HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New Jersey Devils
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

News from Around the League - Part XXXIII - The "No, you go first" edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 09:41 AM
  #426
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,723
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
That's in theory. But what actually happened when there was no cap? Teams like the Rangers and Leafs traded away their picks and prospects for aging superstars, and overpaid mediocre players in UFA, distorting the market for everyone, and rarely seeing any success come of it. That's essentially the same effect that would occur if you allow teams to trade cap space.

I'd rather have the flat cap NHL with parity, than an NHL with a distorted labour market and teams allowed to spend different amounts of money. It's needlessly introducing more loopholes into an already flawed system where they are ostensibly trying to close the loopholes.
It's not the same effect. You're confusing picks and prospects being traded for assets with picks and prospects being trade for cap space. In the pre-2005 world, teams like the Rangers did the former. Under this proposal, they will have to do both the former and the latter.

I think this policy would create more parity in the NHL. A team like the Islanders could actually leverage their $19M in dead cap space to help their team in the future. Under the previous CBA, they gained nothing from it.

It looks like this proposal will be implemented by allowing teams to "eat" or "hold back" the salary for players they are trading. In essence this is pretty similar to the scenario described above, as "holding back" $2M of a cap hit is equivalent to giving a $2M cap hit credit to the acquiring team. However, the team trading the player must also foot the bill for the $2M it's holding back, so the return they'd demand would probably be pretty high.

This is a good system. It gives teams the flexibility to maneuver and allows poorer teams to leverage their good cap standing to make themselves more competitive in the long run.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:46 AM
  #427
manilaNJ
Optimism: Unwavering
 
manilaNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by manilaNJ View Post
NHL proposal to save 82-game season

NHL released everything they submitted to the NHLPA yesterday.
They say it's the full proposal, I doubt that, but it covers most of the ground.
And, Fehr's response...

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=407542

Quote:
- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

manilaNJ is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:48 AM
  #428
Brick City
Ignore me!
 
Brick City's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 661
vCash: 500
Also noteworthy is the ridiculous media market restriction on revenue sharing will be removed:

Quote:
• Current "Disqualification" criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed.

Not sure how I feel about the cap trading proposal. My initial response is this will benefit rich clubs like the Rangers and Flyers (who have access to increased cap space) and the poor clubs (who will sell themselves out). The Devils are sort of stuck in the middle, potentially watching as the Islanders enable the Rangers to take on $5m (I believe that is the limit a season) more in cap space.

I know this could backfire on the rich clubs, but still uncomfortable with the cap trading. It seems like another way for rich clubs to evade the cap, especially when the NHL is clamping down on other loopholes.

Brick City is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:54 AM
  #429
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,723
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brick City View Post


Not sure how I feel about the cap trading proposal. My initial response is this will benefit rich clubs like the Rangers and Flyers (who have access to increased cap space) and the poor clubs (who will sell themselves out). The Devils are sort of stuck in the middle, potentially watching as the Islanders enable the Rangers to take on $5m (I believe that is the limit a season) more in cap space.

I know this could backfire on the rich clubs, but still uncomfortable with the cap trading. It seems like another way for rich clubs to evade the cap, especially when the NHL is clamping down on other loopholes.
The Devils could gain from this. We probably won't be a cap ceiling team for several years. In the end a lot of the middle-market teams could gain from it too. You don't need to have $13M in cap space to make a trade. You can have $3M at the deadline that you know you won't use, and deal it away.

And people should stop referring to this as a loophole. It's not a loophole. The rich teams would actually be sacrificing assets, and other teams would be benefiting. Loopholes don't work like that usually, such as the case with the minor league scenario, where a team like the Rangers can simply stash the Redden's of the world with no penalty to themselves and no benefit to other teams.

