HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2012, 09:35 PM
  #501
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,509
vCash: 500
A good question is whether or not teams would spend more or less without a salary cap and salary floor.

If we go to capgeek.com, we see that 10 out of 30 teams had under 2 million in cap space last year, whereas 7 of 30 teams had over 10 million in cap space.

Thus, we can conclude that more teams are limited by the cap ceiling than the cap floor, and that total spending would increase.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-16-2012, 09:37 PM
  #502
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I actually agree that a Darche might make less. That's changing the argument from claiming "the majority of players" would take a paycut to claiming a team's 13th forward would take the cut. IMO the best option for most players in Darche's position is Europe.

Looking at the Habs' current bottom 6 - Prust, Eller, Moen, White, Gomez, Armstrong - IMO those first four have an "in-demand skillset that multiple teams" would bid for on the open market. The Gomez that signed his big deal in 2007 would still be able to leverage a big time guaranteed contract. Armstrong, I'm not sure where he fits.

My point is, most players in the league actually do have "in-demand skillsets" of one kind or another.
To be honest, unless you're working under the assumption that most contracts would end up being negotiated as guaranteed money in a decertified scenario, I can't see how this would benefit ANY players aside from the big stars.

Look at the NFL. Even the stars don't get fully guaranteed contracts.

__________________
Yours in Christ,

waffledave
waffledave is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 09:55 PM
  #503
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave View Post
To be honest, unless you're working under the assumption that most contracts would end up being negotiated as guaranteed money in a decertified scenario, I can't see how this would benefit ANY players aside from the big stars.

Look at the NFL. Even the stars don't get fully guaranteed contracts.
Not only do I believe players would be better off playing for market value - I also believe fans of the game would be better off following a league subject to the rule of law and free of work stoppages.


Last edited by Roulin: 12-16-2012 at 10:06 PM.
Roulin is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 09:59 PM
  #504
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
A good question is whether or not teams would spend more or less without a salary cap and salary floor.

If we go to capgeek.com, we see that 10 out of 30 teams had under 2 million in cap space last year, whereas 7 of 30 teams had over 10 million in cap space.

Thus, we can conclude that more teams are limited by the cap ceiling than the cap floor, and that total spending would increase.
I think reducing the cap floor could be a good way to lessen the burden of some teams and even maybe reducing the crazyness of the UFA market.

Forsead is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:02 PM
  #505
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Not only do I believe players would be better off playing for market value - I also believe fans of the game would be better off following a league subject to the rule of law and free of work stoppages.
I actually think the cap is good for the game. The players make less money under a cap in the long-term, but the league grows faster, possibly, maybe. It's a tradeoff.

However, if the owners take the players from 76% to 57% in 2005, then to 50% in 2013, then to 40% in 2018, etc etc then the players don't benefit from that system. It's no longer mutually beneficial, and they should decertify.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:03 PM
  #506
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Not only do I believe players would be better off playing for market value - I also believe fans of the game would be better off following a league subject to the rule of law and free of work stoppages.
So do you believe that in a market value system, a guy like Prust is going to walk away with more than $10 million after 4 years (what he's getting under a CBA system)?

Remember, for it to be better, he needs to be guaranteed to walk away with more. Without getting a guaranteed contract.

Do you really think this will happen? I don't, simple as that. Look at the NFL.

waffledave is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:06 PM
  #507
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave View Post
So do you believe that in a market value system, a guy like Prust is going to walk away with more than $10 million after 4 years (what he's getting under a CBA system)?

Remember, for it to be better, he needs to be guaranteed to walk away with more. Without getting a guaranteed contract.

Do you really think this will happen? I don't, simple as that. Look at the NFL.
Regarding the NFL, the trade-off in that league for not guaranteeing contracts appears to be huge signing bonuses. If that's how teams in a decertified league choose to bid for talent, so be it. Either way, players are more likely to get paid at market value over the course of their career than if they continue to negotiate CBA's against owners who will always have more leverage than the union.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:08 PM
  #508
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Not only do I believe players would be better off playing for market value - I also believe fans of the game would be better off following a league subject to the rule of law and free of work stoppages.
The game was dying at market value. You really want to see 4-5 teams trying to buy the Stanley cup years after years with 20 millions dollars a years on some players ?

