Have to agree with you, Donald Fehr set Major League Baseball back 5/6 years, it took a steroid scandal to get fans back, you would think the players would have learned with Goodenow, they're going down the exact same path, they're drinking the same coolaid again, wake-up, no one gains when you're not collecting salary.
In business, whether the players like it or not, it's the people with the Money that have the power, no matter what Donald Fehr says. This stalemate will drag on until someone in the PA, with any leadership skills, stands up and says, enough is enough, what are we fighting for here???? Jerome Iginla lost $7 million the last lock out, he may lose another $ 7 Mil, this time around, ($14 Mil, total) how is he gaining listening to Fehr??
Long term revenue plan for the players?
Also the power is on the players. Fans don't go to the Molson center to look at big screen and pay 5x the price of a terrible draft beer. Fans pay big money to see the best products in the world play hockey. No best products, no more revenues, no more league. If that's not the case, then investors should go invest millions into the AHL and LNAH.
The problem with your reasoning is the fact that you omit that there is already a difference in contracts in the CBA. A rookie, is almost always a bargain and same thing about alot of the RFA's, because of the nature of their contracts. That's not really what Kriss E is referring. I think he is talking about the UFA's, where in my mind it's clear there is more overpaid players that underpaid ones.
Again, since players get exactly 57%, the amount of overpayments to overpaid players exactly equals the amount of underpayment to underpaid players. That's a mathematical identity, as total payroll is fixed.
I agree, however, that there is a transfer of wealth from rookies to veterans. Players on entry-level and second contracts are underpaid relative to UFAs. Since this is a direct transfer of wealth, you cannot legitimately complain about some UFAs like Gomez, Kovalchuk, etc being overpaid without also complaining that rookies and second-contract players (Subban, Pacioretty, etc) are underpaid. These are not independent and distinct phenomena. These are two sides of the same coin. You have to complain about neither or both sides of the coin. You cannot complain about one side of the coin and praise the other as Kriss E was doing.
Personally, I would rather see offer-sheet compensation decrease, so that the value of youth contracts go up. I think that players should get comparable salaries for comparable production. I think that would be more fair. But I also think it's unlikely to happen.
Just to follow up, from what I can tell the most "active" owners when it comes these negotiations are:
Jeremy Jacobs: Signed Lucic, Seguin, Marchand and Krejci this summer, despite the fact that only Krejci was a free agent, either UFA or RFA - he signed these guys a year early in other words, knowing that a new CBA was going to be negotiated and he was going to ask them for a rollback
Craig Leipold: Signed Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to the exact type of deals they now want to eliminate
Ted Leonis: Signed Alex Ovechkin and Niklas Backstrom to the exact type of deals they now want to eliminate
Murray Edwards: Seems to have his hands "clean", though the Dennis Wideman deal certainly doesn't look good
So of the four owners who seem to attend the most meetings (it's hard to find exact information on this) three of them are, in fact "the owners who cheat the system" and who are now "asking for a roll back".
It doesn't make the argument more valuable. ALL OWNERS are represented in these negotiations period. This is like arguing with a child....
*IF* the players lose their full $1.8B in a full-season lockout this year, and *IF* the game is damaged to the point where their 50% for the next 6 or so years is less than $1.8B per, then I don't see how they can really claim to have won anything. It seems like by agreeing to even a gradually-decending drop to 50% they are not going to be able to break even. They've already accepted 50% on the face of it. I'm pro-player in general, but it's just so hard to see how they can win when the owners ultimately hold so much power. I guess it would have looked too weak if they didn't at least test the owners' resolve, but frankly I think it would have been pretty easy to predict the resolution level of the owners, especially from their confrontational initial offer.
It doesn't make the argument more valuable. ALL OWNERS are represented in these negotiations period. This is like arguing with a child....
The evidence (and life experience) suggests that some owners have more representation than others.
If you actually believe that in a group of 30 people everybody will have an equal say ... well ... then you should not be accusing others of arguing like children, as you are buying into an idealistic, utopian view of how human beings interact with one another.
In my life, having lived in three different countries , had dozens of jobs, worked with people from different backgrounds, etc, I have never seen a large group where everyone had an equal say.
The evidence (and life experience) suggests that some owners have more representation than others.
If you actually believe that in a group of 30 people everybody will have an equal say ... well ... then you should not be accusing others of arguing like children, as you are buying into an idealistic, utopian view of how human beings interact with one another.
In my life, having lived in three different countries , had dozens of jobs, worked with people from different backgrounds, etc, I have never seen a large group where everyone had an equal say.
Would you say the same logic applies to the NHLPA?
Would you say the same logic applies to the NHLPA?
I think it's clear that it does.
