Helene Elliott- Today's talks could pivotal

[RangerBoy]

Bruce Garrioch

Though salary arbitration would likely remain the same, there's scuttlebutt the five-year deal the players are talking about with the league will also include a 24% rollback on qualifying offers for next season as well

Hey Crumbs,Brooks wrote that four days ago

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2005/06/02/1067356-sun.html

 

[RangerBoy]

90% of the posters have a better working knowledge of the CBA concepts than Strachan or Garrioch.Brooks and Elliott are such better than the boys at the Sun

 

[Tiki]

That one is interesting to see how it unfolds ..

Agree. I think thats a fair way to work it out, but the owners may be better off to not honor that year and let the current players keep thier 24%.

 

[Benji Frank]

Why not just red circle the portion of the contract over 24% of the rollback and add it to the players team cap for the duration fo the contract? And use the deflated contract value for RFA, buyout & arbitration purposes?

IE - > Pronger salary = 10 mill. ... for the duration of his contract, St.Louis is allowed exceed the cap by 2.4 millin $$$'s. When they need to qualify him, they do so using 7.6 mill as his salary....... when other guys like Niedermeyer, etc go to arbitration, they use the 7.6 million $$$ figure when benchmarking their worth against Pronger's.....

Leclair's salary = 9 million. The Flyers can buy him out using whatever rules in place for buyout and calculated against 6.84 million....

What's the longest remaining deal?? Yashin's 5 or 6 years?? I'd think most of them are done after this upcoming year...

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

A team like Calgary would love to get a 24% off of Iginla's 7.5 mil contract that knocks him down to 4.5 mil and he as a RFA get qualified at 4.5 rather then 7.5 mil .. Thats huge ..

$7.5 million less 24% equals $4.5 million? You're only off by $1.3 million. And you're an accountant?

I don't see the rollback as being an issue. Its water under the bridge. The teams would likely love to get that 24% rollback in the mix, but the fact of the matter is that the salarys are going to come down dramatically on their own with any cap. It's probably in the NHL's interest to let the contracts slide, let the players lose the $1.2 billion, and let the market correct over the next two seasons contracts expire. That's how I would play it out. Unless the players are refering to having the contracts tacked on (extended for another season) then I see no viable economic reason for the league to bite on that small bone. The market will correct on its own and the savings will be substantially greater than that offered by the 24% rollback concept.

 

[GKJ]

$7.5 million less 24% equals $4.5 million? You're only off by $1.3 million. And you're an accountant?

I think he means it would be $4.5 after being qualified

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I think he means it would be $4.5 after being qualified

And his numbers are still wrong. Iginla was qualified, and qualified at $7 million. So a 24% roll back off of that numer is $5.32 million. How does $4.5 million come into the equation? New math? Or are you suggesting that Iginla is going to take a 40% reduction from the $7.5 million (incorrect) number that Spinmaster TM was using, or 35% reduction based on what he has already been qualified at? Using Spinmaster TM's own numbers he is suggesting that Iginla was last painf $5.921 million, which we all know is wrong. Spinmaster TM needs some help with his spreadsheet program.

 

[jamiebez]

I don't see the rollback as being an issue. Its water under the bridge. The teams would likely love to get that 24% rollback in the mix, but the fact of the matter is that the salarys are going to come down dramatically on their own with any cap. It's probably in the NHL's interest to let the contracts slide, let the players lose the $1.2 billion, and let the market correct over the next two seasons contracts expire. That's how I would play it out. Unless the players are refering to having the contracts tacked on (extended for another season) then I see no viable economic reason for the league to bite on that small bone. The market will correct on its own and the savings will be substantially greater than that offered by the 24% rollback concept.

Very true. People are focusing on the big contracts (Pronger, Yashin), but I'd be interested to know the total cost of either option. Specifically, how much would each team have to commit for all existing contracts to be paid in full for 04/05, minus 24% going forward vs. not paying 04/05 and a 0% rollback going forward. If sure there are teams that win in each scenario - the question is: how many? I suspect that there are fewer teams in trouble without the rollback than people think.

