HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

This Weekends Brooks Article

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-01-2004, 05:45 PM
  #1
K215215
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 137
vCash: 500
This Weekends Brooks Article

I cant believe that nobody is talking about this

http://www.nypost.com/sports/23957.htm

BTW, with all the free agents out, anyone still think that the market for salaries isnt going to correct itself this summer and the following summers.

The owners are full of it. No, Bettman is full of it. The players have proposed a way to save hockey next season and the owners have balked because Bettman has convinced the owners that whats best for Carolina and Phoenix and Edmonton is best for Hockey. BS.

As for the draft idea...beyond idiotic.

K215215 is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 07:13 PM
  #2
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 31,325
vCash: 500
I don't have one bit of faith in Bettman or the likes of Bill Wirtz, Jermy Jacobs or Tom Hicks, but this is out of Larry Brooks, which automaticaly makes it suspect.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 07:16 PM
  #3
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,967
vCash: 500
Brooks has a lot of bad "rumors" but when it comes to strictly the game of hockey and politics in and around it, he's one of the better writers I've seen.

Just because he can be creative with possible trades doesn't mean the other things he writes about are garbage.

Evil Sather is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 07:24 PM
  #4
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 31,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather
Brooks has a lot of bad "rumors" but when it comes to strictly the game of hockey and politics in and around it, he's one of the better writers I've seen.

Just because he can be creative with possible trades doesn't mean the other things he writes about are garbage.
I've never really though so. He fires off at Leonosis and the Caps who had some choice words for him earlier this season. He went so far as to blame the small markets for increasing salaries a couple of years ago. He's probably just setting himself up for pro-NHLPA spots on round table shows.

I can't much stand him or the New York Post anymore.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 07:37 PM
  #5
190Octane
Registered User
 
190Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fullerton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,076
vCash: 500
If he was a hockey writer in Pittsburgh, Edmonton or some other small market that just can't afford to compete with the Rangers, he wouldn't be writing articles like this one.

190Octane is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 09:15 PM
  #6
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
It doesn't really matter what Bettman told the owners to use as a guide for making offers, the players don't have to accept the offer yet. They can hold out for a better offer if they want. But, the actual rookie salary cap in the CBA, when it is signed, may actually be worse. Until the rookie cap is in the CBA and it is agreed to, the players don't have to accept the offer...

My personnal opinion is that the rookie salary cap doesn't do too much to limit salaries anyway. After the rookie contract, the player can negotiate whatever salary they think is fair for them that the team will agree to. And if the player is not happy with what the club is offering, they just hold out anyway.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 11:18 PM
  #7
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
My personnal opinion is that the rookie salary cap doesn't do too much to limit salaries anyway. After the rookie contract, the player can negotiate whatever salary they think is fair for them that the team will agree to. And if the player is not happy with what the club is offering, they just hold out anyway.
I was thinking about this exact same thing this week as well. I questioned whether or not the NHLPA would agree to setting limits for other contracts than the rookie contracts, like limiting contracts until players become UFA's. I'm sure they'd agree to it...if the right concessions are made.

Say that the first contract basically says you can make no more than $1.3 million up until age 21, maybe have another deal that doubles that to $2.6 million up until age 24. For ages up to 27 $3.9 million, and so on to 30 being $5.2 million cap.

While I know that some will discount the idea before they even read it, I think it can work from both sides. It all depends on setting the limits however, and the corresponding ages.

For example,
Brad Richards, 24 this year, under contract for $2.6 million
Brad Stuart, 25 this year, under contract for $2.5 million
Patrick Marleau, 25, under contract for $2.4 million

They fit the logic.

Some who would be considered over the limit, and I admit these guys are probably worth the money...

Marian Gaborik, 22 years old, $2.9 million
Vincent Lecavlier, 24 years old, $4.4 million

It wouldn't be that hard, and the contracts would fit in.

However, the bigger problem seems to be UFA spending. Anyway, food for thought.

Guest is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 01:14 AM
  #8
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I was thinking about this exact same thing this week as well. I questioned whether or not the NHLPA would agree to setting limits for other contracts than the rookie contracts, like limiting contracts until players become UFA's. I'm sure they'd agree to it...if the right concessions are made.
The changes you suggest would hardly affect any players at all. It certainly wouldn't have a large impact on the bottom line for teams. Until players approach free agency, there are a relative handful of players at each age that even make the NHL average.

I think the NHLPA will consider anything except a direct link between wages and revenues. Unfortunately the only system acceptable to the owners is a system that does directly link wages to revenues.

The Brooks article seems to be a bit of a stretch. If anything the fact that owners are apparently trying to use a Union proposal to negotiate current contracts is actually a positive sign in my books.