Forsead is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:15 PM
  #509
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
The game was dying at market value. You really want to see 4-5 teams trying to buy the Stanley cup years after years with 20 millions dollars a years on some players ?
The game was absolutely not dying. That was Bettman propaganda. It wasn't as profitable as it is now, but you also have to factor in the rise of the Canadian dollar, the Shanahan rule changes and the influx of young talent. The Stanley Cup finalists in 2003-04 were the Lightning and the Flames, both teams' payrolls were below the league average.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:22 PM
  #510
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
A good question is whether or not teams would spend more or less without a salary cap and salary floor.

If we go to capgeek.com, we see that 10 out of 30 teams had under 2 million in cap space last year, whereas 7 of 30 teams had over 10 million in cap space.

Thus, we can conclude that more teams are limited by the cap ceiling than the cap floor, and that total spending would increase.
It's just not that simple.
First, cap would disappear. Salaries would become the measuring point. Length of contracts would probably diminish. Players won't look to make 60M over 9years to fit under a cap, they'll likely make that 60M over 5-6years. Something along those lines.
Not only does that make a difference for how owners distribute cash, but it will also make players available to other teams more frequently. Because the players get locked up for so long and for cheaper under the expired CBA, you get less and less interesting free agents, making it tough to even reach the cap ceiling. There's only 6 teams that have less than 5M in free space.

With no cap, no necessity to work around it with front loaded long term deals, who knows what the difference will be in the money being thrown out from most to least. In 99, Fedorov was making 14M. In 2000, the Predators spent 16M (4 teams spent under 18M), Rangers spent just under 60M.

There's no way to know which teams would spend how much. All we can pretty much assume is that the difference between the most/least spending will be much bigger than what we have today.

You also do not get any guaranteed contracts. That hurts every player.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:27 PM
  #511
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I actually think the cap is good for the game. The players make less money under a cap in the long-term, but the league grows faster, possibly, maybe. It's a tradeoff.

However, if the owners take the players from 76% to 57% in 2005, then to 50% in 2013, then to 40% in 2018, etc etc then the players don't benefit from that system. It's no longer mutually beneficial, and they should decertify.
It's actually 50% to 2021 at the very least for what the owners wanted. At that point, it may remain at 50%, it might drop, or it might be the players going on strike for more. There's no way to know, at all. So give that idea a rest.
They won't renegotiate HRR every 5 years and by 2033 it won't be 10%.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:48 PM
  #512
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
The game was absolutely not dying. That was Bettman propaganda. It wasn't as profitable as it is now, but you also have to factor in the rise of the Canadian dollar, the Shanahan rule changes and the influx of young talent. The Stanley Cup finalists in 2003-04 were the Lightning and the Flames, both teams' payrolls were below the league average.
The biggest problem at that time was how much clutching and grabbing was going on and how slow and boring the game was. The reason 91 players lost their jobs or whatever the number was after the lockout was because they were really slow and useless in a game with open ice.

Frozenice is online now  
Old
12-16-2012, 10:59 PM
  #513
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I actually think the cap is good for the game. The players make less money under a cap in the long-term, but the league grows faster, possibly, maybe. It's a tradeoff.

However, if the owners take the players from 76% to 57% in 2005, then to 50% in 2013, then to 40% in 2018, etc etc then the players don't benefit from that system. It's no longer mutually beneficial, and they should decertify.
How would owners make that justification? Unless industry standards change they have no basis for it.

What is giving owners the will to push to a 50-50 system is that in other leagues owners make 51-52%. Unless NFL owners start making 60%, there isn't a basis for the NHL to do so.

