HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
11-12-2012, 09:15 PM
  #126
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjeff View Post
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.
Just force salaries to be equal throughout the contract.

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:16 PM
  #127
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Just force salaries to be equal throughout the contract.
There's reasons why both the clubs and the players would not want this.

__________________
"It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 12:23 AM
  #128
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjeff View Post
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.
wouldnt that just be smart managing

hyster110 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 12:35 AM
  #129
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
There's reasons why both the clubs and the players would not want this.
There's also reasons why they should do this.

And those reasons make it more fair to the other 29 teams.

Butch 19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 12:56 AM
  #130
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
There's also reasons why they should do this.

And those reasons make it more fair to the other 29 teams.
Allowing contracts (that are not meant to circumvent the cap), to be slightly front loaded makes perfect sense to both the player and the clubs. Something like a 4 yr 20m deal (8m, 6m, 4m, 2m), for an older player (say 33/34), makes sense for both sides. Allows the player to get paid, and gives the team some protection as the player gets older. In the beginning while the player is still in their prime, he gets top dollar, and as he gets older his salary is less so that should the team want to buy him out, or he has some massive injury that forces him to retire, then he's not leaving a lot on the table. There's a time and a place for these deals, and it's not these deals that the league is trying to prevent.

These contracts are not the ones anyone has issues with... it's the ones that start at 10m+ and end when the player is 40/41 with the last 2-3 years being 500k.

Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 01:01 AM
  #131
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 17,417
vCash: 500
to stop cap circumvention and so players can't mail it in since their contracts are guaranteed

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:26 AM
  #132
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieLima View Post
There is one thing that has really messed up my mind during this NHL-conflict, and that’s when I read that Bettman & Co. wants a limit for contract lengths.

First of all, we need to get some things clear:

* The wage cap was proposed from the owners back in 2004/2005.

* Long-term contracts that last for about 12-15 years are a direct consequence of the cap, since it allows you to “circumvent the rules” and keep well-paid players below the cap.

* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.

My question is how come Bettman says he want a limit for contract lengths we he represents the owners? Or am I wrong with something?
Because long contracts in the recently expired CBA were clear cap circumvention techniques. The cap is ineffective if teams can abuse it that way.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:22 AM
  #133
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 996
vCash: 500
The issues is most likely frontloaded contracts, which push especially UFA prices upwards - and increasing UFA salaries in turn increase the demands of high profile RFAs. After all, without the ability to decrease cap hit with tagged-on-low-salary-years a team like Philly (which allegedly made the first life-time offer to Sutter, driving the price upwards) would not had means to offer either of them those contracts within the agreed cap structure.

Noldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 01:43 PM
  #134
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Because long contracts in the recently expired CBA were clear cap circumvention techniques. The cap is ineffective if teams can abuse it that way.

There are other, perhaps more directed ways to prevent cap circumvention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noldo View Post
The issues is most likely frontloaded contracts, which push especially UFA prices upwards - and increasing UFA salaries in turn increase the demands of high profile RFAs. After all, without the ability to decrease cap hit with tagged-on-low-salary-years a team like Philly (which allegedly made the first life-time offer to Sutter, driving the price upwards) would not had means to offer either of them those contracts within the agreed cap structure.

What I dislike about the broad methods to plug a single hole is that there will be many unintended consequences. If you tighten down the variance from year to year, which is something that actually existed in the last CBA albeit now exploited, you get after the true culprit. I don't think teams really wanted to give out 15 yr contracts per se. They did it to massage the then allowed variance, and thus achieved a cap circumvention mechanism. Both restraints are unnecessary.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:26 PM
  #135
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,451
vCash: 500
Another reason to limit contract lengths is to protect "franchises" from owners and GMs who may sign players to irrationally long contracts to obtain them, but aren't worried about the consequences because they don't plan on being there when the contract becomes a burden.

For example, a team signs a 27 year old star to a $8M a year contract (each year pays him $8M with no back- or front-loading) for 12 years. For the first few years, the star probably going to earn his money, but after, say, 5 or 6 years, he is going to start to decline and no longer be worth it. However, the GM offers the deal and the owner approves it because neither one figures they'll be there for more than 5 or 6 years themselves, so the declining years are going to be happening on someone else's watch. With shorter contract lengths, you can limit the long-term damage to a franchise that can be done by an owner or GM.

rojac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:23 PM
  #136
cptjeff
[insert joke here]
 
cptjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,464
vCash: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyster110 View Post
wouldnt that just be smart managing
It would be a form of cap circumvention. Allowing teams to structure contracts so that they can effectively ignore the cap in certain years was not an scenario the NHL wanted to happen, so they structured the system so that it couldn't. That system wound up having other flaws, which they're trying to fix now.

cptjeff is online now   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 11:47 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.