Grandfathering could heal rift

[RangerBoy]

Several players and others with knowledge of the union's thinking agree that one concession the league should consider is grandfathering current contracts.

The league's fight for cost certainty is not about what was spent in the past but what it can afford to spend in the future. Commissioner Gary Bettman has said that several times throughout the course of this lockout, which, for those few masochistic souls keeping score, will on Friday become the longest shutdown in North American sports history when it passes the 1994 baseball strike at 233 days.

And as it has dragged on, what the players have feared most even after accepting a salary cap is the initial cause-and-effect a cap will have on team rosters. Imagine fire sales that would put Howard Milstein to shame.

The players are wary of the future under the restrictions of a cap system, but finally have accepted that there is no other way. The league can ease this transition and recover some of the respect it has lost in the eyes of the players

http://www.newsday.com/sports/print...78may01,0,6730817.column?coll=ny-sports-print

If grandfathering on existing contracts is something the players want,I do not see why the NHL will balk at this.If the players agree to a cap and linkage,the NHL needs to offer instead of just taking back

Click to read more...

 

[CREW99AW]

since both sides basically agree to some form of a cap,I'd think abitration would be the next big hurdle.

Maybe the league agrees to grandfather in current contracts, in exchange for arbitration changes.

 

[Isles72]

I'm confused about the grandfathering schtick .

would current contracts not count towards a cap OR would they simply only count as a max pctg .For example , Yashins 10 mil would only count as 5 mil type of idea , Sundin , only 5 mil towards leafs budget etc...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

since both sides basically agree to some form of a cap,I'd think abitration would be the next big hurdle.

Maybe the league agrees to grandfather in current contracts, in exchange for arbitration changes.

If the NHL gets a significant cap, they should not care in the least about arbitration, rookie pay scales etc. etc.

 

[hockeydadx2*]

If the NHL gets a significant cap, they should not care in the least about arbitration, rookie pay scales etc. etc.

I would agree with this. So long as they have a limit on each team's payroll, I would hope that the owners would not get bogged down in the details about how much goes to whom (rookies, etc). Let the PA worry about those details.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I would agree with this. So long as they have a limit on each team's payroll, I would hope that the owners would not get bogged down in the details about how much goes to whom (rookies, etc). Let the PA worry about those details.

It should be one or the other:

Strict cap .. nothing else matters

or

No cap but Rookie Cap, strict arbitration rules, high UFA age, etc. etc.

 

[Steve L*]

It should be one or the other:

Strict cap .. nothing else matters

or

No cap but Rookie Cap, strict arbitration rules, high UFA age, etc. etc.

Things like qualifying offer still matter, if its still at 110% then teams near the cap level arent going to be able to qualify their own players.

Same with arbitration if two players go for it, the team may only be able to keep one of them if arbitration is still so inflationary.

 

[txpd]

Grandfathering only effects a very few big money contracts. nobody with a contract under a couple of million ever gets signed for more than 3 years. that means grandfathering only really effects teams that have a Jagr like deal that still has 3 years to go at big money. at this point grandfathering is a red herring.

 

[CREW99AW]

If the NHL gets a significant cap, they should not care in the least about arbitration, rookie pay scales etc. etc.

hockey writers like McKenzie and Spectors are reporting that both sides think arbitration is a key issue.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

hockey writers like McKenzie and Spectors are reporting that both sides think arbitration is a key issue.

I'm not saying that it ISN'T ... but if they get a hard cap, arbitration should NOT be an issue.

the NFL & NBA which have cap, don't have arbitration ... instead they have significantly lower UFA ages.

 

[CREW99AW]

I'm not saying that it ISN'T ... but if they get a hard cap, arbitration should NOT be an issue.

the NFL & NBA which have cap, don't have arbitration ... instead they have significantly lower UFA ages.

I don't see why the owners wouldn't make arbitration a key issue.
The players have gone from saying they'll never accept a cap, to saying ok make the cap something both sides can live with.

why not press for major arbitration changes,while the players are agreeing that the league's in financial trouble?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

why not press for major arbitration changes,while the players are agreeing that the league's in financial trouble?

because if you continue to press for "wins" in every area you end up with no hockey in October ....

