HFBoards

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

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 08:30 PM
  #76
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 38,958
vCash: 500
The cap is definitely going to shrink some; Homer with a smaller cap has caused problems. Being able to trade for cap space, especially if it could be a cash transaction, could potentially negate Homer's biggest achilles heel.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 08:32 PM
  #77
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
The more I hear the more interesting things are becoming.

Sure, the contract length, FA age, etc are debatable, but at least the core economics make sense.

Should give them both something to move forward with.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 08:37 PM
  #78
LetsGoFlyers1825
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 767
vCash: 500
So, does the first trade for cap space ultimatley decide its market value?

LetsGoFlyers1825 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 08:51 PM
  #79
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 38,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGoFlyers1825 View Post
So, does the first trade for cap space ultimatley decide its market value?
Likely not. I think it would evolve over time and depend on each teams' circumstances and needs.

This is assuming Dreger's rumor has any legs. I'm going to be sad if there's nothing to it. Or it could work totally different from my fantasy.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 10-16-2012 at 08:56 PM.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 09:52 PM
  #80
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,271
vCash: 500
Wait. We could potentially have PAUL HOLMGREN with MORE cap space? Does Snider have embarrassing pictures of Bettman and Fehr?

King Forsberg is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:03 PM
  #81
LetsGoFlyers1825
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Likely not. I think it would evolve over time and depend on each teams' circumstances and needs.
I am curious as to how it really would be pulled off, if it as straight forward as I am thinking it is. Unless you're trading your cap space for picks, you will be losing cap space and adding salary. Could be more of a novelty than anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
Wait. We could potentially have PAUL HOLMGREN with MORE cap space? Does Snider have embarrassing pictures of Bettman and Fehr?
Hopefully they have some dirt on Snow and Wang too

LetsGoFlyers1825 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:12 PM
  #82
Brozgalov
Registered User
 
Brozgalov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Can someone explain to me how having a 5 year max contract length would be a bad thing? As it stands it only benefits the players... the owners and the fans are the ones that suffer. Owners pay for washed up players and fans have to basically turn on crowd favorites when they are no longer good because they have to stick around.

With the max at 5 years, players can't run somewhere else for more years... the Flyers will always offer the max and that will only benefit us. Top end players can't run somewhere else for a 14 year deal. I could see the argument that you can lower a cap hit by extending the years, but realistically I think the price of players drops a bit considering they can't be offered much more elsewhere...

I'm obviously not an expert on this whole thing... this is an honest question.

Brozgalov is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 11:01 PM
  #83
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 20,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.
Wow. Owner's really were ok with that?

EDIT:Nevermind

Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Sorry I lied. Important note on back-diving contracts (BDC). If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit

__________________

"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay

Last edited by Hollywood Couturier: 10-16-2012 at 11:10 PM.
Hollywood Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:45 AM
  #84
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Couturier View Post
Wow. Owner's really were ok with that?

EDIT:Nevermind
Actually this means that if Richards or Carter retire early, the Flyers would be on the hook for their cap hit (Bryz and Pronger as well). I am also trying to clarify if the Flyers would be the creator of the Weber contract and that if Weber retires early his cap hit would count against the Flyers for structuring the contract that way. Still no facts yet, but Bettman is holding true to punishing the teams who tried to circumvent the cap.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

In other words, the benefit clubs thought they were getting by reducing AAV with back-diving deals/bogus end yrs would be reduced/negated.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:53 AM
  #85
orange is better
than other colors...
 
orange is better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,945
vCash: 500
So under this proposed CBA, a player wouldn't reach UFA until age 28? idk how i feel about that.

orange is better is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:49 AM
  #86
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
So if a modified version of this deal is accepted, does that mean we can still offer sheet PK Subban?




It could essentially be the same thing if the retained salary was not associated with a cap hit.
You can send 50% or $3m with a player, whichever is lower, while all the cap hit goes.

A good example might be Wade Redden (assuming his 1-way contract will now count against the Rangers cap even though they are burying him in the minors). Rangers ring up Islanders and send Redden +$3m to the Islands for 7th round pick. Win-win-win, Rangers win, Islanders win, Redden wins.

It's going to be quite useful as a form of revenue sharing and keep guys in the league instead of the minors, at least until it gets abused and we have a whole new round of complaints to fix. It's not a great way of buying cap so much as redistributing your problems.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:39 AM
  #87
thelos
Bunk
 
thelos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Parker View Post
Actually this means that if Richards or Carter retire early, the Flyers would be on the hook for their cap hit (Bryz and Pronger as well). I am also trying to clarify if the Flyers would be the creator of the Weber contract and that if Weber retires early his cap hit would count against the Flyers for structuring the contract that way. Still no facts yet, but Bettman is holding true to punishing the teams who tried to circumvent the cap.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

In other words, the benefit clubs thought they were getting by reducing AAV with back-diving deals/bogus end yrs would be reduced/negated.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
well hopefully we can amnesty Pronger at least

thelos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:39 AM
  #88
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,140
vCash: 500
Wow, totally not a fan of changing the way long term contracts work against the cap when it applies to things that were signed pre-new CBA. I think it's really unfair to change the way that works.

