A way to have averted today's CBA problems

The NHL should have used its power more frequently when the salaries were getting out of hand, and reject certain contracts. To tell the difference between what is acceptable for a certain player, there should have been, and maybe even in this CBA in the works, a system to rank players. Maybe a committee of some sort could make actual salary slots and judge players whether they fall into them or not. If not, all deals that violate the player's ability/compensation level, would be rejected. A simple committee of say 30 people who know what their doing to judge all up-coming FAs.

The goal of this would be to control in effect the inflation rate of salaries. If you don't meet the quota for the next pay increase level, then try another year of playing and improve yourself. It would be much more meaningfull in a cba without a cap, but even with one, its a good thing to limit the salaries which now have a tight zone to grow within. But, I'm sure theres going to be natural salary inflation rate dampeners with the cap.

Just a thought

 

without a new CBA its called... COLLUSION

 

The NHL never had, nor will it ever have, any power to reject a contract because the league thinks it's too much.

 

It's a decent thought, and what do you know, that's how the "real world" operates. At my work, if I want more pay, then I have to prove that I meet the pre-set criteria of the next salary band.
But there would be difficulty in defining the, as you say, "quota for the next pay increase level". How is that quota defined? You'd probably have to at least have different quotas by position - a forward would certainly have different "targets" than a goalie, for instance. And then within each, what qualifies as a "raise stat"? Is a 30 goal scorer worth more than a +40 player? How does a defensive defenceman compare to one who contributes on offence? Is save percentage more value than goals against? etc. Too many variables. Plus, there are "off ice" things to consider - just as an example, a Tie Domi might be worth more to Toronto than he would on, say, Nashville.
Good thought, but I can't see it being implemented in sports. But hey, will you be my new boss??

 

I agree! I've always thought that big league commissioners should have the power to step in and stop a Steinbrenner or Jones, or anybody from signing a player that is going to raise the salary level of a position across the board by more than, say, 5%...
-HckyFght!

 

If all 30 teams stop signing players because they think they want too much it's not collusion.

...but you can't do that.

 

In reality, the only way that would happen is wth collusion.

 

Wont ever happen. Thats why they need a cap, to save themselves from themselves. Personal vendettas, grudges, ego, or whatever. In all sports it's been shown some owners can not control themselves.

 

correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it true that the NHL commissioner himself must sign off on all NHL contracts?

 

Yeah but he can't reject them for reasons like "you are paying him too much". The Commish "signing off" on the contract is to ensure that it doesn't violate any part of the CBA (so for instance, Bettman wouldn't sign off on a 4 million per year guaranteed deal for a rookie).

 

The way this could work would be to watch the current market value of other players wich are similar in stats and 'meaning'. A player like Domi would thankfully not get paid, scuse me, over paid cuase thats not his slot, its lower...consider that hes above the league avergae for a player like himself.

If you had this from the get-go, salaries would have never been able to take-off in the first place and again...you base salary increases on performance and if there was a change worthy of a raise.

And on the argument that 'you cant do this': Too bad. If I own a company and a *****y little employee wants a raise that the corp. can't support, I'm not going to approve it, my company, my rules. The NHL is letting itself, or was letting itself get *****slapped. A reason like 'that their paying a player too much' is exactly what i addressed, that is the root problem. They need to be more authoritative, and draw a line between what goes and what doesn't.

Mcdonalds for crying out loud won't approve a high wage [basically any amount above minimum wage], or let certain franchises give their employees rates that are different from the set level.
And how about wal-mart: they layed down the hamer when a union was formed in a quebec store, they shut the damn place down. Now I want to see the NHL take that kind of stance instead of the wuss in the playground stance that it had[the stance to approve every single contract]

 

The way to have avoided today's problems would have been to cancel the 94-95 season.

