HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

How is this new CBA bad for the players?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-17-2005, 06:35 PM
  #1
aragorn
YES WE CAN
 
aragorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Country: Azores
Posts: 10,905
vCash: 500
How is this new CBA bad for the players?

Remember when everyone was saying how the players got screwed with this new CBA? Remember, how everyone said that Goodenow had to resign because the deal was so bad for the players? How many people feel like that now? Why haven't we heard from the players how crappy this deal has been for them?

Well, as it turns out this deal hasn't been that bad at all and if it was Goodenow playing possum again he seems to have screwed the owners and Bettman again. The contracts that are being signed these days are outrageous, why did we think that GMs would be rational and control their spending? From an owners point of view at least now they have a budget they can't go over which is good but signing RFAs to more than they should get hurts fiscally responsible teams like Ottawa who want to pay their RFAs the allowable increase only, not substantially more than they are worth. Some of these players are worth what they get to their respective markets but not all, not $7 mil to Mogilny in NJ and there are other examples.

This brings us to Hossa, how can we expect this guy to sign for less when he knows there are a lot of teams out there prepared to sign him for as much as he wants including the 7.5 mil max? IMO the Sens should not have a player on their roster making more than 4 mil. We have the depth and the ability to replace the guys like Hossa whose value exceeds what we can afford to pay. Hence, what we should be doing is looking to replace these stars who have reached their peak and demand market value with younger cheaper but good players & picks or prospects.

Look to trade Hossa today for Hartnell or Erik Cole and a prospect or pick. Get a young guy with a few years of experience that fills a need on this team immediately. What we lose in Hossa is made up by our players being a year older and better and by the new guy filling the need and we get a few more years out of them plus a pick or prospect. Next summer we move Redden for Hannan or Van Ryn or Whitney, young up and coming good defenceman and a prospect and pick. Alfredson and eventually Chara will also eventually get moved. As I said quite awhile ago we should get used to losing one star per year. We should be planning for that and getting the best deal we can via trade before they reach UFA.

For those that think teams will wait until the player is a UFA, think again. Good players are going to be grabbed asap, if the return is reasonable. Nashville has an abundance of young defencemen so does Chicago, Redden on either of these teams mentoring their young defence is invaluable and worth disgarding a player and a prospect like Weber or Seabrooke. In fact I think Ottawa could afford to trade Hossa and Redden right now for Legwand, Hartnell and Weber or to Chicago for Bell, Arnason and Seabrooke or for Cole, Williams and Ward. The return of experienced youth, size, grit and a good prospect will be worth it. Remember, we have our own prospects as well who will also be fighting for a jobs. Let's not wallow in pity but plan properly and adjust, just another outrageous opinion though.

aragorn is offline  
Old
08-17-2005, 07:13 PM
  #2
Release The Lehner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 871
vCash: 500
Very nice post.

It all comes down to our managements thoughts on whether or not we can win the cup though. If this is the year to make the run then we bite the bullet and go for it with the risk of losing some of these guys next year.

If this isn't the year then they should be looking to make some trades and put together a team that, 2 or 3 years from now can make the run. Something like Chara/Redden for Bouwmeester, and then Hossa/Alfie for Cole and Williams. That way we pay only 2 top end salaries while those players blossom and the team creates chemistry. Then when they're presumably in their final years of RFA and are looking at huge raises, we make the decision again whether to go for it or not.

Release The Lehner is offline  
Old
08-17-2005, 07:16 PM
  #3
Tap on the Ankle
Nobody remembers No2
 
Tap on the Ankle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Not all players got screwed in this deal. It's the guys who, at the end of the day, will be forced to take near league minimum salaries just to play in the NHL. The star players, and even semi-stars, will still get their money. It's just going to be in a more controlled manner, and there is much more parity around the league in terms of spending ability, so instead of having all the overpaid stars on three or four teams, you're going to start seeing the overpaid players spread throughout the league.

No doubt this CBA is not good news for Ottawa. But being a small/mid market team with masses of young talent under the old CBA was not good news either. Either way, we were bound to lose star players. This new CBA just makes it happen faster, yet it gives us a bigger advantage in re-signing our own guys, since all the big market teams can't just completely outbid us for them due to the cap. However, any team with the cap space can. All it will take is careful management to ensure that we don't corner ourselves into another situation like we'll unfortunately be facing this summer (not that it was management's fault this is going to happen, it's just this new CBA came at the worst possible time for us).

