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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Here's a solution

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-16-2004, 11:31 AM
  #1
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,913
vCash: 500
Here's a solution

Extend Rookie contracts to 5 years and totally eliminate RFA and Arbitration. But agree to a hard cap of 38-42 million. Both are major consessions from both sides but it will address the needs for both sides as well.

Players get their free market and the owners get their cap. There will be no cap at 31 million. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

Players will have the ability to find the best deal possible for them starting at anywhere between 23-25 years of age and the owners will have the ability to not have to worry about giving guys raises if the production for a player doesn't warrant it.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 11:35 AM
  #2
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
Extend Rookie contracts to 5 years and totally eliminate RFA and Arbitration. But agree to a hard cap of 38-42 million. Both are major consessions from both sides but it will address the needs for both sides as well.

Players get their free market and the owners get their cap. There will be no cap at 31 million. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

Players will have the ability to find the best deal possible for them starting at anywhere between 23-25 years of age and the owners will have the ability to not have to worry about giving guys raises if the production for a player doesn't warrant it.
I hate it as a fan. I want franchise stability as far as personnel is concerned. Seeing players hop left and right means the end of that. It's already not pretty in the NHL, and we hardly see players retiring with the same team that drafted them anymore.

I hate that, and I think it is already hurting the NHL a great deal.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 11:42 AM
  #3
fan mao rong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
They can get a 30 million cap, when it is implemented. A cap around 40 million as you advocate, is a raise over current pay levels. It is as big of a joke as the players offer. They should wait till the declaration of impasse. Those who want to play under the ownership declared system should play. Those who don't should retire or go to another league. And, oh yeah, that rookie cap, if it still includes unlimited performance bonuses, it means nothing also. And if they would like some of the higher touted European players it will.

fan mao rong is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 11:48 AM
  #4
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,913
vCash: 500
It's fine if you hate it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I hate it as a fan. I want franchise stability as far as personnel is concerned. Seeing players hop left and right means the end of that. It's already not pretty in the NHL, and we hardly see players retiring with the same team that drafted them anymore.

I hate that, and I think it is already hurting the NHL a great deal.
But please look at football. The league is tremendously successful under a hard cap, but the player movement in that league is at least twice that of the NHL and all of it has to do with money concerns.

The league wants total parity and this is a way of providing that, the Salary Cap and keeping all of the teams on a level playing field sounds all nice and good, but theres' going to be ALOT of things that are not so nice about a cap and player movement is going to be something that the league cannot prevent.

Think that Atlanta will be able to keep Heatley, Ilya, Lehtonen, Coburn and Valabik together without having to run up against a cap problem at 31 million?

How about Ottawa? they have a crew of kids on that team that will make it absolutely impossible to keep together under a cap. Chara, Redden, Phillips, Spezza, Havlat, Hossa, Alfredsson. Even if they average 3 millino a year that's 18 million for that group of 6 players, now you have 13 million for 14 other players without any walking wounded.

Something is going to suffer, player stability is going ot be the casualty

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 11:51 AM
  #5
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,913
vCash: 500
More than half the league is over

Quote:
Originally Posted by fan mao rong
They can get a 30 million cap, when it is implemented. A cap around 40 million as you advocate, is a raise over current pay levels. It is as big of a joke as the players offer. They should wait till the declaration of impasse. Those who want to play under the ownership declared system should play. Those who don't should retire or go to another league. And, oh yeah, that rookie cap, if it still includes unlimited performance bonuses, it means nothing also. And if they would like some of the higher touted European players it will.
35 million in payroll, just as the players initial offer is a starting point, so to is the owners demand of a 31 million dollar cap.

I negotiate deals for a living, and your first offer is never what you will settle for.

Sorry, but if you believe that 31 million was an end all number in terms of negotiating then you have had to much of that special brand of Kool-Aid the NHL is serving to the fans.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 11:54 AM
  #6
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,913
vCash: 500
Good point on the Rookie thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by fan mao rong
They can get a 30 million cap, when it is implemented. A cap around 40 million as you advocate, is a raise over current pay levels. It is as big of a joke as the players offer. They should wait till the declaration of impasse. Those who want to play under the ownership declared system should play. Those who don't should retire or go to another league. And, oh yeah, that rookie cap, if it still includes unlimited performance bonuses, it means nothing also. And if they would like some of the higher touted European players it will.
The contracts would be structured like the NFL, financial slots for where a player is drafted and no, there would be no bonus structure at all under the rookie contracts. It's their first NHL contract, they should be happy enough with that. Earn the right to dictate terms of your next contract, but under the rookie deal, X amount of money per season across the board.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 12:22 PM
  #7
habster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 207
vCash: 500
I proposed a 32 million cap on base salary and 8 million cap option for bonuses. That would mean a team payroll would not exceed and 40 million.

