HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2012, 10:35 PM
  #876
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
As a fan, I hope they get rid of cap-circumventing contracts like the Kovalchuk deal. I think there should be no bonus payments or whatever, just pay the players the same every year.

However, I don't see this happening. It doesn't benefit the owners. And it doesn't benefit the players. All these cap-circumventing contracts do is transfer money from average players to star players, so it's zero sum to the owners and players.

Getting rid of cap-circumventing contracts should also help players older than 35. If the cap is equal to the salary is equal to the average salary, players 35+ will be able to retire whenever they want and just forego salary without cheating the system. The current system discriminates against older players, who have a harder time getting 2, 3, and 4 year contracts beyond the concerns from biology.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-20-2012 at 10:51 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:41 PM
  #877
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Because it is the market. I pay 1.40 or wtv per liter of gas because I have no choice not because I want to.
You stepped into this one: I have supported the players using socialist arguments, and my argument stating that the players are Talent, not Labour, and thus are not replaceable. Now I will support them using the current language of Capital, and Republicans everywhere:

There is a free market price for the very best pro hockey players, in other words, those who play in the NHL. This price has risen, and has hurt teams who cannot afford the price. For evidence, look at how owners of rich teams have been more than willing to pay these rising prices. I need not give examples.

The NHL is trying to reduce the fair and natural free market price for players. I disagree with this, especially as owners of all businesses these days, globally, cite the free market when moving their businesses, and laying off staff. If they used these principles to make their money, they should live by them when buying and operating NHL teams. No?

If we agree on this, there are then 2 options, neither of which artificially or by collusion reduces the free market prices players command:

1. Owners who can afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should help owners who cannot.

2. Teams that cannot afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should fail, as businesses fail in almost all other free markets, every minute, every day, everywhere.

The owner's supporters are in fact being anti free market by suggesting that player's value should be artificially lowered by an oligarchic and colluded agreement, that would be illegal in almost all other areas of our economic system. Ironic, is it not?

bsl is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:43 PM
  #878
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
#4 ELC/2nd contract fix
The ELCs are 3-year contracts paying <$1,000,000/year for the majority of players, I think all not drafted in the 1st round.

The issue with 2nd contracts is that a 22 year-old will be underpaid relative to a 28 year-old in spite of having put up comparable performance, for example, Subban couldn't get a decent contract in spite of being a no. 2 dman in 2010-2011 and a no. 1 dman in 2012-2013.

In my view, equivalent performance on the ice should warrant equivalent salary. I think the best option is to substantially lower the compensation for offer sheets, but to couple that with raising the UFA age. That way, teams would be allowed to keep what they draft and develop a little longer, but they wouldn't be able to do so by exploiting young players, they'd have to pay fair value.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:49 PM
  #879
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
You're missing the point. I never said it was a mirror example. Just stating a point. Some owners set market and others had to follow.
Well boo hoo. See above, its called the free market. Can't afford to play the game? Then GTFO.

bsl is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:50 PM
  #880
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
You stepped into this one: I have supported the players using socialist arguments, and my argument stating that th players are Talent, not Labour, and thus are not replaceable. Now I will support them using the current language of Capital, and Republicans everywhere:

There is a free market price for the very best pro hockey players, in other words, those who play in the NHL. This price has risen, and has hurt teams who cannot afford the price. For evidence, look at how owners of rich teams have been more than willing to pay these rising prices. I need not give examples.

The NHL is trying to reduce the fair and natural free market price for players. I disagree with this, especially as owners of all businesses these days, globally, cite the free market when moving their businesses, and laying off staff. If they used these principles to make their money, they should live by them when buying and operating NHL teams. No?

If we agree on this, there are then 2 options, neither of which artificially or by collusion reduces the free market prices players command:

1. Owners who can afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should help owners who cannot.

2. Teams that cannot afford to pay the free market price for NHL players should fail, as businesses fail in almost all other free markets, every minute, every day, everywhere.

