Sportsnet: NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal

[mooseOAK*]

Yet even with a Hard Cap that does still not prevent this from happening ..

Arbitration is not going to look at CAP room when awarding Salaries in the future .. These same bad contracts NEW or OLD CBA will have the same effect ..

The only difference now in a Hard Cap world if the Team wants to keep the player and accept the award then they have to cut other players and fill the bottom of their roster with Glorifed AHLers to now fit under a Cap.

Each bad contract in the New CBA weakens a team on the ice, where as before it just weakened the pocket book of the owner that gave out the bad contract.

True, that the highest paid guy will always be the reference point but with a cap the richest teams won't be able to set the same precedents as they did before by wildly overpaying players.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

True, that the highest paid guy will always be the reference point but with a cap the richest teams won't be able to set the same precedents as they did before by wildly overpaying players.

the three precedent setting contracts for RFA were signed by CGY (Iginla), MTL (Theodore) and VAN (Jovanovski).

damn those large markets !

dr

 

[Bruwinz37]

1) UFA are not elegible as comparisons in arbitration ... so Kasperitus has no effect
2) any GM who can be swayed by an agent saying "Kasper or Yashin" make this much so my player should be paid relative ... . deserves to pay the contract.

seriously, you think anyone would take an agent seriously comparing his player to Yashin in contract talks ?

dr

Every signing has some type of impact on the market. Yashin's deal can be used in Arb and Kaspar's deal effects UFA. If you think every contract is on its own seperate island than you are missing the boat.

 

[AM]

Union Employees

1st off ... thats what RFA is all about. no one makes RFA offers to other teams players, so the system already prohibits other teams from offering more money to your own player than you can afford.

2nd off ... why shouldnt Holik and Kasperitus be allowed to be paid as much as someone is willing to offer ? were they born to be indentured slaves ? surely no one is telling you how much you should be allowed to paid ?

3rd off ... what team has benefited from giving stupid contracts to players like Holik and Kasperitus ? none ... so who cares. let NYR sign those guys to contracts that pay them 10million per shift, who the hell cares.

dr

are all told exactly what they can be paid.

 

[mooseOAK*]

the three precedent setting contracts for RFA were signed by CGY (Iginla), MTL (Theodore) and VAN (Jovanovski).

damn those large markets !

dr

The precedent setting RFA contracts were actually Sakic, Hasek, and Pronger, I believe.

 

[Mess]

True, that the highest paid guy will always be the reference point but with a cap the richest teams won't be able to set the same precedents as they did before by wildly overpaying players.

It doesn't have to be the richest teams that set the Salaries High ..

Washington gave Jagr and Lang their big contracts and bailed out on them .. Isles gave Yashin that deal, Nolan's contract was given out by SJ. Anahein gave Federov 8 mil, Calgary is responsible for Iginla's contract at 7.5 mil. Chicago gave Amonte his current contract, ..

It doens't even have to be UFA spending ..What is going to happen to salaries and market prices now that TB attempts to resign St. Louis, Richards, Khababulin, Lecavilier etc , in an effort to keep its team together??.

In the New NHL the big Market teams will be capped out often when it comes to UFA bidding but that doesn't mean that other teams now that have cap room can't get into bidding wars for certain special UFA and raise the whole Salary Bar..

In fact if Revenue sharing does become a part of the next CBA and as suggested that the money received needs to be spent on players contracts then that is the promoting of spending even by the bottom teams .. When Owners received Franchise fees through expansion the spent it on Salaries , so FREE money via Revenue sharing will have the same effect.. IMO (BAD CONTRACTS)

That will drive Salaries up again in comparison.. We are not necessarily speaking only of the Stars here .. but if Columbus gives out a $3 mil contract to a player like Marchant then the bar is raised for all players as agents will use that $3 mil in comparison to their own players performance..

The only thing the NHL is creating by Capping the Big market teams is taking a few teams out of the bidding .. However they are now putting more bidders into the mix and now more teams can be a part of the UFA frenzy.. These GM's after being restricted from partaking in the past now in the future will make the same mistakes that other BIG Market teams made earlier.. At least before only a few teams went wild during UFA and the rest sat quietly now ALL 30 teams can partake in the UFA FRENZY and only the Hard CAP, will contain some.

