HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The TSN Lockout Solution

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2004, 03:54 PM
  #1
Infensus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
The TSN Lockout Solution

Their website is building up what they belive will be the catalyst to re-start negotiations to end the lockout. Supposedly Monday is the big day of the unveiling of the solution.

Infensus is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:48 PM
  #2
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,730
vCash: 500
Gotta have hope, I guess.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 06:29 PM
  #3
Infensus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
Well - there plan is out... Have yet to read the entire thing myself.

Link

Infensus is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 06:52 PM
  #4
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
It's a fairly good proposal, but I don't think they give the players enough back considering what they take away.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:09 PM
  #5
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
It's a fairly good proposal, but I don't think they give the players enough back considering what they take away.
I think 75% qualifying offer is a bit too much it should be around 90-100%

And individual salary cap should be closer to 7 million or 6.5

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:12 PM
  #6
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
And individual salary cap should be closer to 7 million or 6.5
Why? Only 18 players have a salary over 6 mil and probably half of them dont deserve it.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:15 PM
  #7
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers
Why? Only 18 players have a salary over 6 mil and probably half of them dont deserve it.
Because lets say Kovalchuk gets an offer from russia that would give him 5 or more million, then NHL loses one of the most talented players.

I think it said 27 players are getting more than 6 mil.


Last edited by Prucha73: 10-04-2004 at 07:24 PM.
Prucha73 is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:23 PM
  #8
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
If they are willing to offer him 5 mil he'd be gone already, European players want to play at home.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:27 PM
  #9
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
How about add more flexibility:

Lets say a player PPG average (for forward) is higher or equal to last season then qualifying offer is 100%

if it is lower, then it is 90%

if it is a huge drop, then make it 75%

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:44 PM
  #10
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
How about add more flexibility:

Lets say a player PPG average (for forward) is higher or equal to last season then qualifying offer is 100%

if it is lower, then it is 90%

if it is a huge drop, then make it 75%
I was thinking along the same lines at first, but I don't think that'd be necessary. The qualifying offer is the bare minimum a player can get, not what he is entitled to. Any team that would refuse to give a productive player a decent salary would have to deal with the loss of the contributions of that player and the negative press for being unreasonable in their demands. In the end, a good GM will pay players what they are worth and reward productive players with raises to keep them on the ice and happy with the team, just as it should be now. This would just allow more flexibility for teams in dealing with underperformers and players that play well for a while but then fall off.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 07:48 PM
  #11
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
I was thinking along the same lines at first, but I don't think that'd be necessary. The qualifying offer is the bare minimum a player can get, not what he is entitled to. Any team that would refuse to give a productive player a decent salary would have to deal with the loss of the contributions of that player and the negative press for being unreasonable in their demands. In the end, a good GM will pay players what they are worth and reward productive players with raises to keep them on the ice and happy with the team, just as it should be now. This would just allow more flexibility for teams in dealing with underperformers and players that play well for a while but then fall off.

Some GMs especially those with the low budgets can use this to their advantage to lowball some good players.

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 08:48 PM
  #12
the_hockey_knowitall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9
vCash: 500
Rumor has it TSN has an Iraq solution and an overall Middle East plan. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded later this month and maybe Spud MacKenzie will win it.

the_hockey_knowitall is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:16 PM
  #13
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_hockey_knowitall
Rumor has it TSN has an Iraq solution and an overall Middle East plan. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded later this month and maybe Spud MacKenzie will win it.
Well my solution is to have revenue sharing between Iraq and the Palestinians with Israel required to accept a migration cap of 30,000 Palestians per year to Israel.

Fish is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:18 PM
  #14
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
Well my solution is to have revenue sharing between Iraq and the Palestinians with Israel required to accept a migration cap of 30,000 Palestians per year to Israel.

That's a LOT of suicide bombers

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:19 PM
  #15
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
Some GMs especially those with the low budgets can use this to their advantage to lowball some good players.
Some GMs use the current CBA and the 100/110% qualifying offers to lowball some good players. They still have to deal with the hole that the good player leaves in the lineup and the negative press and fan reactions from letting a good player holdout. Besides, good players rarely, if ever, sign their qualifying offers. This would only affect the players that are overpaid. There was no reason that Chris Gratton should have been continually qualified at the level he was because Philly offered him a huge contract in 1997.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:39 PM
  #16
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
That's a LOT of suicide bombers
Suicide bombers would be considered "defected" group IV free agents and would be fair game for any team.