The owner's supporters are in fact being anti free market by suggesting that player's value should be artificially lowered by an oligarchic and colluded agreement, that would be illegal in almost all other areas of our economic system. Ironic, is it not?
It's a great irony that north american sports are run on left-wing principles of equality, whereas European soccer is run on right-wing, elitist principles. Under a capitalist sports system, the players would be making about 50% more, and the Habs, the Rangers, the Laffs, and a few others would basically be monopolizing the Stanley Cup.

Ultimately though, I prefer the current system modulo some tweaks. I like the idea that there's more to winning everything than having the highest payroll, like in European Soccer or Major League Baseball. You also need good drafting, good coaching, good trades, good scouting, good development which wouldn't be as necessary if you could just spend more money. It makes the game more sophisticated.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:54 PM
  #881
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poulet Kostopoulos View Post
Plus, even if the owner loses money in this business, the players still get paid in full. It's a damn good "partnership"...
So? Who guaranteed profits for the owners? No one, ever. The owners know they sign guaranteed contracts. Your argument has no bearing on this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
So? Who guaranteed profits for the owners? No one, ever. The owners know they sign guaranteed contracts. Your argument has no bearing on this discussion.
His point is actually not true.

Owners are guaranteed 43% of revenue, just like the players are guaranteed 57% of revenue. They get exactly the same guarantee, and the same responsibility to grow the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Yup, that sure is the voice of reason, some guy who can skate is harder to find than a billionaire willing to invest in a hockey team?

There has been a parade of shady owners in the league del biaggio, McNall et al.

I'd rather try to replace the hockey players than find a total of over 30 billion in funds, but that's just me
You won't need 30 billion any more either, because no one will watch the NHL. You win both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonCH View Post
Shoot pass and check
And on occasion spit and pick their nose, better?
If you value the strength, skill and beauty of hockey so little, why bother getting frustrated here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
the players are not less replaceable IMO. Every year you have a bunch of new studs coming in. The only Crosby, Stammer, Kovalchuk, Malkin, etc. might take a few years to replace or might not. My bet is if you take them out of the game, the next young studs to enter the league would do it with more ease and thus it might only take 2 or 3 years for the majority of the fans to NOT be able to see the difference.

Owners take the real finacial risks, and that needs to be paid to the right amount when it pays off. The players can get a fair share, sure, but it remains that with no owners, there is no league.

It is normal that some revenu not be included, specially if it is related to the fees you described.

Last time around, the players thought they got the short end of the stick and that shows that have no idea what it means to run a business; that is also why they are paid millions to play Hockey.

Then about the bad markets... I would guess that sone teams will be moved however, if there is still a team in PHO, it might have something to do with national exposer and TV contracts. If PHO played a part in closing that TV deal, then they might not be that much of the dead weight the seem to be. Also, stability is important for a league and the values the franchises get. When you are not the #1 (NFL) you need to bring in some intangibles ( stability ) to attract extra interest.

Just a few things to consider.
The market value of new excellent young players will rise to match the market value of current players, thus creating the same problem in ten years that we have now, and we'll have to watch a bad league for 7 years while they develop. Otherwise, good solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
50/50 is not necessary, it is an arbitrary ratio. League revenue sharing, however, is necessary.

Over the period of the proposed agreement (2012-17) the NHLPA has called for 52.8% or 52.5% of HRR. The NHL straight away dismisses all 3 of the PAs's offers. The NHL's modus operandi is to make the poor teams profitable at the expense of the players. If the NHL doesn't get their act together (league revenue sharing) I see the NHLPA taking a page from the NBPA's playbook and dissolving their union and file class action antitrust lawsuits against the NHL.
As well they should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's a great irony that north american sports are run on left-wing principles of equality, whereas European soccer is run on right-wing, elitist principles. Under a capitalist sports system, the players would be making about 50% more, and the Habs, the Rangers, the Laffs, and a few others would basically be monopolizing the Stanley Cup.

Ultimately though, I prefer the current system modulo some tweaks. I like the idea that there's more to winning everything than having the highest payroll, like in European Soccer or Major League Baseball. You also need good drafting, good coaching, good trades, good scouting, good development which wouldn't be as necessary if you could just spend more money. It makes the game more sophisticated.
I buy this. Which is why I prefer option 1 of the 2 options I suggested above: Much higher revenue sharing.

