HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Why does Bettman wanna see a limit on contract lengths?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2012, 09:22 AM
  #101
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Market freedom? This is a private league.

The NHL had RS in their first proposal, and have increased it in each one since. If you do the numbers, the NHLs plan does a LOT more for the NHL than the PA's. If you really want a sustainable solution, move to the median to determine HRR. However the PA will NEVER agree to that. Hell the PA moaned and *****ed when they tried to get some reasonable deductions to the HRR that should have been there to begin with. Increasing RS is fine (and should be done anyway), but unless they go to the 40-50% range, it'll never be enough, and we'll be in the same situation in 6-8 years.

It has nothing to do with team finances, or the locations of teams and everything to do with the system the NHL put in place in 04. Not that they have a lot of choices... as the PA wouldn't agree to reducing HRR. The PA has absolutely no interest in helping the league or ensuring their sustainable. Their sole interest is in getting the players as much money and freedom as possible.
It's the PA that proposed the extent of the revenue sharing for the good of the league. Sure they haven't made it 40-50% but at least they said what the NHL put originally wasn't enough. The fact that the NHL's original proposal frowned on revenue sharing shows me who's serious about fixing the league, or at least taking this more seriously. Next CBA if the revenue sharing amount has to be increased then that'll be the important point.

And yes, market freedom. You need players and teams to be able to choose each other without clauses that cap the market. The way the NHL is proposing it you might as well create a computer program that allocates UFA players to teams based on the max salary (max years x max cap hit per year). It takes all the life out of UFA Day and we don't need it.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:12 AM
  #102
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
Let's not kid ourselves. While owners and GM's have been complicit in these long deals, it's not like agents were sitting at the bargaining table for their big time clients and were clueless as to how to go about circumventing the cap.

Besides, what are they fighting for again? It's barely a fraction of players who sign these kinds of deals.
undoubtedly, but the fraction that do sign them have the ability to be game changers

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
In a lot of these threads there is a fundamental lack of economic knowledge, namely supply & demand. We wouldnt need contract term limits if the supply exceeded demand. Unfortunately that isnt the case in this league.
agreed the supply of high end elite type does not exceed demand

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
Well let's see here, in the ten seasons before the cap, five different teams won Cups. (DET and NJD 3 times each, Colorado twice, Tampa and Dallas once)

In the seven season since the lockout, seven different teams have won Cups, only one of them from the previous ten years of Cup winners.

Yeah, adding the cap did nothing to form parity.
maybe so, but, and there's always that but! While most Canadian teams can survive years in the wilderness between cups, it's hardly so for some of the outposts in the southern markets. General fan enthusiasm generated by that 1 winning season dries up rather quickly in the non trad markets and that includes the money generated through corporate sponsorship, the team then quickly becomes a money loser.

Believe me I'm not advocating solely for dynasty teams, but it has been proven in league after league that having that dynastic type franchise just makes the opposing fan more vociferous and the home fan more loyal. It took a long time for Islander fans to turn their backs on a team that won them 4 SC's, many of the staunchest Islander supporters today were around for those wins.

Long term front loaded deals are disingenuous and imco detrimental to the league's health. A team like Nashville could afford one of those ridiculous amount of outlay but not two of those type of deals. Going forward while still a very solid organization they now have little to no chance to bring a cup home, how long will the fan base support this situation becomes the question.

Had there been term limits it's highly possible that there was very little chance of either of those guys leaving and possibly even resulted in getting Parise down there for the "be with my buddy angle" that ended up being played out in Minny.

In general if the league wants to have a cap then there should be safeguards written into the CBA in order to have not just the owners, but the players and their agents abide by it. I have nothing against contracts being 10 years long if the players want them, they would have to give up something to get them and that is at least 3 years of guaranteed monies, not to mention no difference more then a 5% decline between any two years of that contract

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:23 AM
  #103
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
The players do concede something for the security of long term contracts - money. That is the trade off. That is the option there for GM's to take. If they sign an impact player for a longer contract, not only can they save a little money, but they can also save a little cap space if structured well.

That trade off can pay off or backfire. There are risks either way for a GM. But it isnt costing teams money because there is a salary cap with linkage.

Fans have often complained about losing their star players to free agency, and now we are proposing a system that prevents us form preventing that by ensuring they go to free agency more often.


Why is is too that after the NHL holding up NFL and NBA as pattern bargaining precedents they wish to follow, it is the players that have to make concessions in order to get them to revenue share like those other leagues. Is that what the NHL is actually saying, that they see revenue sharing as a silly concession to get the players to take less money?

