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.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 12:50 PM
  #276
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
We're only "socialists" when it comes to making sure your favorite team can afford good players.
But hell if a Nashville Predators' fan should have to pay what a Leafs' fan has to pay.

People talk a lot about Fehr brainwashing the players.

What's clear to me is that corporate America has brainwashed the public, which consistently argues the case for corporate America (and, less so, Corporate Canada) even when its against their own interest.
So not believing your viewpoint means I've been brainwashed?

I have absolutely no problem with some of my money I pay to see the Jets going to help struggling franchises. I pay 70+ dollars a game on ST for upper deck tickets, which is still below average for the rink.

In this case we are not talking 30 individual businesses, per se. Every one of these businesses need the other 29 to viable to maximize the revenue sources for the league as a whole. Right now their is a disparity in the league in terms of revenue, that if left unchecked makes the league not viable with checks and balances such as the cap and revenue sharing. Each team generates as much revenue as they can, and it benefits both themselves and the league as a whole.

If the Leafs and Rangers hated the situation so much they could go make their own 6 team league, see how much they can maximize their revenue there. But they won't, since they realize that the league itself is important and it is important to ensure that all the teams are doing as best as they possibly can.

EDIT: Also completely agreed with No Fun Shogun. Good post!

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
  #277
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJ View Post
I gotta agree with you. When a fan pays $100 for a ticket, and in anther city the fan pays $33, does the fan who pays three times as much not deserve a better product?

It's amazing how we are so anti-socialism with society, but pro with our sports leagues.

to think that the insurance cost difference on a 5 year and 8 year contracts are going to disturb the balance of parity in the league is ridiculous. That difference isn't going to make one team the Yankees and the other the Pirates.
Does he "deserve" a better product? No. If you don't feel that $100 is worth what you're paying, you're free to stop buying it. If you want to go to hockey games for $33, then move somewhere where that's an option, or watch games in a different league (AHL/CHL?). That's not an option? Then you're back at the option of buying or not buying the $100 tickets.

Look, personally I'm against free handouts. I resent my tax dollars being used for them. However the NHL is not public entity. The sad reality is that unless both sides find (and agree to) a system that allows 30 healthy teams without RS, that RS is unfortunately needed.

When the league introduced a salary cap (which I do support), they introduced a cap floor (which I like the idea of). However with that comes some responsibility to support those teams who they've now forced to spend beyond their means. Especially the big clubs who now have reduced spending and are making millions from the cap.

And don't go on about how some teams need to fold/move. While I agree that Phoenix is probably a lost cause, I think the rest still has potential (with proper management). That said, if 2 teams move to Canada, or the league expands here, I'll be quite happy.

__________________
"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  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
  #278
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
So not believing your viewpoint means I've been brainwashed?

I have absolutely no problem with some of my money I pay to see the Jets going to help struggling franchises. I pay 70+ dollars a game on ST for upper deck tickets, which is still below average for the rink.

In this case we are not talking 30 individual businesses, per se. Every one of these businesses need the other 29 to viable to maximize the revenue sources for the league as a whole. Right now their is a disparity in the league in terms of revenue, that if left unchecked makes the league not viable with checks and balances such as the cap and revenue sharing. Each team generates as much revenue as they can, and it benefits both themselves and the league as a whole.

If the Leafs and Rangers hated the situation so much they could go make their own 6 team league, see how much they can maximize their revenue there. But they won't, since they realize that the league itself is important and it is important to ensure that all the teams are doing as best as they possibly can.
This is so self-evident I can't understand why people don't get it

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:02 PM
  #279
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,417
vCash: 500
For the life of me, I can't fathom why a majority of players are unwilling to accept a term-limit on contracts when such a small minority of players even receive contract offers that or 5 or more years in length.