The option I do not buy is lowering the natural market value of players in order to help badly run teams, or teams in bad markets.

This is in fact what this entire thread, and the lockout, is really about.

And I should add: The natural market value of players cannot be lowered artificially over time, and the NHL is idiotic to think they can achieve this. If the NHL becomes a league that does not pay market value for its talent, it will inevitably fail, and another league will provide the talent, and pay it accordingly.


Last edited by overlords: 10-21-2012 at 12:06 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:52 AM
  #882
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 316
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=bsl;55153683]So? Who guaranteed profits for the owners? No one, ever. The owners know they sign guaranteed contracts. Your argument has no bearing on this discussion.



His point is actually not true.

Owners are guaranteed 43% of revenue, just like the players are guaranteed 57% of revenue. They get exactly the same guarantee, and the same responsibility to grow the game.


Revenue is not profit, except in the players case. Owners still have expenses related to the hockey operations to be paid. Take an accounting course.
Cancel the season, players need a reality check. Less than zero sympathy for them. Their proposals were embarrassing.

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 12:54 AM
  #883
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The ELCs are 3-year contracts paying <$1,000,000/year for the majority of players, I think all not drafted in the 1st round.

The issue with 2nd contracts is that a 22 year-old will be underpaid relative to a 28 year-old in spite of having put up comparable performance, for example, Subban couldn't get a decent contract in spite of being a no. 2 dman in 2010-2011 and a no. 1 dman in 2012-2013.

In my view, equivalent performance on the ice should warrant equivalent salary. I think the best option is to substantially lower the compensation for offer sheets, but to couple that with raising the UFA age. That way, teams would be allowed to keep what they draft and develop a little longer, but they wouldn't be able to do so by exploiting young players, they'd have to pay fair value.
I disagree, we're seeing too many young players demand UFA type contracts when they have only 1 year sample of success. I don't like it. You pay on potential and not actual ability.

As an RFA subban should get 3.5-4 I guess. As a UFA he gets 5.5. Do you think he should get 5.5 now? Seems off IMO.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:11 AM
  #884
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Well boo hoo. See above, its called the free market. Can't afford to play the game? Then GTFO.
This wouldn't sit well in NHLPA discussions. Words like 'contraction' don't sit well with them. Sure, cut out 6 teams and 20% of the jobs in the process, let's see the NHLPA sign that. They don't want to hear about cap floor being lowered and all that, because it's money and jobs they lose. Nothing wrong with that but telling me teams should GTFO doesn't help the players whatsoever.

In response to your other post about free market. Shea Weber will recieve 20+ million this calender year, does he deserve it? Just because someone pushed the market to that point does it mean it's representative of his league wide value?

Yes, you're right in certain aspects, if a market suggests a player is worth a certain value then so be it but the reality is it doesn't always work that way. A lot of it is from abuse of the current system so to even the playing field the NHL is putting restrictions on front loading and all that, seems fair to me.

Later into this thread I specifically suggest that the contract amounts should be honored but unlike NHLPA terms where they suggest the last 13% will be paid and not count against the cap, I suggest it does into the year it is deferred. It only seems logical. So in other words, pay the amount, drop the cap but let the remaining caphits and paychecks be deferred within the next CBA.

Also, since your on NHLPA side, do you think it's ethical they want tax payer subsidies to be part of HRR? Do you seriously consider this normal? They want bailouts to count as revenue. It's retarded. Just to increase their revenue shares. That is not normal.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:18 AM
  #885
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
Revenue is not profit, except in the players case. Owners still have expenses related to the hockey operations to be paid. Take an accounting course.
Owners have expenses related to hockey operations, many of which are subtracted prior to the calculation of "HRR", as such your point is moot since many of these apply to both players and owners.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...d-revenue.html

Quote:
For those of you who didn't pay attention in math class (raising my hand, too), HRR is a net number, ie. revenue minus costs. And in the now-expired CBA, teams were able to deduct certain amounts from HRR before the players were given their share.

