Please help a simple guy oversimplify

[Strangelove]

Listen folks, I’m just trying to get a feel for where this labour dispute may end up..... Obviously the owners have more leverage.... If you don’t mind, it helps me if I put it in terms of a Cold War where both sides are threatening to go nuclear.

Please correct me where I’m wrong below (if you’re *sure*) because I’m no expert, just Joe Fan trying to get a handle on this thing......

***********************************************************************

If the NHLPA were to dissolve tomorrow, all the players become UFAs and we are all at the mercy of the owners to not overspend. :lol No salary cap now (collusion), no entry drafts or entry draft salary restrictions. The rich teams would instantly become the best teams. Most of the smaller market teams would suck, attendance would drop off, they’d eventually fold (contraction), and lotsa union members are out of a job.

RESULT: Great for the best players, and horrible for the mediocre players...... great for the rich clubs and horrible for the poor clubs.

***********************************************************************

If the NHL could have an “impasse†declared (I don’t think this is easy to do), this dispute automatically becomes a “strike†rather than a “lockoutâ€, the NHL is allowed to impose it’s last/best CBA and sign any player it can. This would change the whole complexion of the league. Slowly, more & more NHLers would sign up to play in a league with (say) a $31million hard cap per team. Parity would theoretically abound although many fans would be disillusioned forever because of the mass migration of players. The fan base would take a permanent hit resulting in lost revenue for the owners, offsetting money saved by the more-agreeable-in-the-money-saving department CBA. The richer clubs would have a much harder time competing, the poorer teams would have a much easier time competing, and middle-of-the-road teams would also have to adjust (eg. The Nucks would, say, hafta let Nazzy & Jovo go to get under the cap).

RESULT: Bad for the players in general...... horrible for the rich clubs and great for the poor clubs.

***********************************************************************


I realize that it extremely unlikely that things will get this extreme. At the same time, understanding the extremes helps put things in perspective.

And interestingly enough, it appears if the Union launches it’s nuke, the outcome is a more Right-wing environment. If the Ownership launches it’s nuke, the outcome is a more Left-wing environment!

What did I miss??

Click to read more...

 

[JKP]

If there's an impasse declared, the Canucks won't be playing. It's illegal to use replacement workers in BC during a legal strike. (Same with Quebec and the Habs.)

Not sure how they'd deal with that...

 

[me2]

If there's an impasse declared, the Canucks won't be playing. It's illegal to use replacement workers in BC during a legal strike. (Same with Quebec and the Habs.)

Not sure how they'd deal with that...

Shift the team to portland for a few years.

 

[me2]

If the NHLPA were to dissolve tomorrow, all the players become UFAs and we are all at the mercy of the owners to not overspend. :lol No salary cap now (collusion), no entry drafts or entry draft salary restrictions. The rich teams would instantly become the best teams. Most of the smaller market teams would suck, attendance would drop off, they’d eventually fold (contraction), and lotsa union members are out of a job.

RESULT: Great for the best players, and horrible for the mediocre players...... great for the rich clubs and horrible for the poor clubs.

That depends on how much the clubs feel they are overpaying. If the clubs decide on restraint and a nasty salary adjust for the players the players might be in for a shock. They are going to have to prove collusion. There is nothing to stop a team copying another teams strategy and payroll structure so long as they aren't doing a combined effort. That's not collusion that is standard business practice. If Tampa comes out and says we think all players are paid too much and we will be offering just 50% of their old contract, then the flyers can say that sounds like a great strategy we are going to copy it (just so long as they don't talk to Tampa and prearrange it). All clubs win, younger players get better deals, older players lose the most salary.

Then again they could spend like there is no tomorrow and we end up in a terrible state. 10 teams close, the players salary goes down because of talent flooding the market and 300 players lose their jobs. A win for the rich clubs, a lose for medium clubs, death for weak clubs, and a decimated salary base for the players.

If the NHL could have an “impasse†declared (I don’t think this is easy to do), this dispute automatically becomes a “strike†rather than a “lockoutâ€, the NHL is allowed to impose it’s last/best CBA and sign any player it can. This would change the whole complexion of the league. Slowly, more & more NHLers would sign up to play in a league with (say) a $31million hard cap per team. Parity would theoretically abound although many fans would be disillusioned forever because of the mass migration of players. The fan base would take a permanent hit resulting in lost revenue for the owners, offsetting money saved by the more-agreeable-in-the-money-saving department CBA. The richer clubs would have a much harder time competing, the poorer teams would have a much easier time competing, and middle-of-the-road teams would also have to adjust (eg. The Nucks would, say, hafta let Nazzy & Jovo go to get under the cap).

RESULT: Bad for the players in general...... horrible for the rich clubs and great for the poor clubs.

Great for underpaid and younger players who will get paid according to ability not age.

Bad for older players, since the geriatrics won't be cashing in based on UFA status.

Mixed for rich clubs. The on ice performance might do down but the cap will bring them potentially greater profits. Franchise values will also increase as profits are more of a sure thing.

Middle market teams come out about the same. More competition from lower down, but less from higher up. Arguably have their stanley cup chances improved (90% of recent SCs have been won buy the bigger money teams). Financially better off.

Great for the poor clubs.

 

[Strangelove]

Thanks Me2, I hadn't thought of some of that.

I'll just add one final thought:

If the NHLPA decertifies tomorrow, the NYR become instant Stanley Cup favorites.

 

[thinkwild]

Great for underpaid and younger players who will get paid according to ability not age.

Bad for older players, since the geriatrics won't be cashing in based on UFA status.

If all the Sens were paid for their ability and not have a lowered salary because of their age, Ottawa would be in big trouble. The fact that nearly all our players being RFAs are capped by not being able to negotitate their market value, is the path to success for us. The trick that makes us one of the model franchises. The path to success that most smart teams are now following. A path I think will lead us to success quicker than a big spending team who can only overpay for UFAs who are overpaid.

You still havent grasped this have you? The UFAs arent an advantage. NYR and Tampa Bay set out on their strategies at the same time. I would of thought you would have been right. Like you, I would of bet heavily that a big spending team would of knocked off one of the dynasty champs before a low spending team. But it didnt happen. And it now seems very logical why they didnt to me.

Thats one of the funny things about hypotheses. What you think would happen, often gets blown away when you observe what actually happens quite unexpectedly.