I forgive him becuae he is right in the sense the NHL is running a con game on the fans. There is absolutely no reason for a labour dispute. The more hockey writers who slam the owners the better.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 04:24 AM
  #9
GodZillaAteMyZamboni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Brooks
...And guess what? The inappropriate reception he received from upper management only is going to make Ovechkin more difficult for the Caps to sign; Leonsis can bank on that.
This a boat full of BS. By all accounts, Ovechkin and Caps managment carried on after day 1 of the draft like they had just won the lottery (which I guess they did). AO was said to have worked a room full of 300 Caps fans, laughing, joking, eating, and signing autographs for close to 3 hours.

Brooks is an idiot.

GodZillaAteMyZamboni is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 05:39 AM
  #10
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The changes you suggest would hardly affect any players at all. It certainly wouldn't have a large impact on the bottom line for teams. Until players approach free agency, there are a relative handful of players at each age that even make the NHL average.
We disagree considerably on the rights and wrongs of the labor dispute, and I really don't want to get into another cap argument, but I believe that ~400 of the 690 players in the league (that's just counting roster spots) make over $1M per season, and the top 250 players make $1.6M or more. I would say that that is quite a bit more than a handfull...

http://www.hockeynut.com/0304/salaries0304.html

djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 06:05 AM
  #11
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodZillaAteMyZamboni
This a boat full of BS. By all accounts, Ovechkin and Caps managment carried on after day 1 of the draft like they had just won the lottery (which I guess they did). AO was said to have worked a room full of 300 Caps fans, laughing, joking, eating, and signing autographs for close to 3 hours.

Brooks is an idiot.
That's pretty much what I felt after reading this. That crap about how the Caps somehow dissed Ovechkin (which wasn't evident at the Draft that I saw) and the hysterical anti-Bettman, anti-small market tirade is just typical Brooks, nothing to see here.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 06:57 AM
  #12
Donnie D
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 712
vCash: 500
Your right, nothing new here. Brooks has been shilling for the big market clubs and the players association for the past year.

Donnie D is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 09:31 AM
  #13
K215215
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
That's pretty much what I felt after reading this. That crap about how the Caps somehow dissed Ovechkin (which wasn't evident at the Draft that I saw) and the hysterical anti-Bettman, anti-small market tirade is just typical Brooks, nothing to see here.

Do you really think the Caps showed AO love like they should have. Compare the treatment to what the Cavs gave LBJ last year up to his draft day.

K215215 is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 09:36 AM
  #14
K215215
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
My personnal opinion is that the rookie salary cap doesn't do too much to limit salaries anyway. After the rookie contract, the player can negotiate whatever salary they think is fair for them that the team will agree to. And if the player is not happy with what the club is offering, they just hold out anyway.
Think so? some rookie contracts end up being worth 6-10 mill in easily acheived bonuses at the end of the first 3 years. How much did THorton, Kovalchuk, Gaborik, Heater, and Havlat make on their rookie contracts with all of there easy to achieve bonuses? Of course after making 4-6 million their 3rd year in the league these guys are going to want pay increases. Thats why Gaborik was asking for 6. Teams could shave at least 6 million off a single rookie's contract over the first three years by putting in a hard rookie cap and limiting a rookies earnings to 3.5 mill total.

K215215 is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 10:01 AM
  #15
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 29,991
vCash: 855
Quote:
Originally Posted by K215215
Do you really think the Caps showed AO love like they should have. Compare the treatment to what the Cavs gave LBJ last year up to his draft day.

Caps are wisely waiting for the cba dust to settle,hoping that the new cba bans those lucrative rookie signing bonus'.Kovalchuk made roughly $11m in bonus in his rookie contract.

Someone posted that a NY writer had proposed a predraft trade,that would have sent the Caps #1 overall pick to the nyr and in exchange, the rangers would pay the remaining salary the caps owe for Jagr.Gee which ny writer would come up with an idea like that


Last edited by CREW99AW: 07-02-2004 at 11:15 AM.
CREW99AW is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 10:10 AM
  #16
jt2004
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 73
vCash: 500


Of course Brooks doesn't see economic problems the corporation that owns the Rangers just writes off the loses!

What he's really saying is I don't care about the average fan who continues to pay all the expenses. As TV revenues plummet what does he think will happen to tickets prices?


Last edited by jt2004: 07-02-2004 at 10:13 AM.
jt2004 is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 10:31 AM
  #17
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt2004
What he's really saying is I don't care about the average fan who continues to pay all the expenses. As TV revenues plummet what does he think will happen to tickets prices?
The only link between tv revenues and ticket prices would be that if overall demand for hockey declines it will lead to both lower tv revenues and lower ticket prices.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 11:08 AM
  #18
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
We disagree considerably on the rights and wrongs of the labor dispute, and I really don't want to get into another cap argument, but I believe that ~400 of the 690 players in the league (that's just counting roster spots) make over $1M per season, and the top 250 players make $1.6M or more. I would say that that is quite a bit more than a handfull...
You do not understand the NHL salary structure. Reread his proposal and tell me how many players on your team would be affected.