If you go to Article 50 in the 2005 CBA, you can find all of these direct costs. While sources were reluctant to provide exact numbers, it appears the deducted amounts (yes, the jet fuel and massages) were getting closer and closer to the maximums -- probably hitting them -- during recent seasons. Here are some other examples:

CONCESSIONS

Concessions is a major revenue generator for teams and, by extension, for players. Clubs are allowed to deduct 54 per cent towards their costs. Some might not deduct that much; others may go over. But the league-wide average cannot exceed 54.
The owners can also spend more money on superior drafting, on putting a money-losing franchise in Phoenix, but these are investments, not expenses. Investments are not typically expected to yield a positive return in the short-term.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:23 AM
  #886
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I disagree, we're seeing too many young players demand UFA type contracts when they have only 1 year sample of success. I don't like it. You pay on potential and not actual ability.

As an RFA subban should get 3.5-4 I guess. As a UFA he gets 5.5. Do you think he should get 5.5 now? Seems off IMO.
If it seems off because we have a different assessment of Subban's performance, then that's ok.

With that said, I see Subban as being comparable to Hamrlik when he signed at 5.5. He's not as good as Markov was when he signed at 5.75, but that was when the cap was substantially lower. Subban's a proven player over the past two seasons, as such he is worth around 5, for a medium to long-term contract. He has a two-year sample of success.

We can't know for sure where the negotiations were going, but let's say hypothetically Bergevin was not buding was not budging from the insulting offer of 2 years, 2.75 million per. If that is true, it is exploitation of a young player, made possible by the CBA. He is being paid less than his value.

I do not expect to see a reduction in penalties for offer sheets, but if we did it would improve the game, and increase fairness imo.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:33 AM
  #887
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post


The market value of new excellent young players will rise to match the market value of current players, thus creating the same problem in ten years that we have now, and we'll have to watch a bad league for 7 years while they develop. Otherwise, good solution.
.
I estimated 2 or 3 years for the majority of fans, not 7. And the market for young studs is regulated with entry level contracts and RFA status, so no it would not cost the same.

Yes the same problem would rise in 8 years but the players would probably be smarter by then and take the 50/50 deal. Why? Because they would get cut again.

The fact that the players reject the current deal by saying it is LIKE a cut in current salaries... Well it isn't since the contracts are GARENTEED, even if the paiement can be done over a few years. (they still get the money)

How in hell can the players say the want the league to work, understand that some teams lose money, get a deal that garantees the current salaries and still say no???

I also agree that transfer fees and expansion fees should not be in HRR. Those fees are related to franchising, not hockey. And they aren't a regular source of income. I see it as a small bonus owners can get. The players get the bonus of NEW jobs when a new team comes in.

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:34 AM
  #888
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
In response to your other post about free market. Shea Weber will recieve 20+ million this calender year, does he deserve it? Just because someone pushed the market to that point does it mean it's representative of his league wide value?
With the language you use, no, because Shea Weber doesn't "deserve" to be 6'4", for example, it's just something that happened to him. I also think if his name Shirokov Weburov he might be considered a bum throughout the NHL, Marc Crawford would have had a tantrum saying he stinks and has not performed in the playoffs, and he would have been offered 1 year, 7 million dollars, reluctantly, by some desperate GM tired of his team not making the playoffs.

But that's off-topic, pardon my rant :-)

What Philadelphia offered Weber is not 20 million next year, it's 110 million over 14 years (I think). They offered him that much because they think he can contribute that much value to his franchise. They believe he's a difference maker, and they're specifically desperate for a player like him because they lost Chris Pronger to concussions. If they think having a player like Weber can stabilize home attendance over that time span, and get them an average of 2 or 3 additional home playoff games a year in that time span, then he has that value, based on ticket prices in Philadelphia.

The owner may also be an old man who is willing to lose money to see a cup in his lifetime, in which case Weber is worth whatever they want to pay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Also, since your on NHLPA side, do you think it's ethical they want tax payer subsidies to be part of HRR? Do you seriously consider this normal? They want bailouts to count as revenue. It's retarded. Just to increase their revenue shares. That is not normal.
The retarded people in this case are the taxpayers like us who give out even a dime of public money to pro sports.

