Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXX

[Kendo]

Haven’t checked in for a few weeks, have we discussed how it makes no sense not allowing Laf to play in the WJC?

Should Alexis Lafreniere Go to WJC?

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

While I believe the players have every right to be indignant that the league is attempting to renegotiate a 4 month old CBA citing "new information", the fact does remain that all the haggling over escrow withholding should be just a cash timing issue and the 50/50 split is all that ultimately matters.

Admittedly I am not an expert on escrow logistics. Are individual players liable to make right their escrow debt over time, or just the "players" collectively? I.e. if Jack Eichel retires at the end of next season does the league sent him a bill for the next several years or do future players have to withhold higher escrow amounts to make right his debt? Typing that out I assume it would have to be the latter. So basically the argument boils down to how much of any debt is born by the current players vs hypothetical players in the future (obviously a large % of current players will still be playing 2, 3, 5 years from now but many will not be).

Then from the owners side it's really a cash timing issue...they want more in the door the spring vs being repaid over time.

Would be utterly ridiculous to lose another season over something seemingly so trivial. I'm not going to attempt to estimate what the total $ amount being haggled over is but given franchise values alone I would think the league should have no problem securing a bridge loan to mitigate any cash needs in the near term.

 

[Thirty One]

Admittedly I am not an expert on escrow logistics. Are individual players liable to make right their escrow debt over time, or just the "players" collectively? I.e. if Jack Eichel retires at the end of next season does the league sent him a bill for the next several years or do future players have to withhold higher escrow amounts to make right his debt? Typing that out I assume it would have to be the latter. So basically the argument boils down to how much of any debt is born by the current players vs hypothetical players in the future (obviously a large % of current players will still be playing 2, 3, 5 years from now but many will not be).

It would be borne by players in future years.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

It would be borne by players in future years.

Appreciate the reply, as soon as I typed that out I figured it was the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Avery16]

https://www.radio.com/wfan/sports/rangers/hartnett-no-chance-rangers-deal-kravtsov-to-the-penguins

Buried lede: Kravstov on par with Panarin’s KHL stats.

 

[Ola]

Omg a 3 month break wasn’t enough for the NHL. What a joke.

I think that there is a risk that the players are getting screwed — beyond — recognition right now. Everyone are talking about how the owners made a mistake agreeing on a one time cap on escrow. We could see record escrow next season. Habits have been disruptive. Many franchises have basically not had any meaningful games in a year and a half if that.

Will the spectators return next season? 50% escrow?

 

[mrhockey193195]

They did but found out that his conversational skills end at Let’s Go Rangers and Hey Buddy

Joke all you want, but there are few people I'd rather hang out with while blasted during the intermission at an away game than Larry...

(you know, not speaking from experience or anything...)

 

[Leetch3]

While I believe the players have every right to be indignant that the league is attempting to renegotiate a 4 month old CBA citing "new information", the fact does remain that all the haggling over escrow withholding should be just a cash timing issue and the 50/50 split is all that ultimately matters.

Admittedly I am not an expert on escrow logistics. Are individual players liable to make right their escrow debt over time, or just the "players" collectively? I.e. if Jack Eichel retires at the end of next season does the league sent him a bill for the next several years or do future players have to withhold higher escrow amounts to make right his debt? Typing that out I assume it would have to be the latter. So basically the argument boils down to how much of any debt is born by the current players vs hypothetical players in the future (obviously a large % of current players will still be playing 2, 3, 5 years from now but many will not be).

Then from the owners side it's really a cash timing issue...they want more in the door the spring vs being repaid over time.

Would be utterly ridiculous to lose another season over something seemingly so trivial. I'm not going to attempt to estimate what the total $ amount being haggled over is but given franchise values alone I would think the league should have no problem securing a bridge loan to mitigate any cash needs in the near term.

the first part is ultimately all the matters...at the end its 50/50. neither side benefits from splitting a $0 pool from no season and extending the current tv deal. but if you look at escrow vs deferrals vs a flat cap for more years, it is all just semantics of how they get back to 50/50 and how long it takes.

with the escrow, my understanding is that the money is withheld up from so if the escrow is 20% then the players will get pay checks that are 20% less. then at the end of the year when they calculate the actual revenue the owners keep that $$ or the players get a check for the portion that they 'overpaid' in escrow up from. but the players don't return $$ they already got. when it comes to escrow the big $$ players that get paid up front in huge signing bonuses screw the rest of the players cause i'm pretty sure they get the full bonuses and the escrow taken out of their base salary.

