HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th

View Poll Results: OWNERS OR PLAYERS, who do you support
owners 75 62.50%
players 45 37.50%
Voters: 120. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 04:40 PM
  #51
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.l.f. View Post
i like the idea of 5 yr max contracts
but 7 yr max to re-sign your own players
Isn't going from 15 year Kovalchuk to an 8 year limit a huge improvement for the owners?

That's almost half of what has happened.

If the longest contracts are 8 years, that drives the length of lessor players even shorter than they are today.

__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Keon

He was the Leafs' leading scorer in the 196364, 196667 and 196970 seasons, and the team's top goal scorer in 197071 and 197273. Keon was considered one of the fastest skaters in the NHL, and one of the best defensive forwards of his era.[3] He would usually play against the opposing team's top centre, and developed a reputation for neutralizing some of the league's top scorers. In 197071, he scored eight shorthanded goals, setting an NHL record.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:40 PM
  #52
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 4,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liminality View Post
RFA's are limited to 7 year max contracts and UFA's are limited to 5 or something along those lines? Doesn't sound too bad.
Why?

What is the issue if the CBA has a salary cap does it matter how each team chooses to spend it?

This option is to simply protect the GM from themselves....I say if the NHL wants 5 and the PA wants nothing and 7/8 year term is fair.

The other issue is the 5% variance on contracts amount per year....If the amount that changes per year is not an issue it allows a team to defer salary to other years.....I say as long as you have to account for the salary no matter what happens, Buy out, retire etc.....then the yearly amount should not be a concern.

diceman934 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:24 PM
  #53
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,726
vCash: 500
Here's why we're still close to a deal.
By Pierre LeBrun | ESPN.com

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...lose-to-a-deal

Quote:
The skinny: Commissioner Gary Bettman said the offer was off the table, but the reality is, if the players next week are willing to play ball with what the league proposed, that deal is still available. What the players have to figure out for themselves is whether waiting this out longer will help them get more. There’s no question the patience that Fehr has preached to his membership has paid off, the best example being the owners moving from $211 million to $300 million in make-whole. But at some point you have to know when you’ve played this out long enough. I believe that time has come. If I’m a player, I push hard to get back to the table next week and work with the league on its last offer. If the players do that, this lockout ends.

Budsfan is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:29 PM
  #54
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Isn't going from 15 year Kovalchuk to an 8 year limit a huge improvement for the owners?

That's almost half of what has happened.

If the longest contracts are 8 years, that drives the length of lessor players even shorter than they are today.
Using 5 year contract lengths, we can see that it divides up the player's career into pretty well classifiable segments, where the average $ amount very closely reflects the players' contributions for the duration of the contract.
  • Ages 26-31: player's prime years, fairly steady production can be expected.
  • Ages 32-37: steadily declining performance, much lower $ figure than prime years.
  • Ages 38-40+: twilight years.

The 7 year option to re-sign your own players can be used as a hook to help teams keep their own players by offering more term at similar average $$.

Using an 8 year contract length:
  • Ages 26-34: large amount of variance in player's performance during that stretch.
  • Ages 35-40+: once again, large amount of variance in player's contributions during that stretch.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:54 PM
  #55
Stats01
Registered User
 
Stats01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Isn't going from 15 year Kovalchuk to an 8 year limit a huge improvement for the owners?

That's almost half of what has happened.

If the longest contracts are 8 years, that drives the length of lessor players even shorter than they are today.
I know it won't happen but why not grandfather in the contracts that are longer than 8 years, and start fresh with current RFA's?

It will not have any impact on lower tier players because those players would never get a 5 year deal in the first place. This is the problem with Fehr and the current negotiation, Fehr is representing only a small amount of players. The ones who are filthy rich who are making 8-10 mil a year. He isn't representing a 4th liner or a fringe NHLer. These guys just want a deal and play to make a living. Out of the 750 players probably 100-200 are actually being represented right now.

Stats01 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:59 PM
  #56
Fenton
Registered User
 
Fenton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,477
vCash: 500
I'm not convinced moving a second team to Toronto would be all that great for the NHL. It would likely be better than Phoenix, but not the saving-grace that people make it out to be.

Big market locations with two or more teams are struggling just as much as small markets. New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, Anaheim all struggle while their near-by neighbours are doing fine. And both of those markets are huge.

What is to say a second team in Southern Ontario won't turn out like the NYI? Buffalo is as close as you get to a second team in Southern Ontario and it's not like they are extremely successful. A second team in this market will always be the ugly sister to the Leafs. Better than Phoenix, but not amazing. This market can't even fill an 8000 seat stadium for OHL or AHL on a nightly basis.

