I'm happy Fehr's cutting through the **** and getting down to business. Less time arguing to get to middle ground means more time to get this done before the season's supposed to start.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
Obviously neither side is going to like the others first proposal. That's how these things work.
That being said, the players offer, imo, is closer to the finished product than the owners is. They didn't go nearly as extreme to their side, and actually presented some decent concessions.
Had this thought today, would anybody be happy with a salary cap, but players you drafted (who have never played for or were under contract of another team) are exempt. This way it keeps the good parts of the cap (rich teams can't stock up on UFAs and buy playoff spots/cups) but it still allows teams to keep all talent they drafted and developed even if that means they have 3 or 4 very high end talents.
Had this thought today, would anybody be happy with a salary cap, but players you drafted (who have never played for or were under contract of another team) are exempt. This way it keeps the good parts of the cap (rich teams can't stock up on UFAs and buy playoff spots/cups) but it still allows teams to keep all talent they drafted and developed even if that means they have 3 or 4 very high end talents.
Love it! I've been trying to think of a way for small market teams to protect their homegrown talent.
I also thought about territorial rights like the CFL had/has.
Love it! I've been trying to think of a way for small market teams to protect their homegrown talent.
I also thought about territorial rights like the CFL had/has.
One thing I am not sure about is traded players
For example Turris isn't home grown talent, but we did give up home grown talent for him instead of getting him for nothing (UFA) so I'm not sure how that would work, but I think the basic idea would be good
I'd be opposed to that idea. It makes the rich teams richer because they can afford to sign 'homegrown' talent, have it not count against the cap, then poach small market team's stars up to the cap ceiling, knowing those small market teams have an internal budget and won't be able to match massive sums of money.
Example: Picture Pittsburgh's roster now right.
Take Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Letang, and Orpik off the team cap hit. You've just added $20M more cap, for $30M total free cap space. They could've easily poached Weber, Suter, and Parise in one offseason and still been under the ceiling.
You know how much people ***** about Pittsburgh landing their core through the lottery? Yeah... well it'd be that x1000 now that those guys don't count against the cap and Pittsburgh can afford to go after more superstars.
The cap would be quite a bit lower of course (I would put it around 40) but this doesn't reward rich teams it rewards teams that draft well.
Example: Edmonton
They could sign all the talent they drafted and developed without having to give it up just because they did a good job drafting a developing
Edmonton will be able to sign all their talent under the current salary cap structure just fine. See this thread.
The problem isn't that it's not a good idea to give teams an ability to retain homegrown talent. The problem is that it'd be another massive obstacle for CBA negotiations (owners want a hard cap, this would make it a soft cap) and it'd require a very complex set of rules to accompany it to ensure no team could gain a substantial advantage (eg teams that draft 1st overall three times in a row would have three superstars not count against the cap, which is a clear cut advantage over a team that's consistently drafting in the 20-30 range).
Edmonton will be able to sign all their talent under the current salary cap structure just fine. See this thread.
The problem isn't that it's not a good idea to give teams an ability to retain homegrown talent. The problem is that it'd be another massive obstacle for CBA negotiations (owners want a hard cap, this would make it a soft cap) and it'd require a very complex set of rules to accompany it to ensure no team could gain a substantial advantage (eg teams that draft 1st overall three times in a row would have three superstars not count against the cap, which is a clear cut advantage over a team that's consistently drafting in the 20-30 range).
The CBA is a good point, and Edmonton will likely keep their players, but how much room do they have to build around them with a hard cap.
For the draft position advantage remember that to get those 1st picks a team has to be losing badly for years, and this would be just as unfair as it is now for a team to get to pick 3 superstars, which I don't really find it to be. Also, teams in the 20-30 range are among the best in the league so I have no problem of them having an advantage, however under a league that favours drafting they would likely have a a couple superstars protected too or else they wouldn't be able to consistently draft 20-30
RAther than simply have homegrown talent not count against the cap maybe it would be better to have homegrown players count against the cap at a discounted rate depending on the contract they get: large contracts don't get as much of a discount as small ones, sort of like compensation for offer sheets.
The cap would be quite a bit lower of course (I would put it around 40) but this doesn't reward rich teams it rewards teams that draft well.
Example: Edmonton
They could sign all the talent they drafted and developed without having to give it up just because they did a good job drafting a developing
Literally LOL'd at this, id like to see a clause that penalizes teams that clearly make no effort at improving their team, or even competeing in the league for that matter! Edmonton is the Kramer of the NHL walk around aimlessly and fall ass backwards into fortune!
Literally LOL'd at this, id like to see a clause that penalizes teams that clearly make no effort at improving their team, or even competeing in the league for that matter! Edmonton is the Kramer of the NHL walk around aimlessly and fall ass backwards into fortune!
As was pittsburgh and to a certain extent Toronto, TO just had no management and decided to trade most of it away for a guy who's contract will be up for renewal soon (I love that part)
We should not be rewarding suckage to the extent that Edmonton has demonstrated.
Beginning to look more and more like a lockout is coming. It's a shame to say the least. While I don't think we'll lose another full season you can never be to certain with Gary Bettman at the controls.
