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
11-11-2012, 06:58 PM
  #851
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryker View Post
All contracts would then end up having players being paid the same throughout the whole deal, and I don't think any of the two sides would agree to such inflexibility, much less push for it in contract negotiations.
That's cost certainty, which is something the owners want.

McNasty is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:26 PM
  #852
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 2,874
vCash: 500
Cost certainty is knowing how much money they'll spend, which is the same (barring inflation and other adjustments) regardless of whether they spend it in the same chunks year after year, or chunks that differ in size. You don't gain anything by doing that, but you lose the flexibility in having players constitute a bigger part of your team (in terms of cap hit) when you think they'll be in their prime.

Ryker is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:40 PM
  #853
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryker View Post
Cost certainty is knowing how much money they'll spend, which is the same (barring inflation and other adjustments) regardless of whether they spend it in the same chunks year after year, or chunks that differ in size. You don't gain anything by doing that, but you lose the flexibility in having players constitute a bigger part of your team (in terms of cap hit) when you think they'll be in their prime.
The problem is the back diving contracts have become the norm for UFA years, which makes it difficult for some of the smaller market teams to compete. I mean the Weber deal, 7.8 wasn't going to make it tough on Nashville it was the fact that it was so heavily front loaded.

5% variance is a bit steep, but it's completely understandable why the owners would want it.

McNasty is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:15 PM
  #854
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,498
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Isnt it already like that?

And that still leaves situations like this :

15 year contract at 112m

6m
14m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
3m
3m
3m
3m
3m
3m


it never drops below 50% of the first year
No, it's not like that now. For instance, Luongo drops from 10 mil in his first year to 1 mil in his last years. What I suggested would mean with a first year of 10 then the lowest it can go is 5 after that.

That circumvention is easily avoided by saying the first year must be the most expensive. of the contract, after that year following years can't exceed it.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:11 AM
  #855
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
No, it's not like that now. For instance, Luongo drops from 10 mil in his first year to 1 mil in his last years. What I suggested would mean with a first year of 10 then the lowest it can go is 5 after that.

That circumvention is easily avoided by saying the first year must be the most expensive. of the contract, after that year following years can't exceed it.
It's much easier just to say that every year must be within X% of Year 1. Or every year must be equal to YEAR 1. 50% of year 1 won't really eliminate circumvention because you'll see the big money in the middle years then.

If you have to stay within say 25% of year 1 and say year 1 a player had a 6M salary then the most you could give in any year would range between 7.5 and 4.5. If year 1 was 10M then you could give between 12.5 and 7.5M. This will give large market teams some flexibility to front load, but not circumvent the cap.

I think what could really deter the long-term contracts is having them on the cap for the life of the deal (except for LTIR). They should remove the option to bury contracts in the minors or limit it to a certain $ or % amount of the contract.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:40 AM
  #856
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,412
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
I don't know if this has been said in terms of cap circumvention, but wouldn't the easiest way to eliminate this be to eliminate the AAV and just use the actual salary as the salary cap? This would make it much more difficult to sign the outrageous deals so I assume the players would not like this idea.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:54 AM
  #857
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I don't know if this has been said in terms of cap circumvention, but wouldn't the easiest way to eliminate this be to eliminate the AAV and just use the actual salary as the salary cap? This would make it much more difficult to sign the outrageous deals so I assume the players would not like this idea.
I would guess that management would hate the idea far more than the players would. The AAV allows teams to fill a roster of young, inexpensive players and high priced veteran players, and squeeze every cent they can under the cap.

Also, Holmgren has problems handling the cap with AAV, can you imagine if every player's cap hit changed every year? He'd be completely lost.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:27 AM
  #858
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,412
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I would guess that management would hate the idea far more than the players would. The AAV allows teams to fill a roster of young, inexpensive players and high priced veteran players, and squeeze every cent they can under the cap.

Also, Holmgren has problems handling the cap with AAV, can you imagine if every player's cap hit changed every year? He'd be completely lost.
Yeah, the cap would likely have to go up to make this feasible for both sides.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:43 AM
  #859
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,026
vCash: 500
I don't think they should eliminate the front loading deals. They are benefitial to teams to structure their payouts as they may fit into their payroll structure.

The real problem isn't front loading but that players were signed on contracts that are unreasonably long. Limit them to say 7-8 years and up to a certain age (40?). I think that's more than enough restrictions to keep people from playing games with post-retirement contracts.

BringBackStevens is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:03 AM
  #860
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
I don't think they should eliminate the front loading deals. They are benefitial to teams to structure their payouts as they may fit into their payroll structure.

The real problem isn't front loading but that players were signed on contracts that are unreasonably long. Limit them to say 7-8 years and up to a certain age (40?). I think that's more than enough restrictions to keep people from playing games with post-retirement contracts.
There still needs to be tighter restrictions on variance year to year in long term deals. I think teams should be able to create their own flexibility to an extent, but GMs and Agents took a loophole in the last CBA and ran with it. To a degree the owners are protecting themselves from their GMs, but the problem is deals like that have become the norm for big time UFA's.

McNasty is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:06 AM
  #861
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I don't know if this has been said in terms of cap circumvention, but wouldn't the easiest way to eliminate this be to eliminate the AAV and just use the actual salary as the salary cap? This would make it much more difficult to sign the outrageous deals so I assume the players would not like this idea.
Logistically, I don't see how that could put that in at this point because teams have already implemented contracts on the assumption that cap hit = AAV.

Could Minnesota even field a team?

