HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHLPA's proposed cap range, cap exceptions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2012, 01:28 PM
  #1
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,141
vCash: 50
NHLPA's proposed cap range, cap exceptions

Interesting article discussing some of the things that's important but hasn't been discussed much.

* NHLPA has dropped their demand that player salary in absolute terms can never be lower than the year before

* NHLPA suggested "the cap and floor be plus and minus 20 percent of the midpoint. That would widen the payroll range, allowing rich teams to spend more and poor teams to spend less.". NHL likes the idea of percentage but wants a smaller range to maintain parity.

* NHLPA wants mid-level cap exemption, unclear how. NHL don't want this since it acts as an inflationary mechanic.


Last edited by Freudian: 12-10-2012 at 05:49 PM.
Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 02:08 PM
  #2
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,784
vCash: 500
The NBA's system is riddled with exceptions and loopholes and has led to tons of awful contracts and teams constantly moving overpaid players in pursuit of cap relief. Would prefer to stay as far away from their system as possible.

Mystlyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 02:22 PM
  #3
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,141
vCash: 50
I think Fehr's endgame, since he knows he has very little leverage, is to try to get as many ways for players/agents/GM to bend the system in the future.

He's trying to get to keep a little bit of the back diving mechanic, get a cap on escrow, let teams buy out contracts without a cap hit and now mid-level cap exemptions. A high cap ceiling should act as an inflationary mechanic since richer teams will be able to dictate salary levels.

He's showing his hand and I'm not sure he'll get too many wins.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 04:16 PM
  #4
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,485
vCash: 133
The midpoint +/- 20% is great little change that will minimize the squeeze on the middle class.. enables better for spenders to spend and give floor teams a little more give.

Old CBA:
62.2 mil mp = 70.2 cap, 54.2 floor
New CBA:
62.2 mil mp = 74.6 cap, 49.8 floor

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 06:16 PM
  #5
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I think Fehr's endgame, since he knows he has very little leverage, is to try to get as many ways for players/agents/GM to bend the system in the future.

He's trying to get to keep a little bit of the back diving mechanic, get a cap on escrow, let teams buy out contracts without a cap hit and now mid-level cap exemptions. A high cap ceiling should act as an inflationary mechanic since richer teams will be able to dictate salary levels.

He's showing his hand and I'm not sure he'll get too many wins.

It's also a carrot for the big market teams, to try to drive a wedge between teams in the NHL. NHL does their wedge driving by trying to appeal to the lower levels of players, who also have shorter careers. There are more of these types of players than any other if you take a snapshot at any given time. In three years, the makeup of this group will be vastly different. If you consider the guys who will have tenure, or currently have it, they probably have a greater vested interest and more say, perhaps.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:40 AM
  #6
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,999
vCash: 574
What's meant by mid-level cap exemption? Never heard of it before

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:56 AM
  #7
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
What's meant by mid-level cap exemption? Never heard of it before
In the NBA, the Mid-Level Cap Exemption allows a team to sign a player(s) to a 4 yr contract with a 1st year salary of up to $5M ($3.09M if the team is above a Luxury Tax threshold) and 4.5%/yr raises - even if the team does not have cap room.

It is one of a myriad of exemptions to the NBA's soft cap.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:56 AM
  #8
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
The midpoint +/- 20% is great little change that will minimize the squeeze on the middle class.. enables better for spenders to spend and give floor teams a little more give.

Old CBA:
62.2 mil mp = 70.2 cap, 54.2 floor
New CBA:
62.2 mil mp = 74.6 cap, 49.8 floor
I'm not sure about how great of a change that is. Project that out a few years. At 5% growth (and ignoring the damage done by the lockout/missed games) it would look something like this:

2012: 61m MP, 73.2m/48.8m, 24.4m separation
2013: 67.2m MP, 80.6m/53.7m, 26.8m separation
2014: 69.7m MP, 83.7m/55.8m, 27.9m separation
2019: 107.6m MP, 129.1m/86.0m, 43.0m separation

How does having 25-40m difference between the highest spenders and the lowest spenders help parity in the league? What would that do to the on-ice product of the cap floor teams? And how would that impact the revenue of those teams?

