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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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).
