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

CBA News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2012, 07:12 AM
  #26
Esa 10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The 2nd contract is the major problem with the NHL. Rick Nash was the first player to receive a huge 2nd contract.

The NBA CBA does have a cap of how much salaries can increase. They also have contract length restrictions...
I don't follow basketball at all, didn't realize NBA has a soft cap with luxury taxes. I wonder whether this will be a major point of contention. If the NHL wants contract and salary restrictions similar to NBA, the PA might want a soft cap system similar to NBA too. Pure speculation on my part, but the players will push for something. They got a lower UFA age for example, despite losing the last war. To me the odds of next season starting on time are tiny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorado View Post
1 . If we talking pay cuts good bye hockey for next year or longer...
3. Why would Kreider leave BC to come here
When he could stay in school and play another season and become a free agent the next year and control his own destiny and make whatever he wants as a UFA rather then sign an ELC...
What's your obsession with Kreider not signing? The rules for entry level players like him will only get stricter. That's what happened when the 2005 CBA was negotiated. If Kreider doesn't sign now he'll likely get less money for more years and still have to play for NYR. The PA always caves on rookies first. Sather is certain Kreider will be signed by the play-offs. What inside info do you have access to that the GM doesn't?

Esa 10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 08:35 AM
  #27
KingWantsCup
Grinch who stole...
 
KingWantsCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,949
vCash: 350
A rollback must mean cap hits are reduced and not salaries, but that in itself is like cap-circumvention... I mean I can see why the players and owners would be for that but that kinda makes the point of a cap look dumb, no? I sure as hell would be for that though.

If they're talking about cutting salaries this isn't gonna be pretty. Big yes to years and stricter money limits. Though. SiriusXM was discussing how doing so actually benefits well over 90% of players, you know, the ones that aren't super stars.

KingWantsCup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 08:46 AM
  #28
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
They can play around with the average yearly increases. When Tyler Myers goes from entry level money to a $5.5M cap hit. Something is very wrong.
What is the something that's very wrong?

Not every team should have to follow the Rangers formula of low balling on the 2nd contract.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 08:58 AM
  #29
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorado View Post
1 . If we talking pay cuts good bye hockey for next year or longer
2. Trading prospects for Nash and going for it might not been a bad idea if no hockey for near future potentially

3. Why would Kreider leave BC to come here
When he could stay in school and play another season and become a free agent the next year and control his own destiny and make whatever he wants as a UFA rather then sign an ELC .
4. This whole thing really sucks . If the owners want more money they should contract some of these bottom feeding small market teams that have no hockey market to begin with .
If you think the NHLPA will fight hard against a salary rollback, how do you think they'd approach contraction? That's the absolute worst option for the players to consider, and they won't...ever.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:20 AM
  #30
Esa 10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingWantsCup View Post
A rollback must mean cap hits are reduced and not salaries, but that in itself is like cap-circumvention... I mean I can see why the players and owners would be for that but that kinda makes the point of a cap look dumb, no? I sure as hell would be for that though.

If they're talking about cutting salaries this isn't gonna be pretty...
Why do so many of you think this? A rollback means exactly what it sounds like, both salaries and cap hits. Don't you remember the last lock-out? Actual salaries were slashed, guaranteed contracts, players lost real money. The owners aren't looking to reduce teams' cap hits. They want more real money. Why is this hard to believe? That's what the last lock-out was all about. If Healy is right, there's a major battle coming because it's about real money. The odds of next season starting on time are slim.

Esa 10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:21 AM
  #31
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,173
vCash: 500
These are all starting points for negotiations. The NHL, and all negotiating parties, start at a far end and meet in the middle. They'll ask for rollbacks, lower cap, a lower ceiling on individual contracts, length restrictions, etc. They won't get it all, they have to give the players something in return for what they do get. There aren't too many dire issues, I doubt a season is lost to stalemates.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:25 AM
  #32
Gardner McKay
Moderator
What a time
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Porch of Indecision.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esa 10 View Post
Why do so many of you think this? A rollback means exactly what it sounds like, both salaries and cap hits. Don't you remember the last lock-out? Actual salaries were slashed, guaranteed contracts, players lost real money. The owners aren't looking to reduce teams' cap hits. They want more real money. Why is this hard to believe? That's what the last lock-out was all about. If Healy is right, there's a major battle coming because it's about real money. The odds of next season starting on time are slim.
Don't make it sound like all the owners are greedy ******** by saying " they want more real money" how about many owners want to stop LOSING real money?

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:30 AM
  #33
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
I wouldn't be so sure about McD. The way he's playing, if he does it again next year, he's in line for a Staal type contract. Maybe more, considering he will be arbitration eligible.

Of course, the rules for arbitration could change in the next CBA and they could negotiate something that keeps 2nd contracts within a certain range like they do with ELCs, but based on the way it works now, I would bet he's getting a long term deal.
You consider Staal's deal long-term and large? Because I don't. I consider it correct for first-line/first-pair players. I guess let me rephrase. 5 years should be a long-term deal, but in the current NHL, it isn't. It's solid. McDonagh and Stepan will get similar deals if they continue developing along at their current paces.