I don't think it's an easy question. They don't want teams in the red if they don't need to be, but neither do they want teams to suck which would mess with the perceived parity that we currently have.

__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:59 AM
  #9
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
What's meant by mid-level cap exemption? Never heard of it before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_sal...evel_exception

Basically it allows teams at the max to sign outside the cap.

What I heard but not seen confirmed is whether this would count to the players share.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:07 AM
  #10
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,244
vCash: 500
Loopholes, exceptions, ways to circumvent, and all that,... that's a big part of what caused most of the problem the League had coming out of the last CBA. The League needs to use a magnifying glass and find as many potentials of such things and plug those holes in this CBA before it all leads to more problems down the road.

I hate loopholes of all kinds in any situation; they're just ways to get around the rules and they always basically corrupt the whole system.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:11 AM
  #11
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
I'm not sure about how great of a change that is. Project that out a few years. At 5% growth (and ignoring the damage done by the lockout/missed games) it would look something like this:

2012: 61m MP, 73.2m/48.8m, 24.4m separation
2013: 67.2m MP, 80.6m/53.7m, 26.8m separation
2014: 69.7m MP, 83.7m/55.8m, 27.9m separation
2019: 107.6m MP, 129.1m/86.0m, 43.0m separation

How does having 25-40m difference between the highest spenders and the lowest spenders help parity in the league? What would that do to the on-ice product of the cap floor teams? And how would that impact the revenue of those teams?

I don't think it's an easy question. They don't want teams in the red if they don't need to be, but neither do they want teams to suck which would mess with the perceived parity that we currently have.
A few things

- I don't think you've adjusted for 50% of HRR for the player's share (wouldn't the new MP be around 55mm? I could be wrong though) and adjusted revenue sharing will certainly help some of the weaker teams.

- Is growth going to continue indefinitely, or will it eventually hit a ceiling and stop? I have to think there's only so much "sports entertainment money" in the average household, and the NHL will still be #4 of the major sports leagues in North America. The 2019 scenario (assuming 30 teams) puts NHL revenues at $6.46 billion, which just seems abnormally high for a gate driven league.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:41 AM
  #12
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Just say NO to cap circumvention!!

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:32 AM
  #13
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,241
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Interesting article discussing some of the things that's important but hasn't been discussed much.

* NHLPA has dropped their demand that player salary in absolute terms can never be lower than the year before

* NHLPA suggested "the cap and floor be plus and minus 20 percent of the midpoint. That would widen the payroll range, allowing rich teams to spend more and poor teams to spend less.". NHL likes the idea of percentage but wants a smaller range to maintain parity.

* NHLPA wants mid-level cap exemption, unclear how. NHL don't want this since it acts as an inflationary mechanic.
Regarding #1 - I don't have to much of an issue with a players actual salary fluxuating as long as the % is nothing significant. Since they have never been 100% of the contracted number since the last lockout, I don't think that's much of an issue.

Regarding #2 - there's never ever going to be league wide pairity. Under any capped system in the NHL, there are going to be teams that can spend to the cap and teams that cannot and thus cannot compete for that high profile UFA. If there's going to be a stop to teams circumventing the cap by exceeding it artifically, there as to be that same mandate that teams cannot spend to the floor artifically as well and that is going to pose a real problem as teams were having issues hitting 48 million in real dollars. If the cap is scaled back to 60 million, those same teams will find it TOUGHER to reach the the $52M floor.

Regarding #3 - I can see the benefit of some form of exception but only as the league proposed it in terms of contract Length. However, my twist to this would be to tie it to players either drafted by the team or do something similar to what MLB does to 5 and 10 players. A player should be in the league 8 years, the last 5 with the same team. Allow that team to sign that player and have a % assessed (75%)against the cap. This would help both Large and Small market teams.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:46 AM
  #14
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
A few things

- I don't think you've adjusted for 50% of HRR for the player's share (wouldn't the new MP be around 55mm? I could be wrong though) and adjusted revenue sharing will certainly help some of the weaker teams.

