HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Elite Players signing for league minimum?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2012, 08:39 AM
  #26
dr robbie
Let's Go Pens!
 
dr robbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Actually the relevant party is the NHLPA.

When Lemieux returned the last time he wanted to play for the minimum to help the penguins out but in the end settled on 5 mil (roughly) so the NHLPA would not blame him for hurting the market for other players or for taking down the league salary average.

That being said I do not recall a peep out of the NHLPA when the duck brothers went to Colorado.

So in short, there is no rule against it but for unionized workers it go's against the best interests of the collective.
Was just going to post about Lemieux's return, but you beat me to it.

dr robbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:17 AM
  #27
Human
cynic
 
Human's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bandwagon
Posts: 4,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
The NHLPA doesn't care. No matter what they're taking home x% of the revenues of the league. If Crosby was making $1m, that would just be $7.7m more that gets distributed to the other players.
this would be the case if every team spent to the cap ceiling. since there is a lot of money remaining on the table the NHLPA does care.

Human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:39 AM
  #28
manilaNJ
Optimism: Unwavering
 
manilaNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
The NHLPA doesn't care. No matter what they're taking home x% of the revenues of the league. If Crosby was making $1m, that would just be $7.7m more that gets distributed to the other players.
I can't remember what year it was, but I think I remember them flipping a collective **** over one of Brodeur's extensions. They didn't think he was signing for enough money.

manilaNJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:46 AM
  #29
La Grosse Tendresse
Registered User
 
La Grosse Tendresse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rouyn-Noranda
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Actually the relevant party is the NHLPA.

When Lemieux returned the last time he wanted to play for the minimum to help the penguins out but in the end settled on 5 mil (roughly) so the NHLPA would not blame him for hurting the market for other players or for taking down the league salary average.

That being said I do not recall a peep out of the NHLPA when the duck brothers went to Colorado.

So in short, there is no rule against it but for unionized workers it go's against the best interests of the collective.
The Lemieux case has more to do with him being the owner of the team and a player at the same time. It wasn't to help the Penguins out, but rather not to circumvent the salary cap (as he would be making the same money as team profits instead of player salary).

Before the cap, he was paid 1,4 mil, which was the league average salary, which mostly only affected the amounts he would put in towards union fees and the pension plan.

La Grosse Tendresse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 11:03 AM
  #30
roboninja
EYG
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,014
vCash: 500
To anyone that is surprised it does not happen more, I am confused. In my experience everyone likes money.

There is absolutely no salary cap circumvention here, unless that player is being paid more "off the books". And I am not sure how anyone can suggest otherwise.

roboninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 11:48 AM
  #31
Ceremony
Moderator
Ten Tons
 
Ceremony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 73,445
vCash: 499
I seem to recall Ray Bourque getting grief from the NHLPA when he signed in Colorado (post-trade) and they thought he wasn't getting paid enough.

I personally would tell the PA to stick it if they ever had an issue about my salary.

__________________
ďItís embarrassing. Iím embarrassed to be here right now. Itís not even funny. And itís just embarrassing, the way we, you know, the energy we have in the room and the way we approach practices and the way we approach this game. Itís not how youíre going to win any games in this league." - Jean-Sebastien Giguere, April 8 2013
Ceremony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:13 PM
  #32
medhatcanuck
Registered User
 
medhatcanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Inside JayZ's Belly
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,223
vCash: 500
I wouldn't take a pay cut. You have to remember the money you make up to 40, is the money you have to stretch out till your 90. You also have to remember players that get paid 5 mil only see 3.5 of that and it's very likely that during their playing years that they indulge themselves financially.

medhatcanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:32 PM
  #33
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
pre 2005 cba, i could see why other players would care, as it did hurt your negotiating power if star players suddenly started taking lower salaries.

post 2005 cba, it doesnt matter. The players get a negotiated share, everything else is just allocational issues. The players as a whole actually gain if player x decides to take 1M instead of 7M, because that additional 6M is distributed among the rest of the league's players.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:56 PM
  #34
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human View Post
this would be the case if every team spent to the cap ceiling. since there is a lot of money remaining on the table the NHLPA does care.
They may care but they shouldn't from a money perspective. The players are given a fixed amount. If teams spend less than they're supposed to, the players get a % increase across the board. If they spend more, the players lose a % across the board.

That will be true as long as player costs are tied to revenues and escrow is used to regulate it.

Well, there is a caveat there. They may like it more when a guy gets Redden'd, i.e. overpaid then stashed in the minors. Those guys don't pay into escrow and don't count against the players' portion, at least under the '05-'12 CBA. Of course they may come out against it saying it's unfair treatment of the player but, from a money perspective, they should love it.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:08 PM
  #35
rockinghockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
They can, I would be more curious how much these stars are signing for over seas, if they are willing to take less to play over seas why are we going through this hear.

rockinghockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:30 PM
  #36
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,793
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
pre 2005 cba, i could see why other players would care, as it did hurt your negotiating power if star players suddenly started taking lower salaries.

post 2005 cba, it doesnt matter. The players get a negotiated share, everything else is just allocational issues. The players as a whole actually gain if player x decides to take 1M instead of 7M, because that additional 6M is distributed among the rest of the league's players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human View Post
this would be the case if every team spent to the cap ceiling. since there is a lot of money remaining on the table the NHLPA does care.
Players don't gain as a whole because of what Human said.