In fact some fans are even now setting the stage for the next lockout saying if the owners have to conceded too much they will have to lockout again next time. Presumably too much revenue sharing would be one of those reasons?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:47 AM
  #104
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
Why is it bizarre? Its a competetive league (owners and players alike). Is it equally bizarre that players need restrictions on themselves with respect to injuring their PA bretheren?

In a competitive environment, you need restrictions or the natural progression of human competitiveness will cause an unsustainable downward spiral of stupidity. Players and owners alike.
Just to finally give you a reply, Cawz,... yes, yes, it's not "bizarre", it's just unfortunately too normal. One could think though that experienced businessmen would know better. But yes, it is bizarre for me, because it's not something that I'd do. Practical limitations in the world of credit and revenue sharing, hah, where you can change the rules or at least attempt to do so, with the next CBA... I've personally never bought anything on credit, other than that first purchase I needed to make a long time ago just to get a credit card, which I then virtually never used.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:34 AM
  #105
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
And yes, market freedom. You need players and teams to be able to choose each other without clauses that cap the market.
If you're trying to say salary cap, yes, the NHL will never again operate without a salary cap. And the vast majority of fans AGREE with a cap.

And that's a good thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post

The way the NHL is proposing it you might as well create a computer program that allocates UFA players to teams based on the max salary (max years x max cap hit per year). It takes all the life out of UFA Day and we don't need it.
These spreadheets already exist for every team. How could any NHL team NOT have this info?

Competent GMs work within the CBA rules so they have cushion cap money set aside for possible UFA signings. If your team doesn't do that, ... oh well, other GMs are doing that.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 12:46 PM
  #106
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post

agreed the supply of high end elite type does not exceed demand
Surely thats a typo? If not, I wish our team was so lucky as to be in your talent-a-plenty shoes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
Long term front loaded deals are disingenuous and imco detrimental to the league's health. A team like Nashville could afford one of those ridiculous amount of outlay but not two of those type of deals. Going forward while still a very solid organization they now have little to no chance to bring a cup home, how long will the fan base support this situation becomes the question.
contract
I still dont get this. Even with a long term deal, there is still an individual player cap. Currently its $14 mil. Can Nashville afford to pay the individual cap limit for a player? Yes. For two players? Yes - they made such an offer.

By structuring deals for these types of franchise players, that the owners, GM's, teams, and fans all like to lock up on cap friendly team building deal for the long term, GM's save cap space and money, and owners even get non-cash expenses at the end of the contract to benefit even more.

To force 5 year terms with no variance would only ensure that Parise, Suter, and Weber would all have signed 5 year cap max contracts of $14mil, with annual raises of 5-7% written in to acknowledge the inevitable revenue growth to come.

Does that actually help Nashville?

Nashville could afford 5 years at $14mil and then a 2nd contract after that of $12-12-6-6-6 and then a 3rd at $6-3-1-1-1, but if we roll all those up into one long contract they suddenly cant afford it?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:30 PM
  #107
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
If you're trying to say salary cap, yes, the NHL will never again operate without a salary cap. And the vast majority of fans AGREE with a cap.

And that's a good thing.




These spreadheets already exist for every team. How could any NHL team NOT have this info?

Competent GMs work within the CBA rules so they have cushion cap money set aside for possible UFA signings. If your team doesn't do that, ... oh well, other GMs are doing that.
I'm not talking about the salary cap. I'm talking about capping the market by saying the max a player can get is max contract length x 20% of the cap. It makes the whole thing boring. There has to be some unpredictability in the market. Bob McKenzie explains it here:

Quote:
Back-diving is a huge issue for the league -- a legitimate one, too -- but using the 5 per cent variance provision it proposed (year to year salary fluctuations on a contract can't be more or less than 5 per cent) would instantly correct that situation and not cause the players' real hardship. There is, however, no desperate need for the league to have a term limit of five years if the 5 per cent variance rule is in place.

