The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
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.
So when superstars become free agents you think they will take a bit less.
Malkin on the free market and he gets 8.7/year?
No chance, some team will pay him max.
And that trend will continue.
Summary: 5 year max contracts is terrible for the nhlpa.
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.
Really? Think about that, and do the math. What happens when escrow comes into play? Parise and Suter both got paid 10m in signing bonuses and 2 in salary. However their cap hit is 7.5m. So Minny is paying 24m in salary and has a cap hit of 15.7m. Then they go out and pay someone else (X) 5m (5m in salary/cap hit). Now for that 20.7 in cap space, they're paying 29.7 in salary. What do you think happens at the end of the year when they take escrow into account? Parise and Suter had escrow taken off of a 2m salary. Mr X had escrow taken off of a 5m salary. Now due to some of these contracts (and the PA escalator, etc) the league gets some of that escrow back. Who's that coming from? It's not really coming from Parise and Suter... their wages are 2m... despite the fact that their 10m is part of the problem. It's coming from the rest of the NHLPA who didn't get massive signing bonuses to offset their escrow payments.
__________________ "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."
The only trade we know of down here that came close was Dudley trading him and it was ownership who said no.
It was talked about here on the business board when the divorce of OK Hockey was being discussed. I think it was around the time that they got an extension from Palace Sports, who had been carrying $70MM loan to OK, iirc.
People also denied that Palace was trying to sell Tampa before OK bought the team, but that was a one line item at the bottom of a Damien Cox article, which of course was dismissed as sensationalistic journalism. (In other words, it only made the rounds on the business board because our regulars pick up on that type of thing.)
That's not the point though. Do you think that 7-8 yr contract lengths would adversely affect franchise values? Keep in mind that the only guys who will likely get the max contracts as a matter of routine would be the elite players.
Secondly-- if it is that important, why is the league willing to go to 7? It's either a risk or drag on franchise values or it's not. It's not a risk for a home team at 7 yrs, but is a hill to die on for 5 yrs otherwise?
Who comes up with this stuff? Hollywood drama writers?
You can also tell me if you think Tampa's value was hurt by having Lecavalier's contract on the books when Vinik bought the team-- in your own opinion.
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.
Exactly. However, I think this will become one of those things that teams and GMs will come to hate. Ah well. We can bookmark this discussion and come back in 5 yrs and see the mess.
So when superstars become free agents you think they will take a bit less.
Malkin on the free market and he gets 8.7/year?
No chance, some team will pay him max.
And that trend will continue.
There are a handful of players that will get paid close to $10M. Malkin is one of them.
It won't be a "trend" because for the vast majority of teams and the vast majority of players there won't be a significant difference. The stars that got huge backdiving deals will make a bit less, because you'd have to be insane to have Brad Richards with a $9.5M cap hit.
I think there are some HRR growth surfers that will find that their contracts are a bit bloated and will struggle to ever make that much money again. Prust making $2.5M/year and Upshall making $3.5M/year. There will probably be some sort of market correction for these kind of depth players. But I don't think it's tied to contract length, just that these players have been able to push their salaries way too high due to teams having to spend a lot of money. It's healthy if they were to earn a bit less money.
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.
You said the five year limit would affect 90% of the players because the top 10% will get max contracts. There are approximately 700 players in the NHL. No way will there be 70 players with max contracts.
As I said, many teams will not have a single player on a max deal, and any that do will only be able to afford one.
Regarding your Sedin example, I suppose if they both want max deals, I guess they will be playing on different teams.
Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 12-09-2012 at 12:09 AM.
Reason: qep/flaming
So when superstars become free agents you think they will take a bit less.
Malkin on the free market and he gets 8.7/year?
No chance, some team will pay him max.
And that trend will continue.
Summary: 5 year max contracts is terrible for the nhlpa.
Terrible? That's debatable I suppose. It will force star players to live within the spirit of a salary cap instead of letting their agents design cap circumventing deals that teams have to sign on to in order to get the player and keep him away from their competition.