Or a 32 million cap for the team + “one franchise player salary”. Each team can name one “franchise player” and his salary will not factor on the team cap.

habster is online now  
Old
09-16-2004, 03:04 PM
  #8
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 15,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan mao rong
They can get a 30 million cap, when it is implemented. A cap around 40 million as you advocate, is a raise over current pay levels. It is as big of a joke as the players offer. They should wait till the declaration of impasse. Those who want to play under the ownership declared system should play. Those who don't should retire or go to another league. And, oh yeah, that rookie cap, if it still includes unlimited performance bonuses, it means nothing also. And if they would like some of the higher touted European players it will.
Average team payroll last year was $45 million, so a cap of $40 million *is not* a raise over current pay levels. It's a slash of $150 million off salaries league-wide. More than that, actually, since most teams wouldn't spend to their cap limit.

A 30 million cap does nothing except ensure that the owners make buckets of money off the backs of both the players and the fans. Which is exactly what they want.

MS is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 03:25 PM
  #9
gretzky1545
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I hate it as a fan. I want franchise stability as far as personnel is concerned. Seeing players hop left and right means the end of that. It's already not pretty in the NHL, and we hardly see players retiring with the same team that drafted them anymore.

I hate that, and I think it is already hurting the NHL a great deal.

a) the players should have the right to work where they want to. It just seems implicitly fair and right.

b) if you let players go whereever they want, the emphasis may return to loving franchises instead of players at least from my personal standpoint. Not sure if its enough to counteract the fantasy sports influence, but I think eventually it will lead to a more team oriented view of the league. Might not happen like that right away, but in time I think it would possibly take the path of the NFL in this respect.

gretzky1545 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 03:31 PM
  #10
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,333
vCash: 500
It's pretty simple that either the players have to be allowed to make as much money as they can, or they have to be allowed to have unrestricted free agency earlier in their careers. This is much of what it all hinges on.

10 years ago, the NHL went the route of ensuring team roster stability and letting the players make their money. Now they want to take that back, and they can't without giving in on the UFA age.

I'm getting sick of even talking about this subject anymore, because if someone wanted to get it done, they could get it done. You have two sides playing chicken, and neither is willing to let up first. Usually the result of such a thing is a major incident, and that's the worst part of it all.

Guest is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 03:34 PM
  #11
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I'm getting sick of even talking about this subject anymore,
You're absolutely right. Just one day into the lockout and I'm already fed up with it

H/H is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 03:36 PM
  #12
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 30,932
vCash: 500
Vlad,
players moving around isn't only an NHL problem, but rather a problem in all pro sports leagues all over the world in this day and age. It's more of a sign o' the times than anything else.

As far as the rookie cap is concerned, I disagree that when you add in the bonuses it renders the rookie cap meaningless. A rookie that earns a huge amount through bonuses actually EARNS his keep, a la Rick Nash in 2003-04 (not a rookie but still on an entry-level contract). With no cap, you could score 1 goal and 2 points, get sent back to the junior ranks and still earn a hefty salary in Year 1. HUGE difference.

Honestly, the rookie bonuses are NOT a problem. Those that don't reach them don't get paid THAT much. Those that do actually meet team expectations. Isn't that what it SHOULD be all about???

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 03:40 PM
  #13
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
Vlad,
players moving around isn't only an NHL problem, but rather a problem in all pro sports leagues all over the world in this day and age.
It's moslty because in this day and age the players actually have a say in it.

H/H is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 04:10 PM
  #14
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,913
vCash: 500
I think that the problem with rookie bonuses is

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
Vlad,
players moving around isn't only an NHL problem, but rather a problem in all pro sports leagues all over the world in this day and age. It's more of a sign o' the times than anything else.

As far as the rookie cap is concerned, I disagree that when you add in the bonuses it renders the rookie cap meaningless. A rookie that earns a huge amount through bonuses actually EARNS his keep, a la Rick Nash in 2003-04 (not a rookie but still on an entry-level contract). With no cap, you could score 1 goal and 2 points, get sent back to the junior ranks and still earn a hefty salary in Year 1. HUGE difference.

Honestly, the rookie bonuses are NOT a problem. Those that don't reach them don't get paid THAT much. Those that do actually meet team expectations. Isn't that what it SHOULD be all about???
that after achieving them throughout the life of a contract they expect to be paid on their next contract based on the previous years total income.

My salary is X and with any bonus, matching 401K and Tuition reimbursement I could easily add an additional 15-20K, I'd be out on my arse if I were to expect my next years annual salary to then reflect an additional 15-20K.

So how about this, the contract is for 5 years mandatory, but there's a sliding scale of 20% lower if you have a bad season and 5% higher if you have a good season, after the 5 year deal, the total increase in salary would be more than 25% based on culmative increases, ie 1st year salary 100K, good season, 2nd year salary 105K, another good season 3rd years salary would be 110,250 and so on and so forth. Obviously the contract amounts would be higher but you get the gist.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 04:14 PM
  #15
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Check this out!

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

Bring on the Scabs baby!
Can you imagine what would happen if the Maple Leafs announced that Saturday morning at 9 AM tryouts for the Replacement Leafs would be held at Air Canada Center? How many miles long do you think that line would be?
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 07:34 PM
  #16
capman29
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
Check this out!

