HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHL plans to disperse talent

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2005, 09:04 PM
  #101
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
You want to hope its a ploy. That they couldnt be serious. That as a couple posters here said, its like they are astonished they won with what the players offered and cant beleive it, but are just playing it out to the last minute like good lawyers should do.

You want to hope that although the league scoffed at the high amount of revenue sharing proposed by the union and insisted they take their revenue numbers and model it lower, that they still will institute significant revenue sharing like they say they will but wont write down or talk about.

You want to hope that although no sports economists or labour lawyers or investigative journalists come to the conclusion that the hard cap concept is in the best interests of the fans or the best league in the world, that the owners are only proposing it as hard line and really they will be good guys in the end and be reasonable.

The NHL plans a talent dispersal draft. Surely they couldnt mean it. ITs just a ploy.

You want to believe it. How long will you go on believing it? Pleas Melnyk, prove me wrong. Prove you care enough about the game, that you wouldnt destroy it over a struggle many of your own owner colleagues and GMs dont find necessary.

If they are just playing hardball and are going to save the season, fine. Sacrifice a 2nd year and i spit on your shoes.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:08 PM
  #102
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,393
vCash: 500
This issue of what the NHL's plan is for teams that are already comitted to contracts that put them over a cap, if a hard cap is set, is one that hard cap proponents will keep dancing around. If this dispersal draft is what is planned, that's just downright scummy.

Commander Enigma is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:11 PM
  #103
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkboy
This issue of what the NHL's plan is for teams that are already comitted to contracts that put them over a cap, if a hard cap is set, is one that hard cap proponents will keep dancing around. If this dispersal draft is what is planned, that's just downright scummy.
Or the cap could be phased in over a period of two to three years. Again this, like everything else, is negotiable once the PA agrees to the principle of cost certainty.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:23 PM
  #104
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
That's why the league should institute a NBA-style system, with some modifications (i.e. no sign-and-trades).
indeed. ive actually proposed (not sure if it was on these boards or not) a system where homegrown talent would cost less against the cap than players traded for or signed. Something like 95% of the contract counts against the cap for homegrown talent. 100% for players traded or signed and 105% for free agents signed in excess of $6 million per year

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:25 PM
  #105
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkboy
This issue of what the NHL's plan is for teams that are already comitted to contracts that put them over a cap, if a hard cap is set, is one that hard cap proponents will keep dancing around. If this dispersal draft is what is planned, that's just downright scummy.
Maybe it could be considered "scummy", but all teams knew that the NHL was going to lockout the players and push for cost certainty well before many contracts were signed for this season. Some teams were even cautioned (like Toronto...) that if they were over whatever limit was set, there would not be a phase in period. Many teams were positioning for this lockout for years by making sure they didn't have a lot of high priced contracts.

That being said, I'm sure that the teams that are over would be given a period of time to restructure the contracts they decided to sign players to. After that, I'm not too concerned, they made their bed...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:27 PM
  #106
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,320
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
You want to hope its a ploy. That they couldnt be serious. That as a couple posters here said, its like they are astonished they won with what the players offered and cant beleive it, but are just playing it out to the last minute like good lawyers should do.

They could be serious. But if Linden gave in on the cap, but refused on the dispersal drafts do you really think the GMs would let Bettman continue the lockout? I doubt it. If the Bettman gets his precious cap, he'll drop their pants, bend over and let the players have their way on the sundry items that make little difference.

If the owners have won the cake and picked the icing, do you really think kick up a stink over the players wanting to pick the colour of the icing? I don't.

me2 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:20 PM
  #107
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Or the cap could be phased in over a period of two to three years. Again this, like everything else, is negotiable once the PA agrees to the principle of cost certainty.
Perhaps, but I don't think it's an issue that should be ignored by hard cap proponants like it has. There should be a plan in place before anyone agrees to anything... it's not like once the PA agrees to cost certainty solving this issue will be simple...

Commander Enigma is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:25 PM
  #108
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Maybe it could be considered "scummy", but all teams knew that the NHL was going to lockout the players and push for cost certainty well before many contracts were signed for this season. Some teams were even cautioned (like Toronto...) that if they were over whatever limit was set, there would not be a phase in period. Many teams were positioning for this lockout for years by making sure they didn't have a lot of high priced contracts.

That being said, I'm sure that the teams that are over would be given a period of time to restructure the contracts they decided to sign players to. After that, I'm not too concerned, they made their bed...
This isn't just about the OWNERS and GMs who "made their beds"... it's about the fans. That's what's scummy about it. Why should the fans have to see their teams torn apart... especially ones that built their teams the right way? There are only a few teams... Toronto, the Rangers, the Wings, the Blues... that went out and signed free agents to huge contracts to screw up the old system. Don't tell me you think this dispersal draft idea would only affect them...