Contraction is not an option because it's less jobs for the PA.

Fenton is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:05 PM
  #57
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stats01 View Post
I know it won't happen but why not grandfather in the contracts that are longer than 8 years, and start fresh with current RFA's?

It will not have any impact on lower tier players because those players would never get a 5 year deal in the first place. This is the problem with Fehr and the current negotiation, Fehr is representing only a small amount of players. The ones who are filthy rich who are making 8-10 mil a year. He isn't representing a 4th liner or a fringe NHLer. These guys just want a deal and play to make a living. Out of the 750 players probably 100-200 are actually being represented right now.
The current contracts can very easily be grandfathered in, while keeping the integrity of the cap system, and penalizing the cap circumventors at the same time.

Kovalchuk:
2012-2018 cap hit of $11.16M
2018-2020 cap hit of $5.5M
2020-2025 cap hit of $2M

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:39 PM
  #58
DirtyDion03
Big Wheel
 
DirtyDion03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,876
vCash: 166
Why not have a contract limit depending on the age of the player? So a player after the age of 30 wouldn't be able to get a long term deal. Players under 30 get a longer term, but still make it a cap of something like 8 or 9 years.

__________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/28b4abo.jpg
DirtyDion03 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:43 PM
  #59
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Using 5 year contract lengths, we can see that it divides up the player's career into pretty well classifiable segments, where the average $ amount very closely reflects the players' contributions for the duration of the contract.
  • Ages 26-31: player's prime years, fairly steady production can be expected.
  • Ages 32-37: steadily declining performance, much lower $ figure than prime years.
  • Ages 38-40+: twilight years.

The 7 year option to re-sign your own players can be used as a hook to help teams keep their own players by offering more term at similar average $$.

Using an 8 year contract length:
  • Ages 26-34: large amount of variance in player's performance during that stretch.
  • Ages 35-40+: once again, large amount of variance in player's contributions during that stretch.
You realize that no one is making anyone sign long term deals.

The very best players would be looking at 8 year contracts, not 2nd. -> 4th. liners.

Those guys coming off their ELSC will be 21-23, so an 8 year deal takes them to 31. Players are still in their prime at 31.

If Crosby gets an 8 year deal, it would be hard to see someone like Leino getting 6 years.

And as some have pointed out, we're talking a small percentage of players in that level.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:46 PM
  #60
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stats01 View Post
I know it won't happen but why not grandfather in the contracts that are longer than 8 years, and start fresh with current RFA's?

It will not have any impact on lower tier players because those players would never get a 5 year deal in the first place. This is the problem with Fehr and the current negotiation, Fehr is representing only a small amount of players. The ones who are filthy rich who are making 8-10 mil a year. He isn't representing a 4th liner or a fringe NHLer. These guys just want a deal and play to make a living. Out of the 750 players probably 100-200 are actually being represented right now.
If there is only a small percentage of players involved why are the owners making such a big deal out of it?

Give the stars the star treatment and give the depth players their due.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:51 PM
  #61
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 4,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDion03 View Post
Why not have a contract limit depending on the age of the player? So a player after the age of 30 wouldn't be able to get a long term deal. Players under 30 get a longer term, but still make it a cap of something like 8 or 9 years.
That sounds reasonable....it would also work.

The NHL wants to control themselves with the 5 year term....they are saying they can not help themselves and want a clause that protects themselves from themselves.....the 5 year and 7 if it is your own effectively makes free agency mute.....the current team can offer more term....and hence more money and there is no way the players should except this.

They battled hard for UFA and now the NHL wants to eliminate it effectively.....the only way a player would leave is if they were going to be paid vastly more over 5 years. If that is the hill that the NHL is going to die on....die on it they will!


Last edited by diceman934: 12-07-2012 at 07:41 PM.
diceman934 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:43 PM
  #62
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
You realize that no one is making anyone sign long term deals.

The very best players would be looking at 8 year contracts, not 2nd. -> 4th. liners.
The very best players' contracts are exactly what the issue is right now, not the 2nd to 4th liners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Those guys coming off their ELSC will be 21-23, so an 8 year deal takes them to 31. Players are still in their prime at 31.
Coming off ELSC, it's not uncommon for players to take a briding contract that ends just as they're UFA eligible. It's very hard to accurately judge how a 21 year old will play throughout his prime years. It's best for both sides if the 25-30'ish period is treated separately. By that time, both the team, and the player/agent should have a pretty decent idea of their worth.

