Owners and a Hard Cap

[John Flyers Fan]

If and obviously it's a big if at this point, the owners manage to get a Hard Salary Cap put into place, along the lines of what they're speaking 54% of total revenues, I don't see how or even WHY they are even worrying about items like:

Individual salary cap
Entry level salary cap and length of years
Arbitration system
etc.
etc.


If a team can only spend to a maximum of $38 million, why should owners or Bettman care how that money is split up ???

If a team is dumb enough to pay someone $10 million or 25% of their allotment, then let them. They'll pay for it on the ice.

If someone wants to pay Sidney Crosby $6 million as a rookie, go ahead.

Click to read more...

 

[Jaded-Fan]

If and obviously it's a big if at this point, the owners manage to get a Hard Salary Cap put into place, along the lines of what they're speaking 54% of total revenues, I don't see how or even WHY they are even worrying about items like:

Individual salary cap
Entry level salary cap and length of years
Arbitration system
etc.
etc.


If a team can only spend to a maximum of $38 million, why should owners or Bettman care how that money is split up ???

If a team is dumb enough to pay someone $10 million or 25% of their allotment, then let them. They'll pay for it on the ice.

If someone wants to pay Sidney Crosby $6 million as a rookie, go ahead.

The are potential ramifications. Crosby gets $6 million, stupidly so, as a rookie, next year's 1st pick rookie is going to want his too. Or will sit out. These things become precedents and idiocy becomes enshrined. Like in baseball, Steinbrenner can afford to pay someone $8 million to be waterboy, it goes all the way down to where the lower salaried teams are made to pay stupid sums for notch above AAA players.

I am not saying that this for sure would happen in the NHL, but things are seldom as simple as you just painted.

 

[Epsilon]

The are potential ramifications. Crosby gets $6 million, stupidly so, as a rookie, next year's 1st pick rookie is going to want his too. Or will sit out. These things become precedents and idiocy becomes enshrined. Like in baseball, Steinbrenner can afford to pay someone $8 million to be waterboy, it goes all the way down to where the lower salaried teams are made to pay stupid sums for notch above AAA players.

I am not saying that this for sure would happen in the NHL, but things are seldom as simple as you just painted.

Except "like baseball" cannot be used here, because he prefaced his argument wih the assumption that there will be a salary cap, which does not exist in baseball.

Do you see the NFL saying "Peyton Manning can only make 6 million per year, with his signing bonus averaged out?" No. Teams know what the salary cap is, and then they make their own beds, and are forced to sleep in them. Spend too much, you end up in salary cap hell. Devote too much money to your marquee offensive guys, and end up losing in the playoffs every year like the Colts. And so on.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Except "like baseball" cannot be used here, because he prefaced his argument wih the assumption that there will be a salary cap, which does not exist in baseball.

Do you see the NFL saying "Peyton Manning can only make 6 million per year, with his signing bonus averaged out?" No. Teams know what the salary cap is, and then they make their own beds, and are forced to sleep in them. Spend too much, you end up in salary cap hell. Devote too much money to your marquee offensive guys, and end up losing in the playoffs every year like the Colts. And so on.

I was talking more of the tinkering with the rookie cap. You then create all sorts of headaches with bringing kids in as they want what the last guy got, no matter how stupid.


I actually do like the idea of football, where you can play with the Cap in the form of bonuses, deferred payments, etc, in order to 'cheat the cap' short term to make a run at a title, but will have to pay for it down the line. SF, Dallas, etc. did that during their championship runs. As long as you have to pay the piper eventually, I have no problem at all with that.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

The owners want to put as many cost dampening elements as possible. Sure, they want a hard overall cap, but if there's a rookie cap then it means it'll be even easier to stay under that cap. As someone else said, it will also prevent teams from having to dish out a lot of money to unproven talent. If the #1 pick one year gets $2 million a year, then that sets the bar and every #1 pick thereafter is going to want at least that much. Some of those kids are certain to be failures. The league can allow young guys to prove themselves and let the teams spend on guys they know can produce.

