HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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, 06:23 PM
  #101
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
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
We'll see what the NHL's true intentions are then. As a PA whack job, I think the at least part of the insitence on a cap is to allow big markets teams access to more superstar FA's in their prime. If the CBA includes clear loopholes, then their motives should be clear.

I also don't think they can come up with a CBA that covers everything. The minute anything is signed, teams will have lawyers going through it with a fine tooth comb trying to find a way to circumvent it. Someone will find something, and the big markets will exlpoit it.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:15 PM
  #102
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Additionally, the NFL system has a much more liberal UFA threshold, and non-guaranteed contracts. And, of course, ridiculou$ revenue streams and a sharing of those revenues among franchsies.

Just tiny, tiny details conveniently glossed over by some! .
I'm glad you clued in on why the NFL has a huge edge over the NHL in implementing the systems they have in place. The ridiculou$ broadcast contract... conviently glossed over by some. But that has nothing to do with player movement. Never has, never will. The NFL has never been a big traders market place like the NHL. Just isn't the way the game is run.

Quote:
I mean, does anyone delusionally believe that the owners are going to get a hardcap AND a strict UFA age AND guaranteed contracts?!
No, I don't think anyone expects that. I think the NHL expects to have to give on the free agency age restriction. Oh, and guaranteed contracts work for the PLAYERS, not the owners. Catch up will you. This isn't THAT complex.

Quote:
That would translate into going back to the Stone Age (pre-union) for player's and any semblance of economic freedom.
Maybe it does in some people's eyes, but in most it does not. I guess you conveniently forgot the players are promised 55% of revenues ($1,200,000,000). Yeah, really thrusting them back into the stoneage there.

Quote:
So, instead, as you know (but other's apparently don't), in exchange for a hardcap, a significantly lower UFA age will be granted.
That is indeed the rumor. Some have said somewhere in the area of 27 or 28 being the likely settle point. I think that is a pretty fair number and gives players plenty of time to cash in.

Quote:
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)!
And how is this going to happen? You don't think that the Thrashers are going to make sure they have budget space to accomodate two $5-6 million players? If they can't they have an idiot running the team.

Quote:
Or the hardcap demagague in Minnesota, once Gaborik flees at 25!
Again, is Minnesota not going to do what it takes to sign their franchise guy?

Quote:
Or the hardcapanista fan of the team who drafts Crosby...and gets to retain and develop him for several seasons...just long enough so that he can flee to another team!
And how is that going to happen? Another team managed by a chimp?

Quote:
Or, best yet, the hardcap fan in Ottawa who sees his team resign Hossa, Havlat and Chara...but has to let Fisher and Redden go in order to still stay under the glorious cap!
How is that going to happen? All teams will have the same budget space to work with. Not one is going to be able to offer any of these players stupid money. It just won't happen with the regularity you attempt to suggest.

Quote:
Yep, a fantasy league on ice. Suited just perfectly for the mentality of some here.
And you would know. You seem to think that salaries are going to remain at the levels which they stand at now and that teams will struggle to keep their players on their teams. Get into the real world. The $10 million player is history. The $7 million player is likely toast as well. If Ottawa cannot afford their players they have no one to blame but themselves. Frankly, it won't be tought on them. Ottawa will pay the players most important to them. That means aging players like Alfredsson and Bondra get the heave-ho, or take a cheaper contract. That means scrubs like Smolinski take a massive pay cut or go find work elsewhere. If I were Ottawa I would cut loose Alfredsson, Bondra and Smolinski and go shopping for better, cheaper talent after the whole mess is settled. There's going to be a boatload of players out there looking for work and be willing to play for what is offered. After all, $1 million and playing in the NHL is better than nothing. Oh, I forgot. Guys like Alfredsson can always go back to Sweden and make $6,000 a month. That'll show the NHL!!!

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 07:27 PM
  #103
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
OTT was forced to deal Yashin and recieved Spezza and Chara
Fortunately they were dealing with Mike Milbury. Chara turned out pretty good and we're still waiting on Spezza. So far so good, but primarily because Ottawa had a great team without Yashin. It would have been a different story if Yashin was the only player worth while on the Sens.

Quote:
VAN was forced to deal Bure and Mogilnly and got Jovanvoski and Morrison
Yup and the Canucks had to do some work with Jovanovski. So it was a long term investment.

