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.

Trade - CAP for NON-GUARANTEED CONTRACTS

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-25-2004, 03:15 PM
  #1
Mr.Sinister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 220
vCash: 500
Trade - CAP for NON-GUARANTEED CONTRACTS

Those are the concessions that each side should make,
reasoning being, if a player is one year a 5 million dollar star forward and then after 1 year a 40pt 3rd liner, IE Pierre turgeon, then the team should be able to cut this guy loose.
How do the New York Islanders give Alexei Yashin an 11 year contract, thats the problem with this CBA. The Islanders already want to cut that contract.

Thats the Answer, No more Guaranteed contracts, and no cap.

now lets spread the word, and get some games going.

Mr.Sinister is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 03:58 PM
  #2
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,495
vCash: 50
If the players aren't going to agree to a cap, why would they agree to contracts that aren't guaranteed?

Their only goal in life seems to be making more money, not less.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:14 PM
  #3
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd

Their only goal in life seems to be making more money, not less.
Which is why they've offered a $75 million paycut as a starting point.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:16 PM
  #4
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
What they should do is run a vote for a new NHLPA representative, I'm sure that all the players under 25 who are part of the NHLPA would be more in favor of non-guaranteed contracts than the 35+ year olds, but these last ones are the ones with the most power. This is a union and it should represent all of the union's members, yet it doesn't. Where's democracy for the younger/lower payed players.

littleHossa is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:16 PM
  #5
kurt
the last emperor
 
kurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,563
vCash: 500
"Non-guaranteed contracts"

Can it even be called a contract if it's not guaranteed? The idea seems ridiculous to me. Could you imagine if you were under contract for work, and your employer just walked away from it?

I thought this was what bonuses were for. You set goals for the player, if they achieve, they get money. If they don't, they don't. Shouldn't bonuses work well enough?

kurt is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:17 PM
  #6
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,495
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Which is why they've offered a $75 million paycut as a starting point.
Yeah, 5%. Wow. That's a one-time deal that only applies to current contracts. So it's pretty much worthless, and one of the weakest "concessions" in that whole proposal/joke.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:21 PM
  #7
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleHossa
What they should do is run a vote for a new NHLPA representative, I'm sure that all the players under 25 who are part of the NHLPA would be more in favor of non-guaranteed contracts than the 35+ year olds, but these last ones are the ones with the most power. This is a union and it should represent all of the union's members, yet it doesn't. Where's democracy for the younger/lower payed players.
LMAO !!

Players under 25 would accept NON-GUARANTEED contract ? No way, you just tell them that from now on, you won't be sure to get a paycheck.

Stop thinking as a fan & start thinking as a player.

You got a better chance that 35 years old player would accept a non-guaranteed contract because they would just want to play this season since there's no much gas (seasons) left in the tank (player).

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:23 PM
  #8
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,495
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
You got a better chance that 35 years old player would accept a non-guaranteed contract because they would just want to play this season since there's no much gas (seasons) left in the tank (player).
Why? The 35-year old has much more to gain from guaranteed contracts. His career is going downhill and his contract is based on past performances.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 04:24 PM
  #9
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
LMAO !!

Players under 25 would accept NON-GUARANTEED contract ? No way, you just tell them that from now on, you won't be sure to get a paycheck.

Stop thinking as a fan & start thinking as a player.

You got a better chance that 35 years old player would accept a non-guaranteed contract because they would just want to play this season since there's no much gas (seasons) left in the tank (player).
I am thinking as a player, the only thing keeping up anyone under 25 in the NHL is their consistency and effort. If I was an NHL player on the bubble and I knew that some old veterans on my team who earned $4 millions/year didn't give a full effort, I would really look forward to the day when the GM cuts his lazy ass and gives me a chance. Start thinking more along the terms of ALL the players in the NHL/AHL, not just the 20 man roster being happy together.

littleHossa is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 06:13 PM
  #10
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Yeah, 5%. Wow. That's a one-time deal that only applies to current contracts. So it's pretty much worthless, and one of the weakest "concessions" in that whole proposal/joke.
You think $75 million, or 33% of the league's supposed losses last year is a worthless starting point?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 06:28 PM
  #11
Optimist*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
yes its worthless.