 

[Bruwinz37]

The individual cap is a ploy to win the hearts of the lower tier'd players. The NHL doesnt care which guys gets paid the money if there is a hard cap. But putting out this offer makes the guys who will never come close to 6m a year start thinking (or at least that is there hope) that if the team's cap is 38 million and we cant have 2-3 guys eating up 40% of it then there will be more money for us. This is especially true if there is a salary floor.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I was talking more of the tinkering with the rookie cap. You then create all sorts of headaches with bringing kids in as they want what the last guy got, no matter how stupid.


I actually do like the idea of football, where you can play with the Cap in the form of bonuses, deferred payments, etc, in order to 'cheat the cap' short term to make a run at a title, but will have to pay for it down the line. SF, Dallas, etc. did that during their championship runs. As long as you have to pay the piper eventually, I have no problem at all with that.

Except you really can't do that unless you eliminate guaranteed contracts. That's what really allows NFL teams to play with cap figures.

 

[kerrly]

If and obviously it's a big if at this point, the owners manage to get a Hard Salary Cap put into place, along the lines of what they're speaking 54% of total revenues, I don't see how or even WHY they are even worrying about items like:

Individual salary cap
Entry level salary cap and length of years
Arbitration system
etc.
etc.


If a team can only spend to a maximum of $38 million, why should owners or Bettman care how that money is split up ???

If a team is dumb enough to pay someone $10 million or 25% of their allotment, then let them. They'll pay for it on the ice.

If someone wants to pay Sidney Crosby $6 million as a rookie, go ahead.

I think there needs to be a few restrictions on place but nothing like what the owners are proposing, and as long as they continue to do so, I don't think a cap will be taken. I think an indivual player cap is dumb. If a team wants to pay Pronger or Forsberg 10 million, let them. See how much of a team they can put behind them with almost 1/3 of cap room in one player.

I would also like to see the teams be allowed to take a player to arbitration from time to time, in case of production drop offs and for nothing more than that.

I would also be ok at qualifying offers at 100%, that player could be taken to arbitration at a later date, to determine his real value. This way it keeps it somewhat fair for the players, so they cannot be qualified at 75% and basically forced into signing for less than fair value.

I'm also in favour of some form of restricting salaries and bonuses for rookies. I'm fine with what has been offered in previous proposals, give or take.

The cap is the main thing, and it will take care of most of the inflationary aspects in itself by causing owners to really think before they put the ink on the paper. Teams will not be allowed to dump salary, because everyone within a certain payroll range, there just isn't enough room for teams to accept big contracts. Overall the owners will be alot more careful and if not they will pay the price with their teams performance.

 

[no13matssundin]

IF?

Cmon man, dont be PA member.

There is absolutely, positively no IF about a cap. There will be a cap.

And, if you think otherwise, Im thinking the next 2 years without hockey might change your mind.

 

[Wetcoaster]

If and obviously it's a big if at this point, the owners manage to get a Hard Salary Cap put into place, along the lines of what they're speaking 54% of total revenues,

54% of what????

There is no meeting of the minds on revenues and the owners refuse to open all the books.

The NHLPA wants no part of percentages given the NHL owners past history. As far as they are concerned it is a mug's game to go down that road unless the NHL agrees to share revenues with one another at an NFL percentage level then there is incentive for the figures to be poiced by other owners.

 

[Trottier]

IF?

Cmon man, dont be PA member.

There is absolutely, positively no IF about a cap. There will be a cap.

There we have it, proof positive. To think, all these years God was masquerading as a Leaf's fan.

Reading your post, it's apparent that our opposing points of view are not nearly as far apart as rhetoric might suggest. For example...