__________________
Kudos to the Ottawa Senators for the great season despite injuries to their 3 best players.
Had this thought today, would anybody be happy with a salary cap, but players you drafted (who have never played for or were under contract of another team) are exempt. This way it keeps the good parts of the cap (rich teams can't stock up on UFAs and buy playoff spots/cups) but it still allows teams to keep all talent they drafted and developed even if that means they have 3 or 4 very high end talents.
Has does this address the owners concerns?
The problem is money, specifically owners losing money. Any plan that doesn't stop the financial bleeding isn't a plan.
All you are suggesting is making a set of players exempt from being "cap hits", but they owners still have to pay them, so what's changed?
Beginning to look more and more like a lockout is coming. It's a shame to say the least. While I don't think we'll lose another full season you can never be to certain with Gary Bettman at the controls.
Hate to agree with you, but I do.
IMO if something doesn't break by later next week the season isn't starting on time.
A shortened season is inevitable. Hopefully both sides aren't stupid enough to force cancellation of the season. They are far apart. The central issue is how to deal with weak teams. Revenue sharing vs a lower cap. They say the players are more united but we'll see how long that lasts when December rolls around and they still aren't playing because the owners won't blink.
Yeah I was optmistic that a deal could be made before the season started but it's looking real grim right now.
I don't know about you guys but I'd say that this time around the owners bear more of the responsibility: the players accepted the cap and it turns out that the way the cap was calculated ended up screwing over a lot of teams that weren't in big markets (unforseen consequences I guess). The rich teams need to understand that the health of the league is partly their responsibility, sure the players have a bigger share in league revenues than I think they should (50-50 seems like what they should be aiming for I believe), but you can't have the rich teams dictating the cap and refusing to address the consequences of it. You can't simply keep taking from the players to address something that the owners have the most power to fix if they accept the reality of disparity of teams on a financial basis.
As if we needed another reason to hate the Maple Leafs!
Yeah I was optmistic that a deal could be made before the season started but it's looking real grim right now.
I don't know about you guys but I'd say that this time around the owners bear more of the responsibility: the players accepted the cap and it turns out that the way the cap was calculated ended up screwing over a lot of teams that weren't in big markets (unforseen consequences I guess). The rich teams need to understand that the health of the league is partly their responsibility, sure the players have a bigger share in league revenues than I think they should (50-50 seems like what they should be aiming for I believe), but you can't have the rich teams dictating the cap and refusing to address the consequences of it. You can't simply keep taking from the players to address something that the owners have the most power to fix if they accept the reality of disparity of teams on a financial basis.
As if we needed another reason to hate the Maple Leafs!
I don't think it's as clear cut as saying the owners bear responsibility. The owners are hardly a united front, in fact they are probably closer to being in three camps; the have-lots, the have-somes, and the have-nots... The cap and floor have increased due to the popularity of the have-lots, which has begun to hinder the ability of the have-nots to compete equally. The have-somes are now starting to feel the pinch as many, like us, are on internal caps based on their rebuild cycle and are being forced to overspend "just because". Players are going to have to accept a smaller piece of the revenue pie, and the have-lots are going to have to agree to a more comprehensively funded revenue sharing arrangement. This is the only way the the have-nots, and to a lesser extent the have-somes, will be able to compete on level ground with the have-lots. the players will be forced to take a smaller cut of the revenue (and perhaps a rollback), but on the whole they are still well compensated and will most likely be making more on average than they were during the early years of the last deal (smaller percentage of increasing revenue may = larger percentage of less revenue)
I would imagine that a 50-50 split might be what they both agree with in the end, which a more robust revenue sharing set up. The players first proposal is about as far away from that as the owners' at this point. Irrespective of the last deal both the players and the wealthy teams are going to have to make large concessions to keep the league healthy moving forward.
In my opinion, all of the talk about what the players gave up last time has no bearing. This is a new negotiation that deals with the current setup and I doubt the final agreement will pay any credence to what players gave up last time. What has obviously been discovered is that wealthy teams can exploit loopholes that put the have-not franchises under the gun. The large markets have enough fan support to drive up league revenues which has allowed them to effectively continue to pay up to an ever increasing cap, while the have-not-as-muches are forced to struggle to in some cases meet the cap floor (this struggle can be financial, or simply having to find overpayed players to replaced lesser payed players already on your team). In effect we're moving back to where we where before the salary cap in the sense that tiers are being created.
An interesting case is our Senators. We have a full roster, on which everyone is being payed an agreed upon salary, we have an up-and-coming young team that is competitive, yet we are in danger of having to make moves just to find someone we can pay more to get to the salary floor. From a business and fan standpoint this makes no sense and illustrates a serious flaw in the system.
The players and wealthy teams both have a lot to lose if the league falters or teams are lost, to this end, the onus is really on these two groups together to agree on fair and equitable concessions going forward.
The problem is that common sense rarely carries the day in these types of negotiations, rather neither side likes to give up ground gained for ideological and strategical reasons, especially when money is a stake. There is a game of chicken that needs to be played before the end is in sight, that is unless a few rational minds from each side are able to take control. Given the history, this I doubt...
