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 Potential Lockout Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2012, 02:32 PM
  #201
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CKL889 View Post
To be fair, the sky was falling in 03-04, we lost an entire year of hockey, not sure how worse of an outcome you could get then that.

And Brooks doesnt beat around the bush, he knew it was doom and gloom then and it was. He knew the owners new CBA would fail then and the owners are admitting it is.

Brooks is very pro PA, and comes acrossed biased at times, but what he is saying is mainly true.
CKL, this is not directed at you, because so many others are saying the exact same thing -- but it seems impossible to call the last lockout for what it was. Impossible.

1. Bettman and co fooled especially Canadian media into believing that he was saving small markets. He wasn't. He helped to give every owner a bigger profit. Owning a pro team is about so much more then the numbers for the team itself isolated (IE, you often own an arena that you can have other very profitable events in and so forth), but still, during these times, there are org's out there making earning 10% or more of what they are worth yearly.

And he basically didn't help small markets much.

2. Did he fail? Of course not. To save the worst of ten org's or whatever was never a goal. The most powerful org's are making much more money nowadays. The org's themselves value is better for sure. It was a succes.

3. Bettman knows that the media matters a ton. He knows that clowns like Bob McKenzie very easily can be fooled into believing his propaganda, and this 5 year ELC 10 year UFA, and no arbitration proposal, will definitely soon be drummed into being yet another attempt to save the small org's.

All while this do not matter one bit to the owners. The percentage of HRR is all that matters. It doesn't matter what the floor or roof is, when players becomes UFA's or RFA's.

This is easy to miss because many professional journalists time after time seem to fail to understand it, but the cap could be 500m - 750m and everyone could become UFA's in the new CBA, if the % of HRR the players get are 45% they won't make one cent more then if the cap was 35m - 50m and nobody became UFA's. Due to the escrow construction. The percentage of HRR, and the definition of the HRR, is all that matters when it comes to splitting up the cake...

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 02:36 PM
  #202
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The next CBA will end up the same way. The owners will continue to find a way to spend money. There is no idiot proof CBA. The NHL proposed radical ideas in 2004 and they weren't part of the 2005 CBA.
The CBA we got in 05' is very close to what was first reported by Brooks in early 04. Very close.

You have the material. Hard cap? 40m? What else did Brooks report just before the sumer of 04?

What did we get? Hard cap. 38m...

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 02:42 PM
  #203
Garfinkel1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Posts: 3,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Maybe throw in a stipulation that any year of the 5 years can't be less than half of any other year. Prevents teams from paying a guy $12m for 4 years of the 5 and $1m for 1 year and have the cap hit be $9.8m instead of the intended $12m.
Too easy to game. A team like the Islanders give Tavares an 10 year, 62.5 million dollar contract.

Current: Cap Hit - 6.25m per year

They know they won't be competitive for 3-4 years so...

I would do,

First 5 years: Cap Hit 8 Mill
Last 5 years: Cap Hit 4.5

A team rebuilding could take advantage of this and game the system.

Garfinkel1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 02:43 PM
  #204
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
The CBA we got in 05' is very close to what was first reported by Brooks in early 04. Very close.

You have the material. Hard cap? 40m? What else did Brooks report just before the sumer of 04?

What did we get? Hard cap. 38m...
Brooks first reported a 31MM hard cap. The league ended up moving a long ways from that.

I just don't think the owners will have the resolve they had in 2004. The stakes are much lower for a lot of teams. Revenue sharing is the key and when Fehr presents his numbers he will show that the league is only currently spending 51-52% against the cap, not 57% and the revenue share is ridiculous. As much as I hate the Islanders, they don't get a dime in revenue share. Neither do the Ducks. Bettman and his boys ain't playing against the "B" team this time. You can be sure that as important as unity, the PA has data and a ton of it to drive the converstaon.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 02:54 PM
  #205
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
RangerBoy- Roll backs didn't just happend to "end up" in the last CBA. It was the only logical thing to do given that the players slice of the cake just got so much smaller. I also don't really get why you say that the players would have been better of without a roll back?

In this negotiation, you need to remember that Bettman is not negotiating a CBA with a professional in Donald Fehr. He is negotiating a new CBA with a union. Fehr can never negotiate a CBA that will not be ratified by the players.

In negotiations like this, one tool, often the only tool, for a union side is to get its memembers hell bent on not accepting certain things. That blocks the negotiations. Fehr can tell Bettman, I hear what you are saying -- but if I came back to the players with a roll back of 20% they would sack me instantly and you would have to start over with a new guy.

I've been in simluar negotiations several times and believe me, the "its not up to me"-argument is hard to counter.

