HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

You can see why NHL Players don't want NFL type deal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-02-2004, 10:30 AM
  #1
officeglen
Registered User
 
officeglen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 3,241
vCash: 500
You can see why NHL Players don't want NFL type deal

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsn.ca articles
Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts agreed to a $99.2-million US, seven-year contract that includes a record $34.5 million signing bonus, The Associated Press learned Tuesday.
...
Running back Clinton Portis agreed to an eight-year, $50.5-million US contract with the Washington Redskins on Monday, all but sealing a trade that would send cornerback Champ Bailey to the Denver Broncos.

The deal includes $17 million in bonus money, according to Portis' agent, Drew Rosenhaus.
You can see why NHLPA would never agree to that type of system.

officeglen is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 10:39 AM
  #2
K215215
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by officeglen
You can see why NHLPA would never agree to that type of system.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/f...dolphins-front

K215215 is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 10:50 AM
  #3
officeglen
Registered User
 
officeglen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 3,241
vCash: 500
Nice article link. On the subject of guaranteed contracts in the NFL it seems we are seeing bigger signing bonus, which is a form of guarantee -> even if you don't play you get $34.5 million in Manning's case.

officeglen is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 10:51 AM
  #4
K215215
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by officeglen
Nice article link. On the subject of guaranteed contracts in the NFL it seems we are seeing bigger signing bonus, which is a form of guarantee -> even if you don't play you get $34.5 million in Manning's case.
remember though, Manning and Portis are the exceptions to the general rule.

K215215 is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 12:15 PM
  #5
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by K215215
remember though, Manning and Portis are the exceptions to the general rule.

Also, if each and every NFL team is getting $80 million from network TV, there's lots and lots of leverage teams can apply to salaries and bonuses. A luxury the NHL does not have.

An interesting question for NHL management, the legal system, and union historians would be, "How was the NHL Players Union able to use the system to extort NFL/NBA/MLB type salaries from a league that did not have the same revenue base as the other industries?

Inquiring minds would like to know...was it the arbitration system? The garunteed contract?

-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 12:46 PM
  #6
Zhackpot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 540
vCash: 500
49ers will cut Jeff Garcia due to cap concerns


6 of one, half dozen of another with a salary cap in place in the NHL.

Currently, teams have to trade players to stay under budget.

With a cap teams will have to trade players or cut them to stay under a salary cap.

What's the difference?

Zhackpot is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 01:09 PM
  #7
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhackpot
49ers will cut Jeff Garcia due to cap concerns


6 of one, half dozen of another with a salary cap in place in the NHL.

Currently, teams have to trade players to stay under budget.

With a cap teams will have to trade players or cut them to stay under a salary cap.

What's the difference?
The difference is that if the NHL cuts a player, they still have to pay him. That's the falacy behind the salary cap idea...it doesn't work as long as there are garunteed contracts.
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 01:12 PM
  #8
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhackpot
49ers will cut Jeff Garcia due to cap concerns


6 of one, half dozen of another with a salary cap in place in the NHL.

Currently, teams have to trade players to stay under budget.

With a cap teams will have to trade players or cut them to stay under a salary cap.

What's the difference?
The difference is that as of now, most teams have to trade players due to economic concerns, and a few teams doesn't have to. If a cap is in place, then teams like NYR, Detroit, Colorado, St Louis, etc will not have an advantage on the other teams and the playing field will be level. That being said, it does suck that some of your favorite players have to leave, but I think the advantages of having a level playing field is more important.

oil slick is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 02:49 PM
  #9
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
The difference is that as of now, most teams have to trade players due to economic concerns, and a few teams doesn't have to. If a cap is in place, then teams like NYR, Detroit, Colorado, St Louis, etc will not have an advantage on the other teams and the playing field will be level.
What advantage do the Rangers have? They've missed the playoffs longer then anyone else in the league.