 

[Leetch3]

part of the problem though is that not all players are equal in terms of the impact of these negotiations. I'm not sure who at the table for the NHLPA but that potentially makes a difference...

a guy like panarin is already signed to a huge contract...so he doesn't want escrow. the cap can stay flat forever and that just hurts other players but he still gets his $$. but a guy like zibanejad is a few years ago from his potential big deal so he'd probably prefer escrow/deferrals to take the hit the next 2 years on his current deal if it means getting back to a normal cap so he can get a huge deal rather than getting a bit more now but losing alot more on a long term deal...not saying that either guys top priority is $$ or they don't care about how it effects other players but you get my point that we say the players like they are all effected equally but they aren't.

 

[romba]

part of the problem though is that not all players are equal in terms of the impact of these negotiations. I'm not sure who at the table for the NHLPA but that potentially makes a difference...

a guy like panarin is already signed to a huge contract...so he doesn't want escrow. the cap can stay flat forever and that just hurts other players but he still gets his $$. but a guy like zibanejad is a few years ago from his potential big deal so he'd probably prefer escrow/deferrals to take the hit the next 2 years on his current deal if it means getting back to a normal cap so he can get a huge deal rather than getting a bit more now but losing alot more on a long term deal...not saying that either guys top priority is $$ or they don't care about how it effects other players but you get my point that we say the players like they are all effected equally but they aren't.

I would think proven stars outrank rising stars, and proven stars tend to have bigger contracts. Isn’t CK the Rangers PA rep? He’s locked up long term sooo...

 

[Leetch3]

I would think proven stars outrank rising stars, and proven stars tend to have bigger contracts. Isn’t CK the Rangers PA rep? He’s locked up long term sooo...

trouba and strome are the rangers reps

Executive Board

 

[Ola]

trouba and strome are the rangers reps

Executive Board

There has been questions about Bettman’s health, is he ill? What is the NHL doing? The NHL don’t even have a plan — yet — to start things. They’ve been able to prepare for this since March, there are no excuses.

There were spectators in the arenas in the Premier League today. I think all leagues in Europe are playing? You make more money playing than not playing. Even if you are a ticket driven league, it’s not like TV money doesn’t cover unavoidable expenses. More importantly, everyone are really afraid of being out of the spotlight too long. Ppl move on, get other hobbies.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

There has been questions about Bettman’s health, is he ill? What is the NHL doing? The NHL don’t even have a plan — yet — to start things. They’ve been able to prepare for this since March, there are no excuses.

There were spectators in the arenas in the Premier League today. I think all leagues in Europe are playing? You make more money playing than not playing. Even if you are a ticket driven league, it’s not like TV money doesn’t cover unavoidable expenses. More importantly, everyone are really afraid of being out of the spotlight too long. Ppl move on, get other hobbies.

The NHL is more of a gate driven league than the other 3 and I don't think their TV deal covers as much as people think. There are a number of owners who have stated they lose less money by not playing.

 

[SA16]

There has been questions about Bettman’s health, is he ill? What is the NHL doing? The NHL don’t even have a plan — yet — to start things. They’ve been able to prepare for this since March, there are no excuses.

There were spectators in the arenas in the Premier League today. I think all leagues in Europe are playing? You make more money playing than not playing. Even if you are a ticket driven league, it’s not like TV money doesn’t cover unavoidable expenses. More importantly, everyone are really afraid of being out of the spotlight too long. Ppl move on, get other hobbies.

This is always repeated and I really don't think it is true. Attendance was higher in 05-06 than 03-04. It was also higher in 2013 than 2011-12. TV ratings were also up in 2013. I haven't looked at 05-06 TV numbers though I'm sure they were lower due to the move from ESPN to OLN at the time which is a different issue. I think this is pure narrative based on what people think will happen but isn't actually the case.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

This is always repeated and I really don't think it is true. Attendance was higher in 05-06 than 03-04. It was also higher in 2013 than 2011-12. TV ratings were also up in 2013. I haven't looked at 05-06 TV numbers though I'm sure they were lower due to the move from ESPN to OLN at the time which is a different issue. I think this is pure narrative based on what people think will happen but isn't actually the case.

I seem to recall the numbers went down after the switch from to OLN because a lot of people could not find the network -- if their cable subscriber actually carried it.;

 

[mas0764]

Fans: we’ve assembled a group of kids like never before. Lafrenière Kakko Fox Shesterkin Chytil etc etc. let’s worry about how the nhl is going to make it impossible to pay them all or shut down the league a few more times during their primes. instead of having fun watching them

that’s what it’s coming to with this league. Sucks

I think that the incoming tv deal still gives us a much needed cap increase just when we will need it to resign core guys.

