HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

All CBA talk goes here (NHL offers 50/50 deal - 82 game deadline passed)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2012, 01:57 PM
  #201
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,687
vCash: 500
https://twitter.com/dshoalts

Quote:
Don Fehr: we do believe proposal players made today can produce stable industry. Players indicated they take lower share revenue next 3 yrs.

Fehr: if revenue grows in next 3 yrs, reduced compensation could hit $455-million. Offer more revenue sharing - as much as $250-m next 3 yr

Players propose 3 year deal with option for fourth. Fehr said will take owners "some time to understand."

Fehr says be wrong to interpret there no hard salary cap in proposal. Said will still be a hard cap.

Fehr said players willing to reduce share of income because some franchises in trouble.

Players propose there be no changes to player contracts under existing rules.

Fehr flanked by most of 23 players who attended meeting. Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos front and centre. All look solemn.

Fehr won't predict how owners react to their reaction. "I'm out of prediction business."

Fehr says talks somewhere between frank and cordial. Frank is lawyer-speak for hostile.

Fehr said offer was after 3 yrs of working under their proposal an option to revert to current CBA in 4th year.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:07 PM
  #202
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The problem is that if the NHL doesn't address the widening gap of revenues from team to team via expanded revenue sharing, you will get a situation where the Cap to floor gap gets larger and larger and you have a lot of team struggling to get to the floor while the big revenue clubs are consistently near the cap.
I've already state this myself in a few posts in this thread. But that doesn't mean a MLB style model is needed. You seem to think thats the only way to improve revenue sharing.

Quote:
Besides, as the Bills, Cowboys, Raiders, and Redskins will attest, it's about how you spend your money more than how much you spend.

Just as the NY Rangers and Toronto Maple Leafs would pre-lockout.
Again I've already stated this as well.

You're also ignroing or missing the point about a level playing field. Its about each team having a somewhat equal chance of putting together a winner. Its not about what those teams do with that chance. The NFL has the most level playing field. MLB doens't have a very level playing field.

You can't have such large payroll disparties like MLB does and claim a level playing field.

Quote:
Looking at the pre-lockout NHL, you did have 5 SC champs the 7 seasons before the lockout (TB, NJ (2), Det (2), Col, & Dal) and 7 runners up (Cal, Ana, Car, NJ, Dal, Buf, Wash).

If you look at those 10 teams, there is a mix of big to small revenue clubs
And all but one (TB) were bigger markets. The small markets got there on the backs of hot goalies and didn't return. Something I already posted about in my previous post.



But this is missing the bigger picture. The MLB model doesn't make sense for the NHL. How the sports are played and impacted by payroll is very different as is the economics of each league. For example MLB has many more big market teams that can drive the overall league revenues. Thats not the case in the NHL. There are only a handful of big markets in the NHL.

The MLB model, with its huge disparity in payrolls, would also hurt the product on the ice. Smaller markets pre-lockout tried to stay competitive in the only way they could....... Trap hockey. It costs money to have an offensive team and with no cap and few drags on salaries like the MLB model. Small markets will have little choice but to invest in net and on a few dmen, then trap away. MLB economics don;t really imapct how the game is played.


Its also worth noting that most teams were in very bad shape economically pre-lockout. There are still some in rough shape and that has to be addressed with better revenue sharing among other things. But the economics have improved greatly for many teams. The Sabres for example were either breaking even, making a small profit post lockout spending far more on payroll than they ever did prelockout (when they weren't doing very well economically).


Last edited by joshjull: 08-14-2012 at 02:16 PM.
joshjull is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:13 PM
  #203
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I've already state this myself in a few ppost in this thread. But that doesn't mean a MLB style model is needed. You seem to think thats the only way to improve revenue sharing.
No, I don't believe that is the case at all.

You can have a lot more revenue sharing within a cap system. I just believe that to continue with a cap system without expanding revenue sharing significantly that you won't get the "level playing field" that you talk about the NHL needing.