As for second contracts, the NHL proposed a potent combo of reducing the entry level phase to two years (instead of three) and delaying salary arbitration and unrestricted free agency by one year in each circumstance. That would unquestionably make it difficult for a player coming out of entry level to hit a home run on his second contract (Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty, Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle et al). But in a salary cap system, when there's a defined benefit of 50 per cent, these measures aren't likely to actually take money away from the players as much as they would simply re-allocate it. One thing the players can always count on, the owners will spend as much as they can, it's really just a matter of who gets it.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409277

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:34 PM
  #108
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,162
vCash: 500
I am guessing to level the playing feild for smaller market clubs who can't afford front loading contracts. Personally I think instead of stopping long term deals, why not just make it how much a player makes in any given season is his caphit or if a contract is over a certain amount of years they need to be paid the exact same amount every year

boredmale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:39 PM
  #109
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
I am guessing to level the playing feild for smaller market clubs who can't afford front loading contracts. Personally I think instead of stopping long term deals, why not just make it how much a player makes in any given season is his caphit or if a contract is over a certain amount of years they need to be paid the exact same amount every year
No they are completely different. You can stop front loading contracts by looking at the difference in salary year-to-year without touching contract length.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:53 PM
  #110
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
It would also prevent the cap saving incentive for gm's and so also the incentive for long term contracts

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 03:43 PM
  #111
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 805
vCash: 500
simple solution, a players cap hit is what he i getting paid for that year takes.

takes away the incentive to adding all the bogus years at the end of contracts

hyster110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:18 PM
  #112
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyster110 View Post
simple solution, a players cap hit is what he i getting paid for that year takes.

takes away the incentive to adding all the bogus years at the end of contracts
That would lead to another problem. In the years that the salary's low, you could stack your team. Sure low salaries now are used to pad on the end of a contract but it could easily not be.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 05:39 PM
  #113
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
It's the PA that proposed the extent of the revenue sharing for the good of the league.
Please. It's 50m difference. In fact the PAs true RS is even lower. 150m RS, and 100m for Bettman to do as he pleases. NHL's is 200m RS. That 50m doesn't mean squat in the big picture.

There's many different ways the NHL could get around the max contract length, yet still prevent back diving contracts. However until the PA is ready to negotiate, there's no reason to pull that request from the table.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:04 AM
  #114
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Surely thats a typo? If not, I wish our team was so lucky as to be in your talent-a-plenty shoes.
the supply of high end elite types does not exceed demand

please explain why that statement would be a typo?




Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
I still dont get this. Even with a long term deal, there is still an individual player cap. Currently its $14 mil. Can Nashville afford to pay the individual cap limit for a player? Yes. For two players? Yes - they made such an offer.

By structuring deals for these types of franchise players, that the owners, GM's, teams, and fans all like to lock up on cap friendly team building deal for the long term, GM's save cap space and money, and owners even get non-cash expenses at the end of the contract to benefit even more.

To force 5 year terms with no variance would only ensure that Parise, Suter, and Weber would all have signed 5 year cap max contracts of $14mil, with annual raises of 5-7% written in to acknowledge the inevitable revenue growth to come.

Does that actually help Nashville?

Nashville could afford 5 years at $14mil and then a 2nd contract after that of $12-12-6-6-6 and then a 3rd at $6-3-1-1-1, but if we roll all those up into one long contract they suddenly cant afford it?
The owners in Nashville could hardly afford coughing up another 20m or so signing bonus to keep both Dmen, and that was the point. Leipold put MS&E team in deeper debt in order to do this, not to sure what kind of debt that Nashville carries these days, but there is a reason they didn't do it

What I'm saying I suppose, is that there are only 4 or 5 teams that can really afford the luxury of handing over a barrow full of cash before the season starts. There are two or three others that can go to the bank and do it. Even if it were 10 teams who could do it that leaves 20 teams who either won't or can't. The Cap the UFA rules were supposed to bring true parity to the league. Having 2/3rds of the league unable to get into the hunt for big game is not what I would call a level playing field

oh and btw you cannot write raises into a contract

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:53 AM
  #115
jbeck5
Registered User
 
jbeck5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Detroit won once and came to a game seven the following year. It has helped the big market teams though.


That said-- neither your evidence nor mine is much more than anecdotal.
The other guy's evidence is vastly superior to yours. 5 Teams winning the cup in 10 years vs 7 teams winning in 7 years. After the lockout mathematically has twice the parity then before the cap. TWICE.

That's significant yet you ignore, and gave no data that showed otherwise. All you said is "detroit came close". That's nothing. That isn't even data on your part.

I have yet to do the following math, but i bet the numbers will be higher for the last lockout. If so, that proves my point(and the point of most) that there is more parity in the league now then before the cap.

Last 5 years before last lockout:
Average point difference between 1st and 30th: 61.2
Average point difference between 1st and 8th(playoff teams): 21.6

Last 5 years before current lockout:
Average point difference between 1st and 30th: 52.0
Average point difference between 1st and 8th(playoff teams): 20.2

So now thats 2-0 showing data that there is more parity. Now your turn, show me JUST ONE set of data that shows there was more parity before...or that there ISN'T more parity now. Because right now, you've provided ZERO date to back up your point, but data has been shown on more then one occasion that there is more parity.

jbeck5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:36 AM
  #116
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
It does seem like there is more parity lately using the stats often used for measuring that. But parity can be described in different ways.