Staal's contract isn't an example of the type of 2nd contract that's been a problem. Drew Doughty's, on the other hand, is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
How does that work? Reduced scale? Do they tell players, ok, I'll give you 4 mil, but there's a 25% rollback, so it's really only 3 mil?

If there are rollbacks, existing contracts will be rolled back, the same as they were in the last CBA. It will have no bearing on future contracts other than that the contract must fit under the new cap.
Nah. More along the lines of treating the cap hits of the reduced scale contracts as if they were the actual money. So the average 2nd liner making $4m currently will have a Cap hit of $3m. That $3m is the new, scaled, value for 2nd liners negotiating new contracts.

And the above illustrates how rollbacks of any sort have bearing on future contracts. Of course the scaling occurs naturally with a reduced upper limit as well. But a rollback of Cap hit without rolling back the actual dollars helps the process along as well.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:33 AM
  #34
ogie
Registered User
 
ogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Staten Island
Country: United States
Posts: 1,271
vCash: 500
There will not be another lockout. the league, the owners and the nhlpa saw how much it hurt the game last time and no party involved will go through that again. if they hit an impasse i would think that they would agree to follow the existing CBA, until a new one is worked out.

ogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:51 AM
  #35
DMPD
Offseasons Greetings
 
DMPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 21,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
Don't make it sound like all the owners are greedy ******** by saying " they want more real money" how about many owners want to stop LOSING real money?
How about the owners then employ people who can ice a successful team, attempt to move the team to a bigger hockey market, or sell their team to someone who doesn't care if they lose money every year if the other two options fail.

Boo ****ing hoo, I own a NHL team and it's not making me money. Too bad. You knew what you were getting in to and it's like any other business, no investment is guaranteed.

__________________
DMPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:52 AM
  #36
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 33,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
What is the something that's very wrong?

Not every team should have to follow the Rangers formula of low balling on the 2nd contract.
Are you being serious? Unproven players should not be paid like group IIIs. I guarantee you the veteran players would be in favor of restrictions on 2nd contracts. It would mean more money for them.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:55 AM
  #37
DMPD
Offseasons Greetings
 
DMPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 21,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Are you being serious? Unproven players should not be paid like group IIIs. I guarantee you the veteran players would be in favor of restrictions on 2nd contracts. It would mean more money for them.
Agreed, and not only that, they'd have a better chance at re-signing with the teams they've played with most of their career because they're not worried about the rookies getting big paydays and then having to move on to other teams who are willing to pay more for their services.

DMPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 10:03 AM
  #38
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 33,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
If you think the NHLPA will fight hard against a salary rollback, how do you think they'd approach contraction? That's the absolute worst option for the players to consider, and they won't...ever.
Can you please inform that Dorado guy that Kreider would be subject to the entry level system if he were to become a free agent in August 2013? In fact,Kreider would be subject to the new CBA rules which will be more restrictive if he goes free agent. He is subject to the entry level system until he is 24 years old. If the years increase,he would have to sign for more years. Kreider signs a 3 year ELC after BC is playing and he plays one game in the NHL this season,Kreider is two years away from salary arbitration.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 10:16 AM
  #39
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Are you being serious? Unproven players should not be paid like group IIIs. I guarantee you the veteran players would be in favor of restrictions on 2nd contracts. It would mean more money for them.
Sorry, but who forced Buffalo to make that offer? It was their choice to do so. They bought out UFA years and we all know that that costs money.

And lets not forget the paradigm shift that has occurred in the NHL over the last bunch of years. Younger players are no longer just along for the ride. In many cases, they are the leaders of their respective teams & they should be paid for it.

Paying Myers 5.5M at age 22 is no less ridiculous than was paying him $1.3M when he was a 19 years old putting up 50pts.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 10:29 AM
  #40
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
Agreed, and not only that, they'd have a better chance at re-signing with the teams they've played with most of their career because they're not worried about the rookies getting big paydays and then having to move on to other teams who are willing to pay more for their services.
I don't agree with this line of thinking at all.

If you're a small market team & you're signing you're better players to the bare minimum on their 2nd and 3rd contracts, what do you think is going to happen when that player reaches free agency?

The idea is to lock up your good players. If that means doing it when they are still young, then you do it, because the alternative of them walking at the first opportunity is not a good one.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 10:57 AM
  #41
Esa 10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
These are all starting points for negotiations. The NHL, and all negotiating parties, start at a far end and meet in the middle. They'll ask for rollbacks, lower cap, a lower ceiling on individual contracts, length restrictions, etc. They won't get it all, they have to give the players something in return for what they do get. There aren't too many dire issues, I doubt a season is lost to stalemates.
I agree. It'll just take a bit of time and posturing to get done. Hopefully no more than a couple of months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
Don't make it sound like all the owners are greedy ******** by saying " they want more real money" how about many owners want to stop LOSING real money?
Who's making them sound greedy? Both sides are arguing about real money, like any labor conflict. Just don't make either sound like saints, concerned about the "game," etc. If you don't have the resources, don't buy a team. If a market can't sustain a team, don't force it there. The owners made their fortunes in a free market with a real chance of failure and losing everything. They obviously did well. Suddenly, when it comes to sports, there's a need for cost-certainty, five-year plans, guaranteed distribution of income. Whatever. They lost a year of hockey because a hard cap was supposed to be a panacea to every franchise's problems. Now there's a need for more CBA restrictions because some owners can't stop themselves from spending at a rate their markets can't sustain, while others feel like they aren't making enough return on their investment.
That's not gonna gain my sympathy. Just get a deal done fast, one that's advantageous to a big-market team like NYR.

