HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 09:01 PM
  #26
charliolemieux
No Lu-wiki Zone
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
I think the 5 year max is a good idea, and would be good for everyone.

Now I know the players just love the security these long deals offer so as a solution to that have optional insurace that should a carreer ending injury or illness occur the player is covered for 5 more years at the same salary avg of his current contract, beginning at the conclusion of the current contract.

This way the players get their protection against an unfortunate event cutting short their earning potential, while the owners get their 5yr max deals.

JUst who would provide the insurance for that I don't know. I have no idea if the current insurer of contracts would be willing to take on that risk or if someone else would have to be found.

I think the premiums for such insurance should be split between player and team. As I said it is optional so if a player wants it then it would become part of the contract negotiations.

That is one of the owners demands, the hill they will die on, taken care of.


Last edited by charliolemieux: 12-08-2012 at 09:12 PM.
charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:10 PM
  #27
charliolemieux
No Lu-wiki Zone
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyShack View Post

I believe the owners can't purchase insurance, so the whole salary is picked up by the owners. In another thread someone mentioned they can't even insure Crosby (May be why he isn't playing in Europe).
Someone insures contracts.

As for Crosby, just imagine what kind of insurance premium it would take to insure his contract? Russia doesn't exaclty have a good reputation for medical care. If You're going to insure over 100M dollars how much would you want a month?

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:28 PM
  #28
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyShack View Post
I believe the owners can't purchase insurance, so the whole salary is picked up by the owners. In another thread someone mentioned they can't even insure Crosby (May be why he isn't playing in Europe).
Crosby said when he looked into insurance, he said it would cost around $400,000 a month to insure his contract. On the Pens board in the Crosby 12 yr deal thread it was said that his contract isn't insured against concussions. However I've no source for that.

As to the insurance, my understanding is that teams can only insure the first 5 years of a deal. For deals longer than 5 years, the first 5 is insured, and the rest of the deal places the risk on the owners dime.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:36 PM
  #29
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Again, the same can be said of the pro-player side. At least 80% of the players are unaffected by the 5-year limit. Why is this such hard point for the NHLPA?

The only answer can be is that a small minority of players still want long term contracts as a way to allow cap circumvention.

I am not buying Fehr's rhetoric on it hurting the "middle class" players.
Considering the players probably didn't want to move from INFINITY, I'd say they've done their share AND MORE by moving from INFINITY to 8.... Right now, the owners are being unreasonable.

MOD


Last edited by Killion: 12-08-2012 at 09:41 PM. Reason: ya, lets not have an Open Invitation to a Gunfight & say we did...
RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:45 PM
  #30
KPower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Again, the same can be said of the pro-player side. At least 80% of the players are unaffected by the 5-year limit. Why is this such hard point for the NHLPA?

The only answer can be is that a small minority of players still want long term contracts as a way to allow cap circumvention.

I am not buying Fehr's rhetoric on it hurting the "middle class" players.
The 5 year limit on contracts will affect 90% of the players.

The top 10% will get max contracts.

Instead of 120 million over 13 years you will see more 60 million over 5 years.

This will affect the other 90% huge.

KPower is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:49 PM
  #31
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Exactly.
Morever, these long term deals are VERY good for middle class players

When Zetterberg signs a 12 year deal with the cap at $58M and it's at $72M 4 years later..

That creates LOTS of space. so Holland might as well spend it on someone. Let's sign Mikeal Sammuelsson for $3M.

If Zetterberg signs a 5 Year Deal, instead of getting a 6M cap Hit and getting paid $7.5M....

He probably demands $8M over a short term deal with an $8M cap hit.
And 5 years later, when the cap is at $72M a gain... He probably demands $9M ayear.

You do that to 3-4 elite players on your team... that money is going to come out of Danny Cleary's pocket.

Not Pavel Datsyuk's pocket. And anyone who thinks differently is kidding himself.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:51 PM
  #32
Freudian
wild card, *****es
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,906
vCash: 50
I'm starting to think that the league wants a limit on contract length as protection too. Very long contracts can turn into liabilities and there is nothing you can do about it.

