The TSN Solution

[Buffaloed]

ummm, the NHL is for revenue sharing, not sure where you got the above from

It isn't revenue sharing unless it's shared by all parties to the collective bargaining process. It has to be part of the CBA, not an "adjunct" to the CBA where the degree and usage of revenue sharing is solely determined by the owner. A new CBA isn't even necessary for revenue sharing among the owners. They could have been doing that for the last 10 years. Unless the players are included in the process, it's just lip-service.

 

[chriss_co]

My simple solution (borrowed from Charlie Finley of the Oakland A's when MLB was first dealing with free agency):

"Make 'em all free agents"

Sign all players to 1-year contracts only. Then let supply and demand work itself out. Problem with pro sports is that only a small handful of the "impact" players are available in a year. Small supply, high demand. If you had to buy all 22 players each year out of the 650 players, I believe salaries would stay reasonable. At the very least the bums who have a good year in their walk year would get corrected in the following year after they start to suck again.

Not likely to happen. Both the union AND the league don't want everyone to be free agents every year. Why? Pretty simple.

Players want job security. They want to know that if they are injured or they had an off year, they will still have a job.

Owners want team stability. Owners want the ability to keep star players and keep the core of their team intact. 1 year contracts means a player can leave at will. Although this means players will be paid their worth, this 'proposal' is too complex and neither side wants it.

Its not a workable solution and fortunately, it wont occur. I think fans concur that they want team stability as well. They want to know that they can draft, develop and keep superstars on their team.

In this system, it won't occur. Funny how at the same time, many teams can't do this already (draft, develop and keep a superstar). Thats why the game needs to be fixed.

 

[LadyStanley]

The major thing I don't like is the qualifying offer at 75%, and if not appropriate it goes to arbitration. Maybe I read it wrong, but that would increase arbitration numbers without cause, eventhough the two-way arbitration system makes alot more sense.

Think about this...

First, if a team wants to make a qualifying offer to an RFA who earns below the league minimum, they have to make a 110% offer EVEN IF THE PLAYER'S PERFORMANCE does not warrant a raise. If a RFA earns above the league minimum, they have to offer 100% of the current salary, *regardless of performance*.

Note, this 75% is the *minimum* qualifying offer amount. If a team believes that a player should get a raise, there's nothing stopping that.

Right now, only players above a certain age or experience have the right to arbitration (and teams can't request arbitration); not every RFA who's contract expires can take advantage of it.

An example: If a player was getting the league average of $750k in 1994, 10% raises each year would mean they'd be scheduled to earn ~$1.95m in 2004. (A lot better than many industries.)

 

[onetimer]

Why not propose non guaranteed contracts. Or maybe the last 1/3rd is at the owners whim.

 

[me2]

Instead of the $6 million limit, come up with a percentage of average salary. I don't care what it is, but for arguments sake, lets say 500%.

Plato pegged the ratio between the richest and the poorest person in the ideal state as 4 to 1. Aristotle had it at 5 to 1. Couple of wise old ducks there. So you can't be too far wrong with that kind of thinking.

 

[codswallop]

The problem with this proposal and every other one with a luxury tax is that the NHL is opposed to revenue sharing. A luxury tax is a salary cap, though you'll never see the NHLPA admit it. Until the owners accept that the only way they're going to have a cap is if it's based on some form of revenue sharing (eg luxury tax), a new CBA will not get done.

I don't know where all this hostility towards Goodenow and the NHLPA is coming from as the players proposed CBA (luxury cap, lower entry level salaries) is a lot more reasonable than the owners hard, fixed, cap proposal that's irrespective of changes in revenues. Instead of rejecting the NHLPA proposal as out of hand, the NHL should be working with them to tweak it so it's fair to everyone. I believe the NHLPA has gone a lot further towards providing a workable solution than the NHL.

My view is that both sides have been rather reluctant to discuss the proposals of the other. Depending on your perspective, one side may seem better or it might seem worse. I just believe that to be immaterial given the process they are going through.