Let's say you had to put a $ amount on an 8 year contract for Kadri? What would you say a fair price would be for both sides? How about Gardiner? Do you believe Hall, or Eberle got a fair deal for potential superstars? $6M per season from ages 22-29, and $6M per from ages 23-30, respectively. It's very difficult to say right now, but I think they got low-balled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
If Crosby gets an 8 year deal, it would be hard to see someone like Leino getting 6 years.
Why? A player doesn't need to be a superstar to be valuable to a team. There are a lot of 2nd/3rd liners I'd love to get signed for 5-6 years (assuming that ends up being the max length). Sure, they'd get nowhere near the amount a Crosby would, but I'd be more than fine with having their services for 5-6 seasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
And as some have pointed out, we're talking a small percentage of players in that level.
That small percentage of the players who have the biggest impact on the game.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:49 PM
  #63
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
That sounds reasonable....it would also work.

The NHL wants to control themselves with the 5 year term....they are saying they can not help themselves and want a clause that protects themselves from themselves.....the 5 year and 7 if it is your own effectively makes free agency mute.....the current team can offer more term....and hence more money and there is no way the players should except this.

They battled hard for UFA and now the NHL wants to eliminate it effectively.....the only way a player would leave is if they were going to be paid vastly more over 5 years. If that is the hill that the NHL is going to die on....die on it they will!
Honestly, it won't be any worse than what's been becoming the trend of late. Teams locking up their superstars at a very young age. The majority of the UFAs have been 2nd rate (or worse) players, or stars who wanted to move to a specific team (Richards, Parise, Suter, etc).

If your team offers you a 7 year extension, and some other team offers you a 5 year contract with $2M more per season, which one do you take? The difference is, this scenario wouldn't fall into the category of $26M signing bonuses BS.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:50 PM
  #64
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 54,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Let's say you had to put a $ amount on an 8 year contract for Kadri? What would you say a fair price would be for both sides? How about Gardiner? Do you believe Hall, or Eberle got a fair deal for potential superstars? $6M per season from ages 22-29, and $6M per from ages 23-30, respectively. It's very difficult to say right now, but I think they got low-balled.
Kadri getting an 8 year contract offer?

What idiot would do that?

Crosby, AO, Malkin, Kopitar, ... it is extremely easy to see who'd be competing for long term contracts.

Signing lessor lights to 6 year deals is the problem, not signing a few dozen superstars.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:08 PM
  #65
charliolemieux
No Lu-wiki Zone
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,477
vCash: 500
Really for the players this 5yr max could work in their favour much like linkage did in the last CBA.

Let's say RNH signs a 5yr 6M deal when he is 21. Now during those 5 years he not only proves he is a top 5 playmaker in the league but the salary cap goes up by 10M. Now he comes back at 26 just heading into his prime and able to command more money than could have 5yrs earlier.

The flip side is that if during those 5 years he gets permanently injured then he gets screwed. BUt he could make way more money by renewing his contract every 5 years.

If it wasn't for the security of a long term deal I don't know why any young superstar wants to lock himself in to a long contract. IF he keeps getting better and more important to his team than he should keep getting paid more as he progresses.

I think 5yr max is good for the game, good for the players and good for the fans.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:10 PM
  #66
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Kadri getting an 8 year contract offer?

What idiot would do that?

Crosby, AO, Malkin, Kopitar, ... it is extremely easy to see who'd be competing for long term contracts.

Signing lessor lights to 6 year deals is the problem, not signing a few dozen superstars.
The point was, in most cases, it's hard to judge what a 21 year old will be throughout his primes. Kopitar, for instance, is getting underpaid. Signing a 7 year at 23, after a down season (for him), the Kings got a bargain PPG'ish player for $6.8M per. Using smaller windows allows more fair deals for both sides. I don't see what the issue of superstars having to "qualify" for new contracts every 5-7 years instead of every 8.

Let's say Sid gets concussed again (*knock on wood*), why should the Pens' owners pay him another $100M for the rest of his non-existent career?

Now, if they were to move off guaranteed contracts to ones based on say base+performance bonuses... it'd be a different story.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:43 PM
  #67
charliolemieux
No Lu-wiki Zone
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
The point was, in most cases, it's hard to judge what a 21 year old will be throughout his primes. Kopitar, for instance, is getting underpaid. Signing a 7 year at 23, after a down season (for him), the Kings got a bargain PPG'ish player for $6.8M per. Using smaller windows allows more fair deals for both sides. I don't see what the issue of superstars having to "qualify" for new contracts every 5-7 years instead of every 8.

Let's say Sid gets concussed again (*knock on wood*), why should the Pens' owners pay him another $100M for the rest of his non-existent career?

