Deal On Table: NHL, NHLPA pondering 6-year CBA

[tantalum]

Now that hybrid I would consider. That one makes me think it could work. But to think that a deal of "three years of this, and then we'll do that, but only if this doesn't work", seems to be stupid and poorly thought out. It grasps of desperation and all the creativity of a 16 year old barganing to "go to lake with her friends when she is already grounded". Fix the problem or you'll have a bigger one on your hands. The fans will scrutinize this deal like crazy. If its not well thought out, it will be picked a part and the league will look like a third rate operation (its already down to second rate in my estimation).

I think it's the most logical one. I always saw this type of system as the true compromise that leans in the owners favour as they have always been in the drivers seat on this one...a luxury tax with elevated hard cap at 70% or so (only a few percentage points lower that the player cost ratio now). I mentioned it at the beginning of the lockout and I like it more and more as a way to get it settled as time goes on. I think the NHL is now completely in the drivers seat that they can strive to grandfather in a more strict hard cap through the deal to bring it to 60 some odd%. I also forgot to mention the minimum payroll cap should also be brought in at 45%-50%...something the NHL has already conceeded.

The key to any system working be it pure luxury tax or hard cap or something in between is that the thresholds have to be linked to revenues. There has to be a trigger to IMMEDIATELY react to the financial health of the league. That's the key discussion the players are unwilling to talk about through this whole thing....throwing up the smokescreen of "trust". All they need to do is trust an independent auditor...if they can't do that they are truly beyond reach.

Of course, if revenues increase the NHLPA would be wise to negotiate a percentage of revenue ladder (i.e. at $3 billion a cap at 70% may be doable compared to 63%...or whatever)

 

[trahans99]

Thats probably what they are looking at. If after 3 years salaries exceed a certian percentage compared to revenues a hard cap will kick in.

There should be a hard cap no matter what in years 4-6 at 54-56% of revenues regardless. If not then, I wouldn't accept that offer if I were Gary.

 

[CarlRacki]

The owners have already said that ANYTHING other than a cap and cost certainty won't work.

They'll never sign something where they could just end up losing more money for an indeterminate number of years, and maybe not get that cost certainty.

And the players say they'd rather sit out five years than play under any form of a cap. It's called posturing.

 

[Egil]

IF the players keep the 24% rollback in the proposal, then it should be a yearly review of player salaries. If they exceed say 58% of league revenue, a 5% rollback is enacted on ALL Salaries and Qualifying offers. If they exceed 62% of revenue, then a 5% rollback is enacted, and a hard cap is put in place at 58% of league revenues.

A "Hybrid" proposal CAN work, just not quite how the PA proposed it (but close). The true key is that this is the FIRST time the players have been willing to even entertain the idea of guaranteeing their numbers. Its a weak guarantee ATM, but it IS a guarantee.

Also, things like triggered luxury taxes and triggered caps ARE a form of cost certainty, and would be more than acceptable to the owners, as they work to provide cost certainty. Not having a hard cap is probably better (it allows teams to stay together better), but should player costs increase too much, then you trigger a cap, and get salaries back in line, then you remove the cap, and repeat.

 

[Morbo]

And the players say they'd rather sit out five years than play under any form of a cap. It's called posturing.

Yeah, their desire for absolute cost certainty is "posturing". Sure thing.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

NHL has been mad creative in not using the world salary cap, but payroll ranges and cost certintay.

This 6 year deal is terrible, and I am going to the funreal today to tell Hotchkiss to tell the PA to shove it. Either take the cap or go and play in europe, this crap has gone long enough.

Wether it be a soft cap, or a hard cap(payroll ranges) there needs to be tieing of revenues and costs. These players have gone way to far and the owners need to throw there fist down.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

There should be a hard cap no matter what in years 4-6 at 54-56% of revenues regardless. If not then, I wouldn't accept that offer if I were Gary.

Well if the salaries stay within the that percentage there is no reason for a so called hard cap. Now ofcourse the percentage still has to be in the 57% range or so. But the threat of the cap will help keep the rouge owners in line and the players from asking for so much. Players can say they got their so called free market but salaries will still be tied to revenues.

