HFBoards

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

All CBA talk goes here (NHL offers 50/50 deal - 82 game deadline passed)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2012, 11:21 PM
  #251
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 38,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcv View Post
Damn it I'm trying to run the numbers but they don't even make sense to me. NHL's revenue for 2010? that was used calculate the 2011-2012 cap was ~$2,900,000,000 I believe. And the Salary cap was 57% of that. But divide THAT by 30 and you only get like $55M.

Brain. hurt.
I think the calculation gives you the midpoint of the cap (between floor and ceiling) or something like that...I'm sure a CBA expert will chime in.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
08-22-2012, 12:36 AM
  #252
vcv
Moderator
Deal with it
 
vcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Williamsville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,483
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to vcv
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs View Post
I think the calculation gives you the midpoint of the cap (between floor and ceiling) or something like that...I'm sure a CBA expert will chime in.
AFAIK, the floor is fixed at $16M below the ceiling, so that would mean its REVENUE * 0.57 / 30 + 8,000,000.

2011-2012 season: 2,900,000,000 * 0.57 = 1,653,000,000 / 30 = 55,100,000 + 8,000,000 = 63,100,000

vcv is offline  
Old
08-22-2012, 07:47 AM
  #253
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcv View Post
Damn it I'm trying to run the numbers but they don't even make sense to me. NHL's revenue for 2010? that was used calculate the 2011-2012 cap was ~$2,900,000,000 I believe. And the Salary cap was 57% of that. But divide THAT by 30 and you only get like $55M.

Brain. hurt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just said $70M = 57% of revenues (today).

so 50% of revenues is = (50/57) x 70 = $61.5M

Am I simplifying it too much? Jame's figures are much lower.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
08-22-2012, 10:40 AM
  #254
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcv View Post
Damn it I'm trying to run the numbers but they don't even make sense to me. NHL's revenue for 2010? that was used calculate the 2011-2012 cap was ~$2,900,000,000 I believe. And the Salary cap was 57% of that. But divide THAT by 30 and you only get like $55M.

Brain. hurt.

They calculate the upper and lower limits by dividing HHR by 30. That gives them the midpoint. Then they go up 8mil and down 8mil to get the upper and lower limits.

Also the owners proposal reduces what revenues will count towards HHR. So its a lower percentage of a smaller pie.


Last edited by joshjull: 08-22-2012 at 10:55 AM.
joshjull is offline  
Old
08-22-2012, 10:51 AM
  #255
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,099
vCash: 500
The players also had an option on a 5% escalator to increase the cap, which I think was a one time deal under the current CBA. They exercised that option for 12-13.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
08-22-2012, 01:07 PM
  #256
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Except that second contract is usually around 10 years by itself for big-name guys. The Hurricanes don't get to do what they did this year without Staal locked in with cost-certainty for a bunch of years, for example.
The Canes could have done everything they did this summer with Staal signed for 5 years.

Also how are you coming to the conclusion that most 2nd deals for big names are 10years? Other than a very small handful of guys that just not the case.

Quote:
Small markets don't want to constantly and cyclically negotiate with their best players every five years.
Constantly? With a 5 year entry level contract, then two more 5 year deals. A team can have its best player for 15 years with a grand total of 3 negotiations. That would take the player well into their 30s. The first contract (ELC) would have little work so its really 2 negotiations. Its hardly a situation where they would be constantly negotiating.

Quote:
And you can solve the offer sheet (non) issue with the cap hit change by itself.
I didn't say offersheets were an issue that had to be squared away. I just pointed out another benefit of the system. But I will say Nashville may have a different take.

Quote:
But term-length at the expense of real dollars up front is - or was, more accurately - the thing that kept smaller markets competitive for certain players. Taking that away from small markets puts greater emphasis on immediate compensation and location, which, again, hurts budget teams.
Budget teams keep players, or any team for that matter, because that player wants to stay.

Again look at the Preds. Their big 3 had contracts expiring this summer. Two were going to be UFAs (Suter/Rinne) and one was going to be a RFA (Weber).

Suter left because he wanted to and Weber almost did as well with that enormous offersheet.

Rinne stayed because he wanted to and his contract reflects that. He could have gotten a massive front loaded deal had he tested the free agent waters. Instead he signed an extension that worked for Nashville at 49mil for 7 years with salary/cap hit the same throughout (7mil).


Notice the guy that choose to work with the team to stay took the shortest deal. Budget teams in a world with cap hits and salaries being equal will not want the risks involved with lonegr term contracts. Unlike the big markets who can waive a player later in their contract and just eat the salary in the later years. Thats not an option for a budget team.

There is also a level of cost certainity to the system the NHL proposed that would be very appealing to the budget teams. With a big name player heading to free agency you know exactly the max amount they can be offered , 5 years at whatever the max allowable salary is per year (thats 20% of the upper limit). So this summer the most a player could be offered is 5yrs at 14mil per (70mil total). This would make it very hard for big market teams to poach players by outbidding their current team.

Quote:
Also, I don't get how you're saying these changes will simultaneously allow teams to hold onto talent and improve the UFA pool.
I said small market teams not every team.