The Devils essentially made a cap space trade with Vladimir Malakhov. I don't really view that as a loophole trade in a negative sense. San Jose got a 1st round pick out of it. That was a lot for the Devils to give up, but in the end they kept their team in tact. Both sides happy, both sides benefited.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:10 AM
  #430
Zajacs Bowl Cut
Nova Nation
 
Zajacs Bowl Cut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southampton, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 38,782
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zajacs Bowl Cut Send a message via Yahoo to Zajacs Bowl Cut
I hate the idea of trading cap space.

Zajacs Bowl Cut is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:15 AM
  #431
Puck Farise
Fire Deboer
 
Puck Farise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
The Devils could gain from this. We probably won't be a cap ceiling team for several years. In the end a lot of the middle-market teams could gain from it too. You don't need to have $13M in cap space to make a trade. You can have $3M at the deadline that you know you won't use, and deal it away.

And people should stop referring to this as a loophole. It's not a loophole. The rich teams would actually be sacrificing assets, and other teams would be benefiting. Loopholes don't work like that usually, such as the case with the minor league scenario, where a team like the Rangers can simply stash the Redden's of the world with no penalty to themselves and no benefit to other teams.

The Devils essentially made a cap space trade with Vladimir Malakhov. I don't really view that as a loophole trade in a negative sense. San Jose got a 1st round pick out of it. That was a lot for the Devils to give up, but in the end they kept their team in tact. Both sides happy, both sides benefited.
From what I've read, that isn't how the "cap space trading" would work though. Poor teams can't just say "we're trading $3million of our cap space for a 1st round pick" and the team they trade the cap space to goes from a 60 million cap to a 63 million cap, while they go down to a57 million cap.

It's cap space trading in the sense that a team trading a player can keep part of his contract. I don't know what the limits are, but basically - if you trade a $6 million player, you can keep $3 million of his cap (and STILL pay that $3million).

This isn't something that will help poorer teams, it just helps large market GMs to escape part of the horrible contracts they handed out.

Puck Farise is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:19 AM
  #432
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
I'd be twitter bombing the players and dropping the word greed on all of them. Half of them would be confused but I'd feel better.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:36 AM
  #433
MartyOwns
NYRB!!!2013********33333
 
MartyOwns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 10,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I'd be twitter bombing the players and dropping the word greed on all of them. Half of them would be confused but I'd feel better.
dont fall for the NHL's trap...

MartyOwns is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:39 AM
  #434
onefatsurfer
I speak in code
 
onefatsurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jersey Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,211
vCash: 500
if they end up ****ing us over again on the kovalchuk contract by making his cap hit stay regardless, we should ****ing sue the league.

onefatsurfer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:55 AM
  #435
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyOwns View Post
dont fall for the NHL's trap...
I want built in raises even if my employer loses money. I need a union'

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:01 AM
  #436
DevilsAnimal*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
The Devils essentially made a cap space trade with Vladimir Malakhov. I don't really view that as a loophole trade in a negative sense. San Jose got a 1st round pick out of it. That was a lot for the Devils to give up, but in the end they kept their team in tact. Both sides happy, both sides benefited.
If only I didnt have to pay for it in my EHM :B

DevilsAnimal* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:14 AM
  #437
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by manilaNJ View Post
Can't say I'm shocked. Dissapointed, but not surprised

Jesus f'ing christ, we knew you weren't going to take the deal no questions asked, but instead of pointing out everything that's wrong with it at least concede it's a starting point and negotiate off that. I'm very worried about what the players wind up proposing tomorrow...this could blow up in the next 24-48 hours.

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:16 AM
  #438
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefatsurfer View Post
if they end up ****ing us over again on the kovalchuk contract by making his cap hit stay regardless, we should ****ing sue the league.
They really need to overturn the doggone initial penalty already if they're going to retroactively punish 'every' team for cap-busting deals, punishing us twice is idiotic.

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:40 AM
  #439
Bleedred
Halak ends SO streak
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 33,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
They really need to overturn the doggone initial penalty already if they're going to retroactively punish 'every' team for cap-busting deals, punishing us twice is idiotic.
Punishing us the first time was idiotic. Someone explain the difference between how Kovy's contract circumvented the cap, but not the TWO mega front loaded deals the Wild signed this Summer? That's just one example of I'm sure many too.