Look at Tampa. They have a new owner and a new GM that had nothing to do with the Lecavalier contract but they are the ones that have to live with it.

Let's assume Ovechkin doesn't bounce back and regresses. You have a player with a contact that expires in 2021 with a $9.5M cap hit and there isn't anything you can do about it.

The DiPietro contract is another. I'm sure in the future a contract like that would cost the team quite a bit since it's hard to see any reasonably priced insurance cover all the years.

While it is the foolishness of owners and GMs that is the problem to start with, these foolish decisions handcuff a team for over a decade that may have several new owners and GMs having to manage a situation. While we can plea for common sense players and agents will push for these long contracts and some GMs will cave, causing problems. I think one of the reasons contract length is so important for the league is because they want to protect their teams from a bad decision haunting a team for a very long time. In a cap world that is a reasonable stance. Before 2004 it was just a money mistake. That's not the case anymore since it's a cap mistake too.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:59 PM
  #33
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I'm starting to think that the league wants a limit on contract length as protection too. Very long contracts can turn into liabilities and there is nothing you can do about it.

Look at Tampa. They have a new owner and a new GM that had nothing to do with the Lecavalier contract but they are the ones that have to live with it.

Let's assume Ovechkin doesn't bounce back and regresses. You have a player with a contact that expires in 2021 with a $9.5M cap hit and there isn't anything you can do about it.

The DiPietro contract is another. I'm sure in the future a contract like that would cost the team quite a bit since it's hard to see any reasonably priced insurance cover all the years.

While it is the foolishness of owners and GMs that is the problem to start with, these foolish decisions handcuff a team for over a decade that may have several new owners and GMs having to manage a situation. While we can plea for common sense players and agents will push for these long contracts and some GMs will cave, causing problems. I think one of the reasons contract length is so important for the league is because they want to protect their teams from a bad decision haunting a team for a very long time. In a cap world that is a reasonable stance. Before 2004 it was just a money mistake. That's not the case anymore since it's a cap mistake too.
There's truth to that.

But it's also true that $9.5M today might not look so bad in 6 years.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:05 PM
  #34
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
It also completely nullifies the 5 yr contract length. 12.9% of the current contracts exceed 5 years (6yrs+). And something like 40 of those 89 contracts are 6 yrs exactly.

So by adding a clause that allows X contracts longer than the minimum, all you've done is made the 5 yr rule meaningless as most players do not get contracts longer than that.

Sorry, but it doesn't solve anything from the NHL's point of view.
With so few contracts as outliers, why do you think the NHL cares?

They're willing to accept up to 7 yrs, and the PA wants 8.

The NHL seems to nullify its own requirements/needs if its for the 'home' team.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:09 PM
  #35
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinPower420 View Post
The owners are unreasonable to hold the season up to impose five year contracts. Think about all the little people getting screwed by this greed.
i don't see why the union is against contracts max of five years. if you have a hard cap it isn't helping the players as a whole at all. if one player is getting a 11 year contract and doesn't help the team after year 5 they still will be paying him and keeping the team from signing another player and paying him the same salary.

seems the thing they are fighting for goes against the whole idea of a union.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:12 PM
  #36
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
With so few contracts as outliers, why do you think the NHL cares?

They're willing to accept up to 7 yrs, and the PA wants 8.

The NHL seems to nullify its own requirements/needs if its for the 'home' team.
Because they have a massive impact. Insurance, franchise values, league parity, whatever - take your pick.

The fact that those contracts (players getting paid more than their cap values) affects the escrow hit of every other player in the league should be a reason why the other 90% support this rule and want those contracts gone - the stars getting their cap circumvention deals is directly taking money out of their pockets.

Riptide is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:12 PM
  #37
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Crosby said when he looked into insurance, he said it would cost around $400,000 a month to insure his contract. On the Pens board in the Crosby 12 yr deal thread it was said that his contract isn't insured against concussions. However I've no source for that.

As to the insurance, my understanding is that teams can only insure the first 5 years of a deal. For deals longer than 5 years, the first 5 is insured, and the rest of the deal places the risk on the owners dime.
well if crosby can't get a team to pay him over 400,000 a month in europe he should be beging the union to settle this thing right away.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:14 PM
  #38
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I'm starting to think that the league wants a limit on contract length as protection too. Very long contracts can turn into liabilities and there is nothing you can do about it.