Here's the full list of players who are on 5+ year contracts in the NHL.
http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-cont...-more-options/

The list is mostly of star players, but there are quite a few free agent signings that received outlandishly long contracts in order for teams to circumvent the cap. This is one loophole that has to be closed in the next CBA, and the players should learn to accept it. The two other salary capped leagues have placed a limit on contract lengths, so it would be a natural progression for the NHL to adopt one.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:08 PM
  #280
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
For the life of me, I can't fathom why a majority of players are unwilling to accept a term-limit on contracts when such a small minority of players even receive contract offers that or 5 or more years in length.

Here's the full list of players who are on 5+ year contracts in the NHL.
http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-cont...-more-options/

The list is mostly of star players, but there are quite a few free agent signings that received outlandishly long contracts in order for teams to circumvent the cap. This is one loophole that has to be closed in the next CBA, and the players should learn to accept it. The two other salary capped leagues have placed a limit on contract lengths, so it would be a natural progression for the NHL to adopt one.
The NHLPA as a group likes the idea of long-term contracts because they reduce cap hits, leaving cap space for mid and low tier players.

But as kdb pointed out nicely in another thread, its a zero-sum game for the players. All the artificial cap space in the world doesn't mean a lick if the players share is linked to HRR via the escrow mechanism. Must be why they also want a cap on escrow...

Crease is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:16 PM
  #281
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,325
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
For the life of me, I can't fathom why a majority of players are unwilling to accept a term-limit on contracts when such a small minority of players even receive contract offers that or 5 or more years in length.

Here's the full list of players who are on 5+ year contracts in the NHL.
http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-cont...-more-options/

The list is mostly of star players, but there are quite a few free agent signings that received outlandishly long contracts in order for teams to circumvent the cap. This is one loophole that has to be closed in the next CBA, and the players should learn to accept it. The two other salary capped leagues have placed a limit on contract lengths, so it would be a natural progression for the NHL to adopt one.
I don't necessarily agree with it but some players have been quoted as saying that a five year limit will affect all player's ability to negotiate term: if the superstars get the max then the average player will not be able to get anything above 3 years.
I can see why players would not want that, but I think it would be great for the game so sucks for them.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:17 PM
  #282
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
For the life of me, I can't fathom why a majority of players are unwilling to accept a term-limit on contracts when such a small minority of players even receive contract offers that or 5 or more years in length.

The two other salary capped leagues have placed a limit on contract lengths, so it would be a natural progression for the NHL to adopt one.
Fehr is telling the players that the stars will still get their 9-13m salary, and that will squeeze the rest of the players downwards.

They said the same thing in 04. That didn't prove to be the case then, and will not be the case now. Teams might be able to afford 1 star player at 10-12m, however having 2 will seriously impact their depth and ability to have a competitive team. Do you honestly see Pittsburgh giving Malkin a 5-8 yr deal with a 12m+ cap hit? Yes they can technically afford to, however that's going to seriously impact the club when it comes time to sign Letang and surrounding players.

The reality is everyone gets suppressed a bit. Malkin might make 10m annually (cap hit). Letang will take a tad less, as well everyone else. And as the cap goes up, so will their salaries - just like last time.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:21 PM
  #283
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The NHLPA as a group likes the idea of long-term contracts because they reduce cap hits, leaving cap space for mid and low tier players.

But as kdb pointed out nicely in another thread, its a zero-sum game for the players. All the artificial cap space in the world doesn't mean a lick if the players share is linked to HRR via the escrow mechanism. Must be why they also want a cap on escrow...
The way I see it is that the star players will always get paid what they are due. Looking at Crosby's deal as an example. His cap hit is at $8.7 million, but that is due to those last three superficial years reducing his cap hit. If you shave those three years off, his cap hit would $10.6 million. That's a difference of $1.9 million in cap space.

Generally, I've found that a majority of teams prefer not to spend up to the cap ceiling in order for them to have some flexibility in case they make upgrades at the deadline. In addition to that, the ability to acquire more cap space in trades leads me to believe that players will still find a way to get paid.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:27 PM
  #284
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The NHLPA as a group likes the idea of long-term contracts because they reduce cap hits, leaving cap space for mid and low tier players.

