HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

UFA frenzy 2012 Part 2: now with 46% less frenzy than the leading brand.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-04-2012, 03:43 PM
  #251
Lebanezer
Registered User
 
Lebanezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Chef View Post
Rich Chere ‏@Ledger_NJDevils
Parise's contract is front-loaded: $12M, 12M, 11M, 9M, 9M, 9M, 9M, 9M, 8M, 6M, 2M, 1M, 1M
This is so wrong. Shouldn't be allowed. Totally ridiculous.

Lebanezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 03:45 PM
  #252
Gene Parmesan
Spider 2 Y Banana.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 40,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanezer View Post
This is so wrong. Shouldn't be allowed. Totally ridiculous.
I think according to the next CBA they wont be.

Gene Parmesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 03:54 PM
  #253
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KzooShark View Post
Suter may end up being worth it.

Parise? About 1 in 100 they aren't squealing to dump that contract after about 8 years.
Watch Suter score less then 35 points... I'm serious this wouldn't surprise me in the least. Parise could be woth it if his knee can hold out

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 03:56 PM
  #254
Gene Parmesan
Spider 2 Y Banana.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 40,509
vCash: 500
oops

Gene Parmesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 03:58 PM
  #255
JS19
Four Kicks
 
JS19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanezer View Post
This is so wrong. Shouldn't be allowed. Totally ridiculous.
Quote:
Secondly, for long-term contracts that include years in which the player is 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40; the amount used for purposes of calculating his average annual value is a minimum of $1 million in each of those years (even if his actual compensation is less during those seasons).
(Using Kovalchuk reject as a comparable) Part of the reason why Kovalchuk was rejected was because in those years he was scheduled to make 550k for 5 years as an old man. Thing is Parise meets the $1mil minimum in the final years. And then the other reason is that salary drops off far beyond the 50% mark IIRC.

JS19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 03:58 PM
  #256
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
I think according to the next CBA they wont be.
The players feel they gave up too much last time. I think the players want these contracts to exist.

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:00 PM
  #257
Gene Parmesan
Spider 2 Y Banana.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 40,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
The players feel they gave up too much last time. I think the players want these contracts to exist.
Of course they do. Getting paid well passed retirement sounds good to me if I were Parise.

Gene Parmesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:02 PM
  #258
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
Of course they do. Getting paid well passed retirement sounds good to me if I were Parise.
So as a result I don't think the new CBA will address this

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:03 PM
  #259
JS19
Four Kicks
 
JS19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
The players feel they gave up too much last time. I think the players want these contracts to exist.
I'm not sure I see how they gave up too much clearly...Hindsight: NHL Salary Cap has now reached 70mil (as of this offseason) = Players are enjoying higher salaries than previous years while maintaining profitability, League has been enjoying rising profits each year = Players' 57% split now looks a lot more bigger than 2005's split. From a hockey standpoint, salary cap = 60-70% of teams are competitive instead of just 3 big FA spenders = quality competition and changing Stanley Cup Champions.

If they want big contracts...something has to give = 50/50 split for big contracts or lose big contracts for something lesser.

JS19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:06 PM
  #260
Nighthock
**** the Kings...
 
Nighthock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 15,944
vCash: 500
two utterly ridiculous contracts, but bravo to Minnesota for getting the top two FAs

Nighthock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:07 PM
  #261
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS19 View Post
I'm not sure I see how they gave up too much clearly...Hindsight: NHL Salary Cap has now reached 70mil (as of this offseason) = Players are enjoying higher salaries than previous years while maintaining profitability, League has been enjoying rising profits each year = Players' 57% split now looks a lot more bigger than 2005's split. From a hockey standpoint, salary cap = 60-70% of teams are competitive instead of just 3 big FA spenders.

If they want big contracts...something has to give = 50/50 split for big contracts or lost big contracts for something lesser.
From DPs blog http://www.mercurynews.com/sharks

Murray, again following Fehrís lead, did note that players gave up a lot in 2004-05 when they agreed to take a 24 percent pay cut as part of the settlement.

ďThe last agreement, we gave up huge concessions. Thereís no secret to that. We took a big hit last time. Thatís how it went. Iím pretty sure no player wants to give up anything like that this time around.

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:08 PM
  #262
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,875
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
Shouldn't the NHLPA care more about protecting the middle of the road/bottom line players that both make up a larger portion of their union and need more salary help? There must be some way they can balance limiting huge contracts while having enough cap space to protect the bottom line players.

CrazedZooChimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:08 PM
  #263
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
Shouldn't the NHLPA care more about protecting the middle of the road/bottom line players that both make up a larger portion of their union and need more salary help? There must be some way they can balance limiting huge contracts while having enough cap space to protect the bottom line players.
Cap floor

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:09 PM
  #264
Gene Parmesan
Spider 2 Y Banana.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 40,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
So as a result I don't think the new CBA will address this
I don't see why they won't approve a maximum length on contracts. I don't care about the money but the frontloading and length just seems sketchy.

Gene Parmesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:11 PM
  #265
Swervin81
Du-du-du-du-du-duel
 
Swervin81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KpopandHockey View Post
They should, it's pretty obvious it's a 10 year contract with added years to lower the cap.
Absolutely agreed. That being said, this will be the last we'll be seeing of these front-loaded deals, and probably the deals north of 5-6 years in length. Pretty sure the upcoming CBA will put a stop to both.

If they really wanted to even punish those current contracts that will have to be grandfathered in the new CBA, just change the formula of how the cap hit is calculated.

Swervin81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:11 PM
  #266
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
I don't see why they won't approve a maximum length on contracts. I don't care about the money but the frontloading and length just seems sketchy.
That would be a concession. The players would want more long contracts not less

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:12 PM
  #267
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swervin81 View Post
Absolutely agreed. That being said, this will be the last we'll be seeing of these front-loaded deals, and probably the deals north of 5-6 years in length. Pretty sure the upcoming CBA will put a stop to both.
Not sure if it is worth a lockout... What would you give the players to make up for this. A soft cap?

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:20 PM
  #268
JS19
Four Kicks
 
JS19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Not sure if it is worth a lockout... What would you give the players to make up for this. A soft cap?
I don't think term is the problem as opposed to the actual dollars being thrown out there...if you limit the dollars, the term should follow without having to limit the term.

I'm in favour of an idea such as this:

Quote:
Within a new SPC (Standard Player Contract), no yearly salary can be less than 50% of the highest salary within the span of that contract.
If you want to pay a guy $8M early on, you can go no lower than $4M in later years. It's fantasy to think that a team can project exactly when a given player's effectiveness will drop off 5, 6, or 7 years into a deal, and those final four seasons on the Hossa deal are nothing more than a sad joke.
Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl,wp8607

Players get the benefit of having money without the cap circumvention (let's be real...do you really think all of the contracts are going to last? Players lose 3-5mil at most subtracting the 1mil per each year over 35+ rule).

JS19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:21 PM
  #269
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,673
vCash: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanezer View Post
This is so wrong. Shouldn't be allowed. Totally ridiculous.
Shouldn't be allowed why? Because we can't do it?

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:22 PM
  #270
Swervin81
Du-du-du-du-du-duel
 
Swervin81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Not sure if it is worth a lockout... What would you give the players to make up for this. A soft cap?
A soft cap is just asking for a disaster because smaller markets won't be able to pay luxury tax penalties while big markets can afford them, so what you'll end up having is a convoluted mess of 5-10 big markets and the rest being farm teams to those big markets.

Layman's terms: A soft cap would be even worse than having no cap at all.

Swervin81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:25 PM
  #271
one2gamble
Registered User
 
one2gamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
Shouldn't be allowed why? Because we can't do it?
You mean won't. Its already hampering the teams ability to compete. Something has to give.

one2gamble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:27 PM
  #272
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by one2gamble View Post
You mean won't. Its already hampering the teams ability to compete. Something has to give.
The Sharks have been competing just fine

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:29 PM
  #273
one2gamble
Registered User
 
one2gamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
The Sharks have been competing just fine
Sneaking into the playoffs and getting beat down in the first round is competing?

Realistically, going forward they will not be able to keep first line players unless they trade for them if they are unwilling to sign deals like this. secondly, will the sharks even trade for a contract like that?

one2gamble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:31 PM
  #274
Graveland
HONE YOUR CRAFT
 
Graveland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: United States
Posts: 11,609
vCash: 500
Haha what the hell did I wake up to, I almost feel bad for the Wings thought they'd get at least one.

Graveland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 04:32 PM
  #275
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by one2gamble View Post
Sneaking into the playoffs and getting beat down in the first round is competing?

Realistically, going forward they will not be able to keep first line players unless they trade for them if they are unwilling to sign deals like this. secondly, will the sharks even trade for a contract like that?
The Stanley cup champs snuck into the playoffs man. Also I am pretty sure the Sharks would have beaten the Kings in 6. The Sharks have kept their first line talent just fine. Both Marleau and Thornton could have received fairly similar contracts.

WantonAbandon 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 02:42 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.