Look at Tampa. They have a new owner and a new GM that had nothing to do with the Lecavalier contract but they are the ones that have to live with it.

Let's assume Ovechkin doesn't bounce back and regresses. You have a player with a contact that expires in 2021 with a $9.5M cap hit and there isn't anything you can do about it.

The DiPietro contract is another. I'm sure in the future a contract like that would cost the team quite a bit since it's hard to see any reasonably priced insurance cover all the years.

While it is the foolishness of owners and GMs that is the problem to start with, these foolish decisions handcuff a team for over a decade that may have several new owners and GMs having to manage a situation. While we can plea for common sense players and agents will push for these long contracts and some GMs will cave, causing problems. I think one of the reasons contract length is so important for the league is because they want to protect their teams from a bad decision haunting a team for a very long time. In a cap world that is a reasonable stance. Before 2004 it was just a money mistake. That's not the case anymore since it's a cap mistake too.

Yes, look at Tampa. The previous owners wanted to trade Lecavalier, who basically had his backs packed and was set to go to Montreal-- until Gary nixed it. (Recall that all deals had to have Bettman's approval since the co-owners weren't on the same page.) Bettman felt that Tampa's franchise value would be hurt, not hindered, by trading Lecavalier.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:18 PM
  #39
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes, look at Tampa. The previous owners wanted to trade Lecavalier, who basically had his backs packed and was set to go to Montreal-- until Gary nixed it. (Recall that all deals had to have Bettman's approval since the co-owners weren't on the same page.) Bettman felt that Tampa's franchise value would be hurt, not hindered, by trading Lecavalier.
So Bettman should have allowed a trade of a major asset to go through when the two owners are not on the same page? I'm not so sure about that. That was a ****** situation from start to finish, and I'm overjoyed that they got Vinik in place.

Riptide is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:19 PM
  #40
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Because they have a massive impact. Insurance, franchise values, league parity, whatever - take your pick.

The fact that those contracts (players getting paid more than their cap values) affects the escrow hit of every other player in the league should be a reason why the other 90% support this rule and want those contracts gone - the stars getting their cap circumvention deals is directly taking money out of their pockets.

Why let the current team get an exemption from all of these critical matters then? If 5 yrs is necessary to insure franchise values, parity, insurance.... whatever, the list keeps getting longer...... why are they the ones suggesting a way to bypass the very thing they'd die on that infamous hill over?


It's an attempt to influence the UFA market, and I for one have no idea why this is important with individual caps, team caps, and potentially contract variance--- not when we're talking about a 1 yr difference basically if you include their exemption. It's not that they don't want 7 yr contracts--- they want to influence the players' impulse to always take the longer deal to mitigate his own risk.

You have to ask yourself why in a league that has become obsessed with mitigating risk, they'd open this up.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:22 PM
  #41
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
So Bettman should have allowed a trade of a major asset to go through when the two owners are not on the same page? I'm not so sure about that. That was a ****** situation from start to finish, and I'm overjoyed that they got Vinik in place.

If the new fact being touted here is that franchise values are affected by contracts that are greater than 5 yrs in length (never mind the exemption for home teams to go to 7 yrs--- just one of those little uncomfortable details), they should have been doing cartwheels to get him out of Tampa ASAP. Think how much more Vinik would have had to pay for Tampa if they'd managed to trade Vinnie away first.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:26 PM
  #42
charliolemieux
No Lu-wiki Zone
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
There's truth to that.

But it's also true that $9.5M today might not look so bad in 6 years.
Right. So Sid is really going to be kicking his butt when RNH is making 12.5M in 2020.

As I posted somewhere, other than injury the 5yr deal could be better for the star players.

When the NHL had almost no deals longer than 5years we had Holik making 9M, Jagr making 13M, Sundin 8.5M etc...

If every 5 years you can compare yourself to your highest paid peers it just keeps driving salaries up.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:28 PM
  #43
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPower View Post
The 5 year limit on contracts will affect 90% of the players.

The top 10% will get max contracts.