Commander Enigma is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 11:00 PM
  #109
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,543
vCash: 500
I like the idea, but would want to hear the details? What about Yashin, Jagr, etc? Does a team like the Pens have to taken on that whopper of a salary for a waste of space? Or do the teams that have those players gety stuck with them and raided for other more desireable Cap-wise players until they get under the Cap?

And would my Pens hit the proverbial lottery, in a perhaps weighted system for the next draft AND for the dispersal draft picking first or second in each? Perhaps Crosby and (fill in the blank on what they could take). From a Pen's standpoint how could you not like it?

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:08 AM
  #110
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
But isnt the cap system everyone wants supposed to keep guys like Sakic on their respective teams. Keep talent you've developed on your team. I thought that was the whole point of the cap?
Eventually that will be the case, but when its instituted the high payroll teams will have to get rid of some guys. And that will ultimately be up to the GM's to decide who to let go.

kerrly is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:12 AM
  #111
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chayos1
Colorado will have some hard choices to make but with Foersberg a ufa and signed to stay in Sweden this season, it will be easier than it could have been.


teams that I wonder about are Dallas, NYR and philly.

man philly is going to have to buy out 2 of Recchi, Roenick and Leclair.
Yes some teams will have some tough decisions to make. But they were warned for a long time that this would be happening. They had many oppurtunities to in the past couple years to get their teams in good or better shape for the cap. I do feel for them, but at the same time I don't.

kerrly is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 02:46 AM
  #112
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
How are teams over the cap not going to be broken up?
Of course, that question is unanswerable right now, because we have no idea of what the rules would allow, or what was proposed at the meetings. We don't even know what the dollar value of the cap would be, all we know is what the owners have proposed. The players can negotiate that cap *way* higher, if they choose.

One obvious route would be contract restructuring, etc.

The cynic in me would suggest a team can trade a high priced player away for some prospects. After all, when small market teams in the past have been forced to do that, PA supporters like to point out how this wasn't breaking up the team, it was just smart business. What's good for the goose...

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:49 AM
  #113
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkboy
Why the hell isn't anyone proposing this then? I'm refusing to take sides in this, I think both sides are stubborn and greedy, both sides have some valid points, but no one official has actually proposed an NBA style soft cap yet. It's been hard cap - no cap - hard cap - no cap back and forth non stop from both sides. A soft cap is the obvious compromise, but both sides refuse to compromise enough to get a deal done. I'll take sides once one of the sides proposes this. Until then I see both sides and both Bettman and Goodenow as dirt.
I don't think that neither side wants to negotiate it. The fact is a cap system of any kind can only be negotiated on the principle of percentage of revenues. UNtil the players are willing to discuss that the cap system can not be negotiated. Whether it be a hard cap, or a cap with exemptions, or a combined tax/cap system. The whole point of a cap system is to have a predictable trigger that directly relates to the economic health of the league and only one side wants to discuss that.

tantalum is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 11:28 AM
  #114
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
I think this sounds like NHLPA scare-mongering BS, anyone else?

I don't see how this would even be possible. Do you people seriously believe that this is an idea the owners would come up with? On what planet would the owners agree that they should be forced to move valuable assets? Come on

It might have been discussed (for what purpose I can't imagine), but I find it hard to believe that this was a serious proposal.
I suspect it has been discussed, yes.

IMO, the NHL will try to leave a few exits to the owners to meet the new CBA standards. I think the possibility that they may WILLINGLY throw players to other teams to meet the cap is definitly being discussed.

Some of those players might not even get picked. This is hardly shocking stuff and has little to do with parity. In fact, it has LESS to do with parity than the current waiver draft that is held annually (which itself, doesn't do much if anything for parity).

There is nothing novel about this. And on top of that the quote is too vague. It isn't even distorted, it's just too vague to understand what kind of system they are talking about and/or if it was only one of several options (which is most probably the case).

Anytime you change the landscape of a league drastically, you're going to have incidents which unfortunately interfere with individual team building process. That really sucks. It sucks in expansions and it is going to suck if they implement a cap. But the effects I am sure will be minimal and not overly detrimental.

As I said, I suspect this is one of several options. Teams will certainly have the option to trade, possibly also a floating cap the first few years. Then they the option to disperse talent. And while it sounds horrible to some fans, certain owners will be DELIGHTED to take advantage of it. In short, it's nothing horrible.