Esa 10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 11:15 AM
  #42
DMPD
Offseasons Greetings
 
DMPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 21,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
I don't agree with this line of thinking at all.

If you're a small market team & you're signing you're better players to the bare minimum on their 2nd and 3rd contracts, what do you think is going to happen when that player reaches free agency?

The idea is to lock up your good players. If that means doing it when they are still young, then you do it, because the alternative of them walking at the first opportunity is not a good one.
In most cases if a player wants to go UFA and leave a team it's going to have little to do with what they're paid as an RFA, especially if what they can be paid is league mandated.

You make it sound like every RFA who doesn't get a big payday and UFA years bought out in their first big contract will walk the first chance they get. Some players do like their organizations, big or small markets.

DMPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 11:28 AM
  #43
Gardner McKay
Moderator
What a time
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Porch of Indecision.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
How about the owners then employ people who can ice a successful team, attempt to move the team to a bigger hockey market, or sell their team to someone who doesn't care if they lose money every year if the other two options fail.

Boo ****ing hoo, I own a NHL team and it's not making me money. Too bad. You knew what you were getting in to and it's like any other business, no investment is guaranteed.
Right, and like every other business that isn't succeeding (in the actual business world, not fantasy land) you cut back salaries, pay, bonuses, etc. when it comes to the survival or best interest of the business. When it comes to NHL teams there are many cases where it is not about making money, but breaking even. That doesn't make the owners greedy, it makes them intelligent, competent people.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 12:25 PM
  #44
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 19,014
vCash: 500
Dont make to big of a deal of the 2nd contract thing, and again, roll-backs.

The players will get x% of the HRR. Of the players, who gets what is a non-issue/small issue for the league. Of course.

It's a roll-back or freeze, but if it's 10% or more -- a freeze makes little sense. And it's alot of money lost for Bettman until the HRR catches up. Odds gotta be in favor of a roll-back.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 02:48 PM
  #45
TUQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
What is HRR ?

TUQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 02:54 PM
  #46
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 50
Awards:
Hockey-related revenue.

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 03:30 PM
  #47
DMPD
Offseasons Greetings
 
DMPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 21,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
Right, and like every other business that isn't succeeding (in the actual business world, not fantasy land) you cut back salaries, pay, bonuses, etc. when it comes to the survival or best interest of the business. When it comes to NHL teams there are many cases where it is not about making money, but breaking even. That doesn't make the owners greedy, it makes them intelligent, competent people.
...and just like in the real world if you do that twice in a relatively short span of time, your employees strike, or do the equivalent of that.

I'm not siding with the players, because they make millions of dollars to play a sport for Christ's sake, but I really have no sympathy for the owners who, if they are intelligent, competent people, realize exactly what they're getting themselves in to in the first place.

The saddest thing is, in the end it's the fans, who make sure both the owners, and players are getting their money, are the ones who lose.

Nothing new here though, business as usual.

DMPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 03:44 PM
  #48
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 19,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
...and just like in the real world if you do that twice in a relatively short span of time, your employees strike, or do the equivalent of that.

I'm not siding with the players, because they make millions of dollars to play a sport for Christ's sake, but I really have no sympathy for the owners who, if they are intelligent, competent people, realize exactly what they're getting themselves in to in the first place.

The saddest thing is, in the end it's the fans, who make sure both the owners, and players are getting their money, are the ones who lose.

Nothing new here though, business as usual.
Not to mention everybody else who works at the venue.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 04:11 PM
  #49
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,486
vCash: 3743
Quote:
Erik Malinowski ‏ @erikmal

Bettman: NHL revenue will hit $3.2 billion this year, a 50 percent increase in seven years since shutdown. #ssac
Revenue was only $2.9b last year. Cap could be going up dramatically during the summer prior to the new CBA being finalized.

How about Parise and Sutter?


http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=559630

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 04:14 PM
  #50
Gardner McKay
Moderator
What a time
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Porch of Indecision.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
...and just like in the real world if you do that twice in a relatively short span of time, your employees strike, or do the equivalent of that.

I'm not siding with the players, because they make millions of dollars to play a sport for Christ's sake, but I really have no sympathy for the owners who, if they are intelligent, competent people, realize exactly what they're getting themselves in to in the first place.

The saddest thing is, in the end it's the fans, who make sure both the owners, and players are getting their money, are the ones who lose.

Nothing new here though, business as usual.
They only strike if you have labor unions... and with that being said, going any further into this would spark a debate that goes way beyond the business of hockey.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:17 PM.

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.