Why do you think St Louis and Colorado have an advantage? It's not like those are huge markets.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 03:30 PM
  #10
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
What advantage do the Rangers have? They've missed the playoffs longer then anyone else in the league.

Why do you think St Louis and Colorado have an advantage? It's not like those are huge markets.
It doesn't necessarily have to do with market size(although this often contributes to it), it has to do with a number of factors, including how much cash the ownership has to spend, whether local governments are giving tax breaks etc.etc.

But the end result is the following assertions:

1)For a mash of reasons, some teams are able to have a higher payroll. - I don't think this is really disputable, the ownership group in Edmonton do not have the resources to spend 60 million dollars... to loose 10 - 20 million a year as some teams do. Is it fair that there fans don't have a shot at the cup? NO!

2)That payroll has an effect of success. Sure there are teams that defy the trend... The New York Rangers are one, but still are you really disputing that a team with a higher payroll generally does better?

This is a list of Stanley cup winners. Sure, the NJ devils are pretty good bang for your buck, but the fact remains that a team has not won the cup if their payroll is in the bottom half of the league. Whats more more than half the winners had payrolls in the top five of the league. There is an undeniable correlation here.

2003 New Jersey $52.4 million 8th out of 30
2002 Detroit $64.4 million 1st out of 30
2001 Colorado $50.5 million 3rd out of 30
2000 New Jersey $31.3 million 15th out of 28
1999 Dallas $39.8 million 2nd out of 27
1998 Detroit $28.4 million 9th out of 26
1997 Detroit $28.9 million 4th out of 26
1996 Colorado $20.6 million 11th out of 26
1995 New Jersey $16.5 million 10th out of 26
1994 NY Rangers $17.6 million 2nd out of 26
1993 Montreal $13.2 million 4th out of 24
1992 Pittsburgh $10.4 million 2nd out of 22

oil slick is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 03:53 PM
  #11
Iceburgh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
1992 Pittsburgh $10.4 million 2nd out of 22
2003 New Jersey $52.4 million 8th out of 30

Darn those nasty inflation rates!

Iceburgh is offline  
Old
03-02-2004, 04:00 PM
  #12
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Wow! Oilslick! Thanks for the info! What leaps out is the fact that in 1992, Before Bettman, the Pens had the 2nd highest payroll at 10.4 million, which included Lemieux AND Jagr!!

Then, in 2003 the 8th highest payroll, the Devs, was 52.4 Million!!!

And Betmann was brought in to get a union deal and a network deal...

How does this ninny still have a job? And I don't ask that rhetorically, I'd really like to know what he's got that keeps the owners begging for more? It certainly isn't ability, bargaining talent or his knowledge of the game...

-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 08:02 AM
  #13
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
1)For a mash of reasons, some teams are able to have a higher payroll. - I don't think this is really disputable, the ownership group in Edmonton do not have the resources to spend 60 million dollars... to loose 10 - 20 million a year as some teams do. Is it fair that there fans don't have a shot at the cup? NO!
Do you really need to spend 60 million to have a shot at the Cup? Since players are paid based upon their age more then their talent level, the most expensive team is not always the most talented team.

While the Rangers and Leafs can spend whatever they want on salary, how much has it helped them win the Cup in the current CBA?

The Senators, who had a $30M payroll last year, had an excellent shot at the Cup last year and were considered by many to be the favourites this year.

If Ottawa can have a shot at the Cup with a $30M payroll, why can't Edmonton? Or do Oiler fans just believe the excuses of Oiler management that justify their mediocrity over the past decade?

Quote:
2)That payroll has an effect of success. Sure there are teams that defy the trend... The New York Rangers are one, but still are you really disputing that a team with a higher payroll generally does better?
Make an argument that would convince me. Try correlating winning percentage with payroll. Make a statistical argument that proves that teams with low payrolls can't compete in today's NHL.