 

[CREW99AW]

because if you continue to press for "wins" in every area you end up with no hockey in October ....

owners wouldn't be pressing for 'wins' in every area.Grandfathering in current contracts is a 'win' for the players.They're the ones who want it.

and it's a pretty big concession for the owners.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

How about this....


Say the cap gets placed at 39.5 million dollars... and a floor at 25 million


On a team by team basis...you adjust each teams 2003-2004 payroll to fit under the cap...

So say you are Colorado... and your payroll last year was 55 million dollars....39.5 million is 72% of 55 million...... So..take Joe Sakic and roughly 9 million dollars... under the new cap his pay against the cap would be 6.48 million dollars, he would still get his 9 million.. but against the cap he would be 6.48.... All of the money left over from FA who left the team would be left for the Avs to spend....So.. say Kariya and Selanne's combined 8 million was let go... that would = 5.76 million freed up under the new cap by letting them go...

Again.. all of Colorado's remaining contracts would only count 72% against the cap...... and whatever is left over after that can be spent 100% against the cap.....they are counted as such for the remainder of their contract life.. option years taken by the player still count only 72% agains the cap.. option years taken by the club go back to counting 100%... all new contracts count 100%...

On the flip side.. take the Pens... and their 22 million dollar 2003-2004 payroll... they need to get up to the 25 million floor... if the team owner choses, it works in reverse.. all their contracts from last season would count 1.14% against the cap... bringing them up to the floor.... So say Malone was making 1.2 million last year.... and he keeps getting paid that.... but it counts as 1.368 million against the cap to bring them to the floor.......again.. the money left by guys who are UFA is left, and the team must spend up at 100% against the cap to reach the floor.....


If you can follow that...


The numbers are might not be right for the teams payrolls.. but...
It makes alot of sense for both the NHL and PA..... It helps bump the smaller markets up to whatever floor without forcing them to spend alot if they like the guys they already have.. and it would appease alot of the big clubs as it would in effect downgrade their existing contracts to count against the cap adjusted for the new economic system and still alow them to fill out rosters...

 

[PecaFan]

I'm not saying that it ISN'T ... but if they get a hard cap, arbitration should NOT be an issue.

On the contrary. With a cap, mandatory raises, qualifying offers, and arbitration become even more important. Instead of just having to cut a cheque to fix the problem, now you actually have to make trades or cut guys you didn't want to to get under the cap, etc.

These systemic issues will still cause problems, just in a different way.

 

[SENSible1*]

On the contrary. With a cap, mandatory raises, qualifying offers, and arbitration become even more important. Instead of just having to cut a cheque to fix the problem, now you actually have to make trades or cut guys you didn't want to to get under the cap, etc.

These systemic issues will still cause problems, just in a different way.

True.

What John is ignoring that the secondary issues aren't about the bottom line, which a hard cap will take care of, but about roster/cap management.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

How about this....


Say the cap gets placed at 39.5 million dollars... and a floor at 25 million


On a team by team basis...you adjust each teams 2003-2004 payroll to fit under the cap...

So say you are Colorado... and your payroll last year was 55 million dollars....39.5 million is 72% of 55 million...... So..take Joe Sakic and roughly 9 million dollars... under the new cap his pay against the cap would be 6.48 million dollars, he would still get his 9 million.. but against the cap he would be 6.48.... All of the money left over from FA who left the team would be left for the Avs to spend....So.. say Kariya and Selanne's combined 8 million was let go... that would = 5.76 million freed up under the new cap by letting them go...

Again.. all of Colorado's remaining contracts would only count 72% against the cap...... and whatever is left over after that can be spent 100% against the cap.....they are counted as such for the remainder of their contract life.. option years taken by the player still count only 72% agains the cap.. option years taken by the club go back to counting 100%... all new contracts count 100%...