Just look at how the payroll spread changed between 05/06 and 11/12.

As total revenues grow, the gap between the cap and the floor will grow. And the "level playing field" becomes less and less level.

The best "level playing field" scenario is expanding revenue sharing to the point that you can have a very small cap to floor gap (say less than $8M) and most teams are OK financially.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:17 PM
  #204
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
No, I don't believe that is the case at all.

You can have a lot more revenue sharing within a cap system. I just believe that to continue with a cap system without expanding revenue sharing significantly that you won't get the "level playing field" that you talk about the NHL needing.

Just look at how the payroll spread changed between 05/06 and 11/12.

As total revenues grow, the gap between the cap and the floor will grow. And the "level playing field" becomes less and less level.
I've never argued for that. So I've been baffled by you insisting I have.

Quote:
The best "level playing field" scenario is expanding revenue sharing to the point that you can have a very small cap to floor gap (say less than $8M) and most teams are OK financially
That would not level the playing field on the ice.

You're also mixing issues. Revenue sharing and the cap floor are not the same thing. Though they do impact each other.

joshjull is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:20 PM
  #205
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I've never argued for that. So I've been baffled by you insisting I have.
Where did I insist that you did?

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:22 PM
  #206
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
That would not level the playing field on the ice.
What would be a better scenario than having a much smaller gap between the top end spending teams and the low end spending teams?

Last year the gap was $17M between the Flyers & Isles. That was actually down from the roughly $20M+ the previous two seasons.

I think reducing that gap would help level the playing field and not hurt it.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:26 PM
  #207
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
What would be a better scenario than having a much smaller gap between the top end spending teams and the low end spending teams?

Last year the gap was $17M between the Flyers & Isles. That was actually down from the roughly $20M+ the previous two seasons.

I think reducing that gap would help level the playing field and not hurt it.
I misread what you posted. I thought you said a cap floor of 8mil. Not a salary gap of 8mil.

joshjull is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:31 PM
  #208
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I misread what you posted. I thought you said a cap floor of 8mil. Not a salary gap of 8mil.
I would love to see the look on Fehr's face if the NHL proposed that.


WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:26 PM
  #209
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,687
vCash: 500

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:44 PM
  #210
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 500
I haven't been following much but I have question about the possibility Grigorenko could play in the AHL next year because the AHL-CHL transfer agreement expired? Can someone tell me if this is true?

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:59 PM
  #211
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I haven't been following much but I have question about the possibility Grigorenko could play in the AHL next year because the AHL-CHL transfer agreement expired? Can someone tell me if this is true?
I did read somewhere today that the NHL-CHL agreement expired, yes.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:04 PM
  #212
mechaphil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BFLO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to mechaphil
From Jeff Marek:

"Rumours of NHL/CHL agreement expiring - the arrangement is tied to the NHL/PA CBA since there are elements of the deal that affect the CHL."

https://twitter.com/JeffMarek/status/235481846866145280

More from Marek:

"Having said that, the CHL expects the AHL to honour their leagues deal with players and not allow a flood of 19 year olds into the league if ..there is a lockout."

https://twitter.com/JeffMarek/status/235482167994626048
https://twitter.com/JeffMarek/status/235482215272837120

mechaphil is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:03 PM
  #213
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,333
vCash: 500
PHIL!!! Hey everyone it's Phil!

Will you be the power forward on my Sabres internet hockey forum team? A signing bonus can be negotiated.

Sabresfansince1980 is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:04 AM
  #214
TheyAreGoodScaryGood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I haven't been following much but I have question about the possibility Grigorenko could play in the AHL next year because the AHL-CHL transfer agreement expired? Can someone tell me if this is true?
The agreement has expired, but they will work on negotiating a new one so we wont know more for a while. I heard that maybe instead of having to play 4 CHL years before playing AHL it may get changed to 3 CHL seasons. So grigs would still need one more year in the Q, which isnt a bad thing

TheyAreGoodScaryGood is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 08:44 AM
  #215
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,687
vCash: 500
http://tracking.si.com/2012/08/15/de...sct=nhl_t11_a2

The Brian Burke trade cap space idea was one of the new items in the NHLPA's proposal.