- Is growth going to continue indefinitely, or will it eventually hit a ceiling and stop? I have to think there's only so much "sports entertainment money" in the average household, and the NHL will still be #4 of the major sports leagues in North America. The 2019 scenario (assuming 30 teams) puts NHL revenues at $6.46 billion, which just seems abnormally high for a gate driven league.
I was being lazy, and didn't bother to remove the make whole payments (and was pulling it from the PA's table), so those first 3 years have an extra ~380m in there. So yeah they're off slightly in that regard. But the point I was getting at was the split, and how there's that separation there.

As for revenues growing indefinitely... I honestly was surprised that they grew like they have over the last 7 years. Do I think they can keep it up... I don't know. You would think that at some point it'll have to taper off, however I don't ever think it'll be flat.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:51 AM
  #15
jadeddog
Registered User
 
jadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 11,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Loopholes, exceptions, ways to circumvent, and all that,... that's a big part of what caused most of the problem the League had coming out of the last CBA. The League needs to use a magnifying glass and find as many potentials of such things and plug those holes in this CBA before it all leads to more problems down the road.

I hate loopholes of all kinds in any situation; they're just ways to get around the rules and they always basically corrupt the whole system.
exactly... loopholes are for cheaters, even when my own team is using them i still feel a little dirty because of it... close all the loopholes and have everybody on an even playing field (and i say this as a fan of the oilers, who make money and have an exceptionally rich owner who is willing to spend to win)... it's just not fair, and i like my sports to be as fair as possible, otherwise, what honor is there in winning within a corrupt system?

jadeddog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:26 PM
  #16
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,485
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
I'm not sure about how great of a change that is. Project that out a few years. At 5% growth (and ignoring the damage done by the lockout/missed games) it would look something like this:

2012: 61m MP, 73.2m/48.8m, 24.4m separation
2013: 67.2m MP, 80.6m/53.7m, 26.8m separation
2014: 69.7m MP, 83.7m/55.8m, 27.9m separation
2019: 107.6m MP, 129.1m/86.0m, 43.0m separation

How does having 25-40m difference between the highest spenders and the lowest spenders help parity in the league? What would that do to the on-ice product of the cap floor teams? And how would that impact the revenue of those teams?

I don't think it's an easy question. They don't want teams in the red if they don't need to be, but neither do they want teams to suck which would mess with the perceived parity that we currently have.
At the end of the day, you have to just look at the % difference... and that stays constant which should keep the general quality differences between the teams constant despite the growing $ amount difference.

by percentage.. in yr 1 post lockout, a 31 mil mp had a range of 39mil to 23 mil. That was a huge difference based on %.

But nothing compared to 50-60 mil differences we were seeing pre-cap.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:17 PM
  #17
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
At the end of the day, you have to just look at the % difference... and that stays constant which should keep the general quality differences between the teams constant despite the growing $ amount difference.

by percentage.. in yr 1 post lockout, a 31 mil mp had a range of 39mil to 23 mil. That was a huge difference based on %.

But nothing compared to 50-60 mil differences we were seeing pre-cap.

It was immaterial since that difference was being spent on 35 yr old geezers cashing in on their primes of ten years earlier.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 08:22 PM
  #18
Swarez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 661
vCash: 500
You can only use the Mid level Exemption in the NBA if you are over the Cap. You can't be over the Cap in the NHL so how would it work?

Swarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:21 PM
  #19
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99 View Post
You can only use the Mid level Exemption in the NBA if you are over the Cap. You can't be over the Cap in the NHL so how would it work?
Pretty sure you can only use the mid level exception if you are under the cap.

WingedWheel1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:24 PM
  #20
Swarez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
Pretty sure you can only use the mid level exception if you are under the cap.