The winners include the ones with longer careers. If you're expecting a long career, you win from an agreement that includes revenue sharing, because that decreases the odds of another lockout in 5 years.
The losers, I think the biggest losers, are likely to future members of the NHLPA. It's common in these negotiations for current workers to negotiate away the privileges of future workers. So, for example, we might see 5-year ELCs, which would be a transfer of wealth from future players to current players who happen to still be around in the future.
I did not attempt a complete list of winners and losers.
I think if the NHL was more Machiavellian, they might offer to raise the minimum salary to $750,000 or even $1,000,000, and maybe shift the minimum length to 2 years. That's a trivial change for the owners, but it could divide the NHLPA. They could also change the retirement rule which penalizes players older than 35.
ETA: If player share is reduced from 57% but current contracts are honoured, then the biggest winners are whoever has a long-term contract, and the biggest losers are whoever has a short-term contract. However, if revenues grow really fast, cap inflation will lead to salary inflation, and players with current contracts may end up being underpaid, as happened after the last lockout.
Last edited by DAChampion: 11-13-2012 at 06:07 PM.
I said from Day 1 that when I heard the name Donald Fehr involved, I knew it would be armaggedon for our sport. He is the worst possible thing for the fans of a sport wanting balance and an even playing field.
And as a negotiator he is the pinnacle of frustration for his counterparts as he's a moving target. You think you're arguing one thing and all of a sudden, he's arguing a completely different point. You think you've satisfied his main bellyache and he suddenly has several others.
I'm sure the players were wooed by his tough reputation and take-no-crap background, but I strongly believe he is going to see to it that everyone loses in this debacle. And if by some miracle he gets what he wants from the NHL, the fans lose as every point he is arguing leads to a less fair system. "Player contracting rights" refers exclusively to players picking and choosing who they play for. Goodbye viability of most teams.
What I highlighted in bold............are you referring to Donald Fehr or DA Champion?
VERY good post.
The only winner in this potentially lost season is Donald Fehr. He scorches the earth (the MLB previously and now the NHL) and he walks away with a pocket full of money.
Meanwhile, players have lost earnings, people who work for NHL teams and arenas have their finances destroyed, teams will close up shop and fans will take years to return to spending their money in the NHL.
Some teams have more say than others, more power on the Board.
It doesn't make the argument more valuable. All it does is make you people look like a bunch of whiners, trying to attract pity for the players.
"Yes but.. him did .. what, whine whine whine.."
Must be awesome to sit around a table with that kind of discussion, and we all know why there's still no hockey correct? Maybe some people will shut it in between now and the end of the month and there will be some new CBA finally.. Maybe..
There is a correlation between fehr and the current lock out, but saying he is the cause of it, is misleading and terribly wrong. The only evident CAUSE of this lock-out, is the league locking out it's employees; there is no doubt whoever would of been in charge of the NHLPA negotiations would of not bend down to the leagues demands.
Fehr is a jackass either way. I mean he showed up to one of the meetings with a proposal that was mathematically impossible and said later that he didn't actually run the math on it. Not to mention he threatened to put the cap back on the table if things don't go his way.
Fehr is a jackass either way. I mean he showed up to one of the meetings with a proposal that was mathematically impossible and said later that he didn't actually run the math on it. Not to mention he threatened to put the cap back on the table if things don't go his way.
you need to add they had a meeting scheduled at 10AM and the NHLPA presented themselves at 4PM. You need an incredible amount of professionalism to accept the meeting afterward. Kudos to the NHL, because I know I would have been mad as ****.
The winners include the ones with longer careers. If you're expecting a long career, you win from an agreement that includes revenue sharing, because that decreases the odds of another lockout in 5 years.
The losers, I think the biggest losers, are likely to future members of the NHLPA. It's common in these negotiations for current workers to negotiate away the privileges of future workers. So, for example, we might see 5-year ELCs, which would be a transfer of wealth from future players to current players who happen to still be around in the future.
I did not attempt a complete list of winners and losers.
I think if the NHL was more Machiavellian, they might offer to raise the minimum salary to $750,000 or even $1,000,000, and maybe shift the minimum length to 2 years. That's a trivial change for the owners, but it could divide the NHLPA. They could also change the retirement rule which penalizes players older than 35.
ETA: If player share is reduced from 57% but current contracts are honoured, then the biggest winners are whoever has a long-term contract, and the biggest losers are whoever has a short-term contract. However, if revenues grow really fast, cap inflation will lead to salary inflation, and players with current contracts may end up being underpaid, as happened after the last lockout.
Thanks, all very good points.
In your last example, the impact on a guy like Subban could be significant. If a large number of teams are already at or near the limit of the new cap and the current contracts had to be honoured, then what happens to those unsigned players?