Now, if they were to move off guaranteed contracts to ones based on say base+performance bonuses... it'd be a different story.
Or on the other side if Sid's healthy for 3yrs adn wins 3 Art Ross trophies and the cap goes back up to 70M why should Sid be stuck only making 9M when he could be making 14M?

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 09:19 PM
  #68
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Or on the other side if Sid's healthy for 3yrs adn wins 3 Art Ross trophies and the cap goes back up to 70M why should Sid be stuck only making 9M when he could be making 14M?
Indeed. To take it one step further, let's say he stays healthy for the rest of his career, and he finishes his career as strong as he started it (Selanne style), why should he settle for $3M per?

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 12:46 AM
  #69
Stats01
Registered User
 
Stats01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blue Devil View Post
What did Fehr say?

Sorry, I've just been staying away from sportcentre and what not because there's really nothing to watch with no NHL hockey.
He said that they agreed on the money " i.e the make whole provision and that they were fairly close to a deal when in reality there are nowhere close to agreeing on a deal. He is a liar and a manipulator.

Stats01 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:56 AM
  #70
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Really for the players this 5yr max could work in their favour much like linkage did in the last CBA.

Let's say RNH signs a 5yr 6M deal when he is 21. Now during those 5 years he not only proves he is a top 5 playmaker in the league but the salary cap goes up by 10M. Now he comes back at 26 just heading into his prime and able to command more money than could have 5yrs earlier.

The flip side is that if during those 5 years he gets permanently injured then he gets screwed. BUt he could make way more money by renewing his contract every 5 years.

If it wasn't for the security of a long term deal I don't know why any young superstar wants to lock himself in to a long contract. IF he keeps getting better and more important to his team than he should keep getting paid more as he progresses.

I think 5yr max is good for the game, good for the players and good for the fans.
Don't forget that he could under the NHL's proposal sign a 7 year deal with his own team.

The two sides h ave to split the difference 10 year deal with a longer max contract length or a 8 year deal with a shorter max. contract length.

The deal is there and in sight! Losing a season will not resolve anything! All that happens is make whole goes away and they start all over again! Get it done ofr gods sake. It's too close to give up now! Money is solved so what the hell is the hold up!

Leafsman is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:02 AM
  #71
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
I also had a thought about a week ago about all this media attention and doom and gloom **** that goes on.

If the NHL/PA want fans to forgive them for a short season, the easiest and best way for that is to convince them that the season is lost and get us all stirred up about that. Get teh fans so mad that a season is lost that they are ready to walk out on the game all together. Then come in at the last second and save the season! To be a hero you need a catastrophe and it wouldn't be hard for them to create one. People will forgive and forget and remember the heroics over the cluster####.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 08:18 AM
  #72
Pyromaniac3
Registered User
 
Pyromaniac3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: India
Posts: 3,095
vCash: 500
NHLPA is just about the star players. They will need to accept lower salaries in order to be a part of a team that competes for the cup. That's is why they are so much against contract limits and year-to-year variance limits.

Pyromaniac3 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:39 AM
  #73
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
Don't forget that he could under the NHL's proposal sign a 7 year deal with his own team.

The two sides h ave to split the difference 10 year deal with a longer max contract length or a 8 year deal with a shorter max. contract length.

The deal is there and in sight! Losing a season will not resolve anything! All that happens is make whole goes away and they start all over again! Get it done ofr gods sake. It's too close to give up now! Money is solved so what the hell is the hold up!
The money was solved if the players were willing to accept the 5 year contract limit. If they aren't, the money is far from solved. The owners are very unlikely to budge on the contract length. It is the one thing the players will probably have to swallow whole if they want to play, and the sooner the players understand this, the sooner the season can start.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:04 AM
  #74
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 4,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
The money was solved if the players were willing to accept the 5 year contract limit. If they aren't, the money is far from solved. The owners are very unlikely to budge on the contract length. It is the one thing the players will probably have to swallow whole if they want to play, and the sooner the players understand this, the sooner the season can start.
I do not think that the players will settle with the current 5 year or 7 if it is your own free agent.....they will settle if both numbers are the same and I say it is 6 years.....the year to year variance will also likely go to 10%.

Time will tell...

diceman934 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:05 AM
  #75
sangreale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,064
vCash: 500
I am so sick of the "protecting GM's / owners from themselves stuff".

If the owners decided not to sign players to 10 year contracts on their own they would be hit so hard with collusion suits they wouldn't be left with enough money to buy a coffee.

sangreale is offline  
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 08:35 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.