Suggesting otherwise is sensationalism of the Prust "bettman destroyed a nation" variety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Good players will get back more than they've lost in a free market. If the owners want the players to take 50% of HRR rather than the 76% they would get in a free market, they have to make it worth their while to make that concession.

The 2005 CBA had several concessions going the other way, the current proposal from the owners has absolutely nothing going the other way. It's a one-way street of concessions.

At some point it follows that it will no longer be in the players self-interest. I'm not sure if that point is at 55%, 50%, or 45% of HRR.


Being an owner (of any business) means keeping the excess value-added of labor's production over their salaries.


Nobody's spending 200 million either way, but,

Yes, spending more money on expenses other than player salaries is a competitive advantage. That's why teams are doing it, and that's why 13 out of 30 teams are unprofitable in spite of the massive concessions from the players (a full 19% of league revenue) in the last CBA.

I really doubt any team was spending 55 million on non-player expenses back in 2004. That's where the concessions from the players want, and that's where the new round of concessions would go.

Notice that drafting quality has improved, why do you think that is? Because more money is put into scouting. Why do you think more money is put into scouting? Because good scouting is more valuable when you have a salary cap.
Would you rather 57% of 3 bil or 50% of 4 bil? That's all there is to it. It helps the game grow. I agree there is limitations to how far the players should give in but I don't consider a 50-50 split doom and gloom for players. I don't consider 5 year max contracts doom either. Few players deserve more. I would cap it at 7 years personally.

Scouting and management help the organization and the players. A lot of money is invested into training facilities, coaches like brisebois and so on. This is a mutually beneficial investment. While it adds to competitiveness it also has a limitation in terms of how effective it would be vs actual players players acquired. Spending 200 mil on development but having 1 mil worth of players does not equal 1 mil of development and 200 mil worth of players. The difference is minimal and essentially is a matter of operational structure and organization more so than direct on ice advantage. The correlation between player salaries spent and team performance is greater than management salaries and team performance.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:13 AM
  #514
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
The correlation between player salaries spent and team performance is greater than management salaries and team performance.
Would be worth making an excel spreadsheet and checking if that's true and by what margin.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:28 AM
  #515
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Would be worth making an excel spreadsheet and checking if that's true and by what margin.
If you provide me with links to off-ice spending I have no issue doing this after my exams are complete.

I will say in advance, considering you have a math background that 7 years of data is likely insufficient.

Another problem is that teams who spend big money on scouting also spend a lot on the cap as well. It would not be an either or scenario.

Another issue is quality asset management. For instance, habs can be deemed spending to the cap but someone like Gomez isn't really worth that return. Such is the problem when guaranteed contracts are present.

What about injuries? do we account for manpower lost as well?

That's why I made the reasonable assumption. For instance, leafs probably have tons of off-ice spending in managerial aspects and scouting yet have little success.

I don't really think it's necessary to actually correlate anything to make this assumption.

In fact, with the limited data we have and the phase we're in I don't think we can safely conclude anything. If we were to simulate a model using advanced software, this would be a warm up period where data does not represent the true reality as there were pre-conditions to the cap in 2005. By pre-conditions I mean certain teams may have had quality talent prior to a cap and retained them and franchises did not start on equal footing. In order to rectify this, we'd need to start considering data relevant after 10-15 years under a cap system rather than from day 1.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:31 AM
  #516
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Decertify is just moronic. It favors only a minority of the league. The big stars will get all the cash, and the more average - bottom players will get paid less.
Right now, they play in a league where Brandon freaking Prust can get 10M guaranteed. Why would this guy want to decertify?

It could be good for Mtl as one of the richest teams, but to be honest, I don't want to go back to buying your way to the cup again.

You'd rather have your Habs beaten by a team using "Habs cash" (rev. sharing) I guess...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:35 AM
  #517
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
If you provide me with links to off-ice spending I have no issue doing this after my exams are complete.

I will say in advance, considering you have a math background that 7 years of data is likely insufficient.

Another problem is that teams who spend big money on scouting also spend a lot on the cap as well. It would not be an either or scenario.

