HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Should the habs buy anyone out?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-19-2011, 10:38 AM
  #51
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roke View Post
On the surface that seems great for the Habs, getting rid of Gomez with no penalty on the cap. When I think about the factors behind it though, I'm not so sure.

If there are compliance buy-outs in the new CBA that means the salary cap along with (probably) the salary floor will be going down.

As one of the highest revenue-teams where there is a gap between high-revenue and low-revenue clubs the Habs have an advantage where they can spend to the salary cap while teams like the Islanders, Panthers, Hurricanes, Blue Jackets, Coyotes, Predators, Stars, etc. cannot. The Habs have more resources to allocate toward signing players than a fair number of teams in the NHL, allowing them to acquire higher quality players (if not at the top, then in terms of depth).

The lower salary cap will put some free agents back into the range of those lower-salary clubs. The top-end always get paid of course, but the bottom-end 2nd liners and top-end 3rd-line players are where the Habs can really stretch their financial muscle (as Gauthier should do this year with the derth of top-end free agent forwards) while other teams have to make do with cheaper options.

With Gauthier probably having a stronger year (he couldn't get much worse), and his contract being structured (i.e. his salary lower than his cap hit for the final 2 seasons) he can really be an attractive trade option for a cash-strapped, quality-strapped team. At worst the Habs should be able to get rid of him for nothing, at best they get an asset or two because of the scarcity of tougher-minute centres.

If the new CBA remains the same as the old CBA, the Habs probably get rid of Gomez while the gap between rich and poor teams widen, allowing the Habs to flex their financial muscle to a greater degree. If the new CBA bring in a lower floor and compliance buy-outs, the rich-poor gap will be smaller and the ability of Montreal to spend to the top won't be as big of an advantage with less to spend.

The best case scenario, I think, is Gomez bounces back, Eller develops into a 2nd-line centre by the end of the year, and the CBA remains the same. The worst case is Gomez becomes a 20-point centre, the cap goes down, and there are no compliance buy-outs. Buying out Gomez with a compliance buy-out is somewhere in between because of the lower salary cap.
That will never happen IMO. Rich teams have too much weight at the board of governors, and higher revenue sharing/cap floor lowering will probably not be what the players ask for the most. Also, there is the logic of the cap itself to consider. The halfway margin (between floor and ceiling) of the cap represents the 57% of revenues that players are supposed to get. If you bring the floor down, this brings down the halfway margin, which brings down the players percentage (57%). When you bring down the floor, you have to take the ceiling up to compensate for the halfway margin. If owners ever agree to a lower floor, it will be to get a higher ceiling. There's no other way for it to work in the present cap system.

Habs will continue to spend on a high cap ceiling, I don't see any problems concerning that, unless they want to nix the system to instore a new one.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2011, 01:33 PM
  #52
Roke
Registered User
 
Roke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
That will never happen IMO. Rich teams have too much weight at the board of governors, and higher revenue sharing/cap floor lowering will probably not be what the players ask for the most. Also, there is the logic of the cap itself to consider. The halfway margin (between floor and ceiling) of the cap represents the 57% of revenues that players are supposed to get. If you bring the floor down, this brings down the halfway margin, which brings down the players percentage (57%). When you bring down the floor, you have to take the ceiling up to compensate for the halfway margin. If owners ever agree to a lower floor, it will be to get a higher ceiling. There's no other way for it to work in the present cap system.

Habs will continue to spend on a high cap ceiling, I don't see any problems concerning that, unless they want to nix the system to instore a new one.
Thanks Ozy I meant to write that you bring down the ceiling as well but you're right in the players wanting to maintain their 57% of revenue and that any cap movements wouldn't work in the way that I laid out.

Given what's going on in the NFL and NBA with the owners wanting to have a lower percentage of revenue go to the players (I think i've read 50%) it wouldn't surprise me if the NHL pushes for a lower % again. Even though in general sports is a terrible way to make earn a return on your investment (except for the appreciation of your capital investment) I think all the owners wouldn't mind a lower percentage - it's been very good for teams like Toronto and the Rangers.