 

[Tawnos]

This is always repeated and I really don't think it is true. Attendance was higher in 05-06 than 03-04. It was also higher in 2013 than 2011-12. TV ratings were also up in 2013. I haven't looked at 05-06 TV numbers though I'm sure they were lower due to the move from ESPN to OLN at the time which is a different issue. I think this is pure narrative based on what people think will happen but isn't actually the case.

The entertainment landscape is vastly different than it was even 7 years ago, and especially 15 years ago.

 

[DutchShamrock]

The NHL is more of a gate driven league than the other 3 and I don't think their TV deal covers as much as people think. There are a number of owners who have stated they lose less money by not playing.

Its tough to quantify everything. There are fixed costs whether they play or not. Massive arenas that aren't hosting concerts or basketball like when they usually lock hockey out at regular intervals. Property taxes. Salaried employees. Scouts still have to prepare for the draft. Training centers.

 

[Irishguy42]

I think that the incoming tv deal still gives us a much needed cap increase just when we will need it to resign core guys.

Maybe.

The current TV deal ($2B over 10 years/$200M per year), post-Vegas, is roughly a $3.225M addition to the cap, assuming that it follows the 50/50 split between league and teams, and then split evenly amongst all 31 teams.

So, let's say the new deal is like....$6B for 10 years/$600M per year, with 32 teams. That's a $9.375M addition to the cap, which is a ~$6.15M increase than what the TV deal adds to the cap right now.

So...is $6.15M-ish going to be that helpful? Obviously, yes, any increase to the cap is helpful...but will it be enough? Also...are our core guys going to be needing that huge of a raise when their new deals are needed? Is Zibanejad going to be getting that $10M+ deal? Are Laf/Kakko/Fox/Chytil/etc. going to play their way into a big contract? Or...will they not?

I think, at the end of the day, it's not great to assume that our "core guys" will be needing big deals when their contracts are up.

 

[Tawnos]

Its tough to quantify everything. There are fixed costs whether they play or not. Massive arenas that aren't hosting concerts or basketball like when they usually lock hockey out at regular intervals. Property taxes. Salaried employees. Scouts still have to prepare for the draft. Training centers.

I think Bettman said recently that the teams are likely to lose around $60m on average if the season is played vs $15m if it's not. But 2/3 of the $45m extra losses would end up being paid back by the players, so ultimately, it's more like $30m if they play the season. Personally, I take those numbers with a HUGE grain of salt, because the league/owners/Bettman have a habit of exaggerating this stuff.

Of course, that's for one season. They grow if a complete shutdown does real harm to the league.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I think Bettman said recently that the teams are likely to lose around $60m on average if the season is played vs $15m if it's not. But 2/3 of the $45m extra losses would end up being paid back by the players, so ultimately, it's more like $30m if they play the season. Personally, I take those numbers with a HUGE grain of salt, because the league/owners/Bettman have a habit of exaggerating this stuff.

Of course, that's for one season. They grow if a complete shutdown does real harm to the league.

I was trying to find that quote the other day. To me it seems pretty nuts to let a one time $45M hit be the difference between being the only major sport to not be playing or not. $1.5M / team? Come on that’s too small a gap not to work something out.

Edit - and I realize the issue is it isn’t uniform by franchise. But stand by my point.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Its tough to quantify everything. There are fixed costs whether they play or not. Massive arenas that aren't hosting concerts or basketball like when they usually lock hockey out at regular intervals. Property taxes. Salaried employees. Scouts still have to prepare for the draft. Training centers.

Fun fact - I pay more property taxes than Dolan does on MSG.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

Fun fact - I pay more property taxes than Dolan does on MSG.

I probably paid more for that pastrami sandwich at the Carnegie Deli stand than Dolan paid in taxes. on MSG.

 

[egelband]

I was trying to find that quote the other day. To me it seems pretty nuts to let a one time $45M hit be the difference between being the only major sport to not be playing or not. $1.5M / team? Come on that’s too small a gap not to work something out.

Edit - and I realize the issue is it isn’t uniform by franchise. But stand by my point.

Particularly now. It’s just a ‘bad look’.

 

[bl02]

I was trying to find that quote the other day. To me it seems pretty nuts to let a one time $45M hit be the difference between being the only major sport to not be playing or not. $1.5M / team? Come on that’s too small a gap not to work something out.

Edit - and I realize the issue is it isn’t uniform by franchise. But stand by my point.

I could be wrong but I read that as average of 45 million per team not 45 million for all the teams collectively.