How can you "protect the players" and not give a **** about the league that they play in? No league, no jobs.
Again, this thinking is why we're facing another lost season.
Because the players have shown time and time again that the health of the league means nothing to them. What they want is what they feel is owed to them now, future be damned.
I honestly can't wrap my mind around the fact that the NHL isn't saying have your $65M cap and your pensions as long as you agree to the 10 year CBA along with the 6/7 year contract limits. Both of those issues are much more important IMO than the other ones.
But why is this being fought over by the PA when it doesn't do a thing to address escrow, and last week this whole idea was supposed to be 'moot' because the salaries were linked to revenues?
God, I just want to see ****ing hockey. Went to an AHL game in Hartford the other day and the standard of play was atrocious, not even close to a substitute.
The players/Donnie Fehr have made me angry enough that seeing the players hurt by missing the full season would be some consolation, but a cold, empty consolation that doesn't come close to having a season.
But why is this being fought over by the PA when it doesn't do a thing to address escrow, and last week this whole idea was supposed to be 'moot' because the salaries were linked to revenues?
It's pretty silly both ways.
Pretty simple.
Each guy with a contract takes an inflated tax hit so the guys who don't currently have contracts for next year don't end up getting lowballed or find themselves on teams they don't want to be because the team they would otherwise sign with has $2.2 million in cap space and 4 roster spots to fill.
Why Bettman has a problem with this, considering this doesn't cost any owner 1 extra dime, is anybody's guess.
It's a big deal for the PA because it affects where guys without contracts spend a year of their lives at a salary close-ish to what these same guys are "worth." And they're all taking a tax hit to try to get it. It should be the single most irrelevant thing the PA has asked for from the league's perspective, but Bettman's fighting it for some reason.
God, I just want to see ****ing hockey. Went to an AHL game in Hartford the other day and the standard of play was atrocious, not even close to a substitute.
The players/Donnie Fehr have made me angry enough that seeing the players hurt by missing the full season would be some consolation, but a cold, empty consolation that doesn't come close to having a season.
Each guy with a contract takes an inflated tax hit so the guys who don't currently have contracts for next year don't end up getting lowballed or find themselves on teams they don't want to be because the team they would otherwise sign with has $2.2 million in cap space and 4 roster spots to fill.
Why Bettman has a problem with this, considering this doesn't cost any owner 1 extra dime, is anybody's guess.
It's a big deal for the PA because it affects where guys without contracts spend a year of their lives at a salary close-ish to what these same guys are "worth." And they're all taking a tax hit to try to get it. It should be the single most irrelevant thing the PA has asked for from the league's perspective, but Bettman's fighting it for some reason.
We've had this conversation before.
-Make Whole is applied for TWO YEARS. So the amount of relative cap space will be the same as the teams have presently.
-There is literally nothing that either side can do to prevent UFA's being signed for less money because they're being resigned into a CBA that has a 50/50 split not a 57/43 split. That's the drawback of going for 'honouring face value of contracts'.
-Now that there are two compliance buyouts, your previous Redden argument doesn't apply.
The most horrifically boring sport in North America does not come close to replacing hockey.
haha Baseball is great for the first week.
Then it's a massive grind for 3-4 months.
But then IF your team is still in it(which in my team, the blue jays case, hasnt happend in 20 years) then it's awesome. Really happy the Blue Jays will be good this year though, finally some exciting baseball in this city.
But this is all off-topic, I as well want this lockout over and would be escatic to get hockey back for 48 games+ the playoffs, I cant get nearly as invested in another sport.
Here's the penalty provision in the last CBA;
(iii) Non-Compliance Provisions. In addition to the provisions of
Article 26 of this Agreement, the NHL shall discipline Clubs for
material and intentional non-compliance with these provision,
provided, however, that a Club's first offense shall carry a
mandatory fine in the amount of any revenue discrepancy plus $1
million, plus the loss of a first-round draft choice, and a Club's
second and any subsequent offense shall carry a mandatory fine in
the amount of twice any revenue discrepancy plus $5 million, plus
the loss of three (3) first-round draft choices.
Probably nothing. These guys have been working ever so hard and really need a break. Besides, it's the weekend..what are you, some kind of monster that wants them to do work on a Saturday? They don't need another thing to argue over.
