You've got to like the teams that tried to game the system even though they were told not to being punished.
I sincerely hope this makes it through the NHLPA and that Fehr doesn't screw everything up.
If these are really in the NHL's proposal then I can see why the NHLPA would want to negotiate further. There is quite a cumulative impact with all of these changes, and at the very least the PA is going to want to grandfather in many of the existing rules for contracts already signed.
I also think that many of the teams would want more flexibility to adjust over the next few years than given in these "tidbits". For example, rolling the salary cap back to around $63 million in Year 2 (assuming a 7% increase in league income in the coming year from the 2012-13 $59 million "cap") would impact salaries for new contracts and would still cause significant cap problems for some teams in 2013-14. I think that the PA will counter with allowing the cap to stay at $70 million for three years, thus meaning that no team has to cut payroll.
Still it is progress, and we can all hope for a settlement.
I can only imagine that some of these GMs are furious with this latest proposal. Back Dumping Contracts will count against the cap if player retires regardless if he is on another club or not. That will make you grow grey hairs are go bald quickly. Lol
So if Crosby has to retire early down the road from concussion problems is the NHL still going to put their beloved Penguins on the hook for nearly 9 million. Or will injuries negate the contracts cap hit. This could be a real issue as well.
Last edited by airforceones25: 10-17-2012 at 11:13 AM.
That last bit, which I'm sure will be amended at least a little, could have some amusing consequences on Philadelphia.
If left as is, think about Carter, Richards, and Bryzgalov. There's still Pronger. And possibly Hartnell and Briere.
Well, Carter and Richards aren't in Philadelphia anymore, but I hear what you are saying. I doubt all teams are happy with this, but I'd imagine Bettman got some sort of approval from the owners for this offer.
What discouraging news? That the proposal wasn't "met with great enthusiasm" by the NHLPA. Of course that's how they will respond, it's all negotiating tactics. What is really important now is the counter-proposal from the NHLPA. And at least it seems they will be discussing the same proposal now (hopefully), and not just tweaking their own proposals.
Also, good move by the NHL to put its proposal online. Now all the players can read it and have a real opinion on it, instead of getting briefed by the NHLPA through its "interpretation" of it. Hopefully after some back-and-forth proposals, it will be submitted to a vote among all NHLPA members.
Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.
The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.
Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.
not well received, with these quotes says to me that the pa doesn't want to give up money or contract rights and wants the league to fix the issue by adjusting revenue sharing.
this is what he has said from the beginning and it looks like he is not gonna budge.
his reasoning for this, the league has had "7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive."
revenue has gone up, but a lot of teams profits have not. that is the money issue, not just straight revenue. the owners are never going to accept another cba that has the players taking 57% of the pie. 50 50 to me, is a fair deal.
if they reject this then the players are going to look greedy, the pa will give the owners a pr boost, and the lock out is gonna last a long long time.
Well, Carter and Richards aren't in Philadelphia anymore, but I hear what you are saying. I doubt all teams are happy with this, but I'd imagine Bettman got some sort of approval from the owners for this offer.
Wouldn't matter. According to Bob McKenzie it states that even if a player is traded the original team is on the hook for the cap hit if they are to retire. Philadelphia would be screwed plain and simple.
If these are really in the NHL's proposal then I can see why the NHLPA would want to negotiate further. There is quite a cumulative impact with all of these changes, and at the very least the PA is going to want to grandfather in many of the existing rules for contracts already signed.
I also think that many of the teams would want more flexibility to adjust over the next few years than given in these "tidbits". For example, rolling the salary cap back to around $63 million in Year 2 (assuming a 7% increase in league income in the coming year from the 2012-13 $59 million "cap") would impact salaries for new contracts and would still cause significant cap problems for some teams in 2013-14. I think that the PA will counter with allowing the cap to stay at $70 million for three years, thus meaning that no team has to cut payroll.
Still it is progress, and we can all hope for a settlement.
Grandfathering in the rules misses the point - they don't punish the players, they are to punish the teams who were circumventing the cap in spite of being told not to. The league just couldn't legally do anything about it until now. The majority of players are better off without those contracts anyway as they steal escrow money from the other players.
And 70M for 3 years will be a non-starter for the league. The teams were told the cap would drop and not to overspend, the teams that didn't aren't going to accept a 3 year 10M lower cap than the the teams who did. More importantly, the owners aren't going to keep the player revenue share that high for that long.
If the PA rejects this, then I'd counter and say, "Sure, if you want 57% and no roll back, then all player contracts (retroactively) are no longer guaranteed contracts."
If the league didn't bring down all the costs last time and create a salary cap, then there wouldn't be any of this parity where it help expand the NHL because now every team has a chance to win. The PA's shortsightedness as to how the league created this huge revenue is the same stance in the last lockout. The NHL was correct in bringing costs down so all teams can afford to make a profit as well as having that salary cap to make all teams somewhat competitive. The CBA's are trying to sustain the league long term. The PA is saying that the owners need to create a better revenue sharing for the non-profiting teams, but why don't I hear players put in for revenue sharing for those same non-profiting teams? The players don't have to fork a bill for any overhead costs, but want 57%? pfft!