Fish is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:47 PM
  #17
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
On a more serious note, here's some highlights from my counter proposal...

Salary cap of 25 million per year.
- Players remaining with the team they signed their first NHL contract would be cap exempt
- Players would get a 10% reduction of their salary against the cap for every year they remain with a team after the 1st year
- Bonuses count against the cap, signing bonuses prorated or recognized sooner
- Playoff bonuses of up to 10% of base salary per round exempt from camp

Lower UFA status to 28

Cap Entry Level Contracts at 750k and 900k with up to equal those amounts in incentive bonuses...two years maximum

80% qualification on RFAs with players able to elect to get same bonus structure as previous year's contract if qualified below 100%

Arbitration capped at up to 50% raise with bonuses not covered by this, but proposals from player and team go through arbitration. Teams can walk away or match up to 75% offer from another team

Change buy-out clause from 66% to 50%, injured players remain exempt

50% of TV revenues go into pool with monies distributed to teams who spend 30 million (including cap exempt players) or more...money can only be spent on raises over previous year's salaries

Reduce roster size from 20 to 18 and players under NHL contract from 50 to 45

Reduce the season length (this is already a league proposal, so not unique here)

Pay players who win league awards a bonus...not sure if they already do this

Fish is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 12:25 AM
  #18
Rodent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: On your dinner plate
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
The TSN Solution tested with real numbers:

http://hockeyrodent.com/r1081.htm

Rodent is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 10:26 AM
  #19
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodent
The TSN Solution tested with real numbers:

http://hockeyrodent.com/r1081.htm

teams will pad payroll to get to the magic number, whatever it is, but it seems to me that would be good for the union in that it means every team is spending at least 30 mil?

Additionally, teams wouldn't necessarily need to sign UFA's to fill that room, they could just offer a valued RFA player something like:

instead of a 3 year deal at 9 mil total, split 3mil per season, something like:

3 year deal, 9 mil total, 6 mil first year, 1.5 in year's 2 and 3

also, how did your analysis include the future scenarios where teams spending around 70 mil cut their team salaries to compensate. I don't really see any way in which a 100% luxury tax past 40 mil (and I'm not saying it's a perfect solution) won't bring the upper and bottom end spenders closer than than they are now. Simplistically, if every team is willing to spend whatever tehy were willing to spend on player's salaries before the new CBA and after the new CBA, one would imagine their actually payroll will either be:

(a) unaffected if below 40 mil, unless below 30 mil in which case they may or may not spend to get up to the 30 mil min threshold provided it makes economic sense

(b) if above 40 mil, reduced by half the amount they spend over 40 mil.

ie, very simplistically (admittedly), a team willing to spend 80 mil on player's salaries with no luxury tax is still willing to spend 80 mil on player salaries, but now of that 80 mil 60 mil goes to the players, and 20 mil goes to the Luxury Tax.

speeds is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 11:32 AM
  #20
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,008
vCash: 500
Fish

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
On a more serious note, here's some highlights from my counter proposal...

Salary cap of 25 million per year.
I think that a cap of $25 is barely realistic. Heck, even Bettman did not dare go below $30m.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 11:39 AM
  #21
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I think that a cap of $25 is barely realistic. Heck, even Bettman did not dare go below $30m.
The expemtion is key. Remain with the team you signed your first contract with and you're cap exempt. This allows the "franchise" player to make franchise player money and gives him an incentive to remain with his team, otherwise, he's taking a major pay cut. The exemption also stands to effect a lot of non-franchise guys too. Lundmark's salary would be exempt in our case.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 11:40 AM
  #22
Infensus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
Well,

If you are going to have a maximum payroll amount then you should also have a minimum payroll amount.

Also, if a player is not performing well and a team cuts him, why do the teams need to buy out his contract? They shouldn't owe him anything if he is cut due to poor performance. If you do not show up for work, are you bought out or terminated with no compensation?

There should also be harsh penalties instituted against players who do hold out. Perhaps if they hold out for a year then their salaries decline a percentage each year and they are not eligible to negotiate new contracts while holding out.