Quote:
CGY was forced to deal Fleury and Niuewendyk and got Iginla and Regehr
My favorite example you like to toss out. At the time Calgary was one of the top teams in the legue. Nieuwendyk was traded for Iginla. Very true. It took five years of development in Calgary's system before Iginla became a player equal to what they dealt away. Regehr? Another five years of development. Oh, and how did the Flames do while these players took the time to develop into players at the same level the Flames gave up? Missed the playoffs for seven straight years. This is not an example you should be using. It really does not support your point.

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

DR
Actually, Lowe made the best deal he could. No one was willing to offer up any more of Weight. Lowe got killed because all the other teams knew the way the system worked and knew there was a select market for Weight.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 08:02 PM
  #104
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 14,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
How is that going to happen? All teams will have the same budget space to work with. Not one is going to be able to offer any of these players stupid money. It just won't happen with the regularity you attempt to suggest.
Well yes they will all be within the same confines, but if a team has cap space to fill after a few guys retired and has holes on C and D they can out bid Ottawa by a few hundred thousand that the Senators might not be able to give if they are near the cap threshold. I dont think big name, franchise players will be shifting like Trottier suggested in his post, but there will be secondary (#2-3 d, 2nd line players) players moving. Teams in the NFL work under the same constraints in the cap system but you see good players on the move all the time because teams dont have the cap space to sign them and teams with cap space are able to meet the salary demands. The demands wont be unreasonable, but its just that the original team wont have enough cap space to sign him.

I dont think it will be the end of all trades. I still think there will be teams at the deadline with cap space to fill for their quest for the cup take a player off a team out of the playoffs that wants to clear cap space to sign their rfas or to go after ufas in the offseason.

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 10:23 PM
  #105
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Its not a what if question. Why should Detroit and Hartford not have been allowed to make the trade?
Care to point out where a cap *disallows* a trade?

Your whole argument is specious right from the beginning. Detroit and Hartford made the trade then. They'd have made a trade under a cap, because there's nothing in a cap disallowing trades.

A cap is simply a variable in the running of a team. Note, this variable has been present for *years* for *most* teams in the league. IE, "can I afford this player I want to make a trade for?" A league enforced cap simply means that *all* teams must take finances into consideration when making deals, instead of just some as it right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson
Don't forget the difference in UFA-age between the NFL and the NHL. NFL-players become UFAs roughly seven years earlier than NHL-players.
Excellent point. If there is a lack of trades in the NFL (and I don't think this has been proven), I'd say this would be the answer. Why trade for that part you need, when you can just sign a free agent without giving up anything?

Since the NHL has such limited free agency, there'd hardly be any change in the number of trades.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 10:32 PM
  #106
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
Well yes they will all be within the same confines, but if a team has cap space to fill after a few guys retired and has holes on C and D they can out bid Ottawa by a few hundred thousand that the Senators might not be able to give if they are near the cap threshold. I dont think big name, franchise players will be shifting like Trottier suggested in his post, but there will be secondary (#2-3 d, 2nd line players) players moving. Teams in the NFL work under the same constraints in the cap system but you see good players on the move all the time because teams dont have the cap space to sign them and teams with cap space are able to meet the salary demands. The demands wont be unreasonable, but its just that the original team wont have enough cap space to sign him.

I dont think it will be the end of all trades. I still think there will be teams at the deadline with cap space to fill for their quest for the cup take a player off a team out of the playoffs that wants to clear cap space to sign their rfas or to go after ufas in the offseason.
I guess you have to ask yourself, who do you want to lose? One of Lecavlier, Richards, St. Louis or one of Stillman, Fedotenko, Andreychuk (if he's still active)? Under the existin system you can count on losing one of the former three. In the new system you have choice and will likely lose one of the latter. Any system that allows me to keep my best players longest is the one that works best IMO.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:04 PM
  #107
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 14,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
I guess you have to ask yourself, who do you want to lose? One of Lecavlier, Richards, St. Louis or one of Stillman, Fedotenko, Andreychuk (if he's still active)? Under the existin system you can count on losing one of the former three. In the new system you have choice and will likely lose one of the latter. Any system that allows me to keep my best players longest is the one that works best IMO.
And where do I even dispute that in my post? You just asked how would Ottawa lose Redden and White when they keep Chara, Hossa, and Havlat (an example from Trottier's post). And I answered. I didnt say any system was better. Just tried to further explain Trottier's point.

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:05 PM
  #108
OlliMackBjugStud
Touch My Donskoi!
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Fortunately they were dealing with Mike Milbury. Chara turned out pretty good and we're still waiting on Spezza. So far so good, but primarily because Ottawa had a great team without Yashin. It would have been a different story if Yashin was the only player worth while on the Sens.