Another issue is quality asset management. For instance, habs can be deemed spending to the cap but someone like Gomez isn't really worth that return. Such is the problem when guaranteed contracts are present.

What about injuries? do we account for manpower lost as well?

That's why I made the reasonable assumption. For instance, leafs probably have tons of off-ice spending in managerial aspects and scouting yet have little success.

I don't really think it's necessary to actually correlate anything to make this assumption.

In fact, with the limited data we have and the phase we're in I don't think we can safely conclude anything. If we were to simulate a model using advanced software, this would be a warm up period where data does not represent the true reality as there were pre-conditions to the cap in 2005. By pre-conditions I mean certain teams may have had quality talent prior to a cap and retained them and franchises did not start on equal footing. In order to rectify this, we'd need to start considering data relevant after 10-15 years under a cap system rather than from day 1.
You can get the cap numbers from cap geek. You can subtract the cap from total revenue+operating income from Forbes "business of hockey", and the difference should be equal to non-cap hockey expenses. Maybe I could do it. It would take ... 30 minutes.

I think 7 years and 30 teams is a lot. I assume it's the same teams spending a lot year after year.

You're right that cap spending and non-cap spending will be correlated. Should not be an issue with enough teams.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:40 AM
  #518
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You can get the cap numbers from cap geek. You can subtract the cap from total revenue+operating income from Forbes "business of hockey", and the difference should be equal to non-cap hockey expenses. Maybe I could do it. It would take ... 30 minutes.

I think 7 years and 30 teams is a lot. I assume it's the same teams spending a lot year after year.

You're right that cap spending and non-cap spending will be correlated. Should not be an issue with enough teams.
The teams are interrelated. Creating a system in which you look at data that hasn't had time to normalize is flawed. You can do it but what would it prove when you don't start at a true equal footing?

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:42 AM
  #519
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
The teams are interrelated. Creating a system in which you look at data that hasn't had time to normalize is flawed. You can do it but what would it prove when you don't start at a true equal footing?
7 years is a long-time imo.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:45 AM
  #520
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
7 years is a long-time imo.
Statistically speaking? Sure. 210 data points is sufficient but remember they are interrelated. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

I wonder, are we discussing something so trivial because you enjoy debate or because you actually question such a reasonable assumption?

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:48 AM
  #521
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Statistically speaking? Sure. 210 data points is sufficient but remember they are interrelated. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

I wonder, are we discussing something so trivial because you enjoy debate or because you actually question such a reasonable assumption?
I wonder if:

rho(cap,wins) >> rho(noncap,wins)

as you assume.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:52 AM
  #522
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I wonder if:

rho(cap,wins) >> rho(noncap,wins)

as you assume.
By noncap you mean non capped expenses or a non capped salary system?

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:54 AM
  #523
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
By noncap you mean non capped expenses or a non capped salary system?
Expenses that are not player payroll.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-17-2012, 12:57 AM
  #524
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Btw I have issues with considering 7 years sufficient data. In the way of scouting for example if a team like Detroit spent bare minimal amounts in scouting last 5 years it would barely change their on ice performance the last 5 years.

I think if you're really curious about such an evaluation you cant neglect so many aspects. That's all I'm saying. If you're really willing to assume a plethora of parameters I question why not just go with my original, reasonable assumption?

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 03:33 AM
  #525
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
The game was dying at market value. You really want to see 4-5 teams trying to buy the Stanley cup years after years with 20 millions dollars a years on some players ?
I believe the current system is better for the fans, players and owners than what would result from an open market system.

However for any system to function mutual respect is required, the urge to score a complete victory always secondary to what is good for the game's future.

Pushing the players into what amounts to a capitulate or else scenario will IMO result in an open market NHL.

Personally I don't see the issues separating the two sides as worthy of take it or leave it proposals, when the alternative is one I am sure both sides will regret.

I believe if this continues down the current path to conclusion, the NHL as we have known it will disappear.

Holdurbreathe 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 07:47 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.