Parise = $12 salary + $10 million in bonuses
Suter = $12 million in salary + 10 million in bonuses
Heatley = $6 million in salary (lower than cap hit).
Koivu = $5.4 million in salary ($7.3 million next year)
Backstrom = $6.0 in salary

Setting aside the bonus money, that's like $42 million right there for 2012-13--and that's not even including guys like Bouchard, Cullen, Gilbert, etc.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:56 PM
  #862
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,412
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Logistically, I don't see how that could put that in at this point because teams have already implemented contracts on the assumption that cap hit = AAV.

Could Minnesota even field a team?

Parise = $12 salary + $10 million in bonuses
Suter = $12 million in salary + 10 million in bonuses
Heatley = $6 million in salary (lower than cap hit).
Koivu = $5.4 million in salary ($7.3 million next year)
Backstrom = $6.0 in salary

Setting aside the bonus money, that's like $42 million right there for 2012-13--and that's not even including guys like Bouchard, Cullen, Gilbert, etc.
The cap would be increased to allow for this change. Raising the cap and eliminating AAV would not have the same effect as raising the cap but keeping the AAV rules in place.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 01:05 PM
  #863
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
If they alter the way cap hits are calculated I don't see anyway that current cap hits aren't grandfathered in.

McNasty is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:16 AM
  #864
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
ok guys, i just got home from a long work stretch and haven't been following anything and getting caught up.

basically i read the tsn article, the lockout now hinges on 3 issues to be resolved.

1 split of money

2 player contract rights

3 who pays for damaged caused by lockout

so my question is will we have hockey by dec 1?

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:27 AM
  #865
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Brennan Klak ‏@nhlupdate
per RDS, Pascal Leclaire has officially retired

First casualty of the lockout

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 07:20 AM
  #866
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHILOUDELPHIA View Post
ok guys, i just got home from a long work stretch and haven't been following anything and getting caught up.

basically i read the tsn article, the lockout now hinges on 3 issues to be resolved.

1 split of money

2 player contract rights

3 who pays for damaged caused by lockout

so my question is will we have hockey by dec 1?
Unless the NHLPA swallows their losses and accepts pro-rated contracts for this shortened season, then I'm going to say No.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 08:08 AM
  #867
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,708
vCash: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Brennan Klak ‏@nhlupdate
per RDS, Pascal Leclaire has officially retired

First casualty of the lockout
he's not a casualty of the lock-out. He had to retire due to injuries, not age. Chances are he would have retired anyways even if there was a season

RJ8812 is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:29 PM
  #868
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,017
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHILOUDELPHIA View Post
ok guys, i just got home from a long work stretch and haven't been following anything and getting caught up.

basically i read the tsn article, the lockout now hinges on 3 issues to be resolved.

1 split of money

2 player contract rights

3 who pays for damaged caused by lockout

so my question is will we have hockey by dec 1?
the 3rd one is easy.
the fans do with increased ticket prices whenever hockey comes back.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:36 PM
  #869
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,708
vCash: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
the 3rd one is easy.
the fans do with increased ticket prices whenever hockey comes back.
I agree. When I heard them mention that if there wasn't a full season, players would still get their full salary, I immediately thought to myself how that would work out. I thought about it for 5 seconds and came to the obvious conclusion that tickets preices would just be increased.

NHL loves their fans

RJ8812 is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:37 PM
  #870
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHILOUDELPHIA View Post
ok guys, i just got home from a long work stretch and haven't been following anything and getting caught up.

basically i read the tsn article, the lockout now hinges on 3 issues to be resolved.

1 split of money

2 player contract rights

3 who pays for damaged caused by lockout

so my question is will we have hockey by dec 1?
wasnt that the stumbling blocks all along thou ???

that #1 issue is the single biggest one and i still dont see it being any closer to be resolved any time soon sadly..

hope im wrong.

Flyerfan4life is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:46 PM
  #871
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 2,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
I agree. When I heard them mention that if there wasn't a full season, players would still get their full salary, I immediately thought to myself how that would work out. I thought about it for 5 seconds and came to the obvious conclusion that tickets preices would just be increased.

NHL loves their fans
Aren't the teams the ones setting ticket prices, though? Or are there guidelines given by the NHL they have to follow?

Ryker is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:50 PM
  #872
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby
To have contracting rights, it doesn't have anything to do with....it's not money, it's the rights as a player within your profession
Seriously what is he talking about, it has everything to do with money. Getting to UFA earlier gives players leverage to ask for more money. Having longer deals sure they might give up some earning potential, but in doing so they put all the risk on the owners end with these decade long contracts. Arbitration again gives the players leverage to be fairly compensated (or overpaid if you're Clarke MacArthur).

Article is on TSN if anybody wants to read the whole thing http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409415

McNasty is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:29 PM
  #873
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Seriously what is he talking about, it has everything to do with money. Getting to UFA earlier gives players leverage to ask for more money. Having longer deals sure they might give up some earning potential, but in doing so they put all the risk on the owners end with these decade long contracts. Arbitration again gives the players leverage to be fairly compensated (or overpaid if you're Clarke MacArthur).

Article is on TSN if anybody wants to read the whole thing http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409415
I agree, this article is Sid being Sid... not knowing when he is in over his head, and not knowing when to shut the **** up.

Let the grown ups handle this one, please.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 07:12 PM
  #874
bennysflyers16
Registered User
 
bennysflyers16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,542
vCash: 50
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...fgPLGAnT5fPrJN

Good to see Gary so willing to negotiate, Meet all of our demands or **** off. I said 2 years in August and sticking to my prediction.

bennysflyers16 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 07:29 PM
  #875
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,412
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Has there been any talk of the union decertifying and suing like the NFLPA did?

DrinkFightFlyers 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 10:59 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.