"Yaaaaa... I'm gonna need you to come in at 9am Saturday .... Oh an I'm gonna need you to come in Sunday too, we lost some people this week, thaaanks."
-Make Whole is applied for TWO YEARS. So the amount of relative cap space will be the same as the teams have presently.
-There is literally nothing that either side can do to prevent UFA's being signed for less money because they're being resigned into a CBA that has a 50/50 split not a 57/43 split. That's the drawback of going for 'honouring face value of contracts'.
-Now that there are two compliance buyouts, your previous Redden argument doesn't apply.
The previous discussion pertained to how GMs could reconcile budgeting under the wrong cap number. That's a different effect, though it does share the same cause.
Make-whole has nothing to do with this one. If a $2 million player on an expiring contract doesn't want to leave [city that planned on having $70 million of budget space because that's what Bettman said to do, and would otherwise have happily re-signed him at $2 million], the only way he can sign where he wants is taking $500k, which is a quarter of his "worth." Make whole doesn't correct his problem. He's made whole to the tune of $500k-ish instead of $2 mil minus inflated escrow.
Now, you might say, that's already true now, but it isn't. Because the GMs misbudgeted due to league directives, guys who wouldn't have normally been out of budget now are. And there will be a lot of them.
What the PA's asking for doesn't un-depress the market for these guys. Next summer won't magically be the year that Ville Leino got God knows how much because the alternative was Scott Upshall, who both scores and plays less.
A $65 million cap just softens the blow slightly (depressed market, not escrow) at the rest of the PA's expense. So instead of signing for league minimum or with the Jackets, say, Andy Ference (just to use a name) can re-upp with the Bruins for $1.3 million.
To a segment of the PA membership that -should- be a pretty big deal. To Bettman, it shouldn't be anything. It doesn't carry a single dollar's cost with it. It's PA members sacrificing personal wealth so other PA members can get a little more. This does not affect ownership at all, financially.
Edit: Whoops, the bolded is wrong. This measure actually lowers the cap floor for poor teams by increasing escrow, provided Bettman bites on a 1 year $21 million spread, which the PA has also proposed. So it makes even less sense for him to oppose it on their behalf.
No no no...that title goes to the repetitive sport of Basketball.
^^^^^ This.
Baseball is boring. But there are moments that make me jump from my seat; close games get tense at the end between pitches. Basketball just doesn't do that. I haven't gotten excited over a basketball play since Dwight Howard's Slam Dunk contest performance in 2008, and that wasn't even actual basketball.
God, I just want to see ****ing hockey. Went to an AHL game in Hartford the other day and the standard of play was atrocious, not even close to a substitute.
The players/Donnie Fehr have made me angry enough that seeing the players hurt by missing the full season would be some consolation, but a cold, empty consolation that doesn't come close to having a season.
I know I can't get into the AHL or KHL. I listen to the AHL Devils games on the radio broadcast on the AHL's website, but I can't devote myself to it. Like I posted on the Devils board though maybe you can do what my buddy is doing. He was asked randomly by a former bandmate to rejoin their band. Told him he'd get back to him next week to see if the NHL lockout ends or not.
He left this band 6 years ago cause he didn't even like the music in the first place. Though he said if no NHL hockey is played he'll be so bored he's gonna go back!
The previous discussion pertained to how GMs could reconcile budgeting under the wrong cap number. That's a different effect, though it does share the same cause.
Make-whole has nothing to do with this one. If a $2 million player on an expiring contract doesn't want to leave [city that planned on having $70 million of budget space because that's what Bettman said to do, and would otherwise have happily re-signed him at $2 million], the only way he can sign where he wants is taking $500k, which is a quarter of his "worth." Make whole doesn't correct his problem. He's made whole to the tune of $500k-ish instead of $2 mil minus inflated escrow.
Now, you might say, that's already true now, but it isn't. Because the GMs misbudgeted due to league directives, guys who wouldn't have normally been out of budget now are. And there will be a lot of them.
What the PA's asking for doesn't un-depress the market for these guys. Next summer won't magically be the year that Ville Leino got God knows how much because the alternative was Scott Upshall, who both scores and plays less.