Yup and the Canucks had to do some work with Jovanovski. So it was a long term investment.



My favorite example you like to toss out. At the time Calgary was one of the top teams in the legue. Nieuwendyk was traded for Iginla. Very true. It took five years of development in Calgary's system before Iginla became a player equal to what they dealt away. Regehr? Another five years of development. Oh, and how did the Flames do while these players took the time to develop into players at the same level the Flames gave up? Missed the playoffs for seven straight years. This is not an example you should be using. It really does not support your point.



Actually, Lowe made the best deal he could. No one was willing to offer up any more of Weight. Lowe got killed because all the other teams knew the way the system worked and knew there was a select market for Weight.
so ? all part of manouvering assets, cap or not.

VAN, OTT and CGY all managed to salvage something and EDM didnt.

who cares.

dr

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
01-22-2005, 11:25 PM
  #109
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
And where do I even dispute that in my post? You just asked how would Ottawa lose Redden and White when they keep Chara, Hossa, and Havlat (an example from Trottier's post). And I answered. I didnt say any system was better. Just tried to further explain Trottier's point.
02, thanks for taking up the cause...but with a couple of folks here it really isn't worth the time and effort.

***

And BTW, you were correct in your previous post. My examples of Atlanta and Minnesota potentially losing Heatley/Kovalchuk and Gaborik, respectfully, were exaggerations, to make a point. The Ottawa scenario was not an exaggeration whatsoever, and is very possible, given that we see that type of scenario taking place in the hardcap NFL and softcap NBA on a regular basis.

So let's amend the Atlanta and Minnesota examples. In order to retain their two stars, they will have to jettison Sutton and Savard, or something along those lines, while Minnesota will have to let go of Dupuis in order to resign Gaborik, while still staying under the cap. Two plausible scenarios under a hypothetical hardcap.


Last edited by Trottier: 01-22-2005 at 11:54 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 12:12 AM
  #110
Carl Spackler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 97
vCash: 500
Part of the reason there are hardly any trades in the NFL is because the offensive and defensive schemes are extremely complex and it is har to just plug a player in mid-season and expect them to understand and perform well under the system. That at least partially explains why there are fewer trades in the NFL.

Carl Spackler is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 12:16 AM
  #111
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Part of the reason there are hardly any trades in the NFL is because the offensive and defensive schemes are extremely complex and it is har to just plug a player in mid-season and expect them to understand and perform well under the system. That at least partially explains why there are fewer trades in the NFL.
good point

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 12:18 AM
  #112
Balk
Healthy Scratch
 
Balk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
When was the last time a trade of the Shanahan magnitude happened in the hard capped NFL?
But it happens in Basketball. They just match salaries in trades. Seems pretty fair to me.

Balk is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 12:24 AM
  #113
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
I guess you have to ask yourself, who do you want to lose? One of Lecavlier, Richards, St. Louis or one of Stillman, Fedotenko, Andreychuk (if he's still active)? Under the existin system you can count on losing one of the former three. In the new system you have choice and will likely lose one of the latter. Any system that allows me to keep my best players longest is the one that works best IMO.
The Lightning have 20 players under contract for 2004-05, excluding Stillman and St. Louis. The payroll was nearly at $40 million. This summer 11 contracts expire with 8 of them belonging to restricted free agents. Even before those RFAs are signed, the team has $20 million in commitments with 9 players. Try and add Khabibulan, Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis, Dan Boyle, Fedotenko, Andreychuck, plus 8 nobodies for $18 million.

Even if you cut the players by 24%, Tampa can't stay under a cap if they dump Stillman (already dumped) Andreychuk ($1.8 million) and Fedotenko ($1.5 million.). That would give them about $26 million to sign Khabibulan, Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis, Dan Boyle, plus 10 nobodies.

Tell me how. We've already cut the players 24% and turfed Fedotenko, Andreychuk and Stillman. Tell me how they can get all those other guys for $26 million. Tampa has to dump real talent. Tampa has way too much talent for the Gary Bettman Hockey League.

San Jose is also stuck. They have ten players signed for next season with the team committed to $17.7 million. That leaves $21 million to sign Stuart, Marleau, Sturm, Korolyk, plus nine nobodies. I don't think they can do it. They have too much talent for the GBHL too.

