Compare and contrast the two CBA proposals

[Dave is a killer]

Someone with a really good business mind please compare and contrast these two proposals and take your pick of which points would be better for the league overall

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100897&hubName=nhl

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/brianburke.html

Click to read more...

 

[Dave is a killer]

*bump*...anyone? ... Bueller, Bueller, Bueller?

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

A combination of both. I liked a lot of Brian Burke's proposal, but like the individual salary cap of 6 mil (I always said 5.5---no one should ever be paid more than Gretzky made in a single season). If there is a cap on how much a player can make and a (soft)cap on what a team could spend, a player may see his options limited somewhat, but the compromise would be to offer Unrestricted Free agency earlier. My thought is the UFA age could be 25.
Personally I would like to see the CBA trashed completely, and the NHLPA disappear completely. The players should be dealt with individually. They all sign individual contracts so why do they need a collective agreement? Answer-- they don't. Then there wouldn't be work stoppages that cancelled games, just players that got too greedy sitting on the sidelines.

 

[thinkwild]

I think Burkes escrow idea, where players contribute a portion of their salaries, and owners contribute a portion of their designated hockey revenues to a kitty for revenue sharing is a way to achieve a measure of cost certainty. And maybe if they give some other concessions they could get the players to agree to it, I dont know. I think it seems a reasonable suggestion for players to contribute a little more to help smooth out year over year profits be a bit more evenly. I doubt they agree though.

This really seems the real issue owners are after to me from the way they talk about it on tv. The payroll caps and revenue sharing seem more designed to give fans a reason to think they will never end up in last place.

All the rest of the stuff about arbitration both ways, rfa salary caps, lowered qualifying offers seem more smaller, negotiable, side issues. Important, but not hard enough to not be able to come to an agreement on. At least I would think that from sitting on my couch.

RFA salaries are naturally approaching a max of around $6-7mil anyway. Capping them at $6 could be a gesture that could be worked out with accomodations elsewhere. It could also make fans think they got their cap. And I think its fans face that needs a little saving too. They are really hoping for a cap and may think they system stacked them without one. Im not convinced the owners really feel this way. And I think they can rid fans of this childish fear as well if they tried.

 

[me2]

RFA salaries are naturally approaching a max of around $6-7mil anyway. Capping them at $6 could be a gesture that could be worked out with accomodations elsewhere. It could also make fans think they got their cap. And I think its fans face that needs a little saving too. They are really hoping for a cap and may think they system stacked them without one. Im not convinced the owners really feel this way. And I think they can rid fans of this childish fear as well if they tried.

RFA salaries blew the $6m away years ago. If Pronger's contract was $6m, then Canucks could say to Jovo you are only worth 66% of Pronger here is $4m instead of $5.5m. Everything cascades from the $6m. Of course some stupid owner could cave in and offer every 1/2 decent RFA $6m and blow the whole thing apart again.

 

[chriss_co]

RFA salaries blew the $6m away years ago. If Pronger's contract was $6m, then Canucks could say to Jovo you are only worth 66% of Pronger here is $4m instead of $5.5m. Everything cascades from the $6m. Of course some stupid owner could cave in and offer every 1/2 decent RFA $6m and blow the whole thing apart again.

Thats why the league has to scrap the idea that all players are exactly the same and should be paid exactly the same amount of money as players of equal standard. There is only one Chris Pronger and one Ed Jovonovski. They play for different teams and are in different situations. You can't compare the two and say Jovo should get Pronger money because Jovo is like Pronger... Salaries should be negotiated based on performance and value to the team, not what some other team paid another player.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Thats why the league has to scrap the idea that all players are exactly the same and should be paid exactly the same amount of money as players of equal standard.

I don't see this point at all. The league doesn't have this idea.

There is only one Chris Pronger and one Ed Jovonovski. They play for different teams and are in different situations. You can't compare the two and say Jovo should get Pronger money because Jovo is like Pronger...

I agree that they don't compare. And that is the real reason I originally raised Jovanovski. Pronger is utterly unique. He did not set a benchmark for anyone. When he was Jovanovski's age, he won the Norris and the Hart. When he was Jovanovski's age, he was making $10 million, twice what Ed is making. Scott Niedermayer won the Norris and surely tried to use Pronger as a comparable in his arbitration hearing. He ended up with $3 million less. I think New Jersey successfully argued that the market was changing, and (or) that Pronger's salary did not represent market value for anyone.

Jovanovski's contract is an important one because he's set the benchmark for the next generation of defensemen. It is not unreasonable to say, "If Jovanovski makes $5 million, then Redden and Chara should be in that ballpark, too."

Salaries should be negotiated based on performance and value to the team, not what some other team paid another player.

If it could only be so.

The problem with this idea is that the players can't freely move to increase their value to their team. With the same performance Vincent Lecavalier would have much more value to his team if he played in Montreal. The NHL won't let him play where he can maximise his value. The challenge is to compensate him for that, at least partially.

The solution is to establish a seniority based NHL market value, a value that is aimed at the middle rather than either extreme. If we aren't going to let Lecavalier negotiate with Montreal, how does he assure he is paid fairly? Is it fair to make him play in a place where he has to accept Tampa value? Unless the Rangers or the Leafs finish last, Sidney Crosby will never be able to maximise his value to his team. Should he have to accept Carolina value?

Or should Carolina have to pay him an NHL value?

Tom

 

[thinkwild]

The solution is to establish a seniority based NHL market value, a value that is aimed at the middle rather than either extreme. If we aren't going to let Lecavalier negotiate with Montreal, how does he assure he is paid fairly? Is it fair to make him play in a place where he has to accept Tampa value? Unless the Rangers or the Leafs finish last, Sidney Crosby will never be able to maximise his value to his team. Should he have to accept Carolina value?

Or should Carolina have to pay him an NHL value?

Tom

We do now have basically a seniority based value dont we? Is there some other way they can do it? Is this establishment of value restricted to RFAs? Maybe there is some way they can tie a formula between designated hockey revenues and ALS or maximum RFA award possible. But I still think the only people who should care about designated hockey revenues are the owners when arguing amongst themselves how much to share with each other.