But as kdb pointed out nicely in another thread, its a zero-sum game for the players. All the artificial cap space in the world doesn't mean a lick if the players share is linked to HRR via the escrow mechanism. Must be why they also want a cap on escrow...
Are you sure? That doesn't make sense to me. You pay out $12M in year 1 but have a 4M cap hit, are you telling me the cap hit doesn't actually matter because the 12 will be the figure on which they base escrow?

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:29 PM
  #285
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
The way I see it is that the star players will always get paid what they are due.
This doesn't make sense to me. 6 years ago the cap was 39M and star players and middle classers and 4th liners got paid proportionally alike. Why should this time be different?

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:29 PM
  #286
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Fehr is telling the players that the stars will still get their 9-13m salary, and that will squeeze the rest of the players downwards.

They said the same thing in 04. That didn't prove to be the case then, and will not be the case now. Teams might be able to afford 1 star player at 10-12m, however having 2 will seriously impact their depth and ability to have a competitive team. Do you honestly see Pittsburgh giving Malkin a 5-8 yr deal with a 12m+ cap hit? Yes they can technically afford to, however that's going to seriously impact the club when it comes time to sign Letang and surrounding players.

The reality is everyone gets suppressed a bit. Malkin might make 10m annually (cap hit). Letang will take a tad less, as well everyone else. And as the cap goes up, so will their salaries - just like last time.
I think the article touches on what the benefit will be for Malkin though. If he wants his $12 million, he can shop himself in the open market and possibly get that. That could result in the escalation of players' salaries. If Malkin gets $12 mill in an open market, then that is going to drive up the asking price of other free agents. The open market creates competition, and teams will be competing to sign free agents.

A term limit may force teams to place a higher emphasis on player development with teams bringing in more homegrown talent than stockpiling free agents into bottom six roles. The rumors of the league expanding also creates more opportunities for players in terms of options, job placement, and new competitors who could help escalate the average players' salary.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:31 PM
  #287
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Are you sure? That doesn't make sense to me. You pay out $12M in year 1 but have a 4M cap hit, are you telling me the cap hit doesn't actually matter because the 12 will be the figure on which they base escrow?
Yes. There's no other way to deal with escrow other than based on monies paid to the players. The players are allowed 57% and not a penny more. If it were based on the cap hit, then in years where the salary is higher than the cap, the players would be getting a lot more than 57%.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:31 PM
  #288
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Are you sure? That doesn't make sense to me. You pay out $12M in year 1 but have a 4M cap hit, are you telling me the cap hit doesn't actually matter because the 12 will be the figure on which they base escrow?
Yes.

Cap Compliance would be based on your 4M cap hit but the NHLPA's % of HRR and escrow would be based on the 12M (Actual Club Salary).

Crease is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:32 PM
  #289
nofool6110
Best @ tanking ainec
 
nofool6110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyalad View Post
Bettman is Zaphod Beeblebrox
He draws the attention away from the owners when they make mistakes and lets them have credit when things go right. That way the fans can love their teams and the owners without hating them for being part of the lockout or rule changes or ...
... He's the Bettman.

Any news today?

nofool6110 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:33 PM
  #290
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Yes. There's no other way to deal with escrow other than based on monies paid to the players. The players are allowed 57% and not a penny more. If it were based on the cap hit, then in years where the salary is higher than the cap, the players would be getting a lot more than 57%.
So you're telling me this: Say the cap is 70M. An owner pays out 140M in salary because it's all front loaded deals. Escrow takes away half of it and the players don't get it back. Are we on the same page?

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:40 PM
  #291
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This doesn't make sense to me. 6 years ago the cap was 39M and star players and middle classers and 4th liners got paid proportionally alike. Why should this time be different?
http://www.hockeynut.com/0506/salaries0506.html

Star players in 2005-06 were still absorbing a good chunk of cap space. Lidstrom's $7.6 million is almost 20-percent of $39 million.

