Helene Elliott- Today's talks could pivotal

[NYIsles1*]

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.

I understand and that makes more sense. Still what about the player who would now be locked into contracts past their first year in Unrestricted Free Agency where in the past they would have wanted to hit the open market?

Example: Hamrlik/Aucoin...

It's kind of hard to keep players over thirty one tied up an extra year because they had contracts in 2004-05 and on the other side drop the age for unrestricted free agents. In that sense let's say the new Unrestricted age is 29 and the player was in the last year of his contract at age 29 in 2004-05, all of a sudden he is stuck an extra year where he is.

 

[WC Handy*]

I think to determine which option the owners would prefer you have to look at each individual team's situation.

Take the Blues for example... if they don't honor the 04-05 contracts and UFA age is 30 as the Elliott says, then they lose Pronger to free agency. The only two big contracts the Blues would like to get a year off of are Tkachuk and Weight. If they don't have to honor 04-05 contracts, the Blues save $16M. But, if they get the 24% rollback on what's remaining on those two contracts they save $9.2M. So, the question that remains is would the Blues rather pay the $7.8M difference to retain Pronger's rights? I personally think they would.

Then another team... perhaps the Leafs, might want the 04-05 salaries off the books because it's their best shot to get under the cap.

Another thing... people keep talking about the Yashins and the Holiks, but let's not forget about the the underpaid players that still haven't hit their payday. If the 04-05 contracts are honored, then the Blue Jackets get a year of Rick Nash for $1.1M instead of the $4 or $5M he's going to demand after his contract is up.

 

[King_Brown]

No way do we accept a 24% rollback and teams are still over linkage based cap. Damn I love the word linkage. Anways if the players wont accept 35% rollback, I say get off the table and say we wont come back until we get a 35% rollback.

 

[dawgbone]

I understand and that makes more sense. Still what about the player who would now be locked into contracts past their first year in Unrestricted Free Agency where in the past they would have wanted to hit the open market?

Example: Hamrlik/Aucoin...

It's kind of hard to keep players over thirty one tied up an extra year because they had contracts in 2004-05 and on the other side drop the age for unrestricted free agents. In that sense let's say the new Unrestricted age is 29 and the player was in the last year of his contract at age 29 in 2004-05, all of a sudden he is stuck an extra year where he is.

Yup... he is stuck with it.

Then again, it's quite possible that their salay (minus the rollback), on their current deal is greater than one they could have gotten as a UFA anyways in the new system.

 

[dawgbone]

No way do we accept a 24% rollback and teams are still over linkage based cap. Damn I love the word linkage. Anways if the players wont accept 35% rollback, I say get off the table and say we wont come back until we get a 35% rollback.

To be honest, the NHL informed the teams a while ago to be ready for this... if teams were stupid and signed $60 mil worth of players for after the lockout, they deserve the kick in the nuts that they will get.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

I think to determine which option the owners would prefer you have to look at each individual team's situation.

Take the Blues for example... if they don't honor the 04-05 contracts and UFA age is 30 as the Elliott says, then they lose Pronger to free agency. The only two big contracts the Blues would like to get a year off of are Tkachuk and Weight. If they don't have to honor 04-05 contracts, the Blues save $16M. But, if they get the 24% rollback on what's remaining on those two contracts they save $9.2M. So, the question that remains is would the Blues rather pay the $7.8M difference to retain Pronger's rights? I personally think they would.

Then another team... perhaps the Leafs, might want the 04-05 salaries off the books because it's their best shot to get under the cap.

Another thing... people keep talking about the Yashins and the Holiks, but let's not forget about the the underpaid players that still haven't hit their payday. If the 04-05 contracts are honored, then the Blue Jackets get a year of Rick Nash for $1.1M instead of the $4 or $5M he's going to demand after his contract is up.

Good insight.

If the 24% or 1-year options are indeed on the table, it still looks to me like the league should take the 24%.

Some teams would be happy, other teams would not be happy.

I wonder if this scheme was calculated to split the owners?

 

[dawgbone]

Even still... it's short term...

a 24% rollback has a greater impact for 3-4 years, than the flood of free agents does.

the rollback allows for 3-4 years of arbitration at a reduced rate, which I think every team would like. 3-4 years of comparables at 24% less cost. Same with qualifying offers too.

Seems like a no-brainer... even if the pooch gets screwed in the short term.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

For the continuity of the game I hope the owners take the 24% rollback option. If they really want to take the "scorched earth" approach that so many PA pundants have been using, they will opt for no rollback and just let the market naturally correct and essentially start over. Because I like the looks of the teams I cheer for, and the status of their particular rosters, I hope they go for the 24% option. It will be interesting how it turns out. All I know is that with the reduction in free agency not taking place until the final three years of the agreement, Spinmaster TM's concepts of free agency chaos goes down the drain.

