Players Counter with $49m Cap

[bladoww]

has there been any report as to whether or not this is expected to go on into the night? or...? is this a true negotiation, or are we going to hope everyone wakes up with cooler heads in the morning and bangs it out last second?

This is the crucial time. Oh yeah, phones will be ringing all night long you can count on that!

 

[Lexicon Devil]

I'm sorry but how do you figure?

$49 Million x 30 Teams = $1,470,000,000 / $2,100,000,000 = 70% of league revenues.

Are you kidding me? You really think a league should accept an offer that could 'potentially' bring league payrolls to 70%. No company in their right mind would allow a union that kind of power after what has transpired in the past 10 years of the current CBA.

I know many will come back and argue that too many of us are assuming that all the teams would spend that much but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that more than half probably would not to mention you now have a range of $20M to $49M which is a $29M range! How does that ensure a level playing field about the haves and have-nots?

This post is simply ridiculous. First of all, let's completely ignore the luxury tax that NHLPA has proposed, even though it would certainly drag spending. Let's also ignore the 24% rollback and assume that everyone keeps on spending the same unless the cap prevents them. Assuming a hard cap of $49M:

Anaheim - $49
Atlanta - $27
Boston - $46
Buffalo - $33
Calgary - $35
Carolina - $38
Chicago - $32
Colorado - $49
Columbus - $32
Dallas - $49
Detroit - $49
Edmonton - $31
Florida - $26
Los Angeles - $46
Minnesota - $27
Montreal - $43
Nashville - $23
New Jersey - $48
NYI - $44
NYR - $49
Ottawa - $40
Philadelphia - $49
Phoenix - $38
Pittsburgh - $27
San Jose - $35
St. Louis - $49
Tampa - $34
Toronto - $49
Vancouver - $39
Washington - $49

Average Salary: $39.5M

That's only 56% - not 70%. Then factor in the luxury tax and 24% rollback and this proposal is incredibly fair. I really can't see how anyone can denigrate this proposal unles they are completely brainwashed by Bettman.

As for competitive balance, it's the owners responsibility to deal with revenue sharing, which they apparently don't want to do in a very substantial way. Short of that, every team can afford to spend $35 million if they have a good team worth spending. So the payroll difference would only be 40% between top and bottom contenders - far better than the current 130%.

 

[nomorekids]

This post is simply ridiculous. First of all, let's completely ignore the luxury tax that NHLPA has proposed, even though it would certainly drag spending. Let's also ignore the 24% rollback and assume that everyone keeps on spending the same unless the cap prevents them. Assuming a hard cap of $49M:

Anaheim - $49
Atlanta - $27
Boston - $46
Buffalo - $33
Calgary - $35
Carolina - $38
Chicago - $32
Colorado - $49
Columbus - $32
Dallas - $49
Detroit - $49
Edmonton - $31
Florida - $26
Los Angeles - $46
Minnesota - $27
Montreal - $43
Nashville - $23
New Jersey - $48
NYI - $44
NYR - $49
Ottawa - $40
Philadelphia - $49
Phoenix - $38
Pittsburgh - $27
San Jose - $35
St. Louis - $49
Tampa - $34
Toronto - $49
Vancouver - $39
Washington - $49

Average Salary: $39.5M

That's only 56% - not 70%. Then factor in the luxury tax and 24% rollback and this proposal is incredibly fair. I really can't see how anyone can denigrate this proposal unles they are completely brainwashed by Bettman.

As for competitive balance, it's the owners responsibility to deal with revenue sharing, which they apparently don't want to do in a very substantial way. Short of that, every team can afford to spend $35 million if they have a good team worth spending. So the payroll difference would only be 40% between top and bottom contenders - far better than the current 130%.

Nashville's payroll, with Erat and Hall signed to, we'll say 1.1 million dollars each, is about 28 million, not 23...pre roll back. Bear in mind also that the intention is to sign a reasonable second line center from free agency, probably bumping us up to 30 million or so. Just thought I'd toss that out.

 

[NYRangers]

Nashville would be under 20 million with a rollback

http://www.leaderboard.com/R1131.HTM

Thats ridiculous.

 

[Icey]

Nashville would be under 20 million with a rollback

http://www.leaderboard.com/R1131.HTM

Thats ridiculous.

Reading is a wonderful talent.

First of all, let's completely ignore the luxury tax that NHLPA has proposed, even though it would certainly drag spending. Let's also ignore the 24% rollback and assume that everyone keeps on spending the same unless the cap prevents them. Assuming a hard cap of $49M:

 

[NYRangers]

Isn't it?

Where does it say I was responding to you or any previous conversation? I was just stating how a teams payroll would be very low, under 20.