 

[LordHelmet]

My exact thoughts. The next three years would be a joke and give the league zero credability. I would hope that the league looks at the big picture and has the smarts to consider what the preception of the league would be if the deal they make does not solve any problems.

Regardless of what offer is agreed on, there will have to be some sort of phase-in plan. The big 6 can't go from $60MM to $35MM just like that. The more the agreement is tilted towards the owners, the longer the phase-in will have to be..

Although it's being presented as 'hybrid' I'd be more inclined to call it a cap deal with a 3 year phase-in..

 

[AM]

3 more years of the same thing

So the players think they can guarantee costs? But how are they going to guarantee competative balance?

I dont want the NHL to come back if the Oilers are still the farm team of the Blues Rangers and Stars.

 

[Trottier]

So the players think they can guarantee costs? But how are they going to guarantee competative balance?

True, how do we "guarantee" that teams like the Rangers, Blues and Leafs can have a chance to make it to the FInals like the Hurricanes, Ducks, Flames and Lightning?

I dont want the NHL to come back if the Oilers are still the farm team of the Blues Rangers and Stars.

Likewise, if the Rangers are the farm team of the Canadiens (Kovalev), Flames (Simon), Sens (DeVries), Leafs (Leetch) and Avs (Barnaby), right?

 

[AM]

I've heard you spout this before

I'm not biting though.

Just because the Rangers cant put a team together, dosnt mean they dont tear alot of other teams apart.

And it's the tear alot of other teams apart that I asked about.

 

[hockeyfan33]

competetive balance is secondary to guaranteed profits that the owners are looking for.

 

[Vast Ant Dioi]

Likewise, if the Rangers are the farm team of the Canadiens (Kovalev), Flames (Simon), Sens (DeVries), Leafs (Leetch) and Avs (Barnaby), right?

Riiiight. The only one of those players that the Rags developed was Leetch and I think when you trade a 36 year old you can't really make the argument that you're a farm team.

 

[Sam I Am]

Pointing to the occasional exception is a ridiculous form of argument. The fact remains: the wealthy teams overwhelmingly outperform the have-nots.

Frankly, I'm sick of Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and the like consistently stocking up on star players each season. Look at their combined records over the decade since the last CBA is signed--it's just plain unfair.

Competitive balance will go further to increasing fan interest in the sport than the razzmatazz proposed by certain hockey mavens such as shootouts.

Now is the chance to restore fairness to the sport with equal or near equal payrolls. Who cares whether the players or owners carry the day? To me, there is only one side worth supporting in this labour squabble--THE FANS' !!!

 

[nyr7andcounting]

So the players think they can guarantee costs? But how are they going to guarantee competative balance?

I dont want the NHL to come back if the Oilers are still the farm team of the Blues Rangers and Stars.

Competative balance has already been achieved. Im not interested in guaranteeing that every team win a cup every 30 years. Some teams don't do their jobs well, adn they don't win as often as the ones who do. That's the way it should be.

 

[likea]

I don't think it will be the same thing

you can get cost certainty without a cap per say

if the NHLPA is going to guarantee this stops spending expect them to put a harsh luxery tax system in to try and stop spending because they don't want a cap to be put into place

I would expect a harsh luxery tax to start at 38 million...maybe dollar for dollar

then at like 43 the put for every 1 dollar a team is over they must pay 2 dollars

then expect a very strict penalty at 50 million

this would curb spending like the owners want and also tie a luxery tax system to % of revenue and form a cap at 50 million because of the strict penalty

it would also force revenue sharing between the owners or it would curb spending

either way its a win for both

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Pointing to the occasional exception is a ridiculous form of argument. The fact renains: he wealthy teams overwhelmingly outperform the have-nots.

Frankly, I'm sick of Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and the like consistently stocking up on star players each season. Look at their combined records over the decade since the last CBA is signed--it's just plain unfair.