 

[WC Handy*]

Because I like the looks of the teams I cheer for, and the status of their particular rosters

That's where I sit also. The Blues with the 24% rollback are at $33M if the 04-05 contracts are honored and would likely have $5M or so to sign a couple badly needed wingers to round out the team.

 

[waffledave]

Nooo Nooo Nooooooooo



No More Brisebois!!!! I Thought He Was Gone Finally!!!!

 

[CGG]

What happens to a guy like Bouwmeester under this scenario? He effectively played out the last year of his rookie contract with San Antonio this year, how can they roll his 2004-05 contract into next year? Would he become an RFA? Or be forced to play for a 4th year under the ELS?

How about the injured guys who got paid in 2004-05? Do they give this money back if those contracts get rolled over to 2005-06? How can you get paid twice for the same contract year?

 

[Old Hickory]

To be honest, the NHL informed the teams a while ago to be ready for this... if teams were stupid and signed $60 mil worth of players for after the lockout, they deserve the kick in the nuts that they will get.

Exactly

 

[mooseOAK*]

To be honest, the NHL informed the teams a while ago to be ready for this... if teams were stupid and signed $60 mil worth of players for after the lockout, they deserve the kick in the nuts that they will get.

If those teams can't spend any money on free agents then it is the players that will suffer, not those teams.

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nhl2jun02,1,7062784.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

Elliot reported the following:

-FA drop from 30 to 28 over the last 3 years of the CBA
- Rookie contracts are 4 years long, cap at $850K, bonus cap at $400K
-Players proposed to accept 24 percent rollbacks ONLY if the owners honored the 2004-2005 contracts.

Here's a significant quote
"We are heading in the right direction," the source said. "If they add a Friday meeting, they may add a Monday meeting. But this could still all blow up."

NOT OPTIMISTIC.. staying consistent with go kim johnsson's idea

I don't mean to nit-pick, but the article actually said : "entry-level contracts would be for four years instead of three and would carry a maximum signing bonus of $400,000 and cap bonus money at $850,000 per year."

there's a big difference.....and I'm glad to see it, quite frankly - as I've thought all of the rookie contract proposals i've seen so far sucked mightily...hopefully she's right about this part and that it has already been agreed upon. [and if anyone has corrected this in this thread, I apologize, as I have not yet read the entire thing].

 

[mackdogs*]

If those teams can't spend any money on free agents then it is the players that will suffer, not those teams.

No actually the players will receive their pay regardless. Unless of course you mean they will suffer by not being on a competitive team which although very noble, is not what the players are all about. They just want their money and they will still get it. A more likely scenario is that the aforementioned idiotic GM has to make some trades to get a decent looking team. Why he would surround pricey players with pilons you'll have to explain to me.

 

[ti-vite]

How about the injured guys who got paid in 2004-05? Do they give this money back if those contracts get rolled over to 2005-06? How can you get paid twice for the same contract year?

Interesting...

 

[mooseOAK*]

No actually the players will receive their pay regardless. Unless of course you mean they will suffer by not being on a competitive team which although very noble, is not what the players are all about. They just want their money and they will still get it. A more likely scenario is that the aforementioned idiotic GM has to make some trades to get a decent looking team. Why he would surround pricey players with pilons you'll have to explain to me.

You don't seem to get it. The teams that are closest to the cap are the teams that have the most money to spend, for the most part. That will leave the unsigned players scrambling for jobs on the lower revenue teams with less money to spend. So, they will receive their pay but it would be less than they would make if the richer teams were allowed to be involved in bidding for them.

 

[Jester]

How about the injured guys who got paid in 2004-05? Do they give this money back if those contracts get rolled over to 2005-06? How can you get paid twice for the same contract year?

excellent point... the argument that the owners can make is that 2004-05 contacts WERE in fact honored in situations that required them to honor them... how many players got paid for some of the season? I know Roenick and Belfour did, Mogilny as well?

i don't think the players are going to get their contracts back, just like the owners aren't going to get the lost revenue from the season back.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Not to suggest that this is a point the NHL should even give on, but one of the response options available to the NHL would be to suggest that the either/or option be subject to the player-by-player option of the clubs. Then the teams would assess each contract and select one of the options for that player on a player-by-player basis.

I wonder if that would solve some of the problems addressed in this thread (teams capped out, injured players, etc).