On the flip side.. take the Pens... and their 22 million dollar 2003-2004 payroll... they need to get up to the 25 million floor... if the team owner choses, it works in reverse.. all their contracts from last season would count 1.14% against the cap... bringing them up to the floor.... So say Malone was making 1.2 million last year.... and he keeps getting paid that.... but it counts as 1.368 million against the cap to bring them to the floor.......again.. the money left by guys who are UFA is left, and the team must spend up at 100% against the cap to reach the floor.....


If you can follow that...


The numbers are might not be right for the teams payrolls.. but...
It makes alot of sense for both the NHL and PA..... It helps bump the smaller markets up to whatever floor without forcing them to spend alot if they like the guys they already have.. and it would appease alot of the big clubs as it would in effect downgrade their existing contracts to count against the cap adjusted for the new economic system and still allow them to fill out rosters...

I really like this analysis, Drury. Good stuff. The only thing I question is whether they would need a system for teams that have to get up to the salary floor. After all, if a floor is in place, every year we may see a situation where a club needs to get up to that level of payroll. So, just have Pittsburgh come up to the salary floor, cuz after all that's what it's there for. And if they don't, then obviously they will have penalties in place just like if somebody goes over the cap.

But overall, the idea of using a percentage of a player's salary against the cap until current contracts run out is a great one. And you'd think both sides would agree to it, although I could just see a guy like Jacobs say, "Well, if Sakic's full contract doesn't count against the cap, he's going to have to take a cut in pay, it's as simple as that."

But I think this works.

 

[Levitate]

owners wouldn't be pressing for 'wins' in every area.Grandfathering in current contracts is a 'win' for the players.They're the ones who want it.

and it's a pretty big concession for the owners.

it's not really that big of a concession because it only affects a certain amount of players for a short period of time. it's not really a CBA concession as much as it is a good will concession. Which is fine but if it comes at the expense of the owners "winning" arbitration or something, the players probably wouldn't go for it

 

[Weary]

True.

What John is ignoring that the secondary issues aren't about the bottom line, which a hard cap will take care of, but about roster/cap management.

All we've heard from the league for the past year is that it's all about the money. They've never put any sort of effort into devising a system that wasn't all about the money. If competitive balance is to come from salary caps, then a team should be ready to lose players they can't afford. It will actually force teams to be more conservative in their spending if they want room to re-sign players. If they can't control themselves, let teams that can be the beneficiaries.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

The only thing I question is whether they would need a system for teams that have to get up to the salary floor. After all, if a floor is in place, every year we may see a situation where a club needs to get up to that level of payroll. So, just have Pittsburgh come up to the salary floor, cuz after all that's what it's there for. And if they don't, then obviously they will have penalties in place just like if somebody goes over the cap.

It would have to be an option.... as would be the option for high end teams to % down under the cap...

Teams would have to choose how they wanted to run.... Some teams may not want to take the % up to the floor, as it would elimiate cap space.... of course.. all teams would take the % down to the cap...


You need to give the ablity for the hardline owners to gain something from it.... the Chicagos of the world would like this..... It gives the smaller market teams to adjust into the new order.. just like the larger markets.... It becomes an even more appealing option if the negotiated floor % ends up being closer to 30 million...(or the % of revenue reqired for the floor ends up there) as it brings teams like Nashville, Pit, and Chicago up to it without them spending a ton of cash on UFA..

 

[ATLANTARANGER*]

I think you miss the larger issue.

Grandfathering only effects a very few big money contracts. nobody with a contract under a couple of million ever gets signed for more than 3 years. that means grandfathering only really effects teams that have a Jagr like deal that still has 3 years to go at big money. at this point grandfathering is a red herring.

Take NJ for example. NJ Louie went out and signed every warm body he could.
If all contracts restart and are not lost, NJ has a salary of close to $62M!
Therein is the problem you missed. Granted, many maybe 1 year deals, but they would still count and cost what ever penalty is agreed upon, i.e. lux tax, lost draft picks, etc.