Negotiations on this level are tricky beasts. I still firmly believe that, in the end, a compromise will be reached. But it's not as simple as starting off high and then coming down to where a reasonable agreement will be reached. Unfortunately, the process involves many subtleties and a boatload of psychological warfare. The apparent animosity between the sides may very well be there, but then again it may just be part of the process. At the conclusion (however it works out), both sides still have to be partners. That can't work in any situation if you've lost much of your faith and respect for the other side. I believe that to be one of the many subtleties that we are mis-reading from out here in the cheap seats. And we've seen some of the head-games that each side is playing, though we can never really know what each side is actually thinking.

It's such a tough call for us fans given the situation.

 

[me2]

I didnt realize he proposed free agency at 30 or after 10 years. THis is not good. The players who start at 18 are the ones that become the big expensive stars usually and they will be free agents at 28. In their prime. THis cant be good for small markets with a budding superstar in his prime.

Teams will have to decide if they want to bring players in as 18 years old or 20 years. Would you rather Overchkin as a struggling rookie at 18 or 19 years old or Overchkin as a 29 or 30 year old in his prime. I'd see this as teams leaving players in the minors for 2 years. Which is not a bad thing for the players or the salary structure of teams.

I can see the NHLPA saying no, they want to get Overchkins into the league and scoring early, at 22 with 4 seasons and a couple of 40 goal year he's driving up salaries for other young players. Keeping him down longer just stalls that process. On the other hand a Washington probably want to rush him just for the PR.

I dont see how you can say no player can make more than $6mil. Perhaps say no RFA can get more than $6mil, but UFA is UFA.

I agree. A hard cap on RFA individual salaries I like because it provides a fixed base for RFA contracts. Let the rich teams pay what they want for UFAs because they become more isolated from RFA salaries with the $6m setting the peak. If the rich teams want to blow $15m in luxury taxes the poor teams won't say no to the money.

Will this system save the owners the $300mil they seem to want to cut back? Is it cost certainty? If you make the adjustments to the rate of escalation of RFAs why do you need then to deter the spending so much. Might not a lesser tax actually raise more money for redistribution? Isnt it more the owners against massive redistribution?

Its not cost certainty but its a solid groundwork. It gives the owners a chance to start again. It includes some of the nescessary deflationary measures. The rich are still rich but they are dragging the poor with them a bit. If the only thing it does is correct salaries for RFAs (from $10m max to $6m) that is good start. Its an optional revenue sharing model, if you don't want to share stay under $40m.

At least its a plan though. But does it have anything to do with the core issue they are fighting over?

I don't see either side wanting it, but I think its as good a deal as any I've seen. Then again I'm biased because its close to identical to what I'd have if I was proposing as non-radical CBA. It contains almost all I've suggested (75% qualifiers, $40m + 1 for 1, 2-way arbitration etc).

The NHLPA will object to the 100% luxury tax (cap they would scream), the $6m cap on salaries would enforce what should have happened under the old CBA, they won't like deflationary measures like 75% qualifiers or clipping the bonus clauses.

The NHL will object just for the sake of it and demand it start at $30m not $40m. The rich owners will cry about the luxury tax dollars going to other teams (screw them, if they don't like giving away their money then they can stay under the $40m cap).

 

[me2]

Why not propose non guaranteed contracts. Or maybe the last 1/3rd is at the owners whim.

Owners have the right to do that now by making the contract a 2-way deal with club options on later years. Guaranteed contracts can be used to keep wages down because players can bargain for security ie a 3 year $4m/y offer might look a lot better than a 3 year $5m 2-way. If a player is injured at least he gets his money.

Also players will seek security in the way of up front signing bonuses, not good for fiscally challenged clubs. If player X gets offered $6m over 3 years by two clubs:
a) $3m signing bonus + $1m/y
b) $2m/y

He'll take the 1st one, even if the club cuts him he's still well ahead. Meanwhile the weaker clubs misses out because it didn't have $4m available the 1st year.