If Washington had the chance to do it, they probably would have put Jagr through the process for instance. The fact most fans think this is unfair proves that they are fans and not paying those players with their own wallet. Guys like Lapointe and Holik, teams would be delighted to "lose" them. They probably will not even be claimed.

There ain't going to be a mandatory dispersal with no other options. This is just scary talks by the NHLPA and their lackeys.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 11:30 AM
  #115
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrly
Eventually that will be the case, but when its instituted the high payroll teams will have to get rid of some guys. And that will ultimately be up to the GM's to decide who to let go.
Its BS the plan to impliment right away. I'm not a fan of a high-salary team so I'm not biased in my opinion. It should be grandfathered in so teams that are over the cap have time to get below the threshold and teams that are under the cap to get some revenue to pay the high salaries they need to get to the minimum. I dont see how just dispersing Leclair's 9 million dollars a year to Pittsburgh is going to help their finanical situation. There are better ways than just taking players off teams and giving them to other teams. This isnt a fantasy league.

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 11:44 AM
  #116
shadoz19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Maybe it could be considered "scummy", but all teams knew that the NHL was going to lockout the players and push for cost certainty well before many contracts were signed for this season. Some teams were even cautioned (like Toronto...) that if they were over whatever limit was set, there would not be a phase in period. Many teams were positioning for this lockout for years by making sure they didn't have a lot of high priced contracts.

That being said, I'm sure that the teams that are over would be given a period of time to restructure the contracts they decided to sign players to. After that, I'm not too concerned, they made their bed...

I would expect it to be like a waiver draft with teams being required to expose a certain amount of contracts that would get them under the cap. Would be great. The Wings could get rid of Ray Whitney and Derian Hatcher.

It wouldn't make sense for the NHL to simply allow small markets teams to have their pick of any players. They would destroy their best markets.

shadoz19 is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:34 PM
  #117
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
Its BS the plan to impliment right away. I'm not a fan of a high-salary team so I'm not biased in my opinion. It should be grandfathered in so teams that are over the cap have time to get below the threshold and teams that are under the cap to get some revenue to pay the high salaries they need to get to the minimum. I dont see how just dispersing Leclair's 9 million dollars a year to Pittsburgh is going to help their finanical situation. There are better ways than just taking players off teams and giving them to other teams. This isnt a fantasy league.
I agree with you 100%. But I was stating as if it wouldn't be grandfathered in because Bettman has said it wouldn't be for the past couple years. Easing the cap in would be a major help for alot of teams, and eventhough I'm a fan of a small market team, I think its fair.

kerrly is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 03:09 PM
  #118
Commander Enigma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum
I don't think that neither side wants to negotiate it. The fact is a cap system of any kind can only be negotiated on the principle of percentage of revenues. UNtil the players are willing to discuss that the cap system can not be negotiated. Whether it be a hard cap, or a cap with exemptions, or a combined tax/cap system. The whole point of a cap system is to have a predictable trigger that directly relates to the economic health of the league and only one side wants to discuss that.
But until the NHL actually proposes something like the NBA soft cap system, the players can't reject it and there's no real basis for arguing that the NHL would support it but the players wouldn't. The PA keeps saying they won't accept a system that is tied to league revenues, but if you play with the logic of it, a team that builds themselves the right way... through drafting and developing talent... won't have their salary tied directly to league revenue. That could be the PA's way of arguing that they didn't cave in, for whatever that's worth. So far, the NHL and Bettman have only argued for a hard cap (some people on this board have different definitions of what a soft cap is... a soft cap IS NOT a designated salary range between 34 and 38 million, which was the last NHL offer... its a system with exemptions that allow teams to go over the cap). As soon as they start talking about a soft cap and the players balk at it (and at this point I really think that would be really unlikely), I will jump on the player bashing bandwagon. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to hypothesize my way into taking sides.

Commander Enigma is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 03:20 PM
  #119
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Bettman is on record as saying there would be no grandfathering of contracts when a cap came in. Numerous teams took him on his word, and took steps to prepare for the upcoming season. Others continued business as usual.

Once again, any team who is negatively affected by this will be because of bad management, not because of the cap.
Yes it's terrible when teams sign their OWN players

Get a grip

Noone has answered how a team that has lost money with 22 million in salaries are going to be better off with a 35 million or whatever cap.

Or is this just the NHL's way of shrinking the money even further


Last edited by Poignant Discussion: 01-24-2005 at 03:38 PM.
Poignant Discussion 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 08:29 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.