In your last example, the impact on a guy like Subban could be significant. If a large number of teams are already at or near the limit of the new cap and the current contracts had to be honoured, then what happens to those unsigned players?
I'm not too sure about this, but I suspect it was a bad decision on Subban's part to hold out for a post-CBA contract. If cap limits drop, and current contracts are honoured, then there will be very little room to sign players like Subban, even if there's an amnesty buyout. For example, a drop from 57% to 50% means a drop in the cap from 70 million to 61 million, which wipes out any potential savings from buying out Gomez. Most teams don't have a Gomez, so the prospect of an offer sheet will still be there but limited.
Aside from all that, if he had signed a contract this summer he might have been able to finnagle himself a small signing bonus that pays out on July 1st to finance his lifestyle during the lockout.
1- Why not keep the cap ceiling at 70 million and let the cap floor float to as low as 35 million to accomodate the poorest teams ?
2- The NHL and Bettman should lift the lockout NOW and impose their overall plan unilaterally. Let's see how many players are gonna come back on the ice in the next couple of weeks. If very few or none comes back, just cancel the rest of the season.
1- Why not keep the cap ceiling at 70 million and let the cap floor float to as low as 35 million to accomodate the poorest teams ?
The point of a salary cap is to have parity in expenses. In the 1990s, the Rangers, the Stars, the Avalanche, etc were buying up all the UFAs causing distortions.
However, since the cap, there has been a new source of disparity in expenses (scientific drafting, scouting, etc); and there is still disparity in revenues. Disparity in revenues is probably a worse problem than in the previous cycle, because of the long-term rise in the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar was worth $0.85 when the last lockout was ended.
Further, for Phoenix to be successful, the cap would need to be at 30 million to first order, but to second order if they have a payroll of 30 million their attendance drops, they play fewer playoff games, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum
2- The NHL and Bettman should lift the lockout NOW and impose their overall plan unilaterally. Let's see how many players are gonna come back on the ice in the next couple of weeks. If very few or none comes back, just cancel the rest of the season.
1- Why not keep the cap ceiling at 70 million and let the cap floor float to as low as 35 million to accomodate the poorest teams ?
2- The NHL and Bettman should lift the lockout NOW and impose their overall plan unilaterally. Let's see how many players are gonna come back on the ice in the next couple of weeks. If very few or none comes back, just cancel the rest of the season.
Yup, tell that to Molson and see if he likes the idea of losing money over an entire season...
I'm not too sure about this, but I suspect it was a bad decision on Subban's part to hold out for a post-CBA contract. If cap limits drop, and current contracts are honoured, then there will be very little room to sign players like Subban, even if there's an amnesty buyout. For example, a drop from 57% to 50% means a drop in the cap from 70 million to 61 million, which wipes out any potential savings from buying out Gomez. Most teams don't have a Gomez, so the prospect of an offer sheet will still be there but limited.
Aside from all that, if he had signed a contract this summer he might have been able to finnagle himself a small signing bonus that pays out on July 1st to finance his lifestyle during the lockout.
Agreed.
The teams that would want Subban, for example, Toronto, Philly and Edmonton could make room for him even if the cap goes down and those teams have players like Horcoff, Pronger and 3 or 4 Leafs that could be bought out.
I'm confused by Bergevin's handling of Subban. Do they think this will fly when Galchenyuk has finished his ELC?
The teams that would want Subban, for example, Toronto, Philly and Edmonton could make room for him even if the cap goes down and those teams have players like Horcoff, Pronger and 3 or 4 Leafs that could be bought out.
Unless they change the entire buyout provision, has opportunity for buyouts not already passed. And under current buyout provisions Pronger CAN'T be bought out.
The players get exactly 57% of revenue. That means every time a player is overpaid by an amount, other players are underpaid by exactly that amount. For example, if New Jersey overpays for Kovalchuk, that means they're not spending money on other players they could have, which lowers the demand for other players, which lowers their eventual salary. At the end of the day the players get exactly 57%. If one player is overpaid, then others have to be underpaid, it's that simple.
The reason you don't see this is that you're approaching the subject from the point of view of moral ethics, which are always imperfect (not just yours personally), rather than from a math standpoint. The latter is appropriate, as numbers is what everything involves comes down to. Numbers. That's all.
Well, that's the thing. You only look at math. Sadly math is not the determining of whether or not a player gets overpaid on a given year or not.
Performance is what will determine if a player is overpaid or not, and the cap. So, you can have Kovalchuk taking in 20% of the cap alone, not providing 20% of the production, with the rest of the team playing like crap and finishing dead last. But that won't prevent Jeff Finger from getting 4M or Prust getting 2.5M, or whoever else. It's to the point where third and fourth liners also get overpaid. The only thing you have to balance it out are the youngsters.