If I'm not mistaken, Colorado and Detroit have drafted a fair number of very good players...but have been able to keep them, unlike some other teams. So, if you're gonna get all hot and upset about Colorado and Detroit...be upset with their draft record and the good number of young players they've developed (Zetterberg, Svatos, Liles, Datsyuk, Tanguay, Hejduk, Fischer, Aebischer etc...). Moreover, the Avs have traded away talented to acquire big name players like Blake (in exchange for Deadmarsh, Miller). So, I suspect this trend of them stocking up will continue unless there is significant revenue sharing.

Competitive balance will go further to increasing fan interest in the sport than the razzmatazz proposed by certain hockey mavens such as shootouts.

[BNow is the chance to restore fairness to the sport with equal or near equal payrolls. Who cares whether the players or owners carry the day? To me , there is only one side worth supporting in this labour squabble--THE FANS' !!! .[/B]

The NHL has the most balance of the 4 major sports. Plus, capping salaries at 40 mill won't significantly help the small markets to keep up with Dallas and Detroit! Get that through your head people!

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

"Frankly, I'm sick of Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and the like consistently stocking up on star players each season. Look at their combined records over the decade since the last CBA is signed--it's just plain unfair."




There will always be have's and have not's

I take it that you are broken up about the New York Rangers record since the last CBA too right?

Maybe as a Leaf fan I think its unfair, that all the good young players get drafted by have not's. How about a hard cap and a 30 team random draft of the new crop of players.

Ya bet you don't like that one huh

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

competetive balance is secondary to guaranteed profits that the owners are looking for.

Duh, of course it is. Isn't business like that in general?

 

[Slats432]

Competative balance has already been achieved. Im not interested in guaranteeing that every team win a cup every 30 years. Some teams don't do their jobs well, adn they don't win as often as the ones who do. That's the way it should be.

This is out there. Go read the history of the Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames and all the other small market teams that trade away all the players they develop to large markets because they can no longer afford to keep them. Mismanagement?

Competitive balance. In the current system every team doesn't have the equal chance to win the cup. At the trade deadline, who loads up? In the offseason, who signs the free agents?

As an Oiler fan or any other fan of a small market team, you go into the season hoping for the playoffs, not a championship.

In Toronto or NY or Detroit or Dallas or Philly or NJ, you go into every year expecting a long run and hopefully a championship.

I don't know where you have been for the last 10 years, but it isn't watching "competitive balance"

 

[Sam I Am]

If I'm not mistaken, Colorado and Detroit have drafted a fair number of very good players...but have been able to keep them, unlike some other teams. So, if you're gonna get all hot and upset about Colorado and Detroit...be upset with their draft record and the good number of young players they've developed

You are missing the point. Detroit and Colorado draft some good players--most teams (except the Rangers) do. What distinguishes the wealthy teams from their less fortunate competion is thet they can KEEP their successful draft choice through the prime of their careers. Calgary, Edmonton and many others do not have this luxury.

Moreover, Colorado and Detroit top off their teans annually with the addition of 3-6 quality players...just to make it a little less fair.

Sounds good to you?

 

[Cawz]

Moreover, the Avs have traded away talented to acquire big name players like Blake (in exchange for Deadmarsh, Miller)

The Aves got Reinprect along with Blake. They got a lot more than they gave up.

Just thought I'd clarify.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Dont worry people there will be the cap.

 

[quartermaster29]

Yeah, their desire for absolute cost certainty is "posturing". Sure thing.

Yes. It is called posturing when many of their numbers say "I will not play under a cap" and then immediately turn around and sign for European teams and even minor league teams in the states... that play under caps.

Sorry pep. Both sides are postering. The "no play for cap" crap is the players postering.

 

[Crows*]

For all you who feel that a cap would ruin hockey and you wouldnt have your players for very long on your favourite team. I think you're wrong./


Hockey without a cap along with the other leagues in the 80's had less movement in players than any other sport. It will continue to do so.


ANd I would take 6 and maybe even 8 canadian teams again over not keeping naslund one more year.

This is about saving a league with a 100 year history.