HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Hard Salary Cap and the end of NHL trades

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2005, 02:00 PM
  #76
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
also of course you know signing bonuses DO indeed count against the cap in the nfl.
Yep.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:01 PM
  #77
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
they are not able to pay more money than other teams. they can only pay more money upfront than other teams
Thus, they have an advantage.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:04 PM
  #78
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Actually, what you outline is what many of the pro-PA conspiracy whackos have been saying for weeks around here. The lockout, you see, is a grand scheme to insure that nearly all the good players in the league wind up in New York, Chicago and LA with a smattering of them in places like Detroit, Dallas, Philly and Toronto. It's so obvious, isnt it.

Once again, the NFL system has proven that star players don't flee their teams often when given unrestricted free agency. If Green Bay can keep Brett Favre and Ahman Green (not to mention land Reggie White), I think Atlanta, Minnesota and Ottawa will be just fine.
And when did the NHL propose the NFL's system? Once again, you're forgetting revenue sharing. Thats where the NFL's success started.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:07 PM
  #79
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Actually, what you outline is what many of the pro-PA conspiracy whackos...
Now that you have branded those of us who happen to think that your POV is flawed as "whackos," why don't you address the "Ottawa scenario" I outlined in my previous post?

Surely, a non-whacko such as yourself will be able to intelligently and honestly admit that such a scenario (i.e., the forced divestiture of solid support player in order to retain "star" players) exists regularly today in the NFL under the hardcap nirvana you portray, no?

But let us guess: that's "inconsequential", those players are all "interchangeable".


Last edited by Trottier: 01-22-2005 at 02:17 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:08 PM
  #80
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Thus, they have an advantage.
ill concede that. However if a player is too stupid to realize that they would be getting the same amount of money either way but one way theyd just get it up front then good riddance

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:11 PM
  #81
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And when did the NHL propose the NFL's system? Once again, you're forgetting revenue sharing. Thats where the NFL's success started.
Revenue sharing is a key component to the NFL's success. But revenue sharing alone, without a cap, would not give the NFL the balance it has today.
Even with all its revenue sharing, some NFL teams make more than others. In some cases, the disparity is as wide as $100 million a year.
Remove the cap, and you'd see the owners of the better-off teams using that huge advantage to sign away the poorer team's best players. Kind of like what we have in baseball right now.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:11 PM
  #82
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Now that you have branded those of us who happen to think that your POV is flawed as "whackos" s , why don't you adress the "Ottawa scenario" I outlined in my previous post?

Surely, a non-whacko such as yourself will be able to intelligently and honestly admit that such a scenario (i.e., the forced divestiture of solid support player in order to retain star players) exists regularly today in the NFL under the hardcap nirvana you portray, no?

But let us guess: that's "inconsequential", those players are all "interchangeable".
do you dispute that there are ProNHLPA whackos?

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:12 PM
  #83
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
No one has ever talked about this but, if the NHL does in fact get an NFL modeled salary cap that could mean the end of NHL trades between teams as we know it. As you know in the NFL 99% of transactions is free agency and 1% is trades between teams which usually ONLY ends up being for draft picks. So the samething could happen to the NHL. I love trades, the NHL trading deadline is such a fun time to see what deals go down and who ends up getting who. And if an NFL system is implemented theres a good chance player for player trades will go by the wayside cause it will be done with ALL free agents instead. I think it would definitely ruin an aspect of the league, just wondering your thoughts on this.
So how many big trades last year, and what were the reason behind those trades?

I know change is hard to accept, but that's how the NHL will improve overall...

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:13 PM
  #84
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Remove the cap, and you'd see the owners of the better-off teams using that huge advantage to sign away the poorer team's best players. Kind of like what we have in baseball right now.


With the "terrible" on field (competitive) result of:

2001 champion Arizona Diamondbacks

2002 champion Anaheim Angels

2003 champion Florida Marlins

2004 champion Boston Red Sox.

Oh, the horror!

Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
do you dispute that there are ProNHLPA whackos?
Heck, no. They live among us, on both sides!

Trottier is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:13 PM
  #85
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
ill concede that. However if a player is too stupid to realize that they would be getting the same amount of money either way but one way theyd just get it up front then good riddance
A player would be a fool not to take the upfront money. I think there's an excellent chance contracts will not be guaranteed, and even if they are, there will be very favorable buyout clauses. I can't imagine any player ot taking upfront, guaranteed money.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:13 PM
  #86
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Revenue sharing is a key component to the NFL's success. But revenue sharing alone, without a cap, would not give the NFL the balance it has today.
I'll even dispute that. Take off revenue sharing and just keep the "regular" shared revenues (national tv contract) and the league would be doing just as good imo.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:14 PM
  #87
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Revenue sharing is a key component to the NFL's success. But revenue sharing alone, without a cap, would not give the NFL the balance it has today.
Even with all its revenue sharing, some NFL teams make more than others. In some cases, the disparity is as wide as $100 million a year.
Remove the cap, and you'd see the owners of the better-off teams using that huge advantage to sign away the poorer team's best players. Kind of like what we have in baseball right now.
Fine, but shouldn't part of the NHL's plan then include revenue sharing?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:16 PM
  #88
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Now that you have branded those of us who happen to think that your POV is flawed as "whackos" s , why don't you address the "Ottawa scenario" I outlined in my previous post?

Surely, a non-whacko such as yourself will be able to intelligently and honestly admit that such a scenario (i.e., the forced divestiture of solid support player in order to retain "star" players) exists regularly today in the NFL under the hardcap nirvana you portray, no?

But let us guess: that's "inconsequential", those players are all "interchangeable".
I didn't call all of you whackos. Don't be so sensitive and try to digest what you read better. I said "pro-PA conspiracy whackos." If you're not a conspiracy whacko, then I wasn't referring to you.