Don Fehr is gonna **** this thing up. Dude is a *******, no good POS. I'd rather give Gary Bettman a kiss, than even shake that guys hand at this point.

Bleedred is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:46 AM
  #440
Silence Of The Plams
Zemgod
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,864
vCash: 500
Some sort of okay deal. What does fehr doooooooo. F it up. This man is a load of insert choice words..... he's gonna be the cause of the season long lockout.... he's not moved while owners have been trying.

Silence Of The Plams is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:51 AM
  #441
Bleedred
Halak ends SO streak
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 33,970
vCash: 500
Here's some controversy for you.

The fact the players have been allowed to unionize is BS. Their whole union is BS. I'm not exactly sure when they came about, but didn't sports have no unions way back? The salaries weren't as ridiculous.

Bleedred is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:19 PM
  #442
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,723
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontPass2Clarkson View Post
From what I've read, that isn't how the "cap space trading" would work though. Poor teams can't just say "we're trading $3million of our cap space for a 1st round pick" and the team they trade the cap space to goes from a 60 million cap to a 63 million cap, while they go down to a57 million cap.

It's cap space trading in the sense that a team trading a player can keep part of his contract. I don't know what the limits are, but basically - if you trade a $6 million player, you can keep $3 million of his cap (and STILL pay that $3million).

This isn't something that will help poorer teams, it just helps large market GMs to escape part of the horrible contracts they handed out.
Yes, I addressed this in my previous post.

And this system definitely helps poorer teams, on two fronts:
1) A poor team trading an expensive player at a reduced salary - this helps poorer teams get out from an onerous contract they've given out but otherwise might not be able to trade (Rick Nash, for instance. If Columbus could have knocked a million or two off of his salary/cap hit, there would have been a much more robust market). This benefit exists for rich teams as well, but it's especially important for poorer teams because they have less leverage in these negotiations. Even if Nash turned into a 20-25g scorer in NY, the Rangers wouldn't feel as much pressure to deal him because they have the financial where with all the pay a $4M player $7.5M. A team like Columbus or Nashville doesn't.

Additionally, they can extract value from the rich teams who are cap-pressed by holding back enough salary to make the acquisition possible. This, in essence, is no different than trading cap space. Holding back $3M of $6M is no different than trading the $6M along with $3M in cap space from a cap hit perspective. The only difference comes in actual salary paid, because in the former the poor team is on the hook for the $3M in salary they hold back. At the trade deadline a poorer team would have a lot of leverage and could get great value from a cap-ceiling team who wants to acquire the $5M player they covet for $3.5M.

2) Poor teams will now be able to acquire a greater range of players - a lot of good, productive players who are overpaid are simply not viable acquisitions for poorer teams. Think of a player like Dan Heatley. He would actually be pretty valuable to a team like the Devils - 1st/2nd line winger than score 30 goals. But no middle market / poorer team would consider taking him at $7.5M. If Minnesota agreed to eat $2.5M of his contract, suddenly that becomes a viable acquisition and a team like the Devils or Predators can benefit. Rich teams have an unfair advantage because they can afford to take the financial risk on reclamation projects and boom/bust type transactions. Suddenly middle market and poorer teams can enter the fray.

A lot of you are thinking of this only from the perspective of "rich teams who overpaid can get out from under the contracts." I guess that's a benefit for them, but there's also the benefit to the acquiring team who gets a player they covet at a cap hit/salary that's reasonable. The market functions a lot better when there's some flexibility to the salary structure. And I believe that there are limits - 2 players per team, and $5M total per year, so the amount of wiggle room isn't infinite.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:28 PM
  #443
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
trading cap space is ridiculous. I thought the owners were poor? Why does any team need extra cap space on top of the 60 million?

apice3* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:46 PM
  #444
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,723
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
trading cap space is ridiculous. I thought the owners were poor? Why does any team need extra cap space on top of the 60 million?
Once again, only thinking about how this would benefit rich teams. This would benefit every team.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:34 PM
  #445
Zippy316
Registered User
 
Zippy316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
Can't say I'm shocked. Dissapointed, but not surprised

Jesus f'ing christ, we knew you weren't going to take the deal no questions asked, but instead of pointing out everything that's wrong with it at least concede it's a starting point and negotiate off that. I'm very worried about what the players wind up proposing tomorrow...this could blow up in the next 24-48 hours.
It's all part of the negotiations.