Nothing to prevent that ..

 

[mooseOAK*]

It doesn't have to be the richest teams that set the Salaries High ..

Washington gave Jagr and Lang their big contracts and bailed out on them .. Isles gave Yashin that deal, Nolan's contract was given out by SJ.

In the New NHL the big Market teams will be capped out often when it comes to UFA bidding but that doesn't mean that other teams now that have cap room can't get into bidding wars for certain special UFA and raise the whole Salary Bar..

In fact if Revenue sharing does become a part of the next CBA and as suggested that the money received needs to be spent on players contracts then that is the promoting of spending even by the bottom teams .. When Owners received Franchise fees through expansion the spent it on Salaries , so FREE money via Revenue sharing will have the same effect.. IMO (BAD CONTRACTS)

That will drive Salaries up again in comparison.. We are not necessarily speaking only of the Stars here .. but if Columbus gives out a $3 mil contract to a player like Marchant then the bar is raised for all players as agents will use that $3 mil in comparison to their own players performance..

The only thing the NHL is creating by Capping the Big market teams is taking a few teams out of the bidding .. However they are now putting more bidders into the mix and now more teams can be a part of the UFA frenzy.. These GM's after being restricted from partaking in the past now in the future will make the same mistakes that other BIG Market teams made earlier.. At least before only a few teams went wild during UFA and the rest sat quietly now ALL 30 teams can partake in the UFA FRENZY and only the Hard CAP, will contain some.

Nothing to prevent that ..

Whether you think that the Islanders or Caps are rich teams is immaterial because their owners are very, very, rich.

The cap is going to limit salary escalation.

Why is it always that the GM makes mistakes and it is never the player not living up to the money that he was paid?

 

[Mess]

Whether you think that the Islanders or Caps are rich teams is immaterial because their owners are very, very, rich.

The cap is going to limit salary escalation.

Why is it always that the GM makes mistakes and it is never the player not living up to the money that he was paid?

Fair enough Bad contract definition does not need to be decided as to who to blame ..That is irrelevant to the discussion ..

Any contract to any player regardless of their performance will be used to measure future contracts against .. Like I said a team like Pittsburgh with lots of Cap room can spend freely (using Revenue Sharing money) to any player on the market or their own to retain them.. The Cap figure has no direct bearing on their own team at this time but 29 other teams are effected depending on what they just spent on that contract in comparison.

Weaker teams can even use this as an advantage in the future .. They could purposly OVERPAY a certain player with lots of Cap room and then force other teams to follow to retain their own, in order to take bidders out of the UFA frenzy. If say you know Detroit has Zetterberg and Datysk contracts coming up.. Then you could overpay your OWN player on a weaker team (from Free revenue sharing money). In order to force Detroit into similar contracts and less Cap space and less $$$ for UFA spending .. Look at a team like Ottawa and core of solid young players .. A couple of well placed contracts by weaker teams can force that team to be disassembled quite quickly in the future as they get better by using the Hard Cap against them ..

A Salary Cap does not keep individual Salaries down it contains Team overall spending when you look at all 22 players at a time .. Each team will spend money freely particularly on their own RFA to keep them or adding that key UFA .. Those Salaries become comparisons for all and only the Cap Room remaining determines how many times a team can do that and has to spend LEFT over .. If a team gives out 3 or 4 , $5 mil salaries then it will have to find a whole bunch of AHLers at 350K to balance a 22 man team under a Hard Cap ..

Point being neither player agent nor arbitrator is going to take into account FREE CAP SPACE when deciding player worth in the future .. That will always be in a direct comparison to what other players are making, regardless of their play or statistical performance, often based on style, contribution, age etc

 

[Mess]

Whether you think that the Islanders or Caps are rich teams is immaterial because their owners are very, very, rich.

If they are so very very rich then why are they crying poor all he time and not slapping a $45 mil offer on the table and bringing back hockey ??

Poor Me and Very Very rich ..don't fit very well in the same sentance do they ??