Optimist* is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 07:47 PM
  #12
Egghammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 218
vCash: 500
What if the NHL had a "hard" salary cap, but with guaranteed bonuses to players for meeting certain team and individual metrics. Make this standard across the board. Make both the team and player metrics achievable to allow players the ability to achieve a larger salary.

Player A has a 4 million contract per season, but can make 1 million more if his team is over .500 and makes the playoffs, another 1 million if he ends up with 90 pts, etc.

What are the pluses and negatives to this type of a situation? This way a lot of the bonuses being paid will be to players on successful teams or good players on bad teams.

Egghammer is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 08:11 PM
  #13
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eticket
yes its worthless.
well it certainly isnt "status quo".

the owners are free to negotiate those #'s. why dont they say "ok, lets use your model, with these changes:

- 30% roll back
- only teams can take players to arbitration
- 50% qualifying offers
- $3 for $1 on a luxury tax at 30m"

im not suggesting the above #'s are the right #'s, im simply pointing out that the owners could at least find a way to negotiate at least the #'s in the players proposal ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 08:21 PM
  #14
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
You think $75 million, or 33% of the league's supposed losses last year is a worthless starting point?
It is worthless b/c it essentially does nothing to curb the problem of arbitration, errant spending, and an overwhelming large amount of money being lost. The rollback is a one time event that will just reescalate up in a few years time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
LMAO !!

Players under 25 would accept NON-GUARANTEED contract ? No way, you just tell them that from now on, you won't be sure to get a paycheck.

Stop thinking as a fan & start thinking as a player.

You got a better chance that 35 years old player would accept a non-guaranteed contract because they would just want to play this season since there's no much gas (seasons) left in the tank (player).
In the NFL, if a player starts the season on the roster, he will make his full salary. Looking at it like this, I think it can be a very reasonable way to approach things.....although the Union would never agree to it.

__________________
- Enoch -
Enoch is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 08:38 PM
  #15
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
It is worthless b/c it essentially does nothing to curb the problem of arbitration, errant spending, and an overwhelming large amount of money being lost. The rollback is a one time event that will just reescalate up in a few years time.

.
1) the owners can negotiate arbitration if they felt it was a big deal. so far the owners have just rejected the players offer outright.

2) why would the owners continue to operate their business the way they always have. i can think of two options

i) they are dumber than doorknobs ? why should we lose sleep over people who are too dumb to run their business properly.
or
ii) they can afford to offer what they offer.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-25-2004, 09:51 PM
  #16
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
For those that think $75 million is worthless, can you send me some of your money?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-26-2004, 09:45 PM
  #17
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,495
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
For those that think $75 million is worthless, can you send me some of your money?
If you mean 5% of my salary, then no. I need that money so I don't have to live in the streets. And next year, my salary isn't going to go up 20-60%.

So I don't see the relevence here. You're comparing peas to planets.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-26-2004, 10:01 PM
  #18
Optimist*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Its worthless because it doesnt give the owners the cost certainty that they want.
The most important term in cost certainty is CERTAIN. Wouldnt you want to make SURE that the next agreement didnt cost you 1.8bb again because you thought it MIGHT work. No, they want to be CERTAIN. So basically and unfortunately for the players, a weaker NHL only hurts them. Because when the owners get their CERTAIN system, no matter how long it takes, they will make money no matter how low the revenues are. The players, on the other hand, will take the brunt of the lower revenues, dollar for dollar. Thats why the owners don't care how long it takes. The players are thowing away alot of money in a foolish attempt. They will never recoup their losses this year.

Optimist* 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 09:34 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.