Quote:
Causing them to get bought up by teams without star players, keeping salaries generally inflated.
Nope this system would actually cause the bigger markets to shed some of their star players thus further driving up whats allocated to those players.

joshjull is offline  
Old
08-22-2012, 02:31 PM
  #257
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,635
vCash: 500
Doubtful. Jordan left because he was a year away from free agency and was almost certainly jumping ship to where his brother was for the next while. You think he goes to Carolina if Eric only has 1-2 years left on his deal, depending on when exactly we're talking about (he prolly plays another year as a Pen under these circumstances)? 10 years is somewhat of an exaggeration, but most small markets that have locked up their name players have done it for more than five years.

And yes, constantly, or at least more than most small markets want to. After being jerked around on a five year ELC, how many players are going to by hyped to sign a "fair" second contract? Different leagues, but you see it all the time in the NBA, with players posturing for UFA as much as possible. And how many good players in small markets have signed two significant deals with those teams? Those players either sign 6-10 year deals as RFAs or posture for UFA and sign elsewhere. Term limits, especially the way the NHL is proposing them, actually better positions players towards testing the market, because they'll be coming off an artificially lowered salary and only a year or two away from cashing in as unrestricted guys.

And Rinne? No goaltender who's hit the market has taken a cap deal at 7. That's the exact type of contract that is unique to small market teams trying to long-term their best players that I'm talking about. And don't cloud the issue by bringing up front-loading. I've said I'm for stricter restrictions on that. Taking away the ability to throw 2-3 years at 2.5 or less at the end of a deal to fix the cap hit will do more than enough to level the playing field. Especially with a better HRR split and revenue sharing. A lot of your stuff about cost-certainty gets eliminated with that.

What big market teams let "star" players hit the market? Marian Hossa? Maybe good teams let their fifth best guy go more often, but the star players are going to be coming from the small markets. Still.

struckbyaparkedcar is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 11:27 AM
  #258
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
What I find that is funny is the people that complain about the way Gary Bettman is handling the negotiations and he is standing in the way of the deal.

GARY BETTMAN REPRESENTS THE OWNERS HE DOES WHAT THE OWNERS WANT


now that we got that out of the way....

heartsabres* is offline  
Old
08-26-2012, 10:52 AM
  #259
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
How long a training camp would be needed if the NHL had an NBA-like delay to the start of the season? "Generally players come into training camp in very good shape and we utilize a lot of that time for exhibition games and to evaluate players," Regier said. "We certainly don't need the full camp if there's a delay."
http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sa...cle1022846.ece

Sabretip is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 05:00 PM
  #260
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,782
vCash: 500
I'll be honest, I wont miss the 20-25 games they cut this season.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 05:48 PM
  #261
Afino
The Juice
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orchard Park, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 20,989
vCash: 500
**** the NHL. So sick of this garbage already. Get a deal done.

Afino is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 07:01 PM
  #262
aceface33
Registered User
 
aceface33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Herkimer, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,028
vCash: 500
Actually I came out optimistic after reading up on the news thread in the Buisness forum. Seems like there was a bit of progress today.

aceface33 is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 07:23 PM
  #263
jfb392
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcv View Post
AFAIK, the floor is fixed at $16M below the ceiling, so that would mean its REVENUE * 0.57 / 30 + 8,000,000.

2011-2012 season: 2,900,000,000 * 0.57 = 1,653,000,000 / 30 = 55,100,000 + 8,000,000 = 63,100,000
The formula is currently:
Quote:
Preliminary HRR for the prior League Year multiplied by [x] the Applicable Percentage (as defined in Section 50.4(b) of this Agreement), minus [-] Preliminary Benefits, divided [/] by the number of Clubs then playing in the NHL (e.g., 30), shall equal [=] the Midpoint of the Payroll Range, which shall be adjusted upward by a factor of five (5) percent in each League Year (yielding the Adjusted Midpoint) until League-wide Actual HRR equals or exceeds $2.1 billion, at which point the five (5) percent growth factor shall continue unless or until either party to this Agreement proposes a different growth factor based on actual revenue experience and/or projections, in which case the parties shall discuss and agree upon a new factor.
So, basically:
(((Preliminary HRR * Player's Share) - Preliminary Benefits) / 30) * 105% = midpoint
Ceiling = midpoint + $8m
Floor = midpoint - $8m

So, 2011-12 would look like this:
((($2,980,000,000 * 57%) - $90,000,000) / 30) * 105% = $56,301,000 + $8,000,000 = $64,301,000 (a bit off, but the ceiling was $64.3m last year).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
The players also had an option on a 5% escalator to increase the cap, which I think was a one time deal under the current CBA. They exercised that option for 12-13.
As stated in the excerpt above, the escalator has existed every year in which revenues were ≥$2.1b.
It was kept at 5% every time after that and the PA simply had to okay it.
They've done so every year, I believe.

jfb392 is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 07:49 PM
  #264
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 10,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceface33 View Post
Actually I came out optimistic after reading up on the news thread in the Buisness forum. Seems like there was a bit of progress today.
Most media members (and some players) only expect a 4-6 week stoppage whereas last lockout most people speculated outright that the entire season would be lost.

