Hard cap question

[tantalum]

OK so how is a cap going to work? Remember the NFL had meaningful revenue sharing since 1965, long before there cap. The NBA has better revenue sharing. The NHL owners don't want revenue sharing above 10%, which is a joke. Without revenue sharing a cap won't work.

wow you contiunually put numbers to things when those numbers have never been mentioned.

And again most people believe that significant revenue sharing is a necessary for any system...hard cap or soft cap.

You have no clue what the owners are willing to conceed for revenue sharing. The NHLPA believes a significant luxury tax will get owners thinking...guess what a significant luxury tax is significant revenue sharing! Why would that get them thinking and get them back to the table? In return for that significant sharing the players have to give something other than the usual selling the younger players off and that's tying any sort of tax threshold to revenues.

 

[vanlady]

wow you contiunually put numbers to things when those numbers have never been mentioned.

And again most people believe that significant revenue sharing is a necessary for any system...hard cap or soft cap.

You have no clue what the owners are willing to conceed for revenue sharing. The NHLPA believes a significant luxury tax will get owners thinking...guess what a significant luxury tax is significant revenue sharing! Why would that get them thinking and get them back to the table? In return for that significant sharing the players have to give something other than the usual selling the younger players off and that's tying any sort of tax threshold to revenues.

Actually if you had watched OTR with Saskin and Burke, you would have heard that the players want the owners to come to the table with 75% revenue sharing, but the league does not want anything over 10%. Brian Burke admitted it, and considering Burke has just gotten back from the league offices, I tend to beleive him.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

if this is the case, it should be pretty easy for you to give me some real examples of players on CRL who succesfully used this tactic.

so which CRL players were compared to which NYR players ?

or is this just another "im just saying", but have no real back up.

dr

NHL contracts are all based on precedents. Players look for the highest payed comparable player and that's their initial baseline. If every team is operating under a hard cap, teams will be less willing to overpay players, so there won't be the salary "creep".

Best example I can think of is Steve Sullivan. It was in the newspapers in CHI that the reason that CHI traded Sullivan last year is that they were afraid that he would compare himself to Drury in arbitration, win, and the Hawks would be on the hook for $4M per season.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

NHL contracts are all based on precedents. Players look for the highest payed comparable player and that's their initial baseline. If every team is operating under a hard cap, teams will be less willing to overpay players, so there won't be the salary "creep".

Best example I can think of is Steve Sullivan. It was in the newspapers in CHI that the reason that CHI traded Sullivan last year is that they were afraid that he would compare himself to Drury in arbitration, win, and the Hawks would be on the hook for $4M per season.

well, i understand the concept, but rarely can anyone use a real life example. is tehre a case for CRL vs NYR ? name one. yet people use it like gospel, its really just cliche.

in the example you used, its big market CHI being done wrong by small market BUF ? that is completly contratry to the arguement being made that big market teams out price the small markets.

dr

 

[vanlady]

Here is an article for you on revenue sharing

http://www.leaderboard.com/R1074.HTM
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_sassone.asp?intID=38251168

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Why the NHL wont agree to a luxury tax, it will still cause inflation in salaries, and teams like New York will be able to pay taxes and still offer high end contracts and heres where the problems begins. Its not just about Calgary and Edmonton making money, it is that each year they can compete, and when we develop our players we don't just loose them in FA because the New Yorks and Torontos of the world like to offer ridiculous offers. What a hard cap will do is make things even, and the revenue sharing will help struggling teams make money. The hard cap is the way to go, plus with hockey gaining popularity and eventually scoring a large tv contract the salaries will again inflate, and the cap will not be $35 million each year, but its a floating numbers. In most cases if the league is healthy and making money ie NFL the cap rarley decreases and most cases is increases not by huge amounts, but by a reasonable amount. If the NHLPA is so set against the hard cap, the NHL can say hey lets do it this way the first 3 years there will be no increase, but as we move forward with the business we will hopefully score a huge TV deal, and the cap will increase as we go along, and in the last year of the deal there will be no cap, and lets after taht if the NHLPA comes begging to the NHL please renew the CBA please we want the cap, just like the NFL.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Why the NHL wont agree to a luxury tax, it will still cause inflation in salaries, and teams like New York will be able to pay taxes and still offer high end contracts and heres where the problems begins. Its not just about Calgary and Edmonton making money, it is that each year they can compete, and when we develop our players we don't just loose them in FA because the New Yorks and Torontos of the world like to offer ridiculous offers. What a hard cap will do is make things even, and the revenue sharing will help struggling teams make money. The hard cap is the way to go, plus with hockey gaining popularity and eventually scoring a large tv contract the salaries will again inflate, and the cap will not be $35 million each year, but its a floating numbers. In most cases if the league is healthy and making money ie NFL the cap rarley decreases and most cases is increases not by huge amounts, but by a reasonable amount. If the NHLPA is so set against the hard cap, the NHL can say hey lets do it this way the first 3 years there will be no increase, but as we move forward with the business we will hopefully score a huge TV deal, and the cap will increase as we go along, and in the last year of the deal there will be no cap, and lets after taht if the NHLPA comes begging to the NHL please renew the CBA please we want the cap, just like the NFL.