Hold non-guaranteed contracts over the players as bargaining chip to get a better deal, but in the end I think they should have guaranteed contracts. What if the players demand non-guaranteed contracts in return? Have a good season, end the contract and demand more pay. Its only fair if the clubs can do it so should the players. Personally, I don't think the players should be allowed to walk out on contracts and neither should clubs.

 

[GKJ]

TSN even calls out Bob Goodenow and Gary Bettman...that is my favorite part

We know this to be true, because for as much fault as the NHL and the NHLPA may find with The TSN Solution, we know there are many people on both sides of the labour divide - owners and general managers with the league; players and players' agents with the union - who think these ideas have merit. We know this because those are the people who have helped craft these concepts.

 

[ceber]

Owners have the right to do that now by making the contract a 2-way deal with club options on later years.

You make that sound so easy. Why aren't all contracts two-way deals?

It's not just because most players won't agree with them, but because under the last CBA, qualifying offers had to be one-way deals except in specific cases. Sure, the CBA says players can still agree to a two-way contract even when the CBA dictates the team's qualifying offer is only valid if it's a one-way contract, but c'mon... A player is going to say "Well, OK, I'll sign a two-way deal instead, because I'm such a sap" ??
The CBA is set up to move players onto one-way deals, and once they're there, they ain't comin' back.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Why not propose non guaranteed contracts. Or maybe the last 1/3rd is at the owners whim.

The players would never agree to it. And once the NFL CBA is up that will be the main sticking point.

 

[bling]

Think about this...

First, if a team wants to make a qualifying offer to an RFA who earns below the league minimum, they have to make a 110% offer EVEN IF THE PLAYER'S PERFORMANCE does not warrant a raise. If a RFA earns above the league minimum, they have to offer 100% of the current salary, *regardless of performance*.Note, this 75% is the *minimum* qualifying offer amount. If a team believes that a player should get a raise, there's nothing stopping that.

Right now, only players above a certain age or experience have the right to arbitration (and teams can't request arbitration); not every RFA who's contract expires can take advantage of it.

An example: If a player was getting the league average of $750k in 1994, 10% raises each year would mean they'd be scheduled to earn ~$1.95m in 2004. (A lot better than many industries.)

1) If that player is so bad then don't make any offer at all. Why would a team want to keep such a terrible player?

2) The 10% raise is only given with the qualifying offer when the player is RFA, which does not occur every year. Your logic is faulty here.

 

[Seachd]

1) If that player is so bad then don't make any offer at all. Why would a team want to keep such a terrible player?

Where did he mention "terrible"? There's a massive difference between being terrible and not deserving your whole salary.

 

[Lobstertainment]

A Stud 18 year old will still get maxed out and ALSO could be a UFA at age 28!!!

The players and owners should take notes and get back to a F'ing Table.

I havn't gone through the whole thing but that's one thing I didn't like, just keep it at 30. if a team were to draft that stud D-Man(Bouwmester for example) and when he hits his prime becomes a UFA and his team can't afford to keep him at 6 million because then they are pushed over the threshold of 40 million, so they offer 4 or 5 while team B comes along offers him 6 and he signs it.

I'd rather it be kept at 30, that way you can still get some good players via free agency but not stars in there prime, a team should be able to hold onto their star players they raised.

I say make the UFA age 32, compromise from current and the ever popular sugestion of 34.

other then that it looks good and feesible, deffintly a starting point to put a max salary of 6 million on the table, though the PA would out right reject it most likely.

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

I don't know where all this hostility towards Goodenow and the NHLPA is coming from as the players proposed CBA (luxury cap, lower entry level salaries) is a lot more reasonable than the owners hard, fixed, cap proposal that's irrespective of changes in revenues. Instead of rejecting the NHLPA proposal as out of hand, the NHL should be working with them to tweak it so it's fair to everyone. I believe the NHLPA has gone a lot further towards providing a workable solution than the NHL.