Secondly-- if it is that important, why is the league willing to go to 7? It's either a risk or drag on franchise values or it's not. It's not a risk for a home team at 7 yrs, but is a hill to die on for 5 yrs otherwise?
I think the 7 year contracts to own players is to give smaller teams a bit of an inside track to keeping their own players. Having a slightly bigger chance to keep the face of the franchise is a good thing. If Nashville can offer Weber a 7 year deal and Philly only a 5 year offer sheet, the dynamic might change a bit.
I also think the 7 year contract for these players was a concession to NHLPA. It wasn't there from the beginning. So look at it as something the negotiation jedi Fehr won if it makes you feel better about it.
I think the 7 year contracts to own players is to give smaller teams a bit of an inside track to keeping their own players. Having a slightly bigger chance to keep the face of the franchise is a good thing. If Nashville can offer Weber a 7 year deal and Philly only a 5 year offer sheet, the dynamic might change a bit.
I also think the 7 year contract for these players was a concession to NHLPA. It wasn't there from the beginning. So look at it as something the negotiation jedi Fehr won if it makes you feel better about it.
I don't need to feel better about it. I want to know why it's being contemplated.
Weren't you one of the people making the claim that franchise values, economics and whatever else was on that laundry list depended on the five yr figure. You conveniently overlook that all teams, big or small, can sign their own player to seven years.
So it's critical for those reasons, or it's not. Which is it? Why?
You don't have a defense for the seven yr exemption on term limit if you made those other claims.
I think the 7 year contracts to own players is to give smaller teams a bit of an inside track to keeping their own players. Having a slightly bigger chance to keep the face of the franchise is a good thing. If Nashville can offer Weber a 7 year deal and Philly only a 5 year offer sheet, the dynamic might change a bit.
I also think the 7 year contract for these players was a concession to NHLPA. It wasn't there from the beginning. So look at it as something the negotiation jedi Fehr won if it makes you feel better about it.
Bingo. This the exact reason.
Otherwise it would be 5 across the board.
As a Leafs fan I would be happy with 5 across the board but I guess Phoenix needs to keep a few good players.
I don't need to feel better about it. I want to know why it's being contemplated.
Weren't you one of the people making the claim that franchise values, economics and whatever else was on that laundry list depended on the five yr figure. You conveniently overlook that all teams, big or small, can sign their own player to seven years.
So it's critical for those reasons, or it's not. Which is it? Why?
You don't have a defense for the seven yr exemption on term limit if you made those other claims.
I don't think it has much to do with franchise value. I can't imagine the presence or absence of a bad long contract having any significant impact on the sale value of a franchise.
I think the reason for the league pushing for shorter contracts is because it makes sense in a cap world and it reduces cost and risk for teams. There is simply no upside to long contracts (even more so if back diving is neutered) to anyone but star players. And they will always do well no matter what.
As a Leafs fan I would be happy with 5 across the board but I guess Phoenix needs to keep a few good players.
With a $16MM range, and Nashville generally needing to stay at the bottom of that range, Philly can offer more 5 - 7 yr contracts at maximum value than can Nashville. The next question the player would consider is who has a better chance at building a contender.
I guess it's a bit of an edge, but I think bigger market teams will still come out better with this one.
I don't think it has much to do with franchise value. I can't imagine the presence or absence of a bad long contract having any significant impact on the sale value of a franchise.
I think the reason for the league pushing for shorter contracts is because it makes sense in a cap world and it reduces cost and risk for teams. There is simply no upside to long contracts (even more so if back diving is neutered) to anyone but star players. And they will always do well no matter what.
Okay, I can agree on that point, overall. Do you see a big difference between 5/7 or the PA's 8?
Okay, I can agree on that point, overall. Do you see a big difference between 5/7 or the PA's 8?
The longer the contracts the bigger the problems of bad ones. Of course an 8 year max wouldn't be the end of the world for owners nor would a 5 year max for players. At this stage their are all hamming it up pretending that the small differences that exist are gigantic.