Also, all this assumes the NHL won't negotiate back on the matter. Perhaps they increase the salary cap by $1M in exchange for a 5-10% rollback? Or they propose a "staggered" rollback again (where the high value contracts are cut by a higher percentage)? Just as examples...

 

[Larionov]

I guess I'd really hate to be a player without a contract right now. Either scenario really cuts into the teams' demands for their services.

No doubt, especially if you are a veteran player in the bottom half of your team's roster. Those guys are sitting ducks right now, either about to have their salaries chopped dramatically or simply dropped.

OTOH, you have to be very excited if you are a relatively young AHL player in the top half of your AHL team's roster, or a top flight graduating CHL player. You have been playing all season, will have better timing in camp than the guys who have a year's rust on them, and you have a MUCH better opportunity to earn an NHL contract than you would have a year ago.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating -- the carnage amongst veteran players is going to be massive post-lockout. Up to a third of the 'PAs membership that finished the 2003-04 season have played their last game, but just don't know it yet.

 

[CGG]

Very true. People are focusing on the big contracts (Pronger, Yashin), but I'd be interested to know the total cost of either option. Specifically, how much would each team have to commit for all existing contracts to be paid in full for 04/05, minus 24% going forward vs. not paying 04/05 and a 0% rollback going forward...

If it really is one or the other, i.e.

(a) 24% rollback but all contracts get pushed back a year
(b) 2004-05 contracts are wiped out but no rollback

There were 592 contracts for 2004-05 that would get slided into 2005-06 at 76% of their value under option (a). The total for those 592 players would be $853,778,000.

As of now, 288 players are under contract for 2005-06. Under option (a) that year would be pushed back to 2006-07 (I assume) at 76% of their value. Under option (b) there would be no rollback, and the value of those 288 contracts for 2005-06 would be $660,354,000 and 304 players would become either RFA or UFA.

If you ask me, the league would be far better off having 592 players under contract
for $854 million than 288 players under contract at $660 million.To take option (a) they would be getting an additional 304 players signed for less than $200 million extra. Some teams would get burned by tacking another year on an old guy's contract (i.e. Toronto wouldn't be too happy). But the league as a whole is much better off.

(All of these numbers are from the original NHLPA proposal and don't include non-NHL players, like 2005-06 rookies)

 

[jamiebez]

If it really is one or the other, i.e.

(a) 24% rollback but all contracts get pushed back a year
(b) 2004-05 contracts are wiped out but no rollback

There were 592 contracts for 2004-05 that would get slided into 2005-06 at 76% of their value under option (a). The total for those 592 players would be $853,778,000.

As of now, 288 players are under contract for 2005-06. Under option (a) that year would be pushed back to 2006-07 (I assume) at 76% of their value. Under option (b) there would be no rollback, and the value of those 288 contracts for 2005-06 would be $660,354,000 and 304 players would become either RFA or UFA.

If you ask me, the league would be far better off having 592 players under contract
for $854 million than 288 players under contract at $660 million.To take option (a) they would be getting an additional 304 players signed for less than $200 million extra. Some teams would get burned by tacking another year on an old guy's contract (i.e. Toronto wouldn't be too happy). But the league as a whole is much better off.

(All of these numbers are from the original NHLPA proposal and don't include non-NHL players, like 2005-06 rookies)

Awesome research, sir! I was too lazy to do it myself

 

[CGG]

Again, if this is accurate at all, and the owners pick between (a) 24% rollback extend all contracts a year OR (b) no rollback, Philadelphia is screwed:

Option (a)

All 2004-05 contracts apply in 2005-06 at 76%:
- Philadelphia has 24 players under contract for slightly over $50 million after the rollback

Option (b)

No rollback at all, but 04-05 contracts expire:
- Philadelphia has 13 players under contract at $44 million total. Add their 7 RFA's at a "rollback" price of about $6 million and they're still at $50 million.

