What is Jarome Iginla's worth under the NHLPA's agreement?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by chriss_co, Dec 10, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chriss_co

    chriss_co Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    CALGARY
    The more I think about it, the more sly the PA's proposal appears. Kudos to them for doing an excellent job. Just when I thought the owners were in front, the PA comes out of nowhere and has completely turned the table.

    However, here's the reason why the PA's agreement is not a good deal for the future health of the league.

    Simple question, what is Iggy's market value under this new agreement? Because its obvious that if Calgary has to tie a huge chunk of their team salary in one player, then the deal isn't working.

    I'll throw it out into the opening and you guys tell me his worth. I think in order for the NHL to be successful in the long run, Iggy's salary cant be worth more than $6 million total per year.
     
  2. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jerome Iginla wouldn't get over 6 million under the new system. Joe Sakic only makes 6.6 million under the new agreement. Lang, Bertuzzi and Thorton all make less than 5.5 million under the new arrangement.
     
  3. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    Calgary's last offer plus 24% minus 24% rollback. :handclap:
     
  4. trahans99

    trahans99 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
    I thought Calgary offered Iggy 7.0m before if that was the case they'd probably offer him 5.32m (76% of 7m).

    They might raise the offer to 5.5m but if more than that the 24% rollback didn't help out the Flames with their only superstar.
     
  5. Drake1588

    Drake1588 UNATCO

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    28,263
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    I believe the team could qualify him at 76% of his 2004-05 salary (which was $7M) so the new bar would be $5.32 million.

    Iginla could, of course hold out, but the team would have the option of taking him to arbitration.

    The proposal explicitly states that in arbitration, player comparables would not be the salaries of similar players in the 2004-05 season, but rather 76% of those player salaries. So it's not the salary earned by a Naslund or a Sakic or a Tkachuk in 2004-05, but 76% of their salaries.

    All in all, it's not too bad. Just not the ironclad system the owners want. Is it enough? Probably not, but it may well be a starting point for back and forth negotiations.
     
  6. Fletch

    Fletch Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    21,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Home Page:
    They provided a good case study...

    and that was of Martin Biron...looking for $3 million (the club was looking fror about $2 million)...was awarded $2.8 million, but under the proposed CBA that $2.8 million would now be $2.1 million. I think that's pretty substantial.
     
  7. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Regina
    You don't think some team will slide over and offer sheet for more than 6 million dollars to get argueably the best player in the game. If the league was operating under this proposal that was given by the NHLPA, and its weak luxury tax and its created salary room by the roll-back. Owners of the rich teams are laughing their heads off. If I was GM of Detroit, NYR, Toronto, Dallas, Colorado, I would be sliding over a huge offer sheet, or else I wouldn't be doing my job.

    As much as the players really think that the roll-back will effect all the players salaries, it won't. The luxury tax is far to weak to stop it.
     
  8. Slow Talking Walter

    Slow Talking Walter Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the weeds
    Home Page:
    If the team takes him to arbitration, Iggy decides if it is for one year or two. Then what after that one year (cause you know he'd only pick one year), he cant be brought to arbitration again for the rest of his career. He's got all the power again, and the flamers are hooped.
     
  9. Read the fine print people. The one time 24% roll back was on contracts in effect during the negotiation. Any contracts signed after the CBA is ratified will be subject to what ever the agent can negotiate. Frankly, if Iginla's agent is worth his salt (which he is) he would look across the desk at Brian Sutter and say, that the starting place is Iginla's last contract ($7 million). If Sutter mentions that there was an adjustment of 24% under the new CBA the agent will just laugh and say Iginla did not have a contract to be scaled back. Iginla's last contract is the starting place for negotiations. Start there or trade him. He is not going accept a cent less than he made last contract. Good day. Iginla hasn't got paid for six months, what's another six months. Based on Iginla's age and the potential for the UFA age to be reduced and his years service to push him over the top anyways the Flames would be fored to honor the request one way or the other, or risk Iginla sitting for one year and becoming an Unrestriced Free Agent. Because there are no mechanisms in the CBA that control salaries and negotiations the agent can ask the moon and stars and still continue to get it. Without that cap or a tax with teeth there is nothing to prevent agents from continually putting the gun to the GM's head and starting the salary spiral all over again.
     
  10. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    A completely and utterly idiotic idea. There's no way any NHL GM with a brain in his head would do this.

    Whoever did it would see Calgary match the offer sheet. There's no way they wouldn't. Especially since their payroll has been lowed by 24% already.

    All it would do is escalate salaries for everyone without any team benefiting. The Rangers figured out with Joe Sakic that offer sheets are a stupid idea.
     
  11. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    You're completely out to lunch. Nowhere in the players' proposal was there a decrease to UFA status.

    Sutter would say to Iginla, "This is what we're offering for this season, take it or you can sit out for the season and we'll take you to arbitration in the summer. You'll never make back the money from missing this season. The fans will view you as greedy and you'll miss out on a chance to compete for the Stanley Cup."
     