The reason this income stream should be counted as part of HRR is because it is... hockey-related revenue.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:35 AM
  #889
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If it seems off because we have a different assessment of Subban's performance, then that's ok.

With that said, I see Subban as being comparable to Hamrlik when he signed at 5.5. He's not as good as Markov was when he signed at 5.75, but that was when the cap was substantially lower. Subban's a proven player over the past two seasons, as such he is worth around 5, for a medium to long-term contract. He has a two-year sample of success.

We can't know for sure where the negotiations were going, but let's say hypothetically Bergevin was not buding was not budging from the insulting offer of 2 years, 2.75 million per. If that is true, it is exploitation of a young player, made possible by the CBA. He is being paid less than his value.

I do not expect to see a reduction in penalties for offer sheets, but if we did it would improve the game, and increase fairness imo.
When you say hypothetically are you referring to him not budging or assuming he gave the offer in the first place? Apparently he did not.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:37 AM
  #890
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
When you say hypothetically are you referring to him not budging or assuming he gave the offer in the first place? Apparently he did not.
I'm not aware if he did or did not.

If that was his final offer to Subban then it is exploitation of a young player, and an example of why the penalties for offer sheets should be renegotiated.

ETA: You could say that Subban will earn his UFA contract when he's 27 or whatever. Perhaps. But he's putting up equivalent performance right now. A 23 year-old is just as likely as a 28 year-old to have his career ended in 2 years due to a hit by some maniac. He's put in the equivalent performance and should be entitled to equivalent compensation now. Income security matters.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:44 AM
  #891
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
With the language you use, no, because Shea Weber doesn't "deserve" to be 6'4", for example, it's just something that happened to him. I also think if his name Shirokov Weburov he might be considered a bum throughout the NHL, Marc Crawford would have had a tantrum saying he stinks and has not performed in the playoffs, and he would have been offered 1 year, 7 million dollars, reluctantly, by some desperate GM tired of his team not making the playoffs.

But that's off-topic, pardon my rant :-)

What Philadelphia offered Weber is not 20 million next year, it's 110 million over 14 years (I think). They offered him that much because they think he can contribute that much value to his franchise. They believe he's a difference maker, and they're specifically desperate for a player like him because they lost Chris Pronger to concussions. If they think having a player like Weber can stabilize home attendance over that time span, and get them an average of 2 or 3 additional home playoff games a year in that time span, then he has that value, based on ticket prices in Philadelphia.

The owner may also be an old man who is willing to lose money to see a cup in his lifetime, in which case Weber is worth whatever they want to pay.


The retarded people in this case are the taxpayers like us who give out even a dime of public money to pro sports.

The reason this income stream should be counted as part of HRR is because it is... hockey-related revenue.

I'm not arguing Weber's value to Philly. I'm arguing is he worth that market value league wide? Now, yes, he got 110 mil over 14 years but the NHL merely said restrictions on front loading, I'm sure you'll agree that him getting 20 something mil in 366 days isn't very balanced. Not to mention, it's a signing bonus he could technically refuse to pay and be suspended but has already been handed up 12 mil for the year. Now, the owners did it to themselves but at same time there's a big margin between what Philly can afford and what Nashville can. It's still not an even playing field. I don't see front loading limitations as restrictions on players, I see it as restrictions on owners and GMs who are taking advantage of the small market teams. Obviously we'll hear yada yada owners should be partners and so on and so forth but not every player likes each other or agrees with the proposals either. It's life.

As for the tax money, depends. Quebec city wanted taxpayer money, not sure if they got it, probably though. Katx is pushing in edmonton too. Thing is, the taxpayers would watch hockey and use the arena. In places like glendale it's entirely different as many won't even watch.

Now in regards to it being 'hockey related revenue'. C'mon If Molson gets a bunch of escorts and brings them to the bell center is it hockey related expenses? If there's a poker night in the board room and house gets a cut, is it hockey related revenue? Granted, I'm OBVIOUSLY going extreme here but in case of PHX or elsewhere taxpayers pay because the building is up and without a tenant they lose significantly more money. The subsidy is a bailout. It's not revenues from anything hockey related at all. Sure, they are paying the team to play hockey there but c'mon, it seems entirely unethical, especially since it's a bailout! Seems extremely excessive.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:45 AM
  #892
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'm not aware if he did or did not.