Quote:
This is a list of Stanley cup winners. Sure, the NJ devils are pretty good bang for your buck, but the fact remains that a team has not won the cup if their payroll is in the bottom half of the league. Whats more more than half the winners had payrolls in the top five of the league. There is an undeniable correlation here.
An undeniable correlation? Have you ever heard of something called sample size?

The fact remains?

Quote:
2000 New Jersey $31.3 million 15th out of 28

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 08:43 AM
  #14
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Do you really need to spend 60 million to have a shot at the Cup? Since players are paid based upon their age more then their talent level, the most expensive team is not always the most talented team.
True - and this means young good teams like Ottawa can be very competive. However, up until last year (with new ownership), they would have had to dismantle the team in a few years. This is a problem to me. You can assemble a very good team, play them for a few years, but then you have to dismantle, whereas the Red Wings/ Avs/ Blues don't have to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Make an argument that would convince me. Try correlating winning percentage with payroll. Make a statistical argument that proves that teams with low payrolls can't compete in today's NHL.
Thought about it, but I should really work for my boss instead. But if someone feels like doing it, that would be awesome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
An undeniable correlation? Have you ever heard of something called sample size?
Well with such a small population (30) you actually don't need that large a sample size... you are right that this does not show an iron clad argument, but are you denying that there looks to be a trend? Why don't we turn this around. Give me some evidence that payroll has no effect on winning percentage or the odds of winning a cup.

oil slick is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 08:46 AM
  #15
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Since players are paid based upon their age more then their talent level
Im not even sure what to say about this.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 09:05 AM
  #16
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Im not even sure what to say about this.
How about "I agree"?

Other Dave

Other Dave is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 10:20 AM
  #17
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Make an argument that would convince me. Try correlating winning percentage with payroll. Make a statistical argument that proves that teams with low payrolls can't compete in today's NHL.
Ladies and gentlemen Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig.

You are right Mr. Selig the Marlins beat the Yankees in last years World Series so that proves baseball has no problems what so ever. The NHL should keep their current CBA and be exactly like MLB.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 11:05 AM
  #18
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
I think the issue is not that teams can or can't compete, but that they can't afford to keep players they have spent a long time developing. Those players become integral to a team's make-up and acquire devoted followings among a team's fanbase. In some markets, as soon as a player reaches a certain level of accomplishment, his stats are comapred to others in the league and his salary adjusted upwards by the courts no less. This is a hideous abuse of labor law and damning to the business side of these teams. Sure, if an owner wants to go crazy spending money that's his problem. And there certainly is no garuntee that money will be spent wisely. But anymore, even more conservative, long term programs fall apart just as the players reach maturity, their contracts are up and their demands ruinous. The minute the popular players leave town the fans get furious and boycott, putting even more pressure on teams to overspend. One hunderd percent of total revenue potential must be realized for a team to break even these days and that's a lot to ask.
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 02:51 PM
  #19
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,931
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by officeglen
Nice article link. On the subject of guaranteed contracts in the NFL it seems we are seeing bigger signing bonus, which is a form of guarantee -> even if you don't play you get $34.5 million in Manning's case.
NFL teams do have the option of giving guaranteed contracts. They just chose not to. I wonder if NHL owners could show similar restraint?
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...02/1032251.asp
Interesting excerpt on the Bills interest in Drew Henson.
The Henson situation figures to be in a state of flux as well. Henson can't get a traditional signing bonus, like most rookies, because he must fit into the Texans' rookie salary cap as a sixth-round draftee. The way to get around that is by making his base salaries guaranteed (unlike most NFL contracts). Should he get $5 million, for instance, in guaranteed money? That's much more than a second-round pick would get. And that's the debate.

"We have interest in Drew Henson, but we still have not been shown a way to do a contract that would make us comfortable," Donahoe said. "Until we're shown that it really doesn't serve any purpose to bring him in. It appears there would be a lot of hoops you'd have to jump through to do the contract."