If you are going to even out the talent, you have to take from the rich and give to the poor. Which teams are rich in talent?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:46 AM
  #114
Rejean31
Registered User
 
Rejean31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Drunken Alley
Posts: 173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robcav
Trades will become less frequent in a capped environment as all trades will become equal salary for equal salary. Salary decisions will outweigh talent decisions in a capped environment.
Trades for the last 5 or 6 years in the NHL have been based on salary decisions. I don't see a cap changing to much on the trade front.

Rejean31 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 02:34 AM
  #115
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The Lightning have 20 players under contract for 2004-05, excluding Stillman and St. Louis. The payroll was nearly at $40 million. This summer 11 contracts expire with 8 of them belonging to restricted free agents. Even before those RFAs are signed, the team has $20 million in commitments with 9 players. Try and add Khabibulan, Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis, Dan Boyle, Fedotenko, Andreychuck, plus 8 nobodies for $18 million.
$40.5 million commited to this year already, actually. Not "nearly".

Interesting speculation. Of course, it's entirely dependent on an underlying assumption: "See how bad a cap is, Tampa would have been able to keep the team together under the old system."

Which I don't think is true at all. I think this team was heading for a massive bust up regardless.

St. Louis deserves Iginla type money at least, $7.5 million at least, so Tampa would have been around $50 million salary already to *start* this season. This is why I scoff at the "Gee, Tampa won the Cup, and they were a low salary team!" stuff.

Now, take us to the next season, when Khabby becomes unrestricted, and eight others were up as restricted free agents. Khabby's going to ask for a massive pay cut? Hardly, he's going to want a huge raise on his $6.5 million contract, especially after winning them a Cup. And of course, he may have chosen to leave regardless of money.

Lecavalier, Boyle, Fedotenko and the rest are just going to accept their qualifying offers? Hardly. Vinny's going to say he's worth a couple million more, since he's Captain and all, and making way less than St. Louis. And the rest all want their fair share too, of course.

By the *start* of the 05-06 season, Tampa was looking at a salary of $55-$60 million to keep that team together. And there's no way that market could have supported that.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:03 AM
  #116
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
St. Louis deserves Iginla type money at least, $7.5 million at least, so Tampa would have been around $50 million salary already to *start* this season. This is why I scoff at the "Gee, Tampa won the Cup, and they were a low salary team!" stuff.
Well, duh. Tampa did win the Cup with a low budget team, but only a very stupid person would believe a Stanley Cup winner would stay cheap. How stupid do you have to be to believe in something like that? How stupid do you have to be to think raising this as an issue is remotely convincing?

They won because they have a bunch of good players. They were cheap because those good players were relatively speaking underpaid. The payroll has to catch up to the team quality. That's common sense.

Quote:
By the *start* of the 05-06 season, Tampa was looking at a salary of $55-$60 million to keep that team together. And there's no way that market could have supported that.
No way? How do you know? Where did you get the data or the expertise to make that assertion? Prove it.

I'd guess Tampa Bay fans would rather see if they can afford to pay the team. I'd guess Tampa Bay fans would rather believe a Champion in their town can do as well as a champion in oh, say, Denver could do on the revenue side. If they can't turn big revenues with a Stanley Cup Champion what on earth are they doing in the league?

Oh, no, wait! It is way better to set up the rules to make sure that the team is broken up! That's way, way better for the fans. They might not be able to afford them so we'll disperse some of their good players to other teams. That will fix Tampa for getting all those good players. That's the way to solve problems in revenue challenged markets - make them give away some of their best players.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:08 AM
  #117
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Now, take us to the next season, when Khabby becomes unrestricted, and eight others were up as restricted free agents. Khabby's going to ask for a massive pay cut? Hardly, he's going to want a huge raise on his $6.5 million contract, especially after winning them a Cup. And of course, he may have chosen to leave regardless of money.
What in the name of god makes Khabby such a good goalie that he's worth $6.5 a year, let alone a raise on that? I have him as an average to slightly above average NHL goalie. The Lightning can readily replace him with someone cheaper and just as good. Let PHI or TOR pay for that "Stanley Cup winning" goalie TM.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:30 AM
  #118
Reilly311
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
The reason there aren't as many trades in the NFL is that each team has between 50-60 players. Would it be worth giving up a draft pick to aquire a better punt returner? Just sign one in the offseason. Each team has 3 or 4 star players which are irreplacable, everyone else, for the most part, can be plugged in. Also, with the lower UFA, team needs can be fixed in the offseason and draft thus eliminated "rebuilding process".