Daly said "Term limits on player contracts is the hill we will die on" so the league could probably do 6/7 as a compromise without losing face. Even when agitated lawyers seems to be aware of the words they use.
The longer the contracts the bigger the problems of bad ones. Of course an 8 year max wouldn't be the end of the world for owners nor would a 5 year max for players. At this stage their are all hamming it up pretending that the small differences that exist are gigantic.
Daly said "Term limits on player contracts is the hill we will die on" so the league could probably do 6/7 as a compromise without losing face. Even when agitated lawyers seems to be aware of the words they use.
If the league had committed to a single figure, 5,6,7 or 8.... I can accept that there may be some reasoning to support THAT term.
I cannot find any justification whatsoever why they as a league would want to give home teams some edge, which is a material difference of 40% additional term! It makes a joke of any other reason they would offer as to why 5 yrs [or any number and then plus 40%] is a justifiable length.
I think the 7 year contracts to own players is to give smaller teams a bit of an inside track to keeping their own players. Having a slightly bigger chance to keep the face of the franchise is a good thing. If Nashville can offer Weber a 7 year deal and Philly only a 5 year offer sheet, the dynamic might change a bit.
If the league had committed to a single figure, 5,6,7 or 8.... I can accept that there may be some reasoning to support THAT term.
I cannot find any justification whatsoever why they as a league would want to give home teams some edge, which is a material difference of 40% additional term! It makes a joke of any other reason they would offer as to why 5 yrs [or any number and then plus 40%] is a justifiable length.
I don't see why you would need any justification for it. If the league feels teams should have a bigger chance of keeping their own players, it's certainly a valid position to take.
If you can swallow the whole RFA system, I have a hard time seeing why this should be a major thing.
Personally I am in favor of mechanics that helps teams keep talent if they aren't overly restrictive. I think it's good for teams and the league if there was slightly less player turnover. It's good for fans to have the same players to cheer for and not a bunch of mercenaries.
I don't see why you would need any justification for it. If the league feels teams should have a bigger chance of keeping their own players, it's certainly a valid position to take.
If you can swallow the whole RFA system, I have a hard time seeing why this should be a major thing.
Personally I am in favor of mechanics that helps teams keep talent if they aren't overly restrictive. I think it's good for teams and the league if there was slightly less player turnover. It's good for fans to have the same players to cheer for and not a bunch of mercenaries.
Why are we discussing any of it then? By your reasoning: "If the league feels teams should have a bigger chance of keeping their own players, it's certainly a valid position to take."
You're opining on all the reasons there's a lockout, the state of the league and the various proposals, but now your answer on requested term limits is that it's just a valid position to take because teams may want an edge in retaining their own players?
Is it even an edge? Is it healthy for the league? I'd expect you to have some opinions.
And in fact, I think greater player movement, including increasing the the timing and frequency of trades for "hockey" decisions would make for a more entertaining and better product.
Really? Think about that, and do the math. What happens when escrow comes into play? Parise and Suter both got paid 10m in signing bonuses and 2 in salary. However their cap hit is 7.5m. So Minny is paying 24m in salary and has a cap hit of 15.7m. Then they go out and pay someone else (X) 5m (5m in salary/cap hit). Now for that 20.7 in cap space, they're paying 29.7 in salary. What do you think happens at the end of the year when they take escrow into account? Parise and Suter had escrow taken off of a 2m salary. Mr X had escrow taken off of a 5m salary. Now due to some of these contracts (and the PA escalator, etc) the league gets some of that escrow back. Who's that coming from? It's not really coming from Parise and Suter... their wages are 2m... despite the fact that their 10m is part of the problem. It's coming from the rest of the NHLPA who didn't get massive signing bonuses to offset their escrow payments.
Good point.
But as the PA is now suggesting 8 years with 25 percent variance, this barely even matters
Why are we discussing any of it then? By your reasoning: "If the league feels teams should have a bigger chance of keeping their own players, it's certainly a valid position to take."