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/content/view/775/29/

Bring on the Scabs baby!
Can you imagine what would happen if the Maple Leafs announced that Saturday morning at 9 AM tryouts for the Replacement Leafs would be held at Air Canada Center? How many miles long do you think that line would be?
-HckyFght!
Again the owners cannot do that under federal law!!!!!!!!!! Owners subject to major fines and court action!!!!!!!! Do you know anything beyond you nose??

capman29 is offline  
Old
09-16-2004, 10:15 PM
  #17
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
that after achieving them throughout the life of a contract they expect to be paid on their next contract based on the previous years total income.
Like Gaborik. But he didnt get it did he. Did any of them? Only Kovalchuk apparently hit all his bonuses in his 1st 3 years. Some hit one year not the next. But the qualifying offer is based on base salary.

So few get the rookie bonuses and as Jag68vlady27 said, the ones that do are certainly worth it, because if you wanted to replace that value on the UFA market, you would pay twice as much.

Thats why lowering the rookie cap is more important I think than capping bonuses, as this cascades up the qualifying offer chain at new lower values.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-17-2004, 03:03 AM
  #18
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbsktball1
a) the players should have the right to work where they want to. It just seems implicitly fair and right.
A They already have that priviledge from the day they were born.

B The way you want to implement it shows you don't know what the nature of a competitive league should look like in order to have a good product.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-17-2004, 03:23 AM
  #19
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
Think that Atlanta will be able to keep Heatley, Ilya, Lehtonen, Coburn and Valabik together without having to run up against a cap problem at 31 million?
If everyone was under a tight cap, market numbers for those players would change drastically. Atlaantaa would not have any problem securing their players. (not that I like the idea of a super-low cap, though)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
Something is going to suffer, player stability is going ot be the casualty
Yeah, I understand that you have to give and all that. I think your solution IS interesting and probably would appeal to some. It's just not my thing. I strongly believe people don't know what they are missing. We've forgotten how glorious it was to see steady teams that grow and players that spend their career in a place they then call home.

I love trade rumors and strategies and deals but I would prefer greater stability than what we have currently in the NHL, let alone drop down the UFA age. So I don't question the effectiveness of your solution financially but I don't like it

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-17-2004, 01:40 PM
  #20
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 30,932
vCash: 500
Vlad,
franchise stability is more important than player stability, IMHO.

I know what you're saying, but does a fan of the New England Patriots love them any less because they lost a few members of their starting secondary? I doubt it. Overall stability would be lost for sure, but in the NFL how many starting QBs change teams? Now, how many Pro Bowl QBs change teams? How many future Hall-of-Fame QBs change teams? The franchise player is always protected under the salary cap system.

Compare that to the NHL, we would be seeing a LOT of movement of third-line players, who would go to a lesser team to see if he can be a second-line player, and a No. 6 or 7 defenseman moving on to become a top-four defenseman. Then, the really good teams may even have to decide between keeping one star player over another, but that's the nature of sport regardless of the system we're in.

One day, the Lightning may have to make a choice between keeping only two of their MVPs but how many teams in the history of sports has had 3 MVPs on one roster? Not too often. Same goes for the Thrashers. Heatley, Kovalchuk and Lehtonen could become a "big 3" of sorts, and down the road they MAY have to choose only two. I don't see that as being a killer for the sport. In fact, I think it only adds to the intrigue of how to build a winner, or how to maintain a winner.

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
09-17-2004, 05:26 PM
  #21
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
How about Ottawa? they have a crew of kids on that team that will make it absolutely impossible to keep together under a cap. Chara, Redden, Phillips, Spezza, Havlat, Hossa, Alfredsson. Even if they average 3 millino a year that's 18 million for that group of 6 players, now you have 13 million for 14 other players without any walking wounded.

Something is going to suffer, player stability is going ot be the casualty
Lets say its 5 years from now. Redden, Hossa, Chara, Havlat are all approaching free agency. We havent made it out of the 1st round for 5 years and our core players are all soon to win their free agency.

IF we have been winning in the playoffs, i.e. a succesful team, we will probably be able to keep a great deal of that core. We will have certainly made a lot of extra playoff revenue and sold many more season tickets.

IF we have been losing, whats our prospects? Sign these guys in their declining years to one more long term contract and add some missing pieces? Its a bit late for that. My fellow Sens probably wont agree with me, but I think its time to go on a dumping spree like Washington and rebuild. Cut your losses and make the hard decision as quick as possible. The surest way to win a cup is to develop a young team yourself.

I think its fun, starting with a bunch of 18 year olds and building for 5 years until you have a young core and then taking a shot with your 5 year window of opportunity if you have developed a contender. But if not, having to lose your 31 year olds, who have the choice where to go and want to play on a winner, everything works out fair. The small markets job is to develop a succesful team that will attract them when they are ready and can afford to pay a tam full of players their market value.

thinkwild 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 06:26 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.