 

[norrisnick]

Not to suggest that this is a point the NHL should even give on, but one of the response options available to the NHL would be to suggest that the either/or option be subject to the player-by-player option of the clubs. Then the teams would assess each contract and select one of the options for that player on a player-by-player basis.

I wonder if that would solve some of the problems addressed in this thread (teams capped out, injured players, etc).

I think that would be a decent approach as well.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Not to suggest that this is a point the NHL should even give on, but one of the response options available to the NHL would be to suggest that the either/or option be subject to the player-by-player option of the clubs. Then the teams would assess each contract and select one of the options for that player on a player-by-player basis.

I wonder if that would solve some of the problems addressed in this thread (teams capped out, injured players, etc).

Maybe I'm not clear on what you are saying, but I don't think that premise is fair to the players. If I read this right you are saying give the teams the ability to pick and choose which contracts they wish to hold over and which ones they don't? That just ain't right. It's all or nothing. You can't go to a lot sale and pick and choose what part of the pallet you want. You take the whole thing, the good with the bad, or you don't take it at all. That's the only fair thing and makes the most sense. You would know the legal end of things much better than I, but I think that by picking and chosing contracts the league would leave themselves open to lawsuits from the scorned players. I don't think this would fly.

 

[norrisnick]

Maybe I'm not clear on what you are saying, but I don't think that premise is fair to the players. If I read this right you are saying give the teams the ability to pick and choose which contracts they wish to hold over and which ones they don't? That just ain't right. It's all or nothing. You can't go to a lot sale and pick and choose what part of the pallet you want. You take the whole thing, the good with the bad, or you don't take it at all. That's the only fair thing and makes the most sense. You would know the legal end of things much better than I, but I think that by picking and chosing contracts the league would leave themselves open to lawsuits from the scorned players. I don't think this would fly.

Yeah, I misread that bit as well. I skimmed it and saw player by player basis and thought that they get to choose whether to take the money or run.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Maybe I'm not clear on what you are saying, but I don't think that premise is fair to the players. If I read this right you are saying give the teams the ability to pick and choose which contracts they wish to hold over and which ones they don't? That just ain't right. It's all or nothing. You can't go to a lot sale and pick and choose what part of the pallet you want. You take the whole thing, the good with the bad, or you don't take it at all. That's the only fair thing and makes the most sense. You would know the legal end of things much better than I, but I think that by picking and chosing contracts the league would leave themselves open to lawsuits from the scorned players. I don't think this would fly.

I am not sure if it would fly or not. I am not sure i even understand the repercussions or whether it would favour one side or the other. There are certainly pluses and minuses on both sides.

One thing I can say, however, is that the use of analogies on this board is almost without exception completely misguided and counter-productive. "This" is not "like" any other thing. I am not addressing this to you, Icon, as you are clearly sharp, but many of those who constantly use analogies here are doing so because they have no understanding of negotiations of this type and the issues surrounding them. It is not like buying a car, or selling your mom's house, or getting a divorce, or ANYTHING. It is a negotiation over money in a particular industry. That is what it is "like". For that matter, it is not like a lot sale. As I said above, though, no personal offense intended, since we see eye-to-eye almost without exception and I am sure you appreciate what I am trying to say here.

On the legal side of things, if it is a term of the CBA, individual players will have no ability to legally contest it.

 

[mackdogs*]

You don't seem to get it. The teams that are closest to the cap are the teams that have the most money to spend, for the most part.

It seems as tho you aren't getting it. The teams closest to the cap would have the least amount of money to spend. If a cap is 42.5 mil and a team has dedicated 41 mil to salary already they have a mere 1.5 mil to play with. I can't believe I am typing something this basic.

That will leave the unsigned players scrambling for jobs on the lower revenue teams with less money to spend. So, they will receive their pay but it would be less than they would make if the richer teams were allowed to be involved in bidding for them.

This I get. Let's call it karma for the previous 10 years. If you're expecting a tear to come to my eye for these hard luck players (gee, they may only make 2.5 mil next year instead of 3.3) you're barking up the wrong tree. When you dig your hole it's expected that you lie in it.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Yeah, I misread that bit as well. I skimmed it and saw player by player basis and thought that they get to choose whether to take the money or run.

Icon is right on his reading. In my post, the teams would get the right to choose. As i said above, I have no idea who this would favour at the end of the day, as compared to a blanket approach.

In truth, i strongly suspect the players will have to eat both the 24% and the contract year gone. I woould think the 24% is dead and buried as far as the league is concerned and not up for pullback.