If that was his final offer to Subban then it is exploitation of a young player, and an example of why the penalties for offer sheets should be renegotiated.

ETA: You could say that Subban will earn his UFA contract when he's 27 or whatever. Perhaps. But he's putting up equivalent performance right now. A 23 year-old is just as likely as a 28 year-old to have his career ended in 2 years due to a hit by some maniac. He's put in the equivalent performance and should be entitled to equivalent compensation now. Income security matters.
RFA status and entry contracts exist because it serves the owners. It also forces players not to get complasent: play one or two good years (Subban) sign a multy year deal and sit on the contract. track record is everything.

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:46 AM
  #893
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'm not aware if he did or did not.

If that was his final offer to Subban then it is exploitation of a young player, and an example of why the penalties for offer sheets should be renegotiated.

ETA: You could say that Subban will earn his UFA contract when he's 27 or whatever. Perhaps. But he's putting up equivalent performance right now. A 23 year-old is just as likely as a 28 year-old to have his career ended in 2 years due to a hit by some maniac. He's put in the equivalent performance and should be entitled to equivalent compensation now. Income security matters.
After the 'offer' was 'leaked' it was released that Bergevin never made such offer.

So that's pretty much why I ask if you refer to him not budging or him lowballing, because technically neither happened.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:49 AM
  #894
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
After the 'offer' was 'leaked' it was released that Bergevin never made such offer.

So that's pretty much why I ask if you refer to him not budging or him lowballing, because technically neither happened.
When you wrote "did not", I thought you meant "did not budge", not "did not offer"

It's a valid hypothetical example. In general though many RFAs around the league did acceptably on their 2nd contracts, six years, six million per was common.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:52 AM
  #895
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post

This is in fact what this entire thread, and the lockout, is really about.

And I should add: The natural market value of players cannot be lowered artificially over time, and the NHL is idiotic to think they can achieve this. If the NHL becomes a league that does not pay market value for its talent, it will inevitably fail, and another league will provide the talent, and pay it accordingly.
This is YOUR perception of market value. Track record is something that needs to be taken into account and that it what the entry level contract and RFA status do.

And to say it is a tool for badly run teams is a moot point. It is there to protect the market and well run teams from mistakes made by employees. So what?

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:53 AM
  #896
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
RFA status and entry contracts exist because it serves the owners. It also forces players not to get complasent: play one or two good years (Subban) sign a multy year deal and sit on the contract. track record is everything.
It also serves the players. The NHLPA members can always get themselves concessions by giving away the rights of future players to the owners.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 02:04 AM
  #897
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I'm not arguing Weber's value to Philly. I'm arguing is he worth that market value league wide? Now, yes, he got 110 mil over 14 years but the NHL merely said restrictions on front loading, I'm sure you'll agree that him getting 20 something mil in 366 days isn't very balanced. Not to mention, it's a signing bonus he could technically refuse to pay and be suspended but has already been handed up 12 mil for the year. Now, the owners did it to themselves but at same time there's a big margin between what Philly can afford and what Nashville can. It's still not an even playing field. I don't see front loading limitations as restrictions on players, I see it as restrictions on owners and GMs who are taking advantage of the small market teams. Obviously we'll hear yada yada owners should be partners and so on and so forth but not every player likes each other or agrees with the proposals either. It's life.
What matters is his value to Philadelphia, not his value league-wide. He's specifically more valuable to Philly because they lost Chris Pronger. Player are parts in a whole (the team) and some teams need some players more than others.

The solution to the other problems you list are to get rid of front-loading, back-loading, and to increase revenue sharing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
As for the tax money, depends. Quebec city wanted taxpayer money, not sure if they got it, probably though. Katx is pushing in edmonton too. Thing is, the taxpayers would watch hockey and use the arena. In places like glendale it's entirely different as many won't even watch.