The cap has gone up by a significant amount since then, as has the average players' salary. But how much more are the top players making now compared to 2005-06? If you go by their cap hits, not by much.

The loophole of artificial years being added to contracts and front loading didn't necessarily help the New Jersey Devils. Sure, they got Kovalchuk at a lower cap hit, but they still owed him tons of money, the team was in financial disarray, and I didn't see them spending whatever cap space they had saved from the Kovalchuk contract to make upgrades elsewhere on their roster. It didn't help them re-sign Zach Parise.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:45 PM
  #292
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
So you're telling me this: Say the cap is 70M. An owner pays out 140M in salary because it's all front loaded deals. Escrow takes away half of it and the players don't get it back. Are we on the same page?
The escrow mechanism is dependent on how much ALL teams spend. So here is an example that might clear things up for you...

3 team league, previous season's HRR was 100M, players share is 50%:

Players' Share = 100M * 50% = 50M
Cap Midpoint = 50M / 3 Teams = 16.67M
Ceiling = 16.67M + 8M = 24.67M
Floor = 16.67M - 8M = 8.67M

Team A: Cap Hit is 20M, Actual Club Salary is 30M
Team B: Cap Hit is 16M, Actual Club Salary is 16M
Team C: Cap Hit is 10M, Actual Club Salary is 10M

In the above example, total salaries paid to the players is 56M. During the course of the year, a portion of each players actual paycheck (based on Actual Club Salary, not Cap Hit) was witheld in escrow. Since the players as a whole were paid 56M in actual salary and they are only promised 50%, if HRR for the year ends up being less than 112M, then a portion of escrow will go back to the Owners. Again, completely independent of Cap Hit.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:46 PM
  #293
c4fn8d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
For the life of me, I can't fathom why a majority of players are unwilling to accept a term-limit on contracts when such a small minority of players even receive contract offers that or 5 or more years in length.

Here's the full list of players who are on 5+ year contracts in the NHL.
http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-cont...-more-options/

The list is mostly of star players, but there are quite a few free agent signings that received outlandishly long contracts in order for teams to circumvent the cap. This is one loophole that has to be closed in the next CBA, and the players should learn to accept it. The two other salary capped leagues have placed a limit on contract lengths, so it would be a natural progression for the NHL to adopt one.
The owners know that implementing a 5 year max contract for leaving a team and 7 years for staying with your team will do two things:

1. The optics of negotiations. "I can't give player X the MAX contract length. Sidney Crosby gets the max length. I can go as far as 3 years but your player will have to leave some money on the table". This gives GM's additional negotiating tools to whittle away dollars.

2. By allowing teams to sign their own players to 7 years. If a player values stability, he will leave money on the table to stay with his team for a longer term. FA frenzy will be a thing of the past. And contracts by default will be for lower dollars.

Owners are going to die on this hill.

I give them credit. First they said if you go to 50-50 we have a deal. When the PA finally did, they said they will 'die' on the hill of contract lengths. Very smart. Fehr didn't see this coming.

c4fn8d is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:49 PM
  #294
Blad Meaning Gud
Yu - Behr - Doe
 
Blad Meaning Gud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,621
vCash: 50
Shorten the length of the long term deals, pay only the cap hit.. Pressure the top paid players and help out the middle guy...

Blad Meaning Gud is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:50 PM
  #295
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4fn8d View Post
I give them credit. First they said if you go to 50-50 we have a deal. When the PA finally did, they said they will 'die' on the hill of contract lengths. Very smart. Fehr didn't see this coming.
I think this is standard operating procedure for both sides. The PA said Revenue Sharing was the most important thing. Then once the NHL threw additional money into that pot, Make Whole became the deal-breaking issue. Then it became Contract Rights. Now it's Pension Plan.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:52 PM
  #296
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
If the mid and low-tier players really want a better shake, then they would ask the NHLPA to include a max salary that is somewhere less than 20% of the cap ceiling. That'll redistribute the linked share of HRR to the 90%.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:54 PM
  #297
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The escrow mechanism is dependent on how much ALL teams spend. So here is an example that might clear things up for you...