And again, this is based on your opinion that a guy like MaxPac was underpaid last year. An idea I strongly disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion
You can't disagree with math, you can only be wrong.
And on this note, I suspect that if a player is overpaid by 2 million dollars, you have two players being underpaid by 1 million dollars each, but I'm not sure how the distribution works in terms of number of players. I just know that in terms of total dollars, overpayments equal underpyaments. That is guaranteed by the CBA.
In Math only. But you also based that on youngsters. I don't consider them to be underpaid at all. Yes, that's how teams are able to get away with bigger contracts to veterans, and that's why they focus a lot on drafting. Get good performing young players that will save you money. But I don't think they're underpaid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion
As long as the league doesn't fix its economic problems, there will be more lockouts.
You are right that the players could just capitulate to anything the owners demand before the season starts, but I don't see this happening. Note that the players learned a lesson this time. If they had capitulated early they would have lost 25%. Instead they are losing 12% at the most and getting some concessions (deferral payments), they now know that it is worthwhile to delay.
Have you ever negotiated anything in life? Or sold something to someone else?
You put your price real high, the other party will come in with something real low, and you settle somewhere in the middle. That's what is happening. Nothing new or crazy.
As for the future, again, nothing GUARANTEES a lockout.
The teams that would want Subban, for example, Toronto, Philly and Edmonton could make room for him even if the cap goes down and those teams have players like Horcoff, Pronger and 3 or 4 Leafs that could be bought out.
Good point. I'm curious why we have not seen many offer sheets in the NHL, I see it as a very effective strategy. IMO teams should at the very least send out offer sheets to their division rivals for salary amounts just below the compensation thresholds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice
I'm confused by Bergevin's handling of Subban. Do they think this will fly when Galchenyuk has finished his ELC?
I do not expect this to fly when Galchenyuk has finished his ELC. I expect that like Subban, and unlike Pacioretty and Price, Galchenyuk will be a proven player when he completes his ELC.
However, Subban has to deal with certain obstacles that cause people to erroneously underestimate his worth as a hockey player; i.e. to fail to recognize that he was our team's no. 2 dman in 2010-2011 and no. 1 dman in 2011-2012, playing 25 minutes a game in all situations and doing so effectively. In spite of his performance, people believe Subban is a "project" who needs to prove himself, who should be put in his place in terms of salary, and that he has too much attitude and not enough "respect".
I expect that Alex Galchenyuk will not be affected by these obstacles.
Unless they change the entire buyout provision, has opportunity for buyouts not already passed. And under current buyout provisions Pronger CAN'T be bought out.
The other poster was speculating about buying out Gomez, so either it would apply to all or none. It sounds to me that both sides are open in principal to allow some form of compliance buyouts, but who knows.
Well, that's the thing. You only look at math. Sadly math is not the determining of whether or not a player gets overpaid on a given year or not.
Performance is what will determine if a player is overpaid or not, and the cap. So, you can have Kovalchuk taking in 20% of the cap alone, not providing 20% of the production, with the rest of the team playing like crap and finishing dead last. But that won't prevent Jeff Finger from getting 4M or Prust getting 2.5M, or whoever else. It's to the point where third and fourth liners also get overpaid. The only thing you have to balance it out are the youngsters.
Let's try again:
If the New Jersey Devils overpay for Kovalchuk, they have less cap space to spend on other players.
League-wise, player salaries are exactly 57% of revenue. If some players are overpaid, other players have to be underpaid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E
But that won't prevent Jeff Finger from getting 4M or Prust getting 2.5M, or whoever else.
The NHL has a total payroll of ~2 billion dollars split over 700 players. I expect that there are hundreds of players who are overpaid and hundreds who are underpaid.
You don't even know that Prust will be overpaid by the way, he could exceed your expectations. He is not currently overpaid as he has not yet done anything, and he has not yet been paid anything :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E
Have you ever negotiated anything in life? Or sold something to someone else?
Yes, I don't try and screw people over. I value good working relationships. I try to be always upfront and direct about my expectations. Sometimes I don't succeed, and I consider that a personal failing.
Anyway, you are basically admitting that the NHLPA gets a better deal if they hold out longer. You're saying the first offer is always bad; so yeah, the NHLPA should hold out for the 20th offer. Even if you weren't around to teach this to the world, we would know, because we've just seen this happen :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E
As for the future, again, nothing GUARANTEES a lockout.
Some outcomes are more likely than others. The Bettman plan is very likely to lead to another lockout as it doesn't solve any of the problems that contributed to this lockout.
Last edited by DAChampion: 11-13-2012 at 09:25 PM.