 

[X0ssbar]

The precedent setting RFA contracts were actually Sakic, Hasek, and Pronger, I believe.

..can't forget Fedorov either..

 

[mooseOAK*]

If they are so very very rich then why are they crying poor all he time and not slapping a $45 mil offer on the table and bringing back hockey ??

Poor Me and Very Very rich ..don't fit very well in the same sentance do they ??

Do the NHL players have the right to have access the personal fortunes of the owners?

 

[NYIsles1*]

If they are so very very rich then why are they crying poor all he time and not slapping a $45 mil offer on the table and bringing back hockey ??

The NHLPA is not offering 45m and that figure is still not nearly low enough to make the NHL self-sustaining.

Poor Me and Very Very rich ..don't fit very well in the same sentance do they ??

Neither does operating a business destined to lose millions every year in almost all of it's so-called largest markets even going to the playoffs. Even billionaires reach their limit. That's why only six owners still remain from the last work stoppage.

 

[Mess]

Neither does operating a business destined to lose millions every year in almost all of it's so-called largest markets even going to the playoffs. Even billionaires reach their limit. That's why only six owners still remain from the last work stoppage.

Why does Mats Sundin have to take a paycut to play in Toronto in a City for an Owner that makes lots of profit, who is in turn is more then willing to pay him his current amount. .. all because Milbury gave Yashin a really bad contract for the NYI??

 

[Mess]

Do the NHL players have the right to have access the personal fortunes of the owners?

Right back at you ..

Do Owners unilaterally have the right to effect the personal fortunes of all the players??

Strange how you didn't answer the other post .. I guess that means you have discovered the flaw in your logic on that one ..

 

[WC Handy*]

Do Owners unilaterally have the right to effect the personal fortunes of all the players??

Oh, so you're one of those people that believe since the owners have been overpaying the players for the past decade then they must continue to do so today.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Right back at you ..

Do Owners unilaterally have the right to effect the personal fortunes of all the players??

Strange how you didn't answer the other post .. I guess that means you have discovered the flaw in your logic on that one ..

I don't see the logic that a salary cap won't keep player salaries down. Teams without cap space won't be able to participate in the bidding so fewer bidders will keep salary offers down. Nor do we know what form arbitration will take, a player's salary may go down and not just up as in that past because teams may now have the option of taking the player there.

So you not understanding laws of supply and demand and not taking into account that we have no idea what arbitration will entail doesn't create a flaw in my logic.

 

[Mess]

Oh, so you're one of those people that believe since the owners have been overpaying the players for the past decade then they must continue to do so today.

Overpaying by whose definition .. Yours ???

11 owners made money under the old CBA .. In order to make that profit there is a cost of doing business and in this case player wages ..

Take a team like Vancouver .. They make money and they agree to pay Bertuzzi and Naslund the money they receive .. In turn those players produce points, resulting in wins and successful seasons and playoff gates .. which in turn lead to owners profit. The fans in Vancouver agree to pay those ticket prices in order to see the Canuck players on the ice and follow them.

How is it now that you sit there on your high horse and claim they are overpaid..??

Without those 2 players the team would be very ordinary, and the owners would make far less money as a result ..

When the only one that seems to be bothered is you .. !!!!

 

[Mess]

I don't see the logic that a salary cap won't keep player salaries down. Teams without cap space won't be able to participate in the bidding so fewer bidders will keep salary offers down. Nor do we know what form arbitration will take, a player's salary may go down and not just up as in that past because teams may now have the option of taking the player there.

So you not understanding laws of supply and demand and not taking into account that we have no idea what arbitration will entail doesn't create a flaw in my logic.

A Hard Cap is no different then a Credit Card ..

It still doesn't stop the wife from buying $150 pair of boots but rather go to Kmart and buy the $15 dollar boots ... because you have an upper limit on all spending ..

She can repeat that same thing for her new Dress and Belt until the credit limit is reached and only when you are close to the limit does it prevent spending on a certain item ..

But once you make a payment or in the case of hockey a player walks via UFA or retires you are right back to the ability to overspend on any single item again ..

Point being individual items are not effected just how much you can spend overall is..