I totally agree with Buffaloed, the players made in my opinion a significant proposal, obviously not there best because you need room to further bargain, but at least they made a realistic proposal, the owners have done absolutely nothing to keep them at the bargaining table.

Realistic? Come on. The NHLPA is talking about luxury taxes at 10%. It'll take a lot more than "tweaking" to make that work.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Good ideas, if mixed with Brian Burkes ideas it could work, but with the NHLPA being greedy bastards we wont have hockey for a long time.

Goodenow: Salary Cap, Salary Cap, Salary Cap,

 

[bling]

Good ideas, if mixed with Brian Burkes ideas it could work, but with the NHLPA being greedy bastards we wont have hockey for a long time.

Goodenow: Salary Cap, Salary Cap, Salary Cap,

I thought is was Goodenow: "No Salary Cap, No Salary Cap, No Salary Cap"

Bettman says: "Salary Cap, Salary Cap, Salary Cap"

Kinda tough to make a point when you don't even understand what side you are on.

 

[Sanderson]

Uh no, he was right.

He wrote, what he thinks are Goodenow's comments regarding TSN's solution.

 

[Coffey77]

Realistic? Come on. The NHLPA is talking about luxury taxes at 10%. It'll take a lot more than "tweaking" to make that work.

Sure it can. Add an extra zero and you've got 100%

I think a luxury tax can work. But it all depends on where the tax limit is and how much you are taxed. 10% tax doesn't do a whole lot but 100% does.

 

[garry1221]

taking part of another thread back when only the league's 31 mil hardcap was the only thing talked about, i'm going to see what comes of tsn's proposal

Basically, the players would be unofficially divided into four classes based on skill and salary:
Elite players: elite goalies, #1 d-men, forwards that anchor a top line. 4.4625 mil - 6 mil ave = 5,231,250 mil
Very good players: #1, though not elite, goalies, #2-3 d-men, forwards who can compliment a 1st liner or anchor a 2nd line. 2.975 mil - 4.4625 mil ave = 3,718,750 mil
Good players: Borderline #1 goalies, #4-5 d-men, average 2nd line/good 3rd line forwards. 1.7 mil - 2.975 mil ave = 2.3375 mil
Depth players: Backup goalies, #6-7 d-men, 3rd/4th line grinders and enforcers. *Included are rookie contracts* 850k - 1.7 mil ave = 1.275 mil

With these figures, I'll take you through four possible teams under the cap.

edit: used same format as orig. poster but changed figures to suit tsn's proposal. team payroll based on average first on high end, average, low end

Team 1:
2 elite (E) players
3 very good (VG) players
6 good (G) players
12 depth (D) players

G-E-VG
D-G-G
D-D-D
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
VG-VG
G-G
G-D (D scratched)
E
D

Total payroll: $63,637,500, $50,943,750, $38,250,000

Team 2:
1 elite player
5 very good players
6 good players
11 depth players

G-VG-VG
G-VG-G
D-G-D
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
E-VG
G-G
D-D (D scratched)
VG
D

Total payroll: $ 67,687,500, $51,875,500, $38,887,500

Team 3:
0 elite players
7 very good players
7 good players
9 depth players

G-VG-VG
G-VG-G
D-G-G
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
VG-VG
VG-G
G-D (D scratched)
VG
D

Total payroll: $67,362,500, $64,459,750, $40,375,000

Team 4:
3 elite players
2 very good players
2 good players
16 depth players

G-E-VG
D-E-D
D-D-D
D-D-D (D and D scratched)
VG-G
D-D
D-D (D scratched)
E
D

Total payroll: $60,075,000, $48,206,250, 36,337,500

 

[thinkwild]

A 75% qualifying offer could lead to seeing more rfa offer sheets and rfa compensation.

Although how many players is this really applying to? Is this really a significant problem?