I've kind of got us down the CBA rabbit hole, but I think that the NHL has a revenue distribution problem rather than a revenue or cost problem. The simplest solution in terms of bargaining with the players would be to just increase revenue sharing but the rich owners won't go for that. I expect that they'll try to bargain for a lower percentage of revenue going to the players.

Frankly though, the owners and their management teams will find some way to screw things up. They had almost a blank slate with the NHLPA last season and still managed to have their "cost certainty" grow out of the reach of a fair number of teams.

If there are compliance buy-outs it means the players will be receiving a lower percentage of league revenues (and thus the cap goes down), which isn't necessarily a good thing for the Habs from a competitive advantage standpoint.

Thanks again Ozy.

Roke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2011, 03:12 PM
  #53
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Why did you ignore all of the posts that flat out tell you that they CAN'T buy out Spacek or send him to the minors? 35+ contract. He counts against the cap no matter what you do.
Why did you ignore the TRADE option? Durrrr

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2011, 03:17 PM
  #54
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roke View Post
Thanks Ozy I meant to write that you bring down the ceiling as well but you're right in the players wanting to maintain their 57% of revenue and that any cap movements wouldn't work in the way that I laid out.

Given what's going on in the NFL and NBA with the owners wanting to have a lower percentage of revenue go to the players (I think i've read 50%) it wouldn't surprise me if the NHL pushes for a lower % again. Even though in general sports is a terrible way to make earn a return on your investment (except for the appreciation of your capital investment) I think all the owners wouldn't mind a lower percentage - it's been very good for teams like Toronto and the Rangers.
If ever that happens, they will cut the % across the board, for all players, to fit all cap salaries vs the new representation of their share on the new cap limits. Like the 23-24% they cut off before installing the cap system.

Quote:
I've kind of got us down the CBA rabbit hole, but I think that the NHL has a revenue distribution problem rather than a revenue or cost problem. The simplest solution in terms of bargaining with the players would be to just increase revenue sharing but the rich owners won't go for that. I expect that they'll try to bargain for a lower percentage of revenue going to the players.
I don't think players will agree to a lower %, and as you said, the rich owners will always be in the way of fixing the biggest problem which is revenue sharing among owners. The revenue sharing itself is a bit whack as it accounts for total revenues of teams, not the total profit.

Quote:
Frankly though, the owners and their management teams will find some way to screw things up. They had almost a blank slate with the NHLPA last season and still managed to have their "cost certainty" grow out of the reach of a fair number of teams.
Though nothing is perfect, I feel it is a far better system than what was in place before. It's a viable system that has made its proofs in the short time it's been here. The players agreed to take less money, as long as there was a plan in place to increase the revenues, so that their new total share (57% of 3 billion = 1,7 billion TODAY) would be bigger than it was (75% of 1,8 billion = 1,35 billion) by the time the new CBA ends, without adding any new teams.

People can say what they want about the owner's/Buttman's sunbelt plan, and rightly so, but as far as the cap system is concerned, it seems to be the right solution and both parties got what they wanted, and I don't see why they wouldn't continue this way. The present trend is that they'll continue with this system, as there wasn't any squabbles at renewing it's optional years (even adding non-existent optional years). Although, that might just be a sign that the players are taking their time in building their next fight against the owners.

Quote:
If there are compliance buy-outs it means the players will be receiving a lower percentage of league revenues (and thus the cap goes down), which isn't necessarily a good thing for the Habs from a competitive advantage standpoint.

Thanks again Ozy.
The causality is far more complex than that, and wouldn't result in your conclusion IMO. From what I understand about how they manage the cap, they always leave a little room for surplus in the escrow tax, meaning that they put the halfway margin of the cap a little higher then the 57%, so that if the league has a surplus in revenues, the players get those extra revenues, instead of ending up getting 54-55%. The cap is intended to be ever-growing, as all business are concentrated on growth. The league has a set number of roster spots, that fluctuates at around 700 yearly, and there is no change in this. So if there is ever a flurry of compliance buyouts, it will be part of several measures to tweak the system, like % cut across the board, which will leave the same margin in the end, for any rich team like the Habs.

Also, compliance buyouts would be seen as a marching step towards removing garanteed contracts, and players, IMO, will never agree to this, or even a smaller form of circumventing garanteed contracts.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:51 AM.

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.