It would make a difference to two Canucks - Jovanovski and Bertuzzi. Vancouver would have a payroll that was perhaps $1.5 million lower. Even that exaggerates the savings because Todd's contract would merely have been restructured. Instead of getting $6 million a year for four years, he would have got $5 million for the first two years and $7 million on the last two years.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 12:01 PM
  #19
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,326
vCash: 500
I think you might have slightly missed a couple of the points of my post.

1) I said the ages and money amounts are negotiable, I just threw out the first thing off the top of my head because the current rookie cap was $1.3 million and that contract sometimes lasts until they are around 21 years old.

2) Part of it that I like is it sets a standard for players with holdouts. They can still holdout for their max limit, but it's a set amount. So for example, Marian Gaborik can't hold out for $6 million a season, he could only hold out for $2.6 million a season.

The major detraction to this all are the bonuses in the contracts, because that didn't even limit the rookie contracts under the old CBA. It doesn't matter what you talk about with contract limits if bonuses can go below the radar.

Guest is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 12:07 PM
  #20
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by K215215
Do you really think the Caps showed AO love like they should have. Compare the treatment to what the Cavs gave LBJ last year up to his draft day.
What the NBA does really doesn't have any relevance IMO. Like I said, I saw no indications that Ovechkin got any better or worse treatment than any other #1 pick. Brooks' conjecture isn't going to convince me otherwise.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 03:24 PM
  #21
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
1) I said the ages and money amounts are negotiable, I just threw out the first thing off the top of my head because the current rookie cap was $1.3 million and that contract sometimes lasts until they are around 21 years old.
All initial contracts are for three years, assuming the player signs it before he is 24 years old. The only players who head into a second contract at age 21 played at age 18. In other words, very few of them. Those very few are all very outstanding players, future superstars.

I think you missed my point which is that you are focussing on a handful of players. Those handful of players could be paid the NHL minimum and the big picture - the total paid out in salaries - would change very little.

Quote:
2) Part of it that I like is it sets a standard for players with holdouts. They can still holdout for their max limit, but it's a set amount. So for example, Marian Gaborik can't hold out for $6 million a season, he could only hold out for $2.6 million a season.
Again, this hardly matters. There aren't more than one or two holdouts a year. They could get $10 milion or zero and the big picture hardly changes a whit.

Quote:
The major detraction to this all are the bonuses in the contracts, because that didn't even limit the rookie contracts under the old CBA. It doesn't matter what you talk about with contract limits if bonuses can go below the radar.
And how many players actually get to cash massive bonuses? A small handful. The best of the best. They could all get twice the bonus or zero bonus and the big picture doesn't change.

The NHLPA is quite willing to negotiate away the right to these bonuses because it does not affect enough players to make any real difference to the player share of the pie.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
07-03-2004, 12:41 AM
  #22
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW
Caps are wisely waiting for the cba dust to settle,hoping that the new cba bans those lucrative rookie signing bonus'.Kovalchuk made roughly $11m in bonus in his rookie contract.
Kovalchuk is a perfect example of the point.

First, the bonuses are not easy to achieve. While the CBA does not specify amounts, it does detail the performance plateaus.

To qualify in his first year, Kovalchuk had to hit three plateaus. He hit one by scoring 29 goals (he needed 20) and a second by getting .78 points per game, (He needed .73 points.) and a third by being in the top five in the Calder race. Fifty-five points - including 20 goals - is not easy for a rookie to hit. (Defensemen need 10 goals and 35 points.) Also, obviously, only five players in the league can finish in the top five in the Calder race. Very few players qualify.

To qualify in his second year, Kovalchuk had to hit three plateaus for goals, assists, and points per game. This season he had to hit four plateaus for ice time, goals, assists, and points per game. That delivered $8 million for his "A" level bonuses.

He also had various other "B" level bonuses like for finishing in the top five in the scoring race, being a second all star, etcetera. He actually left $200,000 in bonuses uncashed because he "only" had 87 points this season when he needed 90.

The second important point is that to make $14 million in his first three years, Ilya had to become one of the very best players in the NHL. In other words, he's worth every penny. He generates real revenue for the NHL because he puts the fannies in the seats.

The issue with the owners was never the amount they paid young stars who enter the league and blow it away. Senators voluntarily paid Daigle about the same amount in his first contract. The thing that galled the owners was paying unproven players, paying flops money like Daigle what Kovalchuk made. In those days, the money was guaranteed. None of this two way contract stuff for the top guys.