Buffaloed is offline  
Old
03-03-2004, 05:45 PM
  #20
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 35,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
I think the issue is not that teams can or can't compete, but that they can't afford to keep players they have spent a long time developing. Those players become integral to a team's make-up and acquire devoted followings among a team's fanbase. In some markets, as soon as a player reaches a certain level of accomplishment, his stats are comapred to others in the league and his salary adjusted upwards by the courts no less. This is a hideous abuse of labor law and damning to the business side of these teams. Sure, if an owner wants to go crazy spending money that's his problem. And there certainly is no garuntee that money will be spent wisely. But anymore, even more conservative, long term programs fall apart just as the players reach maturity, their contracts are up and their demands ruinous. The minute the popular players leave town the fans get furious and boycott, putting even more pressure on teams to overspend. One hunderd percent of total revenue potential must be realized for a team to break even these days and that's a lot to ask.
-HckyFght!
And a salary cap does nothing to prevent this, in fact it makes it even more likely. The era of sports you describe is passe, no matter what economic system is in place.

Epsilon is online now  
Old
03-04-2004, 03:30 AM
  #21
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
in your opinions, do y'all think increased parity is better for the game? basically, if every team has a legitimate shot at the cup in oct, would more fans goto games and therefore increase the popularity of the sport as a whole (which should in theory lead to a better TV deal)? IF that does happen would it then not be feasible for the salary cap that is put in place to increase w/ increased revenues at a predetermined rate or is all of that wishful thinking on my part?

sandman08 is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 08:07 AM
  #22
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman08
would more fans goto games and therefore increase the popularity of the sport as a whole (which should in theory lead to a better TV deal)?
Of course more people would go. The NHL is a business. Their job is to make money not preserve hockey. They are in the entertainment business not the never change hockey cause we have to please our current fans and never gain any new ones.

A salary cap would give people hope that their team could win a championship. In a way thats really what sports teams sell. They sell the hope that you will get to see your team win. Right now some fans are just hoping their team will survive.

People will tell you a salary cap kills dynasties. Is that really true? Look at the current NHL. Is there any team that could afford a dynasty? When was the last time you saw a dynasty? I would argue that big money contracts have already killed dynasties. Nobody could afford the Oilers of the 80's. There was no dynasty in the 90's. Next season will go into 2005 and no team looks to be building a dynasty now. Dynasties are alreay dead.

People will tell you owners can work fine under the current CBA. They can pay the players whatever they want. I say thats the problem. Owners that dont have to worry about money can spend whatever they want. I say there is no reason players, under a cap, cant agree to take less to keep a good team together. If players think they are part of a budding dynasty why cant they take less money to keep it together? The answer of course is it just wont happen. Deep pocket owners wont pay less because shallow pocket owners cant keep up. Players want someone to show them the money. Why be a second line player on a dynasty when you can be a first liner somewhere else for more money.

People will tell you a salary cap makes all the team mediocre. I say look at MLB they have no cap and arent most of the teams there just hoping to be mediocre? Outside of Boston and New York who else has the moeny to be a dynasty? Arent all the other teams hoping to be able to be mediocre and maybe taking a shot every couple years?

Talk about mediocre look at the current NHL product. I wounldnt even call that crap good enough to be mediocre.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 08:16 AM
  #23
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Of course more people would go.
with that nickname i dont know if i want you to agree with me.. anyways back to the topic on hand now, would the theoretical increase in popularity lead to a really good television deal (not as lucrative immediately but lucrative enough to be competitive w/ the NFL, NBA or MLB) ... i mean lucrative enough to make revenue sharing (NFL style) worthwhile even?

sandman08 is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 09:37 AM
  #24
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Of course more people would go. The NHL is a business. Their job is to make money not preserve hockey. They are in the entertainment business not the never change hockey cause we have to please our current fans and never gain any new ones.

A salary cap would give people hope that their team could win a championship. In a way thats really what sports teams sell. They sell the hope that you will get to see your team win. Right now some fans are just hoping their team will survive.