Plenty of supply and demand in the real world and it doesn't change the ability to stop filling up the credit card .. If she buys more expensive items she can just afford less of them in the overall picture .. As long as people are willing to pay the prices being asked and the $150 dollar belt still sells, supply and demand are irrelevant ..

In the hockey world true supply and demand in regards to players is also not relevant because no two players are alike .. Every player be it John Madden or Joe Sakic there are only 1 of him (limited supply) .. If you want a certain player for your team then you're not going to say I really want Joe Sakic but I guess Glen Murray will do, or you want Marty Brodeur but will you settle for (Felix Potvin, Byron Dafoe, Sean Burke, Trevor Kidd, Kevin Weekes, Johan Hedberg) because they are after all goalies as well and just hockey players.. Doesn't work that way when you are dealing in originals .. Demand for a certain player will always be high and supply for him is limited to 1 so bidding will occur and prices will go up .. Pretty simple really ..

I suppose your mistake is made by a lot of posters here that think a Hard Cap will also stop salaries from rising .. It will not .. It will only effect the quality of the team that you ice by overspending as you reach the ceiling ..

The NFL has a hard cap and look at the contracts it gives out ..

 

[WC Handy*]

11 owners made money under the old CBA

Enough said.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I suppose your mistake is made by a lot of posters here that think a Hard Cap will also stop salaries from rising .. It will not .. It will only effect the quality of the team that you ice by overspending as you reach the ceiling ..

The NFL has a hard cap and look at the contracts it gives out ..

If a cap won't stop teams from overspending then why is it called a cap?

What it means is that a few teams won't be able to buy up all the best free agents and that talent will be redistributed more evenly. Philadelphia and Toronto have already made noises that they will be going with younger players next season so the free agents out there will need to go elsewhere if two of the richest teams are taking themselves out of the market. The Rangers seem to be going with a rebuilding mode also. The quality will shift because it isn't going away.

And, we have no idea what the NHL cap will entail so comparing it to the NFL is moot.

 

[Mess]

If a cap won't stop teams from overspending then why is it called a cap?

What it means is that a few teams won't be able to buy up all the best free agents and that talent will be redistributed more evenly. Philadelphia and Toronto have already made noises that they will be going with younger players next season so the free agents out there will need to go elsewhere if two of the richest teams are taking themselves out of the market. The Rangers seem to be going with a rebuilding mode also. The quality will shift because it isn't going away.

And, we have no idea what the NHL cap will entail so comparing it to the NFL is moot.

Its called a Cap because it stops total spending not individual spending !! It allows all teams the option to spend up to but not more than the upper limit, it has no controls in place to limit or control items within the boundaries...

It means that you lose all you quality depth on a team and the Gap between the top and bottom becomes more evident ..

Doesn't stop the individual spending .. Your Philly and Toronto example only holds true for next season alone as they are near a Cap ceiling now.. What happens the year after when the Leclairs, Amonte's and Belfour's Nolan's come off the books and those teams suddenly have millions to spend on UFA .. You don't think they would join right back into the UFA bidding and overspending again ??

What about the 25 teams that are not at their spending limits ?? What happens when you give poor teams Revenue Sharing money and tell them to spend it on players .. Now you have teams that before had no money, now have free money to spend .. You think this doesn't open the opportunity for them to overspend on certain players and raise salaries.. ??

If you are so positive of your supply and demand then why does the NHL need a system that forces players to remain with drafted teams until 30 .. When a contract expires just make them all UFA all the time .. Lots of Supply and with your few teams capped out that would keep Salaries down right ?? How is your Hard Cap working now ??

It wouldn't keep them down at all .. The minute a Hossa, Thornton, Nash, Heatley hit the market Salaries would escalate like never before even in a hard Cap world.. That is even adding them to the current pool of UFA so that Supply even goes higher yet ..and every salary accoringinly is affected if the bar is raised ..

Why is that ??

Why did the Leafs decide to resign Belfour for 8 mil instead of resigning Trevor Kidd at 450K if you are going into a Hard Cap world and profitability is the goal ??