  12. no13matssundin

    no13matssundin Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think its you who are engaging in lunchtime activities:

    Who cares if the fans think he's greedy... hes still getting paid.

    Do you really honestly think that Iginla's agent is going to back off getting a higher price from the Flames in negotiations b/c of "Fan perception"? Do you seriously believe thats how negotiations work?

    Iginla's Agent: "We want nothing less than 7 Mil"
    Flames GM: "The fans wont like it & will think youre greedy"
    **Iginla's agent pauses with stunned look**
    Iginla's Agent: "Uh...ya... whatever. Im sure Jerome will pause to consider the fans from his Ferrari. 7 mil or we goto the Rangers. We'll be in touch"
    :)
     
  13. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    Keep in mind that the owners will propose a stiffer luxury tax let's say over $40M-40%, over $50M-80% and over $60M-100%. And also Bettman sais that the 24% rollback is essential to be able to introduce a new econimic system. So I am sure that the owners will try to come up with a system that will prevent the rich teams to go crazy and still have a market so that way both side are happy. I am very optimistic that the season can be save.
     
  14. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    What makes you think that even with a hard cap the Iginla's agent would ask for less then $7M.
     
  15. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    Do you have a hard time with reading comprehension?

    I made two key points in favour of Sutter and you ignored them to focus on the smallest point.
     
  16. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Regina
    Well no kidding, that was the point I was trying to make. This shows that no matter what, that even the salaries of RFA's can go up and will. There is no way to stop spending unless a system is put in place that limits it. This proposal is junk.
     
  17. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Regina
    He can ask all he wants, but with a hard cap in place the available spending by every team goes down and his chances to get that are highly unlikely. If the cap is $35 million, 7 million dollars is 20% of the whole teams payroll.
     
  18. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,096
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    There is a way to stop spending. It's called saying NO!

    Iginla's agent: "JI's worth $7M"
    Sutter: "Well, superstars who are UFA eligible are now making $6M (Sakic, Sundin, etc). Our offer is $5.5M. If you don't take our offer, we'll take you to arbitration and see what happens."

    There was very little player inflation (2%) last year. Why was that? The owners miraculously showed some restraint. What a novel concept.
     
  19. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Regina
    The restraint was there because they were planning on this lockout and needed a war chest. There will be no way to stop the rich teams from spening, especially with a joke of a luxury tax, and the roll-back freeing up more room to spend. A system where counting on the onwers to show restraint is far too risky to the game. If you fully expect that the owners will show restraint if they accepted this deal and not overspend, then why wouldn't you want a system that wouldn't allow this to happen. Its the same thing that you're expecting. And also the system has alot to do with why teams the league is where it is. Different teams have different budgets and therefore can afford to pay more for a player than other teams can. A major overhaul has to be made to arbitration, and qualifying offers. All it takes is for one team to start spending under this proposed system and it ruins it for every team. Not even close enough to being capable system for me, and anyone else who actually understands the problem.
     
  20. to continue with your story. JI signs for 1 year at $5.5M, then ask for $7M again, except this time sutter cant take him to arbitration. so JI holds out, flames falls to the bottom of the standing, fans get frustrated and put pressure on the GM/owner to either sign him or trade him. either way JI is still getting his $7M, its a matter of when that happens.
    its convenient for the pro-PA side to stop and story after the arbitration, when, in the long run, the problem still persist.
     
  21. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,805
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Iginla doesnt ask for $7mil because that is a number he wants to screw the league with. He asks for it because judging by the comparable players paid to other players and his talent, that would be where his worth lies. If all comparable players are now making $5.5, then that is what and RFA will ask forand get. His agent isnt going to hold out for $7mil just because jarome likes the number.
     
  22. Seems you're still waiting for your lunch bill. You are aware that Iginla is borderline for 10 years of service. If this season counts (which I'm sure the PA will demand and recieve) and Iginla sits out next season he will have fulfilled the 10 years of service and be able to claim UFA status. Its not in stone, but based on the last labor dispute that's how it shook out (all time counting). Its a risk the team should not be willing to take. You assume that Agents are idiots who don't study these things and know every loophole to exploit. Iginla's agent is one of the best in the business and will exploit every crack in the system to extort as much cash out of the system as he can.
     
  23. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,805
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    UFA after 10 years if they are making less than the average salary. Which Iginla isnt. So UFA after he is 31, unless the owners wish to lower the UFA age in the next CBA
     
  24. agree with you on the first part. but since jagr, yashin, federov, etc are still getting around $7.5M (they are all near the $10M mark last season) and iggy is better than all of them last year, would his agent not argue that hes worth at least that much? the problem is, even after the 24% rollback, not all comparable players are making $5.5M.
     
  25. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    your problem is you view the process as extortion. its not loopholes, its leverage. how about we look at all the leverage points the owners have and close those too ?

    no system can be void of leverage for each side, its the nature of business. instead of fearing it, embrace it and USE it. the owners need to use their leverage points more often is what i mean.

    dr
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"