Quote:
NHLPA has also proposed extra draft picks for teams in financial trouble that could be used, traded or sold, Post has learned...
That is interesting, too.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 09:16 AM
  #216
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,263
vCash: 500
You shouldn't be able to trade cap space. You should be able to pay up to 2/2.5 million in salary on a contract you're shipping out. The former helps the big market teams and allows owners to be cheaper, the latter allows smaller markets to add more players and have more team building flexibility.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:59 AM
  #217
Layne Staley
Registered User
 
Layne Staley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 500
Players got no leverage here. For 2/3rds of the league, the owners will be more then happy having the league shut down and them not having to lose millions of dollars. Every owner made their money outside of owning a pro sports team, so the players better realize the owners won't give in and that the owners will just go to their other investments. I wonder how many players would cross a picket line if the owners played hardball.....

Layne Staley is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 02:54 PM
  #218
ckg927
Registered User
 
ckg927's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,550
vCash: 400
Send a message via Yahoo to ckg927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
Players got no leverage here. For 2/3rds of the league, the owners will be more then happy having the league shut down and them not having to lose millions of dollars. Every owner made their money outside of owning a pro sports team, so the players better realize the owners won't give in and that the owners will just go to their other investments. I wonder how many players would cross a picket line if the owners played hardball.....
I wonder how many teams would still be alive if the fans decided to play financial hardball and not give them a cent of their money on account of them being POed with how the owners AND players are screwing with them just like they did in 2004.

I think it's time we let our teams know just how we feel on this matter...

ckg927 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 03:02 PM
  #219
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 14,152
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
Players got no leverage here. For 2/3rds of the league, the owners will be more then happy having the league shut down and them not having to lose millions of dollars. Every owner made their money outside of owning a pro sports team, so the players better realize the owners won't give in and that the owners will just go to their other investments. I wonder how many players would cross a picket line if the owners played hardball.....
Are you saying 2/3rds of the league's teams lose millions of dollars?

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 03:06 PM
  #220
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
Players got no leverage here. For 2/3rds of the league, the owners will be more then happy having the league shut down and them not having to lose millions of dollars. Every owner made their money outside of owning a pro sports team, so the players better realize the owners won't give in and that the owners will just go to their other investments. I wonder how many players would cross a picket line if the owners played hardball.....
There's barely enough talent level league wide today to cover 30 teams.

If they fielded teams with players on AHL only and ECHL deals, they might as well shutter the league for good.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 03:58 PM
  #221
Layne Staley
Registered User
 
Layne Staley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
Are you saying 2/3rds of the league's teams lose millions of dollars?
2/3rds was a hyperbole but I'd say 10-15 teams lose money.

Hell, didn't Buffalo lose money last year even?It's a moot point because Pegula doesn't care about money but the rest of the franchise owners aren't as generous.

A lot of teams rely on revenue sharing to survive.Look at teams like New Jersey and Nashville.Both have attendance issues and lose money yet are competitive year in and year out.Phoenix is on it's last legs, and a lot of Southern teams and the Isles etc are all losing money.The NHL has a lot of problems and isn't really on solid footing.This is potentially going to be the 3rd season since 1994-95 where they lose games due to a lockout.That's not good.

Layne Staley is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 07:15 PM
  #222
ckg927
Registered User
 
ckg927's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,550
vCash: 400
Send a message via Yahoo to ckg927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
2/3rds was a hyperbole but I'd say 10-15 teams lose money.

Hell, didn't Buffalo lose money last year even?It's a moot point because Pegula doesn't care about money but the rest of the franchise owners aren't as generous.