Do you think that the Leafs or the Rangers would pay Iginla $14M per season? I sure don't, and that's what a team that was over the cap would have to do to match a $8M offer from CGY.

IMO, the difference in the posters opinion seems to be if you think that the players can trust the owners. When you have a hard cap based on a % of revenues, the players have to trust the owners are including the appropriate revenue streams, and they are good at growing the league. If I'm a NFL player, I feel like the NFL is doing a great job of promoting and growing the game. If I'm a NHL, I've got some SERIOUS reservations.

I think that the players offer creates a "pseudo" hard cap, with a portion of revenue sharing built in. It has a lot to offer, and is a decent point to start negotiations from.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

well, i understand the concept, but rarely can anyone use a real life example. is tehre a case for CRL vs NYR ? name one. yet people use it like gospel, its really just cliche.

in the example you used, its big market CHI being done wrong by small market BUF ? that is completly contratry to the arguement being made that big market teams out price the small markets.

dr

How about the Chris Pronger contract? The Blues extended Pronger's contract (at $9.5M per) right before the trading deadline, and the Kings had to trade Blake because they couldn't (wouldn't) pay Blake the "Pronger precedent".

I really think that it's more a "biggest mistake sets that bar" than a big market vs. small market distinction however.

 

[chriss_co]

well, i understand the concept, but rarely can anyone use a real life example. is tehre a case for CRL vs NYR ? name one. yet people use it like gospel, its really just cliche.

in the example you used, its big market CHI being done wrong by small market BUF ? that is completly contratry to the arguement being made that big market teams out price the small markets.

dr

Why does it HAVE to be a CRL vs NYR example?? We're talking about the league as a whole. Not just 1 team in the south that is losing lots of money. (They are losing money because they can't produce a consistently competitive team to establish a solid fan base. What can Carolina do? Well, they can put an exciting product that is competitive and bring in the fans, that brings in a consistent revenue so they can afford to keep the majority of the prospects they develop in their system).

Some reasons why there aren't really good examples with carolina is the fact that they haven't had too many big time players who have played well enough to garner a huge contract raise. Remember that his team is rebuilding and has gone through (and is still going through) a youth movement. You won't really see the effects for another several years.

But off the top of my head, i'll give u Francis, Wesley and Hill.

I don't know if this answers ur question or not. Maybe im missing the point entirely.

 

[PecaFan]

so which CRL players were compared to which NYR players ?
or is this just another "im just saying", but have no real back up.

Of course it's unprovable. We aren't in the negotiations. It's impossible to know which players have gone to their teams and said "I want what he's getting."

In fact, it would almost surely go unstated. Mr. X meets with his agent, and they discuss his situation. The agent says, "I've used the secret NHLPA cabal salary system, and players similar to you are making 4 million around the league. Y in New York is making 6, Z in Vancouver is making 3 (cheap bastards), but most are making around 4."

The player and the agent come to an agreement as to where on the scale they're going to ask for, (we'll ask for 5, they'll say 3, we'll meet at 4!) and then proposals are submitted. If the players a hardass, maybe he insists to his agent that he wants 6 as well. Who knows.

The whole point of publishing salary numbers is to allow comparison. That's one of the prime reasons that salaries have inflated massively. Before publishing, guys didn't know what the other guy made, so didn't ask for as much.