The NFL is the perfect example you don't have to know what the final NHL figure is to use the NFL as a Role model to see how a Hard Cap works .. Teams like SF for example overspend in certain years and then are forced to pay afterwards until those players come off the books or are let go .. Same will happen in the NHL teams.. The NHL you can bet is looking very closely at the NFL model and fixing the loopholes in that system ..

 

[WC Handy*]

The 49ers are the only team in the NFL that have managed their team as badly as you seem to think that every NHL team will manage theirs.

 

[Mess]

The 49ers are the only team in the NFL that have managed their team as badly as you seem to think that every NHL team will manage theirs.

SF is not alone .. Dallas and others have fallen into the same trap ..

The NHL is promoting the same thing .. The big market teams that have more money then Cap room will pick their spots to spend every penny and find every loophole in the CBA to GO FOR IT NOW .. and then if/when it fails they will have no choice but to follow the same path as the 49ers in recovery not rebuilding .. Waiting till Cap Space is freed up again by bad decisions and forced to ice glorified AHL teams in the process. The Hard Cap is what causes that result .. Dallas and SF have lots of money to spend each and every year to be competitive .. Its the Hard cap and its rules that force them to pretend they are poor Small market teams in competiviness, not profitability or affordibility

You see it all the time in the NFL .. Your team could be a Super Bowl Finalist and then the following seasons spend years in recovery not because of parity but because of poor contracts and recovering from them.

The lower the Cap the less forgiving mistakes become .. That is Hard Cap reality ..

The NFL has even learned from its mistakes .. The NFL nas none guaranteed contracts and virtual unlimited UFA for all players .. So you can get easily below a Hard Cap figure.

The NHL proposals on the table have Buyouts and Injuries counting against the Cap figure. No out for owners .. If the leafs say for instace buyout Nolan and his 6.5 mil contract that is $6.5 less cap room. If a Star player blows out his knee and his salary counts then you only choice if to promote a AHLer to fit under a cap figure perhaps ..

 

[kdb209]

The NFL is the perfect example you don't have to know what the final NHL figure is to use the NFL as a Role model to see how a Hard Cap works .. Teams like SF for example overspend in certain years and then are forced to pay afterwards until those players come off the books or are let go .. Same will happen in the NHL teams.. [/size][/font]The NHL you can bet is looking very closely at the NFL model and fixing the loopholes in that system ..

The NFL is not the example to use for comparison.

The NFL problems (49ers and dead cap space, etc) are largely due to the fact that contracts are not guaranteed and up front signing bonuses are the only guaranteed $'s. A team is responsible for the signing bonus (prorated across the length of the original contract) even after they cut or trade the player.

In the NHL contracts are guaranteed so you will not likely see the huge signing bonuses that cause the NFL problems. When you trade a player, you are also trading their future cap liability (unlike the NFL).

 

[codswallop]

SF is not alone .. Dallas and others have fallen into the same trap ..

The NHL is promoting the same thing .. The big market teams that have more money then Cap room will pick their spots to spend every penny and find every loophole in the CBA to GO FOR IT NOW .. and then if/when it fails they will have no choice but to follow the same path as the 49ers in recovery not rebuilding .. Waiting till Cap Space is freed up again by bad decisions and forced to ice glorified AHL teams in the process.

You see it all the time in the NFL .. Your team could be a Super Bowl Finalist and then the following seasons spend years in recovery not because of parity but because of poor contracts and recovering from them.

The lower the Cap the less forgiving mistakes become .. That is Hard Cap reality ..

In the NFL it is. The NHL is a totally different animal.

Contract structures (non-guaranteed vs. guaranteed just to start in that category), vastly different national TV revenues, less revenue streams overall, etc, etc, etc. I could keep putting typing "etc" until the cows come home, there's a myriad of differences between the leagues.

Not to mention we don't know what the cap number/linkage number will be, what if any provisions will come along with that number to move up or down in the coming years, what the outcome will be to issues like arbitration and qualifying offers and so forth and so on.

Basically, we've only got about 50 pieces of a 500-piece puzzle (important ones definitely missing) and we don't have the box to tell us what it should look like. Right now, we're just going on pure speculation and/or assumption. Nothing more, that's the unfortunate reality (for all of us).