Infensus is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 12:06 PM
  #23
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,289
vCash: 500
Like I said in another thread...

TSN's 'solution' is not really a solution, but it is a better starting point than where the players are currently at, and from where the league is currently at. Add and subtract all you want but there is not really a payroll 'hard' cap, which allows for market conditions somewhat, but there is a cap of sorts because because of the tax and other items. $6 million may not be reasonable, but perhaps a settlement is higher. $40 million may not be the luxury number, but perhaps that number is lower. And yeah, the distribution is a bit odd since it's between $30-40 and exludes the 'needy' teams, but it encourages spending by those 'needy' teams, which do boost overall salaries somewhat (which have been otherwse depressed in the plan), and it's money they'd likely get back, so they can spend and continue to operate profitably.

Fletch is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 12:29 PM
  #24
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
The expemtion is key. Remain with the team you signed your first contract with and you're cap exempt. This allows the "franchise" player to make franchise player money and gives him an incentive to remain with his team, otherwise, he's taking a major pay cut. The exemption also stands to effect a lot of non-franchise guys too. Lundmark's salary would be exempt in our case.
Exactly, if you look at the Rangers team from the start of last year, this is how my plan would play out:

Barnaby - 3rd year with team a 20% exemption
Bouchard - no exemption
Carter - 2nd year 10%
de Vries - no exemption
Dunham - 2nd year 10%
Dusablon - full exemption
Gernander - 9th year 80%
Healey - no exemption
Hlavac - no exemption
Holik - 2nd year 10%
Kasparaitis - 2nd year 10%
Kovalev - 2nd year 10%
Labarbera - full exemption
Lacouture - 2nd year 10%
Lampman - full exemption
Larose - full exemption
Leetch - full exemption
Lindros - 3rd year 20%
Lundmark - full exemption
MacDonald - full exemption
Malakhov - 4th year 30%
Markkanen - no exemption
Messier - 4th year 30%
Mironov - 2nd year 10%
Moore - full exemption
Murray - full exemption
Nedved - 6th year 50%
Nycholat - full exemption
Ortmeyer - full exemption
Poti - 3rd year 20%
Purinton - full exemption
Rheaume - no exemption
Rucinsky - no exemption
Scott - full exemption
Siklenka - no exemption
Simon - no exemption
Tyutin - full exemption
Wiseman - no exemption

My goal in proposing a solution like this is to have a controlled free agency market that makes teams more interested in keeping and developing their talent rather than buying it. It doesn't eliminate players from moving around and with a 28 year old free agency I think it helps contribute to that.

As to the contract buyout...the reason I chose to lower rather than to eliminate it was because I wanted to not totally screw the players on this. I recognize that hockey is a tough game and it's up to the team to take some of the risk as well as the player. I felt that completely eliminating the cost of a buyout was putting most of the risk back on the player. To be honest I figured that under my proposal there'd be fewer long term and large contracts (outside of those that were exempted) so the cost would be significantly lower anyway.

If you want my full thoughts on the whole proposal I put together, it's at http://www.outsidethegarden.com/arti...ay=4&year=2004

Fish is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 06:30 PM
  #25
Rodent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: On your dinner plate
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by speeds
how did your analysis include the future scenarios where teams spending around 70 mil cut their team salaries to compensate.
Are you my doctoral thesis advisor?

Look. I had a point to make. I did the work required to elucidate that point. I finished my assignment and now I'm moving on to other topics.

If you wish to leverage my work by taking it to the next level, you are welcome to do so. Heck, I ENCOURAGE you to do so. Here's a copy of the spreadsheet. But I've got other angles to expend energy on. I don't need to be fixing TSN's abortive solution. I'm still working out details of the capCash scheme and of the Auction scheme. These are my babies and I'd prefer to invest energy into polishing these concepts rather than someone else's.

Here's the spreadhseet if you wish to play with the figures yourself:

http://hockeyrodent.com/salaries.xls

Here's an introduction to the Auction proposal:

http://hockeyrodent.com/r1082.htm

Here is an introduction to the CapCash proposal:

http://hockeyrodent.com/r1078.htm

Rodent 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 11:40 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.