If you dont want to qualify some $1.5 mil rfa with a 10% raise, not exactly sure who these players would be, Brendl maybe? or why you cant replace them from your farm team. Perhaps it could help us lower Bonks salary, but really the problem with bonk was more we wanted someone who could live up to that salary. Maybe it allows you to qualify demitra lower. But wouldnt that just invite more RFA offer sheets? Im skeptical as to the magnitude of this problem or the inability to deal with it with the curent rules. I dont see anything really wrong with it, but it cant be a big deal can it?

 

[garry1221]

A 75% qualifying offer could lead to seeing more rfa offer sheets and rfa compensation.

Although how many players is this really applying to? Is this really a significant problem?

If you dont want to qualify some $1.5 mil rfa with a 10% raise, not exactly sure who these players would be, Brendl maybe? or why you cant replace them from your farm team. Perhaps it could help us lower Bonks salary, but really the problem with bonk was more we wanted someone who could live up to that salary. Maybe it allows you to qualify demitra lower. But wouldnt that just invite more RFA offer sheets? Im skeptical as to the magnitude of this problem or the inability to deal with it with the curent rules. I dont see anything really wrong with it, but it cant be a big deal can it?

if there's a revision to the RFA compensation it could still stave off the offer sheets

there was mention, can't remember if it was myself or someone else that brought it up a few months ago, something like the following:

if a team makes an offer sheet and a player signs with them (their club doesn't match) then the draft pick that the team receives in compensation is the new club's pick based on what the player's salary is... obviously if a team thinks an RFA is good enough to give him an offer sheet at whatever salary they choose, then they must think he's better than someone they might have been able to draft, i'll look for the post and i'll post it here

edit: forgot the search was disabled, but i believe the table that was used for the new RFA compensation was something along the following lines:

1 mil + = 2 1st round picks
1 mil = 1st round
900 k = 2nd round
800 k = 3rd round
700 k = 4th round
600 k = 5th round
500 k = 6th round
400 k = 7th round

can't remember exactly but it was along those lines

 

[wint]

In this system, what happens if a team forces a player to go to arbitration and the player doesn't like the award? I can't imagine he will be forced to sign a contract he doesn't want to if he never wanted to go to arbitration in the first place. In that case, the only time a player would ever have any control over his contract is when he first signs with the NHL.

If the player is not forced to sign on the dotted line against his will, then either the player becomes an RFA (just like he was before the arbitration hearing, thus making the arbitration hearing irrelevant) or a UFA (in which case, no owner would be able to use the arbitration process out of fear that "winning" would ultimately result in losing a player for nothing).

Anyone know how this works in baseball? Or how TSN intends it to work here?

 

[thinkwild]

In this system, what happens if a team forces a player to go to arbitration and the player doesn't like the award? I can't imagine he will be forced to sign a contract he doesn't want to if he never wanted to go to arbitration in the first place. In that case, the only time a player would ever have any control over his contract is when he first signs with the NHL.

If the player is not forced to sign on the dotted line against his will, then either the player becomes an RFA (just like he was before the arbitration hearing, thus making the arbitration hearing irrelevant) or a UFA (in which case, no owner would be able to use the arbitration process out of fear that "winning" would ultimately result in losing a player for nothing).

Anyone know how this works in baseball? Or how TSN intends it to work here?

Thats an interesting question. If he's forced into arbitration, and doesnt like the result, his recourse would still be to hold out wouldnt it? THe team shouldnt lose his rights for this. The team would seem to be in the drivers seat to make a trade or let him take offer sheets. Presumably the arbitration would still only be a 1 or 2 yr deal and he could hope the next team qualifies him higher.

 

[PecaFan]

In this system, what happens if a team forces a player to go to arbitration and the player doesn't like the award? I can't imagine he will be forced to sign a contract he doesn't want to if he never wanted to go to arbitration in the first place. In that case, the only time a player would ever have any control over his contract is when he first signs with the NHL.

That's the whole point though. Each side is fearful of the other sides' offer being chosen, so both sides are pressured to submit fair offers. Without the threat of being forced to sign a contract you don't like, the whole system falls apart.

Both sides go into the arbitration hearing know that it's one or the other. If you can't handle that, then settle before the hearing.