You're opining on all the reasons there's a lockout, the state of the league and the various proposals, but now your answer on requested term limits is that it's just a valid position to take because teams may want an edge in retaining their own players?
Is it even an edge? Is it healthy for the league? I'd expect you to have some opinions.
And in fact, I think greater player movement, including increasing the the timing and frequency of trades for "hockey" decisions would make for a more entertaining and better product.
You are quoting a post of mine where I say I think it's healthy for the league if teams had a bigger chance to keep their talents and complain that I have no opinion on this issue? Re-read the last paragraph of the thing you quoted and you'll find it.
The longer the contracts the bigger the problems of bad ones. Of course an 8 year max wouldn't be the end of the world for owners nor would a 5 year max for players. At this stage their are all hamming it up pretending that the small differences that exist are gigantic.
Daly said "Term limits on player contracts is the hill we will die on" so the league could probably do 6/7 as a compromise without losing face. Even when agitated lawyers seems to be aware of the words they use.
But a 5 year max is a radical departure from the existing circumstance.
An 8 year max is a change. A manageable change.
The NHL owners have taken radical, extremist position.
If the league had committed to a single figure, 5,6,7 or 8.... I can accept that there may be some reasoning to support THAT term.
I cannot find any justification whatsoever why they as a league would want to give home teams some edge, which is a material difference of 40% additional term! It makes a joke of any other reason they would offer as to why 5 yrs [or any number and then plus 40%] is a justifiable length.
Or the fact that the league is attempting to move slightly and give the players some security in a manor that the league believes is still in the leagues best interests.
Terrible? That's debatable I suppose. It will force star players to live within the spirit of a salary cap instead of letting their agents design cap circumventing deals that teams have to sign on to in order to get the player and keep him away from their competition.
A lot of the Bettmanites are confusing these issues. Long-term contracts and Cap Circumvention are two different things.
If you reduce the salary variance, then long-term contracts do not violate the spirit of the cap at all.
All you are doing is saying, if you take less per year, I'll give you security.
With a $16MM range, and Nashville generally needing to stay at the bottom of that range, Philly can offer more 5 - 7 yr contracts at maximum value than can Nashville. The next question the player would consider is who has a better chance at building a contender.
I guess it's a bit of an edge, but I think bigger market teams will still come out better with this one.
Giving teams like Nashville and Phoenix an edge of 2 extra years on a deal might be the only way they get to keep players beyond the ELC's.
But ya in the end the teams with money(and fan support) will come out ahead, and why shouldn't they.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
Why are we discussing any of it then? By your reasoning: "If the league feels teams should have a bigger chance of keeping their own players, it's certainly a valid position to take."
You're opining on all the reasons there's a lockout, the state of the league and the various proposals, but now your answer on requested term limits is that it's just a valid position to take because teams may want an edge in retaining their own players?
Is it even an edge? Is it healthy for the league? I'd expect you to have some opinions.
And in fact, I think greater player movement, including increasing the the timing and frequency of trades for "hockey" decisions would make for a more entertaining and better product.
MY thoughts exactly. Imagine a trade deadline day that actually had impactful trades of big names.
This is the best thing for fans, so why are people saying it sucks?
Giving teams like Nashville and Phoenix an edge of 2 extra years on a deal might be the only way they get to keep players beyond the ELC's.
But ya in the end the teams with money(and fan support) will come out ahead, and why shouldn't they.
This is absurd, as Shane Doan goes around the league telling anyone and everyone that he's thinking about MAYBE leaving Phoenix if someone will blow their offer out of the water... maybe.
Why not just demand that players must stay with their draft teams until they are traded or cut?
That way Nashville and Phoenix can keep their players.
Everyone will still have to pay their players the cap floor... but players can not leave. They can live in their million dollar hockey prisons for their entire careers.
Fair? It would be best for the league, right? Best for the fans?