If they say it's a starting point, it means that the NHL knows that the PA likes the deal. By saying something like that, they try to make the NHL think like they don't and the NHL doesn't know whether or not they actually like the offer.

All the stuff you see or read out of Fehr or Bettman's mouth is ********, absolutely ********. It's a propaganda, and I take everything with a grain of salt. No one else realizes that this seemingly perfect news that paints the NHL as the side that wants to get a deal done came a day after the NHL signed a Public Relations firm.

Zippy316 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:37 PM
  #446
Zippy316
Registered User
 
Zippy316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Once again, only thinking about how this would benefit rich teams. This would benefit every team.
It depends what the going rate for cap space is.

The second a stupid GM trades the cap space for close to nothing, the value of it is going to fall fast. If the going rate for 3 million in cap space is a 1st, then yeah, it's not going to be a problem.

But once the TD rolls around or the teams know they can only spend a certain amount, they will trade as much space as they can to get something for what they aren't using, then the value overall comes down and you run into a problem when cap is acquired by giving up little in return.

Zippy316 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:40 PM
  #447
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,500
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefatsurfer View Post
if they end up ****ing us over again on the kovalchuk contract by making his cap hit stay regardless, we should ****ing sue the league.
I think it's absurd that they even think they can retroactively go after contracts signed legally under the previous CBA. Obviously the NHL feels like it can do whatever it wants, but that would be pretty bush league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Once again, only thinking about how this would benefit rich teams. This would benefit every team.
It benefits the rich teams more than it benefits the poorer teams, and undermines the concept of a salary cap.

Same thing with this proposal where a team can offer to pay part of a player's cap hit and salary. It facilitates the dumping of bad contracts, which is also of benefit to teams that tend to give those out regularly (ie, usually rich teams).

Saugus is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:47 PM
  #448
njdevsfn95
Help Vas, Sprite.
 
njdevsfn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 29,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by manilaNJ View Post
Fehr is concerned with the owners raking in $1,600,000,000 over 6 years?

30 teams x 6 years = 180

$1,600,000,000 / 180 = $8.8M per team per year.

How do the players think revenue sharing is going to be paid? Its right here.

njdevsfn95 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:04 PM
  #449
Bleedred
Halak ends SO streak
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 33,970
vCash: 500
Fehr is only in it for himself. I'm sure some players are fed up, and just wanna take what they can get, and get this thing over with already.

I wonder if Fehr will show up with his consigliere Parros. A player like Parros is pretty much a nobody that probably can't find work overseas like the upper tier players. How the little guys like him are still into this I don't know. Even Steve Montador who was running his mouth yesterday. Think a player like him is gonna find a job overseas easily?

Some of these players might just follow Fehr over a cliff.

Bleedred is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:23 PM
  #450
onefatsurfer
I speak in code
 
onefatsurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jersey Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
I think it's absurd that they even think they can retroactively go after contracts signed legally under the previous CBA. Obviously the NHL feels like it can do whatever it wants, but that would be pretty bush league
LOL. The fine levied on the Devils for breaking the "spirit" of a rule, w/ no fines going to the other teams that made these same ******** contracts already planted the NHL firmly in bush league territory. Someone needs to yank the sticks out of Bettman/Daly's rectal cavities before they get gangrenous.

Watching Daly turn over that Devils card when we won the draft lottery was extra delicious.

onefatsurfer 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 05:44 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.