The worst part is, they won't be able to buyout LeClair and Amonte any more.

Option (a): LeClair and Amonte have two years each remaining at $9M and $6M respectively. Total buyout = $30 million x 76% x 2/3 = $15.2 million

Option (b): LeClair and Amonte have one year each remaining at $15M total, for a buyout of $10 million, more than 1/4 of the expected salary cap.

Toronto might actually be worse:

Option (a): 19 players under contract for a total of $46.6 million
Option (b): Only 8 players under contract for a total of $35.6 million

 

[Jester]

Wouldn't it be strange for a Team like Philly .. How can they sign Carter and Richards with no Cap room to sign them , and needing to chop 30 mil off to get under a cap to boot.

Mechanisms will be built in to allow teams to re-organize for the cap, whether that be through buy-outs or whatever. Especially given rookie contract size, you're talking about 3.6 million or whatever max there, I wouldn't be all that concerned for the Flyers. Ed Moran actually tallied up the financial situation here, and given the numbers that have generally been bandied about, the Flyers will probably be in good shape going forward with the talent they already have and the prospects they got sitting around waiting to don the orange-and-black.

 

[dolfanar]

Again, if this is accurate at all, and the owners pick between (a) 24% rollback extend all contracts a year OR (b) no rollback, Philadelphia is screwed:

Option (a)

All 2004-05 contracts apply in 2005-06 at 76%:
- Philadelphia has 24 players under contract for slightly over $50 million after the rollback

Option (b)

No rollback at all, but 04-05 contracts expire:
- Philadelphia has 13 players under contract at $44 million total. Add their 7 RFA's at a "rollback" price of about $6 million and they're still at $50 million.

The worst part is, they won't be able to buyout LeClair and Amonte any more.

Option (a): LeClair and Amonte have two years each remaining at $9M and $6M respectively. Total buyout = $30 million x 76% x 2/3 = $15.2 million

Option (b): LeClair and Amonte have one year each remaining at $15M total, for a buyout of $10 million, more than 1/4 of the expected salary cap.

Toronto might actually be worse:

Option (a): 19 players under contract for a total of $46.6 million
Option (b): Only 8 players under contract for a total of $35.6 million

As much as this tickles me, my guess is that some of these payrolls will be grandfathered in somehow to allow these teams to get under the cap, either by allowing them some time to buyout contracts and not have them count against next years cap OR some temporary cap space so they don't have to dump salaries like mad men.

 

[Bruwinz37]

As much as this tickles me, my guess is that some of these payrolls will be grandfathered in somehow to allow these teams to get under the cap, either by allowing them some time to buyout contracts and not have them count against next years cap OR some temporary cap space so they don't have to dump salaries like mad men.

I don't think you will see any grandfathering at all. Teams will have to trade away higher end players or cut them.

 

[Hasbro]

Another motivation for the PA to go rollback/honor last year is that it would cut the disparity between under contract players and new signees.

 

[Jester]

As much as this tickles me, my guess is that some of these payrolls will be grandfathered in somehow to allow these teams to get under the cap, either by allowing them some time to buyout contracts and not have them count against next years cap OR some temporary cap space so they don't have to dump salaries like mad men.

my guess is that buy-outs done prior to the season beginning will not be counted against the cap... makes way too much sense.

a) it allows teams to get their "cap number" in check.

b) it's a one-time huge pay-out to the player, why would the NHLPA not be happy to get their guys X-million up front and then sign a new contract?

it boils down to this... do you really think the powerful owners that have stood by the little guys in this whole fight, when they were completely willing to play last season, and didn't say a peep in complaint about the situation, are going to take the bullet for the next couple of seasons in victory?

no.

a formula will be worked out to allow teams to get down gently without having to scrap their teams...

 

[Jester]

I don't think you will see any grandfathering at all. Teams will have to trade away higher end players or cut them.

i think you mean "buy-out," which is VERY different than "cut." pure semantics, but in the language of sports and money a big deal.