As for Hossa, there really is little to no chance he stays in Ottawa beyond 05-06. It's a fact and we all know it. The man has made it clear he wants to get paid, and getting paid that much just isn't going to happen in Ottawa. My opinion on the matter is just to go through with the arbitration, get him on that 1-year deal (will likely be $4-5m, $5.5m tops), and aim for the Cup this season. So what if he walks? I'd rather some other team bog down their cap space trying to meet his ridiculous contract demands than us. If anyone's got the depth to replace him, it's us. Two cheers for good drafting!

The Sens are, and always have been, operated in team-first method. Players on this team are expected to put the team's needs before their own wants, and if Hossa isn't interested in doing that, then good riddance and goodbye. I'd rather have players that want to wear the black, red, and gold than bathe themselves in the green, and so do the Senators. Having players that want to play for your team and are willing to take less than market value to do it is going to be key to long-term success in the new NHL. Hossa has shown us that he is not that type of player, so it's time we show him the door. We could use his would-be cap space to give some of our other players (namely Redden and Chara) much deserved raises, and luckily we have two other guys (Spezza and Havlat) who are talented enough to make up for the loss of Marian, and young enough to be sticking around for a few more years.

Tap on the Ankle is offline  
Old
08-17-2005, 08:51 PM
  #4
Frank Finnigan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisher
No doubt this CBA is not good news for Ottawa. But being a small/mid market team with masses of young talent under the old CBA was not good news either. Either way, we were bound to lose star players. This new CBA just makes it happen faster, yet it gives us a bigger advantage in re-signing our own guys, since all the big market teams can't just completely outbid us for them due to the cap. However, any team with the cap space can. All it will take is careful management to ensure that we don't corner ourselves into another situation like we'll unfortunately be facing this summer (not that it was management's fault this is going to happen, it's just this new CBA came at the worst possible time for us).
The situation we are in isn't that unfortunate. Really, we have too many good players is what it comes down to. We are going to lose players sooner, which sucks, but the new CBA will bring equity into this league. We can gripe all we want -and trust me, I've been griping just as much as the next guy - but this CBA really is about parity. Because apparently even Edmonton has enough money to throw around.

A lot of teams will realize that they didn't make wise investments. You still won't be able to win the cup with one guy. Hossa may get his $7 million, but if he does, I would bet on him never winning a cup.

Frank Finnigan is offline  
Old
08-17-2005, 10:35 PM
  #5
sensens
Registered User
 
sensens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragorn
Remember when everyone was saying how the players got screwed with this new CBA? Remember, how everyone said that Goodenow had to resign because the deal was so bad for the players? How many people feel like that now? Why haven't we heard from the players how crappy this deal has been for them?
Frankly, I'm not sure what you're talking about. First off, don't forget for a second about that little 24% rollback, which not too many players were too happy about. Secondly, while some of the deals we're seeing are big in light of the cap, they certainly are not out of line versus what people were being paid under the old CBA. And are you really forgetting about some of the MASSIVE paycuts a good number of players have been taking through all of this?

Ask Pronger about making $6.25M versus $10M. Ask Naslund about making $6M instead of what would almost certainly have been more like $9M. Ask Forsberg about having to leave Colorado, and taking a pretty serious pay cut to play with a competitive team. Ask Modano about getting seriously low-balled in Dallas. What about Holik going from $9M to about $4M? Or Hejduk dropping to $3.7M to stay in Colorado? Or what about the mid-range players? Ask Gratton about now being paid $900K... or Stumpel about playing for $1.7M. What about O'Neill at just $1.5M? Or the Sedins for $1.25M each? How about every rookie who would have liked to have made something like $1.2M plus a ridiculous bonus scheme, but now is looking $924K in the face? Or a guy like Vermette with a $535K salary that's considerably less than he made when he was actually playing over 50 games in the NHL?

"Big" contracts being thrown at Nash and Lecavalier doesn't change any of that, because at the end of the day Nash will be averaging out to the same annual salary that Martin Lapointe got from Boston a few years ago, and Lecavalier will essentially be making annually what Pavol Demitra got from an arbitrator. The kind of money that Hossa is seeking is pretty much exactly what we handed over to Alfredsson (pre-rollback), and all of a sudden we're losing our minds, thinking that it's highway robbery. I think you're maybe forgetting just how much money some of these guys were being paid under the old CBA, and what it would have cost this team to have kept them all long-term.