If all teams spent to the cap, if one player signed for less then they are worth then another player would get more than what they are worth.

But not all teams spend to the cap. Say someone signed for 1m instead of 7m like you suggested. The 6m will not always be redistributed. The owners could simply see this as getting the same product they thought they were getting, but for 6m less then what they thought they would have to pay. The owners could simply pocket this extra 6m because they still ice the same team they thought they would because nothing is stopping them from doing that. Only some owners will go out and use the 6m on someone else.


I will try to use an analogy, it isn't perfect.

Say you went to the grocery store with $10. You bought some meat ($5) and vegetables ($5). You go to the cashier and they ring you up and it turns out the vegetables are on sale for $3 instead and you didn't know about it. Now your total is $8 instead of $10 which is what you thought you were paying. Your choices are you can keep the extra $2, or you can go back into the store and get a better cut of meat that costs $2 extra. Most people will probably keep the extra $2 instead of upgrading.

Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:33 PM
  #37
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,867
vCash: 1000
fehr wouldn;t allow it

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:10 PM
  #38
NeedleInTheHay
Registered User
 
NeedleInTheHay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Grosse Tendresse View Post
The Lemieux case has more to do with him being the owner of the team and a player at the same time. It wasn't to help the Penguins out, but rather not to circumvent the salary cap (as he would be making the same money as team profits instead of player salary).

Before the cap, he was paid 1,4 mil, which was the league average salary, which mostly only affected the amounts he would put in towards union fees and the pension plan.
There was no salary cap and the Penguins were spending half of what NYR and Det were.

NeedleInTheHay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:22 PM
  #39
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
Players don't gain as a whole because of what Human said.

If all teams spent to the cap, if one player signed for less then they are worth then another player would get more than what they are worth.

But not all teams spend to the cap. Say someone signed for 1m instead of 7m like you suggested. The 6m will not always be redistributed. The owners could simply see this as getting the same product they thought they were getting, but for 6m less then what they thought they would have to pay. The owners could simply pocket this extra 6m because they still ice the same team they thought they would because nothing is stopping them from doing that. Only some owners will go out and use the 6m on someone else.


I will try to use an analogy, it isn't perfect.

Say you went to the grocery store with $10. You bought some meat ($5) and vegetables ($5). You go to the cashier and they ring you up and it turns out the vegetables are on sale for $3 instead and you didn't know about it. Now your total is $8 instead of $10 which is what you thought you were paying. Your choices are you can keep the extra $2, or you can go back into the store and get a better cut of meat that costs $2 extra. Most people will probably keep the extra $2 instead of upgrading.
Except in this case you are required to pay the cashier exactly $10 no matter what (the players were guaranteed 57% of HRR). So now your $2 gets distributed to both the meat and vegetables... ok the analogy breaks down there but you get what I mean. But regardless, one guy taking less means every other player in the league gets a (very slightly) bigger escrow refund.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:54 PM
  #40
Kshahdoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medhatcanuck View Post
I wouldn't take a pay cut. You have to remember the money you make up to 40, is the money you have to stretch out till your 90. You also have to remember players that get paid 5 mil only see 3.5 of that and it's very likely that during their playing years that they indulge themselves financially.
Considering an average salary in USA is $40,000 a year, I can't understand how you americans managed to survive such a poverty?

Kshahdoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 03:57 PM
  #41
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueGrit View Post
That's right. Kariya turned down $10 million I believe for $2 million. Kariya and Selanne went on to have their most disappointing seasons of their career to which some have called it bad karma for trying to stack the deck.
No, Kariya did not turn down a $10M contract, the Ducks did - they chose not to offer him a $10M QO and instead let him become a UFA.

As soon as I read this thread, I knew someone would bring up Kariya with the usual bits of misinformation.

C&P from yet another Kariya thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Kariya did NOT sign with Colorado for a cheap one year deal out of the goodness of his heart, because he wanted to play with Teemu, or because he wanted a Cup - he signed that deal because it allowed him to become a UFA again. He became a UFA at an early age in '03 because teh Ducks declined to offer him a QO.

That cheap deal allowed him to become a Group V UFA - 10 pro years and earning less than the Average League Salary.

If he signed anywhere for a higher salary (> league average) he would have become a RFA again - he would not have become UFA eligible again until '06-'07 (under the 31 yo rule of the old CBA).

He saw he was not going to get a big payday then, so he signed the cheap one year deal - which allowed him to shoot for the big payday and long-term contract the next year. Any other considerations were secondary.

kdb209 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 02:23 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.