Grandfathering in the rules misses the point - they don't punish the players, they are to punish the teams who were circumventing the cap in spite of being told not to. The league just couldn't legally do anything about it until now. The majority of players are better off without those contracts anyway as they steal escrow money from the other players.
And 70M for 3 years will be a non-starter for the league. The teams were told the cap would drop and not to overspend, the teams that didn't aren't going to accept a 3 year 10M lower cap than the the teams who did. More importantly, the owners aren't going to keep the player revenue share that high for that long.
i hope the league fights to keep those contracts valid and burn the teams that made them. i also like that they are starting to go after ahl contract dumping.
Wouldn't matter. According to Bob McKenzie it states that even if a player is traded the original team is on the hook for the cap hit if they are to retire. Philadelphia would be screwed plain and simple.
Hadn't seen that. Well what comes around goes around then. Though the Richards and Carter contracts aren't that bad. I believe Richards is 35 when his contract is up, and Carter maybe 1 or 2 years older, so they could still be playing by then. But the Hossa, Pronger, Luongo and some others are really painful, as those were designed knowing the player 90% sure wouldn't play out the final years of the contract.
Hadn't seen that. Well what comes around goes around then. Though the Richards and Carter contracts aren't that bad. I believe Richards is 35 when his contract is up, and Carter maybe 1 or 2 years older, so they could still be playing by then. But the Hossa, Pronger, Luongo and some others are really painful, as those were designed knowing the player 90% sure wouldn't play out the final years of the contract.
And the best part is, the teams who made those contracts can't complain - because the players always fully intended to play to those ages for 500K, right?
The fact that those contracts won't count against the cap of the second team if they were traded makes those players a lot more appealing to trade for. The risk of those contracts mean nothing to the team that traded for then so LA doesn't have to worry at all about Richards/carter and whoever ends up getting LU doesn't have to worry about the crazy contract after he retires.
The fact that those contracts won't count against the cap of the second team if they were traded makes those players a lot more appealing to trade for. The risk of those contracts mean nothing to the team that traded for then so LA doesn't have to worry at all about Richards/carter and whoever ends up getting LU doesn't have to worry about the crazy contract after he retires.
That's only if said player retires before end of contract. If he just plays lousy but hangs around to collect a fat paycheck the new team is on the hook. There is still big risk in trading for a guy like Lou.
I don't think Richards and Carter will be issues, there's a decent chance they're still playing at 35. Pronger, Luongo, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Zetterberg etc will probably become issues though. Although in Prongers case, putting off retirement and putting him on IR every year will probably bail out the Flyers.
That's only if said player retires before end of contract. If he just plays lousy but hangs around to collect a fat paycheck the new team is on the hook. There is still big risk in trading for a guy like Lou.
I disagree. Budget teams would be thrilled. They meet the cap floor and are only paying these players minimal salaries. I makes them extremely enticing for trade IMO. The only one who can't benefit is the original team if a player retires. Simple is that.
Most players at that point in their career i'm sure would rather enjoy themselves on the couch already have collected millions by then. If not it helps a budget friendly team who pay them the minimal salary and have count towards there cap. If the player is detrimental to the team they can bury them in the minors and it still works out.
I don't think Richards and Carter will be issues, there's a decent chance they're still playing at 35. Pronger, Luongo, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Zetterberg etc will probably become issues though. Although in Prongers case, putting off retirement and putting him on IR every year will probably bail out the Flyers.
I agree. But in Pronger's case, only if he plays nice. If he at some point feels good enough and doesn't want his outstanding NHL career see ended like that, that could turn ugly, and I'd see the Flyers on the short end of it ultimately.
I don't think Richards and Carter will be issues, there's a decent chance they're still playing at 35. Pronger, Luongo, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Zetterberg etc will probably become issues though. Although in Prongers case, putting off retirement and putting him on IR every year will probably bail out the Flyers.
Parise and Suter as well. 41 and 40 years old. All these players will have made their money by the end of these deals. Is an extra 4 million dollars over 3 years really worth the wear and tear on your body when you just made 95 million dollars?
That's only if said player retires before end of contract. If he just plays lousy but hangs around to collect a fat paycheck the new team is on the hook. There is still big risk in trading for a guy like Lou.
Quote:
Originally Posted by airforceones25
I disagree. Budget teams would be thrilled. They meet the cap floor and are only paying these players minimal salaries. I makes them extremely enticing for trade IMO. The only one who can't benefit is the original team if a player retires. Simple is that.
Most players at that point in their career i'm sure would rather enjoy themselves on the couch already have collected millions by then. If not it helps a budget friendly team who pay them the minimal salary and have count towards there cap. If the player is detrimental to the team they can bury them in the minors and it still works out.
I think it's kind of in between, and you both have good points. As airforce said, the pure cap hit isn't necessarily a big issue for small market (which I'll read as budget) teams. That's true, but then again, that's really all the rule takes care of. If Luongo retired sometime, Vancouver would be screwed a bit, but it doesn't really help the acquiring team out a ton that his cap hit moves back to Vancouver. They care about the actual dollars, and there's still a lot of risk in potentially having to pay an aged Luongo years from now, but before the money his deal pays him drops low enough.
The way I look at things now, it doesn't really change all that much for a small market team. It just screws the Canucks.