I think there needs to be a few restrictions on place but nothing like what the owners are proposing, and as long as they continue to do so, I don't think a cap will be taken. I think an indivual player cap is dumb. If a team wants to pay Pronger or Forsberg 10 million, let them. See how much of a team they can put behind them with almost 1/3 of cap room in one player.

Agreed.

I would also like to see the teams be allowed to take a player to arbitration from time to time, in case of production drop offs and for nothing more than that.

How about each team having the right to call for one arbitration hearing per off-season. Likewise, do not limit the number of arbitration decisions per season that a team can "walk away" from. Currently, they are limited to one "walk away" I believe. Thoughts?

I would also be ok at qualifying offers at 100%, that player could be taken to arbitration at a later date, to determine his real value. This way it keeps it somewhat fair for the players, so they cannot be qualified at 75% and basically forced into signing for less than fair value.

Agree again! But from a player's standpoint, I believe they should be willing to give on this point (say 90% minimum qualifying offer) in exchange for a more liberal ("realistic") hard cap.

I'm also in favour of some form of restricting salaries and bonuses for rookies. I'm fine with what has been offered in previous proposals, give or take.

Agreed. Make players prove their NHL "worth". Nothing wrong there, IMO.

The cap is the main thing, and it will take care of most of the inflationary aspects in itself by causing owners to really think before they put the ink on the paper. Teams will not be allowed to dump salary, because everyone within a certain payroll range, there just isn't enough room for teams to accept big contracts. Overall the owners will be alot more careful and if not they will pay the price with their teams performance.

But at what numbers? And are you willing to implement a two-tiered cap, i.e., softcap with a harsh tax starting at X amount of dollars and hardcap at Y amount of dollars? If those caps are tied to league revenue (they should be, IMO; players have to recognize this basis concept), and revisited annually, per the NBA and NFL systems, that seems like the most logical, best-of-both-worlds solution to me. Equally fair, at least in theory, to both "poor" teams, as well as "wealthier" teams. In brief, progress for the "average" NHL team, without unduly "punishing" the players.

I recognize that elsewhere you refer to a luxury tax as a "joke"; talk to the NBA's David Stern about that characterization. It has brought cost certainty to his league, per both Stern and ownership. And besides, the idea being proposed here for the NHL is a softcap/lux tax AND a hardcap.

Not saying either side is agreeable to the above, of course.

 

[quat]

54% of what????

There is no meeting of the minds on revenues and the owners refuse to open all the books.

The NHLPA wants no part of percentages given the NHL owners past history. As far as they are concerned it is a mug's game to go down that road unless the NHL agrees to share revenues with one another at an NFL percentage level then there is incentive for the figures to be poiced by other owners.

Where did you get this from? Even the PA is past arguing this.

 

[vanlady]

Where did you get this from? Even the PA is past arguing this.

This is common knowledge to anyone who knows anything thing about project blue fin.

 

[quat]

This is common knowledge to anyone who knows anything thing about project blue fin.

My point is that even the PA is no longer arguing about the numbers or trusting books, etc. They know there is money lost and that something needs to be done about it. Blue fin is was a red herring

 

[quat]

There we have it, proof positive. To think, all these years God was masquerading as a Leaf's fan.

It was no mystery to those of us living in Canada !

 

[vanlady]

My point is that even the PA is no longer arguing about the numbers or trusting books, etc. They know there is money lost and that something needs to be done about it. Blue fin is was a red herring

Trust is the basis of the whole reason there is no deal, why no trust, money.

 

[Trottier]

It was no mystery to those of us living in Canada !

 

[quat]

Trust is the basis of the whole reason there is no deal, why no trust, money.

Well trust is a good thing... but all things considered, I'll take a binding agreement based on an uninvolved (forgot the word I want to use), third party over trust.

Define acceptable revenue streams and then go from there.