A lot of teams rely on revenue sharing to survive.Look at teams like New Jersey and Nashville.Both have attendance issues and lose money yet are competitive year in and year out.Phoenix is on it's last legs, and a lot of Southern teams and the Isles etc are all losing money.The NHL has a lot of problems and isn't really on solid footing.This is potentially going to be the 3rd season since 1994-95 where they lose games due to a lockout.That's not good.
And the third time had better be a charm for Bettman's getting his ass tossed out the door. (Yeah, I know it won't happen, but...) Two of those stoppages happened on HIS watch.

Bettman and Fehr had better remember this: I can turn to any number of sources for my hockey fix: the AHL(3 teams within 100 miles of Buffalo), the OHL(a LOT of teams in the same radius), 2 D1 programs in WNY(and a few others distant), a D3 program, etc. I personally wish the fans would just en masse demand their ST money back and tell anyone else who wants to get them to not waste their money, if both sides are going to play us for fools yet again.

ckg927 is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 10:51 AM
  #223
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Unless you're pushing back UFA to 30, limiting contract length is bad for small markets. The only way teams like Tampa, Columbus and Carolina got to keep their stars (even if Nash demanded a trade later on) was long term, high cap deals. Now, this eventually became irrelevant because big teams got to have their cake and eat it too via frontloaded deals,
The only thing that would impact whether or not those markets could keep their talent when they became UFAs is the wishes of that talent.

Making the cap hit and salary for each year the same while also limiting contract length, protects teams like Nashville from offersheets on stud young players like Weber. Offersheets are rare now, but they would be non existant in this proposed contract scenario.

When combined with the NHL's proposal of 5 year entry level deals, smaller markets can keep their higher end young talent at a more reasonable cost and would likely have them for at least 10 years (ELC + 2nd contract).

Quote:
but five year contract limits are going to turn into the NBA, where role players are cyclically overpaid because they turn into valuable expiring contracts in 2-5 years and there's no incentive for the best players to do anything other than go to the best teams.
Actually it would be the opposite.

Right now mid level players are already making out in the NHL because the free agent market is weak each summmer with so many players locked into long term deals. That will only continue in a market that allowed long term deals. By having a 5 year limit it would create a better UFA market each summer with the better players cycling back into the free agency pool.

Also if cap hit and salary had to be equal and the length of the deal was restricted (in this case 5 years). Then the only thing a team could do to reward their top players is the actual per year amount. You would see the per year salaries of the top players skyrocket. Thus tying up more of a teams cap allottment with their top players. This would in turn reduce the amount left over for the support players.


Last edited by joshjull: 08-16-2012 at 11:31 AM.
joshjull is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 11:07 AM
  #224
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,623
vCash: 500
I cannot believe these fools are actually willing to have yet ANOTHER lookout. They can kiss any progress they have made since the last one goodbye. They will likely lose a ton of fans and this time they will not be so easily won back. It really is an awful idea for both sides.

CarlWinslow is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 11:19 AM
  #225
Timbo Slice
Tank Nation
 
Timbo Slice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 15,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
2/3rds was a hyperbole but I'd say 10-15 teams lose money.

Hell, didn't Buffalo lose money last year even?It's a moot point because Pegula doesn't care about money but the rest of the franchise owners aren't as generous.

A lot of teams rely on revenue sharing to survive.Look at teams like New Jersey and Nashville.Both have attendance issues and lose money yet are competitive year in and year out.Phoenix is on it's last legs, and a lot of Southern teams and the Isles etc are all losing money.The NHL has a lot of problems and isn't really on solid footing.This is potentially going to be the 3rd season since 1994-95 where they lose games due to a lockout.That's not good.
Where are you getting this from?

Edit: Must be from Forbes Team Valuations...


Last edited by Timbo Slice: 08-16-2012 at 11:26 AM.
Timbo Slice 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 09:48 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.