Now, on to the Ottawa situation. You're correct, they may lose some players. Tough. That's happening to many teams already for financial reasons (see Penguins, Pittsburgh; Oilers, Edmonton). A cap at least puts everybody under somewhat equal financial circumstances.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:18 PM
  #89
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
So, instead, as you know (but other's apparently don't), in exchange for a hardcap, a significantly lower UFA age will be granted.

Can't wait to read the reaction of the pro-hardcapper in Atlanta, once Kovalchuk and Heatley skip town at age 25 (in a couple of years)!

Or the hardcap demagague in Minnesota, once Gaborik flees at 25!
First of all, why would these players "flee"?

Second, what makes you think that Atlanta, with the current system, wouldn't have to trade Heatley or Kovalchuk around that age because they don't have the money to pay them what they want? Yashin, Peca, Comrie, etc they have all "fled" under the old system...

As to the UFA age, it won't go under 27 regardless of the system.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:19 PM
  #90
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki

Now, on to the Ottawa situation. You're correct, they may lose some players. Tough. That's happening to many teams already for financial reasons (see Penguins, Pittsburgh; Oilers, Edmonton). A cap at least puts everybody under somewhat equal financial circumstances.
So making something unfair for everyone makes it fair? I don't want to have the argument again, so I guess we'll just have to agree to see that differently.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:20 PM
  #91
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Now, on to the Ottawa situation. You're correct, they may lose some players. Tough. That's happening to many teams already for financial reasons (see Penguins, Pittsburgh; Oilers, Edmonton). A cap at least puts everybody under somewhat equal financial circumstances.
OK, consensus. And simply a difference of opinion here. As a fan both of the league and an individual team, I don't consider that a fair tradeoff, so to speak. You do.

At least you now know clearly what is at the heart of one anti-hardcappers concern.

Trottier is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:23 PM
  #92
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
A player would be a fool not to take the upfront money. I think there's an excellent chance contracts will not be guaranteed, and even if they are, there will be very favorable buyout clauses. I can't imagine any player ot taking upfront, guaranteed money.
so now we are back to the nonguaranteed contracts issue.
first of all i think contracts will still be guaranteed
however if they arent that would definately give the big money guys an advantage IF they were allowed to give signing bonuses the way nfl teams do....I dont think they will be able to tho. It all depends on the CBA of course but given that the NFL has had the cap for awhile the NHL has surely studied its pros and cons and will push for the parts that work and away from the parts that dont

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:25 PM
  #93
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Fine, but shouldn't part of the NHL's plan then include revenue sharing?
That's fine with me. I've never said a word against revenue sharing.
I will say, however, that revenue sharing is a concern primarily for the owners and fans, not players. If the players are guaranteed a certain percentage of league revenues, it makes no difference for them if those revenues are shared or not. They'll get paid the same regardless.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:26 PM
  #94
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
OK, consensus. And simply a difference of opinion here. As a fan both of the league and an individual team, I don't consider that a fair tradeoff, so to speak. You do.

At least you now know clearly what is at the heart of one anti-hardcappers concern.
those poor teams that can hardly afford to even pay up to the cap are going to lose those guys anyway

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:27 PM
  #95
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
That's fine with me. I've never said a word against revenue sharing.
I will say, however, that revenue sharing is a concern primarily for the owners and fans, not players. If the players are guaranteed a certain percentage of league revenues, it makes no difference for them if those revenues are shared or not. They'll get paid the same regardless.
exactly revenue sharing is in effect none of the players business

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:45 PM
  #96
Brent Burns Beard
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Brent Burns Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky
"Edmonton Oilers trade Doug Weight to St. Louis Blues for Jochen Hecht & Marty Reasoner"???
Oh, yes, terribly. I love those kinds of deals.
you would have rather paid WEight 8.5m ?

or better yet, why not place the blame where it belongs.

OTT was forced to deal Yashin and recieved Spezza and Chara
VAN was forced to deal Bure and Mogilnly and got Jovanvoski and Morrison
CGY was forced to deal Fleury and Niuewendyk and got Iginla and Regehr

So, EDM being forced to trade Weight isnt the problem. The problem was that Lowe made a poor trade.

DR

Brent Burns Beard is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:49 PM
  #97
Brent Burns Beard
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Brent Burns Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
When was the last time a trade the magnitude of the Jagr trade occured in the hard capped NFL?
i dont follow the NFL closely enough. Most overpaid stars are signed after being cut and the team dumping that star gets nothing.

PIT made out like bandits in that trade.

DR

Brent Burns Beard is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 02:50 PM
  #98
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Actually, what you outline is what many of the pro-PA conspiracy whackos have been saying for weeks around here. The lockout, you see, is a grand scheme to insure that nearly all the good players in the league wind up in New York, Chicago and LA with a smattering of them in places like Detroit, Dallas, Philly and Toronto. It's so obvious, isnt it.

Once again, the NFL system has proven that star players don't flee their teams often when given unrestricted free agency. If Green Bay can keep Brett Favre and Ahman Green (not to mention land Reggie White), I think Atlanta, Minnesota and Ottawa will be just fine.
actually after ottawa loses it's core they're gonna stink just like minny, atlanta, and the rest of em

mr gib is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:05 PM
  #99
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
actually after ottawa loses it's core they're gonna stink just like minny, atlanta, and the rest of em
I must have missed something. Why will Ottawa lose their core?

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 03:35 PM
  #100
The Old Master
Registered User
 
The Old Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: burgh
Country: United States
Posts: 7,607
vCash: 500
just give me a cap, and i'll take my chances!

The Old Master 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 07:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.