It is designed if you are over the cap, for example Ray Allen signed in Miami this year with the Exemption because the Heat were over the cap.

If you are under the cap, you just use cap space. This is why I am confused with how it would work in the NHL.

Swarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:23 PM
  #21
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It's also a carrot for the big market teams, to try to drive a wedge between teams in the NHL. NHL does their wedge driving by trying to appeal to the lower levels of players, who also have shorter careers. There are more of these types of players than any other if you take a snapshot at any given time. In three years, the makeup of this group will be vastly different. If you consider the guys who will have tenure, or currently have it, they probably have a greater vested interest and more say, perhaps.
I think the NHL is having a hard time finding a wedge issue because different aspects of the CBC impact players differently.

Contracting rights is very important to guys who are about to become RFA or UFA - they don't want 1 or 2 years or other conditions added to FA eligibility.

The next generation of stars are hurt by extension of FA eligibility - owners really want to put the clamps on the 2nd contract windfall that so many players have cashed in on. This would be at the expense of your up and coming star players.

Older players, particularly the upper echelon ones, won't want to see limitations on contract terms. Even though there are relatively few really long contracts, longer contract mean security.

Lowering the players share of HRR (basically the cap) probably hurts the veteran 4th line and depth defense players the most. Teams are going to spend what they need to on their star players and divide what's left among the depth players. Veteran role players take the hit here, because they are not waiver eligible (assuming this doesn't change) so can be replaced by a young guy from the farm who can be sent down without cap implications.

The make whole component is most important to the guys with the biggest contract. Those who signed big contracts this summer have got to be pissed at the owners offering these contracts knowing they would claw it back through the CBA negotiations.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 12:04 AM
  #22
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99 View Post
It is designed if you are over the cap, for example Ray Allen signed in Miami this year with the Exemption because the Heat were over the cap.

If you are under the cap, you just use cap space. This is why I am confused with how it would work in the NHL.
Heat had the mini mid level exception as opposed to the full mid level exception. It's how a team over the cap fills out it's roster.

Boston offered a much higher contract since they were under the cap thanks to several expiring contracts. Of course Boston burned that bridge with Ray Allen when they tried trading him 50 times over the past two years.

Ohhh, i got it slightly wrong. Teams can use the mid level exception if they are over the cap, but not in luxury tax territory.

WingedWheel1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:49 AM
  #23
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
Ohhh, i got it slightly wrong. Teams can use the mid level exception if they are over the cap, but not in luxury tax territory.
They can use the Mid-Level Exception if they are above the Luxury Tax threshold - the amount is just reduced.

This year the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception is $5M & the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception is $3.09M.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:55 AM
  #24
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
I think the NHL is having a hard time finding a wedge issue because different aspects of the CBC impact players differently.

Contracting rights is very important to guys who are about to become RFA or UFA - they don't want 1 or 2 years or other conditions added to FA eligibility.

The next generation of stars are hurt by extension of FA eligibility - owners really want to put the clamps on the 2nd contract windfall that so many players have cashed in on. This would be at the expense of your up and coming star players.

Older players, particularly the upper echelon ones, won't want to see limitations on contract terms. Even though there are relatively few really long contracts, longer contract mean security.

Lowering the players share of HRR (basically the cap) probably hurts the veteran 4th line and depth defense players the most. Teams are going to spend what they need to on their star players and divide what's left among the depth players. Veteran role players take the hit here, because they are not waiver eligible (assuming this doesn't change) so can be replaced by a young guy from the farm who can be sent down without cap implications.
That's been off the table for a while now. The only contract issues is contract length and variance.

The lower share will squish everyone - especially those that need new deals in the next 2 years. After that it'll level out a bit.

As for the contract limits, no one was getting deals longer than 5 years before the cap. Yashin had one, and that's it - currently 89 players have a deal longer than 5 years. So security clearly wasn't a big deal a decade ago... why has it suddenly popped up now?

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 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.