We could potentially be getting back cap hits on Carter and Richards even though they've been gone for 10 years? I think that's awful.

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:53 AM
  #89
JohnnyOnTheSpot
I Believe in G-Sus
 
JohnnyOnTheSpot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,903
vCash: 500
These new CBA aspects are pretty bad for the Flyers...

JohnnyOnTheSpot is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:11 AM
  #90
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyOnTheSpot View Post
These new CBA aspects are pretty bad for the Flyers...
It's bad for every team that legally played within the rules before this new idea was proposed by Gary. I just don't see how the new CBA could potentially punish teams for signing deals that were completely legal under the terms of the old CBA.

What's worse is this was something that was probably proposed within the ownership group themselves. I can't imagine the players caring who pays the money on their deals, whether it be their current owner or the original owner who signed the deal. They just want to get paid. This had to be something that was proposed within the group of owners. If I'm Ed Snider, I'm pissed about this, and rightfully so.

flyershockey is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:13 AM
  #91
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,407
vCash: 500
Me things we will never draft in the first two rounds again. The picks will be dealt with players to create cap space.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:29 AM
  #92
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,214
vCash: 500
I guess big Ed isn't as powerful as we all thought. I'm sure things will be modified, but we could be screwed royally.

A team can go up to 70.2m on the cap this year only, but it's really 59.9. how the hell are we pulling that off next season?

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:29 AM
  #93
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
It is said in the owners latest proposal, THEY want one way contracts buried in the AHL(Redden) to count against the cap, but the players will fight against it.

What's the reasoning from each side?
Why would the players fight against it? I think they would be happy that there is less incentive to bury players in the minors.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:35 AM
  #94
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Why would the players fight against it? I think they would be happy that there is less incentive to bury players in the minors.
I'm not sure the NHLPA opposes players being buried. They still get paid. The individual player might hate it, but, as a whole, it means that someone else is getting that money.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:40 AM
  #95
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,140
vCash: 500
Theoretically if Carter retires a year early, the Flyers would be stuck with a 5.2 million dollar cap hit in 2021-22 for a player that the LA Kings (and Jackets for half a season) reaped all of the lower cap hit benefit from, and the Flyers not even a single game out of that contract.

I just really don't see why this is a solution that makes sense

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:48 AM
  #96
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
Wow, totally not a fan of changing the way long term contracts work against the cap when it applies to things that were signed pre-new CBA. I think it's really unfair to change the way that works.

We could potentially be getting back cap hits on Carter and Richards even though they've been gone for 10 years? I think that's awful.
Realistically, what is the chance that a player will retire. Pretty low since they won't get paid the remaining salary left on the contract. In theory, it sounds bad, but in practice it will have absolutely little, to no effect.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:04 AM
  #97
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
Realistically, what is the chance that a player will retire. Pretty low since they won't get paid the remaining salary left on the contract. In theory, it sounds bad, but in practice it will have absolutely little, to no effect.
Yes, I agree on that point

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:07 AM
  #98
turkinaa
Registered User
 
turkinaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
I thought they might want to get rid of the 35+ rule, but it seems they are applying it to every contract currently created over 5 years. Don't forget it is possible that by the time this CBA comes up (in 5 years) they might remove this, if it's included at all, before players like Carter, Richards, etc will have their contract expire/retire. It would make more sense to have this rule for current contracts so the 5 year limit is more of a soft cap than a hard cap.

turkinaa is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:22 AM
  #99
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkinaa View Post
I thought they might want to get rid of the 35+ rule, but it seems they are applying it to every contract currently created over 5 years. Don't forget it is possible that by the time this CBA comes up (in 5 years) they might remove this, if it's included at all, before players like Carter, Richards, etc will have their contract expire/retire. It would make more sense to have this rule for current contracts so the 5 year limit is more of a soft cap than a hard cap.
The NHL's explanation specifically cites targetting back diving contracts, which would be illegal because of the rules on salary variance of long term deals. What remains to be seen is A. does this make it into the finalized CBA, and B. is this applied to all contracts already moved or is it stipulated to only apply to contracts traded after this CBA was agreed to.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:41 AM
  #100
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 20,156
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=407542

Quote:
The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.

In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."
Hope lost.

Hollywood Couturier 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 06:12 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.