3 team league, previous season's HRR was 100M, players share is 50%:

Players' Share = 100M * 50% = 50M
Cap Midpoint = 50M / 3 Teams = 16.67M
Ceiling = 16.67M + 8M = 24.67M
Floor = 16.67M - 8M = 8.67M

Team A: Cap Hit is 20M, Actual Club Salary is 30M
Team B: Cap Hit is 16M, Actual Club Salary is 16M
Team C: Cap Hit is 10M, Actual Club Salary is 10M

In the above example, total salaries paid to the players is 56M. During the course of the year, a portion of each players actual paycheck (based on Actual Club Salary, not Cap Hit) was witheld in escrow. Since the players as a whole were paid 56M in actual salary and they are only promised 50%, if HRR for the year ends up being less than 112M, then a portion of escrow will go back to the Owners. Again, completely independent of Cap Hit.
Got it and thanks for the thoughtful response. So signing big deals that circumvent the cap may hurt players by allowing some of it to be taken away, but only to the extent that everyone does it. If half the league underspends by the same margin as the other half overspends by, it's irrelevant.

Query then whether the players really should be fighting for cap-circumventing deals, though. It was suggested above that it shouldn't matter. But in reality, we assume that a bunch of teams will spend less than the cap. This actually allows wealthier teams to make up for what the poorer teams refuse to spend.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:59 PM
  #298
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
So not believing your viewpoint means I've been brainwashed?

I have absolutely no problem with some of my money I pay to see the Jets going to help struggling franchises. I pay 70+ dollars a game on ST for upper deck tickets, which is still below average for the rink.

In this case we are not talking 30 individual businesses, per se. Every one of these businesses need the other 29 to viable to maximize the revenue sources for the league as a whole. Right now their is a disparity in the league in terms of revenue, that if left unchecked makes the league not viable with checks and balances such as the cap and revenue sharing. Each team generates as much revenue as they can, and it benefits both themselves and the league as a whole.

If the Leafs and Rangers hated the situation so much they could go make their own 6 team league, see how much they can maximize their revenue there. But they won't, since they realize that the league itself is important and it is important to ensure that all the teams are doing as best as they possibly can.

EDIT: Also completely agreed with No Fun Shogun. Good post!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
This is so self-evident I can't understand why people don't get it
Both of you leave yourselfs open. This can't happen with 21 or 24 teams?

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:00 PM
  #299
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
No offense, but if the fan that's paying three times as much for his tickets isn't happy with the quality of what he's seeing, then he should stop paying for it. Or be mad at the organization that's charging so much and yet putting a similar, or inferior, product on the ice compared to a team that's charging a third.

Getting upset at the system when everyone else abides by said system is fairly nonsensical.

And can we get over what anybody deserves, please? Fans, players, owners, teams, markets, etc. deserve nothing. They get what they get, put up with what they put up with, and get away with what they can get away with. Nothing more, nothing less.
Period. You don't deserve lower prices. Having team is not a right nor is a higher salary or revenue sharing.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:01 PM
  #300
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
If the mid and low-tier players really want a better shake, then they would ask the NHLPA to include a max salary that is somewhere less than 20% of the cap ceiling. That'll redistribute the linked share of HRR to the 90%.
Let's also not forget about the cap floor and what appears to be an increase in the minimum players' salary (which is a number that has already been agreed upon by both sides).

The mid-tier guys like the Chris Kellys and Manny Malhotras and Jarret Stolls will continue to get paid well, and while they may not be offered 5 to 7 year deals (not that they would have under the old CBA anyway), I'm sure players of their ilk will continue to garner interest and draw contracts that are three years in length (hell maybe four, like Kelly got).

Ziggy Stardust 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 06:46 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.