 

[CGG]

my guess is that buy-outs done prior to the season beginning will not be counted against the cap... makes way too much sense.

a) it allows teams to get their "cap number" in check.

b) it's a one-time huge pay-out to the player, why would the NHLPA not be happy to get their guys X-million up front and then sign a new contract?

Makes sense to me. Otherwise we'll have to watch a bunch of trades -- Toronto trading Owen Nolan to Minnesota for an 8th round pick, and Toronto will pay 95% of his salary.

 

[Jester]

Makes sense to me. Otherwise we'll have to watch a bunch of trades -- Toronto trading Owen Nolan to Minnesota for an 8th round pick, and Toronto will pay 95% of his salary.

yeah... it is going to be chaos already, they gotta figure something out. PLUS the NHLPA needs to create room on the rosters for the stupid players they have to fit under the caps of all the teams out there.

the other issue here is that you are looking at buy/sell situations in negotiations. both sides are going to sell issues to get other concessions... it will get worked out. we probably end up with 24% roll-back + contract year gone for a slightly higher payroll range, like 42.5 M or whatever.

 

[NYIsles1*]

I see no chance of NHL owners paying anything for 2004-05 contracts.

You have teams losing revenue and season ticket holders with no revenue coming in and the players want last year to become a paid vacation with only a twenty four percent rollback?

I can see Tannenbaum's reaction to having to write a check for 50m, that's more than the Leafs profited the last four years. The Flyers lost money in 2003-04 and now Sinder is going to write a check for 50m on top of it.

The NHL would declare bankruptcy before agreeing to compensate players for
2004-05.

 

[nomorekids]

I see no chance of NHL owners paying anything for 2004-05 contracts.

You have teams losing revenue and season ticket holders with no revenue coming in and the players want last year to become a paid vacation with only a twenty four percent rollback?

I can see Tannenbaum's reaction to having to write a check for 50m, that's more than the Leafs profited the last four years. The Flyers lost money in 2003-04 and now Sinder is going to write a check for 50m on top of it.

The NHL would declare bankruptcy before agreeing to compensate players for
2004-05.

No, that's not what they're proposing. The reference to last year's contracts is that they be HONORED as if the year didn't happen...IE: pick up where they left off. For example...last summer, Steve Sullivan was re-signed by Nashville at 3.8 million with a club option. Under this scenario...his salary would be rolled back 24 percent...and instead of being UFA at the end of all of this, he'd be signed for one year...as if last year didn't happen.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I see no chance of NHL owners paying anything for 2004-05 contracts.

You have teams losing revenue and season ticket holders with no revenue coming in and the players want last year to become a paid vacation with only a twenty four percent rollback?

I can see Tannenbaum's reaction to having to write a check for 50m, that's more than the Leafs profited the last four years. The Flyers lost money in 2003-04 and now Sinder is going to write a check for 50m on top of it.

The NHL would declare bankruptcy before agreeing to compensate players for
2004-05.

you misunderstand ... the contracts that would have been paid last year, will simply be in effect this year. its not like the players get paid for last plus this year.

dr

 

[mooseOAK*]

Seeing as half the NHL is out of contract, it makes sense for the NHL to not accept the rollback and not honour last seasons contracts as the rollback will only be effective on a small number of contracts.

And under a cap system with or without the rollback, the owners get what they want. If there is no rollback all it means is less money for all the free agents out there, if the NHLPA agrees to the rollback then that extra money can be distributed.

 

[nomorekids]

you misunderstand ... the contracts that would have been paid last year, will simply be in effect this year. its not like the players get paid for last plus this year.

dr

you won't see me agreeing with DR much...perhaps the two sides really are close

anyway, i hope that's what goes down. it would restrict SOME of the craziness..and...as a Preds fan, I'd rather not lose some of the people we'd potentially lose, mostly Sullivan and Eaton.