Instead of 120 million over 13 years you will see more 60 million over 5 years.

This will affect the other 90% huge.
You think 70-75 some odd players will have max contracts?

Not a chance.

Many teams will not have even one max contract, and no team can afford more than one.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:29 PM
  #44
charliolemieux
No Lu-wiki Zone
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If the new fact being touted here is that franchise values are affected by contracts that are greater than 5 yrs in length (never mind the exemption for home teams to go to 7 yrs--- just one of those little uncomfortable details), they should have been doing cartwheels to get him out of Tampa ASAP. Think how much more Vinik would have had to pay for Tampa if they'd managed to trade Vinnie away first.
I agree. I like Vinny but he is a 10M dollar drain on your bottom line and giving you only about 5M in return. Ifhe had kept up his 100pt production it wouldn't be so bad but 10M for 60-70pts...ouch.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:32 PM
  #45
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Because they have a massive impact. Insurance, franchise values, league parity, whatever - take your pick.

The fact that those contracts (players getting paid more than their cap values) affects the escrow hit of every other player in the league should be a reason why the other 90% support this rule and want those contracts gone - the stars getting their cap circumvention deals is directly taking money out of their pockets.
Seems like it's adding more to me: Chicago can now pay anyone on their roster more money (and outbid other teams) because Marian Hossa's Cap hit is only 5.2 mil a season.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:33 PM
  #46
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes, look at Tampa. The previous owners wanted to trade Lecavalier, who basically had his backs packed and was set to go to Montreal-- until Gary nixed it. (Recall that all deals had to have Bettman's approval since the co-owners weren't on the same page.) Bettman felt that Tampa's franchise value would be hurt, not hindered, by trading Lecavalier.
OK, I have to ask for a link/source for this.

The only trade we know of down here that came close was Dudley trading him and it was ownership who said no.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:43 PM
  #47
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,139
vCash: 500
I don't think the 5 year contracts has to do with insurance, back diving, or team values. I think it has to do with player management. There was a time, not long ago, when a player got his. ELC, then a mid deal, then after proven his worth and becoming a star he got his payday. This allowed teams to make sure a player earned his contract. Now it is ELC, payday contract then retirement deal. This allows fewer long term mistakes from a player having one good year.

onlyalad is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:45 PM
  #48
KPower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
You think 70-75 some odd players will have max contracts?

Not a chance.

Many teams will not have even one max contract, and no team can afford more than one.
I said 5 year max contracts will affect 90% of players because the superstars will be demanding max contracts if they can only sign for 5 years.

Therefore there will be less money for everyone else.

Players like the Sedins won't sign for 6 million/year for 12 years. They will demand 10-12 million/year and it will affect everyone else on the team.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 12-09-2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason: flaming
KPower is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:53 PM
  #49
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPower View Post
I said 5 year max contracts will affect 90% of players because the superstars will be demanding max contracts if they can only sign for 5 years.

Therefore there will be less money for everyone else.

Players like the Sedins won't sign for 6 million/year for 12 years. They will demand 10-12 million/year and it will affect everyone else on the team.
it doesn't work like that. the teams have yearly caps. they will pay up to their caps. and in 10 years from now other players will benefit because the sedins won't be on the team taking up 12 million dollars of salary and not playing.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 12-09-2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason: qep
atomic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:53 PM
  #50
Freudian
wild card, *****es
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,906
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPower View Post
I said 5 year max contracts will affect 90% of players because the superstars will be demanding max contracts if they can only sign for 5 years.

Therefore there will be less money for everyone else.

Players like the Sedins won't sign for 6 million/year for 12 years. They will demand 10-12 million/year and it will affect everyone else on the team.
It's highly unlikely that Sedins would demand and get paid that much money. If that was the case smarter teams would happily snatch up the players Vancouver had to get rid of to give Sedins over a third of their cap space.

I think what you will find is that there will be no significant changes. Stars will take a bit less, average players will take a bit less and poor players will take a bit less.

You still will need depth to be successful and if salaries for depth players go down, teams will snap them up and build better teams because they get so much bang for their bucks.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 12-09-2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason: qep
Freudian 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 11:12 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.