Fehr's strategy/goal is obviously to keep the cap at a level so that every current contract can be full-filled, while there is room for up coming free agents to sign. Like I've seen you speculate on, a cap a little over 60m enables exsiting contracts to be full-filled. Bettman can get % of HRR down from 57% to 52% without a roll back. Because the league has done so well, Bettman can get the percentage of HRR down alot while Fehr saves all existing contracts. There is room to get something done. But its clear were Fehr is drawing the line in the sand, and that line will be tough for Bettman to cross. That's what thoose reports from Fehr is about.

One way of doing that, drawing the line in the sand, for Fehr is to drum in the message to Bettman that he must put the season on line to get them to accept a low enough % of the HRR so that a roll back is necessary. To get the players hell bent on not accepting a roll back.

Because, there is not one single legit argument against a rollback, if the cap itself goes down to 52.5m. The players would still get the exact same monies no matter wheater there is a roll back. But the guys hitting the market the summer after the new CBA would be screwed at the account of players with contracts.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 03:01 PM
  #206
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
Brooks first reported a 31MM hard cap. The league ended up moving a long ways from that.

I just don't think the owners will have the resolve they had in 2004. The stakes are much lower for a lot of teams. Revenue sharing is the key and when Fehr presents his numbers he will show that the league is only currently spending 51-52% against the cap, not 57% and the revenue share is ridiculous. As much as I hate the Islanders, they don't get a dime in revenue share. Neither do the Ducks. Bettman and his boys ain't playing against the "B" team this time. You can be sure that as important as unity, the PA has data and a ton of it to drive the converstaon.
I could definitely be wrong, but I don't remember that being the case. I remember the 31m talk too, but wasn't that later in the summer?

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 03:08 PM
  #207
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Because, there is not one single legit argument against a rollback, if the cap itself goes down to 52.5m. The players would still get the exact same monies no matter wheater there is a roll back. But the guys hitting the market the summer after the new CBA would be screwed at the account of players with contracts.
So what you're saying is that if the Rangers now have a payroll of $65 million with the cap up to $70 million, the cap can be rolled back to $52.5 million and the Rangers now have say 17 of 20 players signed and they are already at or over the cap. Hardly makes sense.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 03:54 PM
  #208
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfinkel1 View Post
Too easy to game. A team like the Islanders give Tavares an 10 year, 62.5 million dollar contract.

Current: Cap Hit - 6.25m per year

They know they won't be competitive for 3-4 years so...

I would do,

First 5 years: Cap Hit 8 Mill
Last 5 years: Cap Hit 4.5

A team rebuilding could take advantage of this and game the system.
I'm confused how that would be gaming the system. That sounds exactly like what I intended. He's going to have an $8m cap hit for 5 years instead of a $6.25m cap hit for 10. The larger cap hit early on is a deterrent compared to averaging the entire length of a contract to balance out the prohibitive price of the first few years. By the way, the 2nd half of that deal would only be $4.5m if that was his salary in each of those seasons. If the 6th season is $8m and the 10th season is $1m, then he gets those numbers as his cap hit for those years.

He'd be foolish to sign that deal if that isn't the case. If he's got a $4.5m cap hit in the 2nd half of the contract, that's how much he will actually be making for each season. Why would Tavares sign that kind of deal when, in 5 years when he's a UFA at 26, he could make much more than that on the open market? The answer? He wouldn't.

Brad Richards doesn't care about the final 3 years of his deal only being a million a piece. Chances are, at that point in his career, that's all he's going to be getting from the open market anyway. The only reason why he agrees to those years at the end of the contract is because it allows the Rangers to pay him $12m for the first 2 years of the deal. He doesn't care that his contract is 9 years long. He wasn't looking for the stability of a 9 year deal. He was looking for the pay day up front.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 06:30 PM
  #209
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
So what you're saying is that if the Rangers now have a payroll of $65 million with the cap up to $70 million, the cap can be rolled back to $52.5 million and the Rangers now have say 17 of 20 players signed and they are already at or over the cap. Hardly makes sense.
Nah, each team has to get under the cap in some way. But if the players get 46% of the HRR, they will get 46% of HRR no matter if there is a roll back or not.

Let's say you add up all contracts, and you get a % higher than 46% of the HRR, the difference is paid back by the players to the owners (part of the salary is paid into an escrow account during the season).

The question if there will be a roll back, has no bearing on what actually will be paid out as a whole from the owners to the players.

The cap's only function really is to keep salaries "in the ball park", if you get what I mean.

