team to pay over or under that mark. Balance!

Traded13 is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 09:10 PM
  #6
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnburner
I don't think the position of the NHLPA is really one of just sacrificing the younger players - it is mainly about taking care of the big contract "star" players.
A solid, but not overly talented 3d line player is never going to have an opportunity to get a 8 or 10 million dollar a year contract. The money he will lose in the lockout is far greater than he would have lost over the course of his career working under a cap.
Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to take until some time well into what would have been next season before enough of the "average" players step up and demand a voice and force a change in the approach of their association.
Yeah but you forget that a lot of 3rd line players are making huge bucks. Domi making $2 mil, Arnott making $4 mil, and Darren McCarty making 2.3 mil. The problem is that many of the 3rd liners will take a large hit in salary. The only people really complaining are the bottom scrubs making $1 mil and less who don't even deserve to play in the NHL but are in only because of expansion.

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 10:06 PM
  #7
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
correct me if im wrong (and please explain why i am)
but would a cap starting after 3 years or after 6 years just be another example of the Unions willingness to toss the younger players under the bus? It smacks of "we got ours and we will keep it, you can have the salary cap when we are gone"
as long as sidney crosby is around no young guys are gonna miss out - $$$ -

mr gib is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 10:12 PM
  #8
Balk
Healthy Scratch
 
Balk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 343
vCash: 500
I don't agree with the total elimination of performances bonuses, but the current bonuses are often so easy to reach that the idea behind them is lost.

A solution would be to set standard bonuses by the league. Such as for a rookie forward there would be standard bonuses for goals, assists, points, etc. Defensemen would have a different set of bonuses (lower goal, assist totals, etc.) and goalies would have a third set.

All the payments would be standard, i.e. $100 000 for 20 goals, another 100 000 for 30 goals, etc. It would be the agents job to negotiate which of these bonuses are included.

This would eliminate the easy bonus and ensure that rookie contracts don't get too out of hand.

Balk is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 07:39 AM
  #9
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,572
vCash: 500
It happens in all labor deals, escpecially since those guys really dont have voices in the process, I doubt anyone in the NHLPA or the Owners cares what Sidney Crossby has to say at this point in time. Yet guys like him will be hugely effected by the next CBA>

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.