Now in regards to it being 'hockey related revenue'. C'mon If Molson gets a bunch of escorts and brings them to the bell center is it hockey related expenses? If there's a poker night in the board room and house gets a cut, is it hockey related revenue? Granted, I'm OBVIOUSLY going extreme here but in case of PHX or elsewhere taxpayers pay because the building is up and without a tenant they lose significantly more money. The subsidy is a bailout. It's not revenues from anything hockey related at all. Sure, they are paying the team to play hockey there but c'mon, it seems entirely unethical, especially since it's a bailout! Seems extremely excessive.
Direct subsidies to teams should count as HRRs.

If a community wants to build an arena, own it, and rent it to the team at fair market value, it doesn't count as HRR.

The owners are no more and no less ethical to the players here. There should be no subsidies for pro sports.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-21-2012, 02:07 AM
  #898
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
When you wrote "did not", I thought you meant "did not budge", not "did not offer"

It's a valid hypothetical example. In general though many RFAs around the league did acceptably on their 2nd contracts, six years, six million per was common.
Yes they did, I personally don't see Hall as being worth 6 mil per. Career high of 53 points. Sure, shortened seasons and he's got potential but can you justify 6 per for 7 years as reasonable? The best part is it wasn't even an RFA contract, it was an extension during the ELC. That's brutal but it's somewhat justified because the market suggests paying for potential is normal.

I want to try that at my job, hey I just started but in 3-4 years I'll be good, how about paying me a senior salary? Ya ya, hockey players are special and best at what they do, I get it and not denying it, but 6 mil for 7 years is still in excess IMO.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 02:15 AM
  #899
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
What matters is his value to Philadelphia, not his value league-wide. He's specifically more valuable to Philly because they lost Chris Pronger. Player are parts in a whole (the team) and some teams need some players more than others.

The solution to the other problems you list are to get rid of front-loading, back-loading, and to increase revenue sharing.



Direct subsidies to teams should count as HRRs.

If a community wants to build an arena, own it, and rent it to the team at fair market value, it doesn't count as HRR.

The owners are no more and no less ethical to the players here. There should be no subsidies for pro sports.
Yes, but I still don't think a league will exist in parity if such deals based on front loading exist. If it were truly 110 mil over 14 years Nashville would've laughed and signed on the spot.

Removing the front loading circumvention is fair IMO and in the weber case the contract would've been acceptable in regards to overall league wide value and parity standards.

I never disagreed about revenue sharing, it absolutely should be beefed up, owners need to put in their share of responsibility as well.

I'm merely suggesting the player tactics aren't honorable either. Trying to get unions in canada to cancel the lockout so they could play instead of negotiating? Meh. This is just another thing. I don't like it, but I can understand how you see it as HRR, but I don't. In certain places you get taxes for lottery winnings, in Quebec you don't. It kind of feels like I win the lottery from a government institution (lotto quebec) and then they demand 50% back because it is part of my 'income'. I know some places do it but I don't like the idea. It feels retarded.

Look, I live in montreal and i'm a fan of the habs, none of this subsidy or small market stuff should really bother me but it does. Hockey is the best sport in the world IMO and I want it to grow. I don't want to contract or relocate and have 6 teams in ontario because it's profitable and players make more this way. I want to see players come out of california and phx and all these places. I care about the growth of the game and through revenue sharing and proper practice we could make a sustainable league.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 02:17 AM
  #900
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Yes they did, I personally don't see Hall as being worth 6 mil per. Career high of 53 points. Sure, shortened seasons and he's got potential but can you justify 6 per for 7 years as reasonable? The best part is it wasn't even an RFA contract, it was an extension during the ELC. That's brutal but it's somewhat justified because the market suggests paying for potential is normal.

I want to try that at my job, hey I just started but in 3-4 years I'll be good, how about paying me a senior salary? Ya ya, hockey players are special and best at what they do, I get it and not denying it, but 6 mil for 7 years is still in excess IMO.
How is 6 million per year too much?

It's a reasonable estimate of how much value he'll bring to Edmonton in that time span.

Hall had 53 points in 61 games last year, with a high goals-to-assists ratio. Don't sell him short.

DAChampion is online now  
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 06:14 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.