Parity can be every team equal each year, and an almost random Cup winner each year.

Parity could also be described as a highly bell curved type standings of great disparity, but with each team equally capable of developing a great team if they build well over a multi year period. There is a parity amongst their access to greatness.

I'd suggest we've gone from the 2nd type of parity, more towads the first. And the first parity type, i would label as the mediocrity version of parity rather than the natural cycle of sports version of it.

If while teams are rebuilding, they are in last place but closer to rest of the teams, implying the best teams are not quite as great, then by the first measure of parity, parity is improved. But does the league as a whole benefit more from that than allowing the natural cycle of great and lousy teams that corresponds more closely with the natural team building cycle.


But what is the point of all Bettmans final demands on contract restrictions. If the money is already agreed upon and linked and there is a triple cap, what difference does it make whether players can go to arbitration a year earlier or not? Its just changing how money is allocated, not how much is spent. He would torpedo a whole year to help who exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
the supply of high end elite types does not exceed demand

please explain why that statement would be a typo?

I guess im missing something obvious then. Im figuring our team for one would love to have two more elite talents like Sakic Forsberg or Crosby Malkin like back in the days when great teams were great and remembered in lore, but it doesnt feel like there are enough to go around for all of us.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:00 PM
  #117
CptKirk
[insert joke here]
 
CptKirk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
But what is the point of all Bettmans final demands on contract restrictions. If the money is already agreed upon and linked and there is a triple cap, what difference does it make whether players can go to arbitration a year earlier or not? Its just changing how money is allocated, not how much is spent. He would torpedo a whole year to help who exactly?
It's a competitive issue for the NHL, not a financial one- they'd rather not have teams having to pay large sums to unproven young players. It also helps teams keep homegrown talent a little longer, which helps with fan support. More or less the same as UFA age- the NHL wants to work with the competitive balance, players want to spread the big money deals out over a broader base of players.

Quote:

I guess im missing something obvious then. Im figuring our team for one would love to have two more elite talents like Sakic Forsberg or Crosby Malkin like back in the days when great teams were great and remembered in lore, but it doesnt feel like there are enough to go around for all of us.
Supply: Number of high end talents available.
Demand: Teams that want them.

You're fundamentally missing what supply and demand are.
"The supply of high end elite types does not exceed demand" means the same thing as "it doesn't feel like there are enough to go around". When demand exceeds supply, prices get raised until there's less demand.

CptKirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:17 PM
  #118
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
I dont think this has been said yet but a big part of why the league wants the 5 year cap on salaries is to keep second salaries down. With a 5 year limit, the changes to UFA age and the increased ability to take players to arbitration they work to keep players leverage down. Teams cant buy up many of those UFA years when they are handing out contracts if the max length is 5 years. Players salaries will be forced down until they get closer to 28.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:53 PM
  #119
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
That would lead to another problem. In the years that the salary's low, you could stack your team. Sure low salaries now are used to pad on the end of a contract but it could easily not be.
There is no "salary low" years in that situation: What you get paid is your salary/ years of the deal. I don't get why the NHL doesn't do this.

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:14 PM
  #120
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
It's the PA that proposed the extent of the revenue sharing for the good of the league. Sure they haven't made it 40-50% but at least they said what the NHL put originally wasn't enough. The fact that the NHL's original proposal frowned on revenue sharing shows me who's serious about fixing the league, or at least taking this more seriously. Next CBA if the revenue sharing amount has to be increased then that'll be the important point.

And yes, market freedom. You need players and teams to be able to choose each other without clauses that cap the market. The way the NHL is proposing it you might as well create a computer program that allocates UFA players to teams based on the max salary (max years x max cap hit per year). It takes all the life out of UFA Day and we don't need it.
They proposed it for the good of the league or because if the owners give more money to other owners, less money can be taken from the players? Good luck trying to prove the intentions of the players. Their word means very little during a negotiating process. It's astonishing that anyone can argue either side has good intentions for one another. And over the last CBA, RS sharing was calculated based on a percentage. It was not a fixed amount every year which is why the RS portion increased over the span of the last CBA (without player intervention I might add). Increasing RS isn't something that the players masterminded. RS has been increasing in the past, the difference this time around is that restrictions have been dropped and both sides are negotiating a higher fixed amount going into the next season. Regardless of how much money is committed to next season, the RS will always be calculated based on a percentage and not a fixed amount.