I really think that a lot of sanity has been restored to the pay structure, and that the CBA has proven to do exactly what it promised to so far - encourage parity, allow good players to earn good wages faster, and force GM's to be a bit more prudent with their decisions. Some GM's have been wiser than others - at least on the surface - and the proof of this will be in the pudding come next June. In the meantime, though, just because the players aren't publically whining about it, I really don't see how you can argue that the players haven't take a pretty big hit.


Last edited by sensens: 08-18-2005 at 10:24 AM.
sensens is offline  
Old
08-17-2005, 11:02 PM
  #6
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Well, it sucks if you are a 2nd to 4th line guy or a 4th to 6th Dman. Sure its nice to be a star and still earn over 6 mil, but thats hapenning on the backs of all the decent though not necessarily star players around them.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
08-17-2005, 11:20 PM
  #7
Sting
Registered User
 
Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Sting
Stocking up with young, cheap players is a good idea intially. But then a few years down the road, aren't we going to be in nearly the same situation? The years where we'll have our best shot at a Cup? One team can no longer have more than 3 or so stars it seems. So once a young player gets too good, you have to let him go or else make your club less competitive to keep him.

In my mind the new CBA pretty much sucks..coming from a fan of a team that has done a great job of drafting and developing.

As for the players, I'm sure they're suffering too. But I doubt as much as the millions of fans who will be upset to watch their favourite players leaving to make more money elsewhere.

Sting is offline  
Old
08-18-2005, 07:37 AM
  #8
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Goodenow wasn't fired for negotiating a terrible deal for the players, but for wasting a season when this fair deal was available.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
08-18-2005, 09:37 AM
  #9
It Kills Me
Registered User
 
It Kills Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,792
vCash: 500
I think it'll take a few years for the league salary to go with the cap.. Players signed long term big cash this off-season because they know that next year teams won't offer as much because they've got money on other players (ex. Aucoin,) for alot.

It Kills Me is offline  
Old
08-18-2005, 11:32 AM
  #10
o-dog
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
The CBA is a bad deal in the sense that they could have had a higher cap had they accepted the NHL's deadline offer, and even more if it was at the beginning of the last year. It is also going to effect the lesser lights in that there is only so much money going around after the stars sign. Seeing CuJo sign for $900K with only the possibilty of $1.5M after bonuses would never have happened in the old CBA.

However, speaking in real world terms, the CBA is amazing for the players. I wish I could get a job with a starting salary of $450,000 US with an average wage in the $1,600,000 range doing what I love the most, and having puck bunnies in 30 different cities waving their goods in my face for the taking. Best job in the world, even more so than Hollywood actors and porn stars...

o-dog is offline  
Old
08-18-2005, 11:59 AM
  #11
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,426
vCash: 500
Why is it bad?

Well, its not that its THAT bad but with this CBA, players CAN'T earn more than 54% of the revenues while they were getting 76% BEFORE. You have your answer now.

Its no more HOW MUCH you spend. Now its more ON WHO. But at the end, ALL players salary CAN'T be over 54% of the revenues. The Stars will still get BIG money and the lower guys will be the one who needs to take a paycut or they won't play in the NHL anymore.

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
08-18-2005, 01:56 PM
  #12
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41
Well, its not that its THAT bad but with this CBA, players CAN'T earn more than 54% of the revenues while they were getting 76% BEFORE. You have your answer now.

Its no more HOW MUCH you spend. Now its more ON WHO. But at the end, ALL players salary CAN'T be over 54% of the revenues. The Stars will still get BIG money and the lower guys will be the one who needs to take a paycut or they won't play in the NHL anymore.
Actually the percentage amount increases depending on revenues:

The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion

Kickabrat is offline  
Old
08-18-2005, 02:40 PM
  #13
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickabrat
Actually the percentage amount increases depending on revenues:
The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion
Actually, i knew...

But you still got the point about getting a MAX pct. of the revenues for the players?

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
08-18-2005, 05:24 PM
  #14
Gary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 5,307
vCash: 500
How do we know if this C.B.A. is good for the players or not? This year is very superficial. Gm's are panicking, and there's alot of bidding going on for players' rights. In 2 or 3 years, let's see where the players stand. There's not always going to be 20 teams bidding on every decent player out there...

Gary 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 07:17 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.