Reilly311 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:36 AM
  #119
Reilly311
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
When was the last time a trade of the Shanahan magnitude happened in the hard capped NFL?

Every year there's at least one "big trade" in the NFL.

Reilly311 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 04:11 AM
  #120
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Well, duh. Tampa did win the Cup with a low budget team, but only a very stupid person would believe a Stanley Cup winner would stay cheap. How stupid do you have to be to believe in something like that? How stupid do you have to be to think raising this as an issue is remotely convincing?
Ah, can always tell when someone nails you, because out comes the vitriol like "stupid" etc. Always makes me smile, 'cause I know then that I'm right.

Tampa starts this season with a $50 million payroll *regardless* of what happened last year. Winning the Cup, out in four straight in the first round, it makes *zero* difference. The only unsigned player who can even use "I won the Cup" as an argument, is St. Louis, and he gets his money regardless, because he still had the scoring title and all that silverware whether they won or not.

But no, you try and paint it as if it's the fact they won the Cup that made the salaries all get that high.

Quote:
No way? How do you know? Where did you get the data or the expertise to make that assertion? Prove it.
Tampa is a small to mid-size market. Attendance wise, they're middle of the pack. Based on the NHLPA offer, Tampa is a "have not" who recieves revenue sharing. A Cup win alone is going to bring in the extra $25 to $30 million dollars in revenue and allow them to hold the team together the next couple of years? The funds simply aren't there. It's a tourist based area, with lots of kids making relatively low salaries, and not much corporate headquarter base. It's a non-hockey market that has to work extremely hard to build the game. This has all been discussed by Tampa fans here in the past.

Quote:
Oh, no, wait! It is way better to set up the rules to make sure that the team is broken up!
If I'm a Tampa fan, I support a cap. With no cap, I'm guaranteed to be broken up. With a cap, I have a fighting chance to keep that team together if Khabby, St. Louis, and Lecavalier don't have anywhere else they can demand $8 million or so each.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 04:18 AM
  #121
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
What in the name of god makes Khabby such a good goalie that he's worth $6.5 a year, let alone a raise on that? I have him as an average to slightly above average NHL goalie. The Lightning can readily replace him with someone cheaper and just as good. Let PHI or TOR pay for that "Stanley Cup winning" goalie TM.
Yup, he's one of the few active goalies with Cup winning experience. So he's going to be highly sought after. Especially with Belfour and Hasek not long of this world.

But you make a good point. The sound financial decision is to break up the team by letting him walk. And it's almost surely going to happen, whether there's a cap or not.

But when the cap is in place, and he leaves, I'm sure some here will immediately point to Khabby and say "SEE! Told ya! The cap broke up your team!"

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 05:30 AM
  #122
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,508
vCash: 50
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.

M'eh. Player ownership/reserve/draft is a fairly NA thing. Plenty of sports all over the world get by with out it. If they get rid of trades and make it all UFA, I'll miss the trades by not that much. Where once fans amused themselves with the draft and trades, it'll become off season moves insteads.

me2 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 06:06 AM
  #123
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,446
vCash: 500
The majority of the NHL trades made today are salary dumps.The NHL trading deadline has become the most overrated and overhyped today on the NHL calender.TSN,Sportsnet and ESPNEWS devote shows to the trading deadline and nothing really happens except teams unloading veterans to contending teams.The NHL has even discussed moving up the trading deadline to prevent the dumping

Even draft day has been a bore.All these trade rumors float around and minor moves are made

The majority of the players moved at the trading deadline are players who are going to be UFA in the summer.Teams don't acquire players with 2 or 3 years remaining on the contract unless they are a big market team

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 06:50 AM
  #124
arnie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 520
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.
Great! No more of rich teams ripping off everyone else at the March trade dead line! This is become the biggest example of the inequities in the league. Everyone outside Toronto, Colorado, Philadelphia and Detroit with be thrilled that its gonne

arnie is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:30 AM
  #125
OlliMackBjugStud
Touch My Donskoi!
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
if Khabby, St. Louis, and Lecavalier don't have anywhere else they can demand $8 million or so each.
even in last years CBA, those players dont have any where they can demand an 8m salary.

Khabi might be able to, but highly debatable he would get it. Lecavalier has zero chance of getting it. Iginla and Thornton dont make that much and in fact with the 24% paycut would be making less than 5.5 each. Yes Iggy has no deal, but he was bound to negotatiate based on a 24% cut to his last salary and all comparables.

scare tactic from the cap side.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud 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 04:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.