The option, to a roll back, that was discussed last time was a dispersal draft. IE, teams could protect players up to the cap on their roster, and the rest could be picked by other teams (while their original teams still paid their salary).

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 06:48 PM
  #210
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
The PA offered a 24% rollback in the fall of 2004 in their proposal to avoid having to accept a cap. It wasn't part of the NHL offer. The NBA players took a cut in %. No rolback. The NFL took a cut and there was no rollback.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 06:51 PM
  #211
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
The cap is going from $70.2M to $54.2. If you believe that,that's your problem.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 06:56 PM
  #212
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
It will probably end up being set at around 62-64M when its done.

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 07:13 PM
  #213
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,001
vCash: 500
Correct me if I'm wrong... the league did not spend the cap limit this season? Something in the neighborhood of 54% or less?

This is the most sensible, seamless, spirit-of-partnership deal I can think of (and I'm not the originator). Agree on a split in the range of 54-52% (PA heavy), but freeze the cap at the current $70ish million. Keep it at that cap limit until the revenue falls to the agreed upon percent.

Raise the floor in return of raising the UFA age to 29... ultimately that is the split between the current age of 27 from the previous of 31.

Incorporate higher revenue sharing, or don't. I don't care. If the owners would rather make the players the bad guy and not help each other, fine. My team doesn't need handouts.

Raise the entry level deal to 4 or 5 years, the rookies always get screwed. But you can't take away arbitration on top of it. It's an institution. You're going to chase away legit talent to the foreign leagues.

Screw redefining revenues. They're not the NFL. The players are the product, any dollar a team makes is because of them. If increasing owner revenue by 50% in 7 years isn't enough, followed by increasing their share... I don't know what will ever make them happy. Not the proposed deal. They'll just whine in two years about how they can't make money, then some whiny schmuck GM from a whiner team will hand out multiple ridiculous contracts and whine some more about contracts ruining their team. Then he'll sit next el numero uno schmuck Bettman on the committee of whiners and shove another horrible deal up the rear end of the PA at the next CBA negotiation.

And then lock out the season.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 07:30 PM
  #214
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
December 15,2004

Quote:
Bettman said the 24% across-the-board salary rollback offered by the NHLPA, along with a reduction in entry-level salaries and a payroll tax, would not prevent player costs from continuing to rise at the same 12% that they have over the past 10 years. Goodenow, in turn, called the NHL's formula "wildly unreliable" and said that the NHL used "made-up numbers" to calculate the increase and to compute its claim that NHL revenues would increase only 3% over the course of a new collective bargaining agreement.
Quote:
"They rejected our proposal without really engaging in any negotiations," Goodenow said. "In short, the league took what they liked from our proposal, made major changes and slapped a salary cap on top of it."
Quote:
In addition to a salary cap, the NHL wants an elimination of salary arbitration and elimination of bonuses for entry-level (rookie) contracts. The NHLPA's proposal had included a reduction in entry-level salaries but did not include elimination of salary arbitration. The NHLPA felt the salary rollback would lower the league average and the comparables which are used in arbitration and would prevent the inflation of the past decade.
Sounds familiar. Arbitration remained in the CBA. Entry level contracts were lowered in this CBA. $1.2M MAX in 03-04 to $850,000 MAX in 05-06. The PA offered that in their December proposal. They even offered the qualifying offer changes.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004...p-bob-goodenow

The PA offered the rollback as a way of avoiding the cap but it didn't work. Bettman took their offer and stuck into his salary cap proposals. Holik blogged about that yesterday.

The $31M cap Brooks wrote about was a "soft" cap with luxury taxes. It changed to a hard cap.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2004/...cba-larry.html

Brooks should recuse himself from "reporting" on NHL labor issues.

The PA wasn't prepared in 2004. The CBA still worked out well for the players.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 08:55 PM
  #215
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
You want brooks to not report anything about the CBA? Then we wont get any info , unless zipay starts to do something

Just ignore his opinions if your that agaisnt what he thinks.

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 10:18 PM
  #216
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The cap is going from $70.2M to $54.2. If you believe that,that's your problem.
I was just considering it as a hypothetical situation.

A $10 M decrease in the upper limit for the cap would be way too drastic.

What do you think they'll settle at?

Jabroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 10:42 PM
  #217
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabroni1994 View Post
i was just considering it as a hypothetical situation.

A $10 m decrease in the upper limit for the cap would be way too drastic.

What do you think they'll settle at?
62-64m

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 10:59 PM
  #218
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CKL889 View Post
62-64m
Wouldn't that be close to the current cap upper limit of $64.3 M?

Or are you talking about the summer cap?

Jabroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 12:15 AM
  #219
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
$31MM Hard cap in 2004. Here's Brooks...