The owners have to understand that just because the game not only recovered but thrived after the last lockout doesn't mean it will this time. Having new players like Crosby and Ovechkin to grow the game wont happen this time.

Moskau is online now  
Old
08-28-2012, 08:57 PM
  #265
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
Dregar reports 58 mil cap next season from owners offer, increases each year to 72 5 years later

McTank is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 09:11 PM
  #266
jfb392
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
DarrenDreger NHL proposed a 6 year term today. Players Share: 2012/13 - 51.6% 2013/14 - 50.5% 2014/15 - 49.6% 2015/16 - 50% 2016/17 - 50% 2017/18 - 50%
http://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/stat...25786384699393

Quote:
DarrenDreger I'm told league proposal reduce financial "ask" tabled in first proposal by $460 million including, by $120 million in Year 1.
http://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/stat...26093818802176

Quote:
DarrenDreger Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M
http://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/stat...28689233141760

Quote:
reporterchris First three years of NHL proposal are delinked from HRR, the last three are at 50% (with a redefinition of HRR).
http://twitter.com/reporterchris/sta...27081749331970

Quote:
Collective bargaining talks resumed with the NHL tabling a proposal that Bettman hailed as being much stronger than the initial one put forth by the league on July 13. He didn’t provide specific details, but a source told The Canadian Press that the offer would see the players’ share of revenue reduced to 51.6 per cent in the first year of the deal and 50.5 per cent in the second — and wouldn’t include a rollback on existing contracts.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4504860/

A little over half of the teams in the league would be over the proposed salary cap.

jfb392 is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 09:33 PM
  #267
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,131
vCash: 500
The players might get a little more skin out of the owners, but this is certainly good progress. I mean, halfway between the status quo and the first offer would've been around 51.5, so this is pretty close there.

What's spooky is that if this happens, the Sabres will already be over. Hopefully the players get enough skin to allow the Sabres to sign Ennis, but ****, TEnnis should've been signing already.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 02:50 AM
  #268
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
Even if contracts arent rolled back is it possible that the contracts cap hits could be lowered by a percentage

McTank is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 03:04 AM
  #269
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
Could end up being smart waiting out on ennis, hall/skinner contracts may bot end up bring as good as we thought

McTank is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 05:02 AM
  #270
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,941
vCash: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyAreGoodScaryGood View Post
Even if contracts arent rolled back is it possible that the contracts cap hits could be lowered by a percentage
There is a rollback. They just don't use that word. The proposal achieves it by increasing the players escrow contribution.

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/colum.../dp120828.html
https://twitter.com/aaronward_nhl

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 07:54 AM
  #271
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,782
vCash: 500
The lowered cap would be great because IMO they would have to allow teams to eliminate 1 or 2 contracts, which means if you bought a Leino jersey it was a bad investment.

Sabres are in pretty good shape with the new $58 million cap. Get rid of Leino's contract and stash Pardy in Rochester. We are at $55 million. Ennis get $2.5 million. Lets play hockey.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 07:56 AM
  #272
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The players might get a little more skin out of the owners, but this is certainly good progress. I mean, halfway between the status quo and the first offer would've been around 51.5, so this is pretty close there.

What's spooky is that if this happens, the Sabres will already be over. Hopefully the players get enough skin to allow the Sabres to sign Ennis, but ****, TEnnis should've been signing already.
Waiting to sign Ennis will be smart, he will have to take less money if there is a rollback. Sucks for Ennis, but great for the Sabres.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 08:37 AM
  #273
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
The lowered cap would be great because IMO they would have to allow teams to eliminate 1 or 2 contracts, which means if you bought a Leino jersey it was a bad investment.

Sabres are in pretty good shape with the new $58 million cap. Get rid of Leino's contract and stash Pardy in Rochester. We are at $55 million. Ennis get $2.5 million. Lets play hockey.
People keep making thus assumption that the league would allow some kind of amnesty. Nothing that has come out, from either side, has really mentioned this. It's folly to just assume that it's going to be there. The PA would have to agree to allow contracts to just be terminated, and they'll never do that. The last big chip the players have left is guaranteed contracts. They won't give that up.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 08:41 AM
  #274
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
People keep making thus assumption that the league would allow some kind of amnesty. Nothing that has come out, from either side, has really mentioned this. It's folly to just assume that it's going to be there. The PA would have to agree to allow contracts to just be terminated, and they'll never do that. The last big chip the players have left is guaranteed contracts. They won't give that up.
If no amnesty there will be help for higher cap teams, again no worries about lowing the cap.

IMO the Sabres are in pretty good shape, especially looking at next offseason where we clear $9 million in cap off the defense and IMO we have cheaper replacements.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 09:00 AM
  #275
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
If no amnesty there will be help for higher cap teams, again no worries about lowing the cap.

IMO the Sabres are in pretty good shape, especially looking at next offseason where we clear $9 million in cap off the defense and IMO we have cheaper replacements.
Again, nobody knows that to be the case. It's just an assumption.

SackTastic 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 12:24 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.