 

just to add to your point for further clarification...if all 30 teams INDIVIDUALLY stop signing players it isn't collusion...

meaning that the rangers can decide to stop spending and it isn't collusion, the leafs can stop spending and it isn't collusion, etc but the rangers, leafs, flyers, etc can't call each other and say 'lets stop spending'

 

if those contracts were within the rules the league has no grounds or way of rejecting those deals. the 'we don't like it' arguement isn't legal grounds to void a contract. and there was no stupidity clause in the last cba which allowed the league to prevent teams from being morons. if teams wanted to spend stupidly it was their own fault...

but that won't be an issue in the new cba cause there will be an upper limit at some point that will stop further spending.

 

Goodenow is guilt of going to the well with what has worked exceptionally well in the past.

Goodenow's negotiation style has always been to delay until the last minute and then use the time restrictions to force the other side to make the majority of the concessions.

Bettman and company were prepared for that this time around. Had they been better prepared last time, we wouldn't have run into the lockout. The owners can look at themselves for not wrapping up the details that escalated salaries to the point where they needed this much of a correction.

 

Get strikebusters like they had in the 30s?

 

If I own a company and I want to give an employee a raise and an outside organization says I can't, what then - my company, my rules?

Any team is free to decide what it is or is not willing to pay. But as soon as more than one team (or the entire league) start to act in concert, they better be doing it under the cover of a CBA or expect to be spending lots of $$$s on anti trust settlements.

 

Think of your team as a Mcdonalds restaurant, they all have to play by the corporation's rules. The NHL head office should act like its in charge of things and lay down the law when one franchise could f up the economics of your corporation.

 

And you don't think that a contract that can't be supported by the entire system isn't a good reason? Your forgetting about the salary categories that I described, that would qualify as a infracture against league guidlines anyway. If I was bettman, and I didn't like it, you can bet your ass its not going to get approved

 

The league renewed the old agreement twice.

In either of those cases, It would've been very, very easy for them to say "Ok, we'll renew it with these changes to the ELS, Arbitration & QO's.. In return, we'll give you more revenue sharing, give one more year of UFA, and commit to adding 4 teams (100 jobs).."

As the NBA showed a couple of weeks ago, negotiating small changes into an existing CBA is much easier and more likely to succeed than running the league into the ground and starting all over.

 

But the corporation's rules are wholely what is in the franchise agreements and they cannot be arbitrarily changed. McDonalds does not have the right to set prices or salaries (except for the small percentage of franchises that are corporately owned). The league office does not legally have any power to arbitrarily veto contracts that it doesn't like - neither the franchise agreements or the CBA give them that power. And even if the teams did try to give the commisioner's office that power, unless it was negotiated in a CBA, you can bet your sweet ass that they would wind up in court on anti-trust claims and lose.

If a league office has such omnipotent powers, how come the NFL wasn't able to control such a major issue as the Raiders moving to LA against the leagues will.

And remember, this is not a case of a multi-billon dollar company and a bunch of easily intimidated individually owned couple of milion dollar (or less) franchised restaurants. This is a case of 30 multi-millionaire and billionaire owners who have more money and lawyers and ego than the league does. You don't think Charles Dolan would have idly sat by if GB decided arbitrarily that Holik was not worth $9M yr. Not to mention BG and the PA - courts and NLRB here I come.

Sorry. No sports commisioner since Kennesaw Mountain Landis has had that kind of absolute authority.

 

Well the salary categories you described are right now just a figment of your imagination. Unless the league and the PA agree to define those categories (ain't ever going to happen) and explicitly give GB the power to veto contracts based on those guidelines, it doesn't matter if GB thinks a contract "can't be supported by the entire system". There isn't a damn thing he can do about it if it doesn't violate any explicit league rules. He can complain and try to address economic issues in the next CBA (which surprise, surprise, he did), but that's about it.

It's a good thing you're not Betmann - I'd hate to see the league's legal bills.

 

Wonderful, another fan with no clue as to the legalities of business, who thinks running the NHL is like some sort of video game where you just arbitrarily invent and implement rules.

 

"Very, very, easy"?

 

Yeah, just like how very very easy the 04/05 lockout was.