People will tell you a salary cap kills dynasties. Is that really true? Look at the current NHL. Is there any team that could afford a dynasty? When was the last time you saw a dynasty? I would argue that big money contracts have already killed dynasties. Nobody could afford the Oilers of the 80's. There was no dynasty in the 90's. Next season will go into 2005 and no team looks to be building a dynasty now. Dynasties are alreay dead.

I will argue that there are 3 teams that have been nearly dynasties in the NHL right now. Colorado, Detroit and New Jersey. They have won all but one of the Stanley Cups since 1995. In a league with more teams it is harder to get ahead of everyone. In for example a 6 team NHL you could control so much of the talent that it was next to impossible that any other team could acquire enough to beat you on a regular basis (and that happened with the Montreal Canadiens in the late 50s). Now no one team can control that big a portion of the available talent. That alone makes dynasties harder.

A couple elite teams playing very good playoff series against one another annually in the playoffs is still very possible - and probable unless the CBA is changed to prevent any team from keeping its core together if they win. Right now if you acquire a very good core of players then you will be a very good team for many years in a row and there is nothing anyone can do about it unless they bring in some financial constraints to prevent you from keeping that core. That is the knock on a salary cap. There cannot be any really good teams because it will exceed the cap to pay for their core alone - so the best teams are mediocre. The Stanley Cup finals are two hot mediocre teams playing against each other. Then when the team wins the cup and players want pay raises they have to jettison a lot of that core and weaken their team. Next year two other mediocre teams will make the finals. And the fan loses out because never again will we see a team as good as Colorado, Detroit or New Jersey has been for the past decade.

CH is offline  
Old
03-04-2004, 10:18 AM
  #25
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
I will argue that there are 3 teams that have been nearly dynasties in the NHL right now. Colorado, Detroit and New Jersey. They have won all but one of the Stanley Cups since 1995. In a league with more teams it is harder to get ahead of everyone. In for example a 6 team NHL you could control so much of the talent that it was next to impossible that any other team could acquire enough to beat you on a regular basis (and that happened with the Montreal Canadiens in the late 50s). Now no one team can control that big a portion of the available talent. That alone makes dynasties harder.
Near dynasties are not dynasties. You can also argue the Dallas Cowboys of the NFL were a near dynasty. A near dynasty in the salary cap era.

I really dont see any difference in great teams over the 90's in the NFL and NHL. The NFL had the Cowboys, 49ers, Broncos, and Packers all with teams you could consider great. The NHL had the Red Wings, Penguins, Avalanche, and Devils that could be considered great.

Right now I dont see any great teams.

The 50's really have nothing to do with today. Remove the draft and go back to the way it was in 1950 and maybe it will be easier for certain teams to control talent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
A couple elite teams playing very good playoff series against one another annually in the playoffs is still very possible - and probable unless the CBA is changed to prevent any team from keeping its core together if they win. Right now if you acquire a very good core of players then you will be a very good team for many years in a row and there is nothing anyone can do about it unless they bring in some financial constraints to prevent you from keeping that core. That is the knock on a salary cap. There cannot be any really good teams because it will exceed the cap to pay for their core alone - so the best teams are mediocre. The Stanley Cup finals are two hot mediocre teams playing against each other. Then when the team wins the cup and players want pay raises they have to jettison a lot of that core and weaken their team. Next year two other mediocre teams will make the finals. And the fan loses out because never again will we see a team as good as Colorado, Detroit or New Jersey has been for the past decade.
Oh really? I ask the question again, who can afford a dynasty? Look at a team like Atlanta right now. They are building a very good team. At some point they are going to get hit with some high contracts. At current contract levels it isnt impossible to see Kovalchuk, Heatly, Lehtonen, and Coburn taking up 35-40 million in payroll. Thats a lot of money for 4 players. So now Atlanta has to jetison players because they cannot afford them.

Something has to be done. I think a soft cap that allows some way for teams to keep its own draft choices would be the best solution.

iagreewithidiots 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 09:57 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.