And the league didn't frown on RS. Both sides prioritized RS differently to suit their agenda. Owners want to pay players less so RS was a secondary issue that would be use to prop up the difference. Players seemingly want to be paid more so RS was used as a priority issue so that more internal money being shared means less teams struggle to pay player salaries and better chance that players make more money on individual contracts.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:20 PM
  #121
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I dont think this has been said yet but a big part of why the league wants the 5 year cap on salaries is to keep second salaries down. With a 5 year limit, the changes to UFA age and the increased ability to take players to arbitration they work to keep players leverage down. Teams cant buy up many of those UFA years when they are handing out contracts if the max length is 5 years. Players salaries will be forced down until they get closer to 28.
I can understand the reasoning of having a secondary contract maxed at 5 years but not a UFA. That's not necessary to put on a UFA. Apply a 5% variance across the board for all contracts and that should fix itself in terms of front loading contracts. Keep the restriction proposed previously that teams that sign long term contracts retain a portion of the caphit even if the trade the player. That should make an owner really evaluate how he values an individual player's talent and if he's willing to take on the risk, he should be free to make those commitments to the player.

Daly said that the PA hasn't shown any willingness to move towards the league regarding contracting issues. To me, that doesn't sound like the league is truly unwilling to bend at all on those issues, it seems to me that the league simply wants the PA to open dialogue on those issues rather than say we aren't going to do any of that. Just my opinion that 5 year contract max is an issue that be taken off the table but I think the 5% variance is the issue what they really want.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:52 PM
  #122
CptKirk
[insert joke here]
 
CptKirk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
I can understand the reasoning of having a secondary contract maxed at 5 years but not a UFA. That's not necessary to put on a UFA. Apply a 5% variance across the board for all contracts and that should fix itself in terms of front loading contracts. Keep the restriction proposed previously that teams that sign long term contracts retain a portion of the caphit even if the trade the player. That should make an owner really evaluate how he values an individual player's talent and if he's willing to take on the risk, he should be free to make those commitments to the player.

Daly said that the PA hasn't shown any willingness to move towards the league regarding contracting issues. To me, that doesn't sound like the league is truly unwilling to bend at all on those issues, it seems to me that the league simply wants the PA to open dialogue on those issues rather than say we aren't going to do any of that. Just my opinion that 5 year contract max is an issue that be taken off the table but I think the 5% variance is the issue what they really want.
The league is probably asking for 5 so they can move to 7, which is the insurance limit. That's something small market teams worry about a lot more than larger market teams, and affects the kinds of free agents small market teams can attract without taking on a huge level of risk themselves.

CptKirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:07 PM
  #123
xdl1
Registered User
 
xdl1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjeff View Post
The league is probably asking for 5 so they can move to 7, which is the insurance limit. That's something small market teams worry about a lot more than larger market teams, and affects the kinds of free agents small market teams can attract without taking on a huge level of risk themselves.
Your analysis is pretty reasonable all around it seems. For me, the bolded is the only important statement. If the bolded is accurate, we will be watching hockey in December. That may be the leagues intentions, but to this point, they have done nothing to indicate it. It's a pretty reasonable reason to settle at 7, and thats plenty reasonable for the players considering its an issue that's hardly worth missing a full season over.

xdl1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:41 PM
  #124
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
That would lead to another problem. In the years that the salary's low, you could stack your team. Sure low salaries now are used to pad on the end of a contract but it could easily not be.
and whats your point?

my point is erhoff wouldnt be offered a contract with a 10 million dollar salary, as it would screw the team for the beginning of the contract. i would also make signing bonuses count as part of a cap hit.

that would have the effect that teams like philly couldn't offer weber ridiculously front loaded contracts

hyster110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:23 PM
  #125
CptKirk
[insert joke here]
 
CptKirk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyster110 View Post
and whats your point?

my point is erhoff wouldnt be offered a contract with a 10 million dollar salary, as it would screw the team for the beginning of the contract. i would also make signing bonuses count as part of a cap hit.

that would have the effect that teams like philly couldn't offer weber ridiculously front loaded contracts
You could make all of your star player's salaries absurdly low for one year, with their big peak years with the bulk of the contract money staggered so they don't overlap. You sign another big player or two during that down year, and stack your team to go on a big run.

There's a very good reason that cap hit is calculated over the life of a contract. That's obviously been gamed, but the damage from it being gamed isn't nearly as great as the damage if you don't have that system in place to begin with. So instead, you cap the length of a contract, and govern the size of the changes in dollar figures allowed.

CptKirk 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 01:40 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.