I understood that the PA didn't want to deal with the numbers because their deal was based on not having any contract hooked to revenue. Fine up to a point I guess... you want to get the best you can for your "side"... but ultimately you need to get the best deal you can get... not keep hanging onto something that isnt' going to happen. One could direct the same statement towards the owners, but this time I think they (and the league), are better served by getting something closer to their initial offer than one like the players.

 

[vanlady]

Well trust is a good thing... but all things considered, I'll take a binding agreement based on an uninvolved (forgot the word I want to use), third party over trust.

Define acceptable revenue streams and then go from there.

I understood that the PA didn't want to deal with the numbers because their deal was based on not having any contract hooked to revenue. Fine up to a point I guess... you want to get the best you can for your "side"... but ultimately you need to get the best deal you can get... not keep hanging onto something that isnt' going to happen. One could direct the same statement towards the owners, but this time I think they (and the league), are better served by getting something closer to their initial offer than one like the players.

If you want to bind the players salaries to owners honesty in there books, there must be trust. For that reason the players will play in europe till H*ll freezes over. The owners on the other hand are getting financial preasures that are starting to bear, could get very interesting.

 

[quat]

If you want to bind the players salaries to owners honesty in there books, there must be trust. For that reason the players will play in europe till H*ll freezes over. The owners on the other hand are getting financial preasures that are starting to bear, could get very interesting.

Sorry, but the players will be back much sooner than that, even with Global warming! Trust in the letter of the law is really what is most important. No one sensible is going to trust people to behave properly when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. It's clear that you have a moral objection regarding the Owners... which doesn't help you articulate your reasons for supporting the players. You often sound more like a fan in these discussions than is helpfull. Mind you, I do understand where you are coming from at times, and it is a frustrating situation when you don't believe, or even know the Owners are manipulating certain figures to best express their losses. However, that will mean nothing to an "impartial" third party.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

If you want to bind the players salaries to owners honesty in there books, there must be trust. For that reason the players will play in europe till H*ll freezes over. The owners on the other hand are getting financial preasures that are starting to bear, could get very interesting.

So the 700 strong membership is just going to head overseas forever. Less money , different customs/culture, less competition. Did i say less money? Tell that to Madden and the many others who have headed home quickly.

 

[vanlady]

Sorry, but the players will be back much sooner than that, even with Global warming! Trust in the letter of the law is really what is most important. No one sensible is going to trust people to behave properly when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. It's clear that you have a moral objection regarding the Owners... which doesn't help you articulate your reasons for supporting the players. You often sound more like a fan in these discussions than is helpfull. Mind you, I do understand where you are coming from at times, and it is a frustrating situation when you don't believe, or even know the Owners are manipulating certain figures to best express their losses. However, that will mean nothing to an "impartial" third party.

There is no guarentee of a 3rd party, as a matter of fact John McCaw quite simply sinks your arguement. Both Aquilini and McCaw have made it very crystal clear that no one but them and the people in there employ will see there books.

 

[GKJ]

If and obviously it's a big if at this point, the owners manage to get a Hard Salary Cap put into place, along the lines of what they're speaking 54% of total revenues, I don't see how or even WHY they are even worrying about items like:

Individual salary cap
Entry level salary cap and length of years
Arbitration system
etc.
etc.


If a team can only spend to a maximum of $38 million, why should owners or Bettman care how that money is split up ???

If a team is dumb enough to pay someone $10 million or 25% of their allotment, then let them. They'll pay for it on the ice.

If someone wants to pay Sidney Crosby $6 million as a rookie, go ahead.

Right on as always, John!

 

[vanlady]

So the 700 strong membership is just going to head overseas forever. Less money , different customs/culture, less competition. Did i say less money? Tell that to Madden and the many others who have headed home quickly.

There have been a handfull of players return, many of them were out of shape when they went over and didn't take playing in europe seriously. Yes some players are having trouble adjusting but if what was discussed during the Modo Fajrstead game comes to pass, money won't be much of an issue.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Right on as always, John!

Its a good point.