Quote:
Mark my words. In holding fast to its demand for percentage-of-the-gross, the NHL is on a path to canceling the season and then declaring a labor impasse next spring so that it can gain legal clearance to unilaterally implement its $31M hard-cap system in time for a 2005 Entry Draft and 2005-06 season. If the league is permitted to do so by the courts, the players will then immediately go out on strike. And then what? Does the league actually believe it can field teams of replacement players, that it can sell teams of strike-breakers to the public? Does the league think players of repute will cross the union line?
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/item_...#ixzz20kuZHyrt

I wonder if the NHL has a lockout fund this year.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 07:39 AM
  #220
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
$39M was the number used to set the cap. It jumped to $44M the following season. The first season used actual revenue to set the cap. So it was $44M in 2006-07. The PA should propose their own wacky proposal on Wednesday. No salary cap. Luxury tax system. Players want 65% of the HRR. Owners want 5 year ELC. No arbitration. Players accept the 5 year ELC offer for players 18-21 and no arbitration. Those players become group III after their 5 year ELC expires. Jones or MacKinnon become group IIIs when they're 23 years old assuming they play in the NHL as 18 year olds. Is that Bettman wants? That's how the NBA systems works. There is another season between the ELC and total free agency where the team can match an offer. Player signs a 1 year deal and then becomes a total free agent. The PA should exploit that loophole in their proposal.

10 year free agency. The one gain made by the players was younger free agency. They are not going backwards.

Quote:
Unrestricted Free Agency - For the 2005-06 season, a player age 31 with four accrued seasons will be an unrestricted free agent; in 2006-07, a player age 29 with four accrued seasons or with eight accrued seasons; in 2007-08, a player age 28 with four accrued seasons or with seven accrued seasons; beginning in 2008-09 and for the duration of the agreement, a player age 27 with four accrued seasons or with seven accrued seasons will be an unrestricted free agent. For purposes of qualifying for unrestricted free agency, the 2004-05 cancelled season will be counted as a year of accrued service.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 07:43 AM
  #221
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
52% of the $3.3B. Same formula. Add 5%. $8M added to the midpoint. Not $4M. $64,385,000. Same number as the 11-12 cap. If there is a lockout,the cap will need to set for the rest of 12-13 and 13-14.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 08:28 AM
  #222
rangerfan_79
Registered User
 
rangerfan_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to rangerfan_79
He pretty much summed up what I was thinking.

http://hockeyrodent.com/

It's doubtful any of the big contracts get moved prior to the CBA ratification.

rangerfan_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 09:36 AM
  #223
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
52% of the $3.3B. Same formula. Add 5%. $8M added to the midpoint. Not $4M. $64,385,000. Same number as the 11-12 cap. If there is a lockout,the cap will need to set for the rest of 12-13 and 13-14.
Nailed my prediction

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 10:26 AM
  #224
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,001
vCash: 500
The bottom teams are in better financial position this time around. It is more similar to the NBA/NFL environment than it was in 2005. The support to blow up part or all of a season won't be as strong. The support to drastically reduce the cap won't be as strong.

Obviously the league is lowballing to start. I'm trending towards the Brooks' tinfoil mentality though in the sense that I think that first offer was counter productive.

Unions look at deals for other unions. The NHLPA sees the revenue cuts for the other leagues. It's dropping close to 50%. But those drops weren't as drastic with the reduction of the pie. The NFL did the reduction, but the player cut didn't drop as much. The NBA gradually introduced the percentage drop.

Maybe the league is banking on the union splintering, I think they're ready for a fight. The got Fehr, they got abused last time, they have more ammunition. Before last Friday, I think there was a dialogue for cooperation. Now, the PA will be stingy. They got burned with the 24% offer last time, never again. They're going to nitpick over each and every line item, no more trade-off offers like: 55/45 split and the PA will accept a UFA age of 33. The league will take that age and counter with a 46/54 split.

We just need the league powerhouses to start acting like the league powerhouses. Bettman works for them, and if they aren't happy with his bargaining direction they need to exert control. Like we pointed out, too many teams won't be cap compliant with the current offer. The demands to make a sensible deal will be from a larger contingent than just Tor and NYR.

Alot will be garnered from the PA's counter and the league response. I'm biased admittedly, but I'll be happy if they play most of a season OR Bettman gets canned. I can make that trade off.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 11:19 AM
  #225
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
One change in salary arbitration. A player can only file once. Some players such as Ryan Callhan have filed twice. A team can take a player once to arbitration. It should be the same both ways.

RangerBoy 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 08:19 PM.

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.