Teams don't mind paying young players who make the second all-star team and win the Rocket Richard trophy and excite the fans a very decent piece of money. Ottawa would have been happy had Daigle played like Kovalchuk. These guys are the reason fans pay the money.

Third, Kovalchuck is obviously an exception, not the rule. Kovalchuk is the first player in the history of this CBA to achieve all of the so-called "A" level performance bonuses. Only the top draft picks get these kinds of bonus arrangements and most of them aren't cashed. He made more money than anyone else in the first three years of his contract than anyone else in the past ten years.

Has the rookie salary cap been effective? Paul Kariya - not covered by the cap - held out in his fourth year and eventually won a contract that paid him $8 million even though the league average salary was far lower in 1997. Does anyone seriously think Kovalchuk will get that in his next contract?

If it was not the rookie salary cap that will hold him to half what Kariya made at the same point in his career, what has done it? Is there another reason why Pronger (not covered) was making $3 million more than Iginla (covered) at the same age? Why are the young and prime time stars making so much less today than they were if they came into the league before the cap was implemented?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
07-03-2004, 05:45 AM
  #23
GodZillaAteMyZamboni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by K215215
Do you really think the Caps showed AO love like they should have. Compare the treatment to what the Cavs gave LBJ last year up to his draft day.
No team in the NHL (or any other sport) has EVER treated a possible #1 pick like Lebron was treated.

GodZillaAteMyZamboni is offline  
Old
07-03-2004, 09:51 AM
  #24
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Kovalchuk is a perfect example of the point.

First, the bonuses are not easy to achieve. While the CBA does not specify amounts, it does detail the performance plateaus.

To qualify in his first year, Kovalchuk had to hit three plateaus. He hit one by scoring 29 goals (he needed 20) and a second by getting .78 points per game, (He needed .73 points.) and a third by being in the top five in the Calder race. Fifty-five points - including 20 goals - is not easy for a rookie to hit. (Defensemen need 10 goals and 35 points.) Also, obviously, only five players in the league can finish in the top five in the Calder race. Very few players qualify.

To qualify in his second year, Kovalchuk had to hit three plateaus for goals, assists, and points per game. This season he had to hit four plateaus for ice time, goals, assists, and points per game. That delivered $8 million for his "A" level bonuses.

He also had various other "B" level bonuses like for finishing in the top five in the scoring race, being a second all star, etcetera. He actually left $200,000 in bonuses uncashed because he "only" had 87 points this season when he needed 90.

The second important point is that to make $14 million in his first three years, Ilya had to become one of the very best players in the NHL. In other words, he's worth every penny. He generates real revenue for the NHL because he puts the fannies in the seats.

The issue with the owners was never the amount they paid young stars who enter the league and blow it away. Senators voluntarily paid Daigle about the same amount in his first contract. The thing that galled the owners was paying unproven players, paying flops money like Daigle what Kovalchuk made. In those days, the money was guaranteed. None of this two way contract stuff for the top guys.

Teams don't mind paying young players who make the second all-star team and win the Rocket Richard trophy and excite the fans a very decent piece of money. Ottawa would have been happy had Daigle played like Kovalchuk. These guys are the reason fans pay the money.

Third, Kovalchuck is obviously an exception, not the rule. Kovalchuk is the first player in the history of this CBA to achieve all of the so-called "A" level performance bonuses. Only the top draft picks get these kinds of bonus arrangements and most of them aren't cashed. He made more money than anyone else in the first three years of his contract than anyone else in the past ten years.

Has the rookie salary cap been effective? Paul Kariya - not covered by the cap - held out in his fourth year and eventually won a contract that paid him $8 million even though the league average salary was far lower in 1997. Does anyone seriously think Kovalchuk will get that in his next contract?

If it was not the rookie salary cap that will hold him to half what Kariya made at the same point in his career, what has done it? Is there another reason why Pronger (not covered) was making $3 million more than Iginla (covered) at the same age? Why are the young and prime time stars making so much less today than they were if they came into the league before the cap was implemented?

Tom
Great post Tom but I really want to know where did you get the infos about the A, B level bonuses ? I would really like to read about this.

Thanks

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
07-03-2004, 10:45 AM
  #25
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Brooks has zero credibility. The guy is a mouth piece for all that is wrong with the game. He spends other people's money all too well and looks down on those that are actually trying to save the game.

One thing about Brooks that has always creeped me out is the way he says "Slap Shots has learned that...". Its like he's trying to manufacture credibility by giving himself a name that sounds like a big organization. Kind of like these small time chislers that incorporate with a really impressive sounding name (something like E.S. Hutton), print up business cards, then proceed to pass themselves off as a big wheel while conning people left and right. Like "Slap Shots" is something that makes people sit up and listen. Brooks is a snake oil salesman and should not be trusted. The guy is fool and is not intouch with reality IMO.

Lanny MacDonald* 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 04:42 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.