Reading is a wonderful talent.

 

[Lexicon Devil]

I found those numbers on the first site that popped up in google. They may not be exact, but they're ballpark, which is the point I was trying to make. When Bettman's says "if every team spent $49M", who is he trying to fool? There are competitive cycles, and you will never have more than half the teams maxed out.

 

[NYRangers]

If your having a private discussion then take it off the message board, otherwise anyone can respond to any one thread.

No kidding Nashville's payroll would be under $20M it already is.

I'm not having a private conversation. Just wasnt repling to your post.

Nashville isn't under 20 now though. I think there at 23. Is there owner cheap? Will he keep the team together whne they need big contracts? Whats the limit?

 

[Captain Conservative]

This post is simply ridiculous. First of all, let's completely ignore the luxury tax that NHLPA has proposed, even though it would certainly drag spending. Let's also ignore the 24% rollback and assume that everyone keeps on spending the same unless the cap prevents them. Assuming a hard cap of $49M:

Anaheim - $49
Atlanta - $27
Boston - $46
Buffalo - $33
Calgary - $35
Carolina - $38
Chicago - $32
Colorado - $49
Columbus - $32
Dallas - $49
Detroit - $49
Edmonton - $31
Florida - $26
Los Angeles - $46
Minnesota - $27
Montreal - $43
Nashville - $23
New Jersey - $48
NYI - $44
NYR - $49
Ottawa - $40
Philadelphia - $49
Phoenix - $38
Pittsburgh - $27
San Jose - $35
St. Louis - $49
Tampa - $34
Toronto - $49
Vancouver - $39
Washington - $49

Average Salary: $39.5M

That's only 56% - not 70%. Then factor in the luxury tax and 24% rollback and this proposal is incredibly fair. I really can't see how anyone can denigrate this proposal unles they are completely brainwashed by Bettman.

As for competitive balance, it's the owners responsibility to deal with revenue sharing, which they apparently don't want to do in a very substantial way. Short of that, every team can afford to spend $35 million if they have a good team worth spending. So the payroll difference would only be 40% between top and bottom contenders - far better than the current 130%.

What happens to all the players cut/traded from teams with payrolls much higher than the 49 million? I guess they just disappear? No, they will be signed by teams under the cap, therefore driving the average payroll up.


Boob.

 

[NYRangers]

please delete this

 

[Icey]

I'm not having a private conversation. Just wasnt repling to your post.

Nashville isn't under 20 now though. I think there at 23. Is there owner cheap? Will he keep the team together whne they need big contracts? Whats the limit?

Their owner isn't cheap, just right now its a young team and therefore they really don't need to spend the money on payroll, sort of like Atlanta.

They are growing and in a 2-3 years they may be right up there with the big boys competing for the cup.

I thought they were under $20M but they don't have all their players signed.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Didn\'t they say a couple of days ago that the best offer and last ofer they would get is X and then changed their minds?

If Gary cancels the season, I will not watch another NHL as long as that weasel is commisioner.
How bout this deal? Players accept 45 million and Gary gets fired... They'll deal with that . lol.

is that for real? or just another bryan mccabe "i will sit out for the rest of my life than to play under a cap" type of bluff? oh by the way, now that the union is negotiating a cap with the nhl, i guess we've seen the last of mccabe. although i have my doubt of him living up to his word, but we'll see.

 

[me2]

As for competitive balance, it's the owners responsibility to deal with revenue sharing, which they apparently don't want to do in a very substantial way. Short of that, every team can afford to spend $35 million if they have a good team worth spending. So the payroll difference would only be 40% between top and bottom contenders - far better than the current 130%.

Assuming they have the same revenue base (questionable for 2005-06).

Anyway lets flip this around a little bit using those same old numbers

Team difference between $42.5m cap and a $49m cap
Anaheim 0
Atlanta 0
Boston 0
Buffalo 0
Calgary 0
Carolina (Hart.) 0
Chicago 0
Colorado (Que.) 3.784
Columbus 0
Dallas (Minn.) 6.5
Detroit 6.5
Edmonton 0
Florida 0
Los Angeles 0
Minnesota 0
Montreal 0
Nashville 0
New Jersey 0
NY Islanders 0
NY Rangers 6.5
Ottawa 0
Philadelphia 6.5
Phoenix (Win.) 0
Pittsburgh 0
San Jose 0
St.Louis 4.012
Tampa Bay 0
Toronto 4.468
Vancouver 0
Washington 0

Assuming teams spend the same amounts (less 24%) total difference between the two caps is a total $38.2m. The players are only $38.2 worse off under the $42.5m cap, while providing much great league wide security.