A $65 million cap just softens the blow slightly (depressed market, not escrow) at the rest of the PA's expense. So instead of signing for league minimum or with the Jackets, say, Andy Ference (just to use a name) can re-upp with the Bruins for $1.3 million.
To a segment of the PA membership that -should- be a pretty big deal. To Bettman, it shouldn't be anything. It doesn't carry a single dollar's cost with it. It's PA members sacrificing personal wealth so other PA members can get a little more. This does not affect ownership at all, financially.
Ok, but what about the actual math?
Canucks 2013-2014 Salary commitments: $55M CAP SPACE: $15M (On $70M cap)
Salary cap at $60M - seems like there is only $5M remaining to sign Edler, Higgins and Lapierre right? Wrong.
Canucks 2013-2014 Salary commitments: $55M - $7M Make Whole = $48M IN ACTUAL CAP SALARY
Salary cap at $60M = $12M IN CAP SPACE REMAINING.
Yes, there is $3M less money but let's be real of course there is going to be less money after a lockout. But the whole point is this - these guys are not going to be reduced to minimum wage or settling for 25% of their salary like you are suggesting.
Let's see what would happen if you set a $67M cap, like the NHLPA wants - $67M-$48M = $19M - the Canucks would have NINETEEN MILLION DOLLARS IN CAP SPACE. They would have MORE SPACE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER A $70M CAP. They could conceivably spend more money than they had previously - but of course in reality they can't because even if they did escrow would have to even everything out to 50/50 of revenue.
All this does is inflate salaries and drive escrow up - sure, the teams are 'under' the cap but the actual salaries paid out are frozen in escrow which is no good to either side.
I don't think it's wise to take the NHLPA at their word. Again, NOTHING, not even an artificially large cap is going to help these guys who are new UFAs. Those guys are going to take a pay cut. That's the reality of this situation. The 50/50 cut trumps everything, so your entire argument is just a complication of that simple idea.
The NHL with a $60M cap is simply suggesting that all salary numbers including the caps are subject to a 12.3% Make Whole discount - if you calculated that from a $70M cap ceiling you would get a $61M cap ceiling. The similarity in that number is not a coincidence.
Canucks 2013-2014 Salary commitments: $55M CAP SPACE: $15M (On $70M cap)
Salary cap at $60M - seems like there is only $5M remaining to sign Edler, Higgins and Lapierre right? Wrong.
Canucks 2013-2014 Salary commitments: $55M - $7M Make Whole = $48M IN ACTUAL CAP SALARY
Salary cap at $60M = $12M IN CAP SPACE REMAINING.
Yes, there is $3M less money but let's be real of course there is going to be less money after a lockout. But the whole point is this - these guys are not going to be reduced to minimum wage or settling for 25% of their salary like you are suggesting.
Let's see what would happen if you set a $67M cap, like the NHLPA wants - $67M-$48M = $19M - the Canucks would have NINETEEN MILLION DOLLARS IN CAP SPACE. They would have MORE SPACE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER A $70M CAP. They could conceivably spend more money than they had previously - but of course in reality they can't because even if they did escrow would have to even everything out to 50/50 of revenue.
All this does is inflate salaries and drive escrow up - sure, the teams are 'under' the cap but the actual salaries paid out are frozen in escrow which is no good to either side.
I don't think it's wise to take the NHLPA at their word. Again, NOTHING, not even an artificially large cap is going to help these guys who are new UFAs. Those guys are going to take a pay cut. That's the reality of this situation. The 50/50 cut trumps everything, so your entire argument is just a complication of that simple idea.
The NHL with a $60M cap is simply suggesting that all salary numbers including the caps are subject to a 12.3% Make Whole discount - if you calculated that from a $70M cap ceiling you would get a $61M cap ceiling. The similarity in that number is not a coincidence.
Crap like this is just holding up the process.
Why are you subtracting $7 million from the cap number? Salaries aren't being rolled back in a conventional sense. That idea was abandoned half a year ago.
The method by which cap dollars are counted isn't being changed. Future salaries (as in, dollars, not cap salary) for the next two years are being calculated as follows: (listed salary - escrow + make-whole share). The reconciliation is being done through subtraction of huge escrow then addition of a smaller make-whole, not X pre-existing cap commitment means Y future cap commitment going forward.
