Why have the NHLPA not countered the last NHL offer to keep talks moving along?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeytown9321 said:
Do you seriously want to have this argument?

That would be, and has been, another thread (with points made about keeping that roster together and players signed who would not have been, mistakes made that Detroit could spend their way out of, etc.)

The point is very simple. Either you are for a level playing field or not. Both sides have self interest in this 'argument' but only one side wants to maintain what has been a competitive advantage over everyone else that lets them be favorites for the cup every year.

Guess which side you are on?
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
hockeytown9321 said:
You forgot to add Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Liv, Howard, Fischer, Holmstrom, Dandenault, McCarty, Lidstrom, fedorov, Konstantinov, Yzerman, Kozlov, Primeau, Lapointe, Osgood, and Knuble among others. Thanks for playing.


A. You said 15 years. Take out a nice chunk of your list right there. We're not talking about the awful Wings of the late 80s here.

B. Some of the prospects you're bragging about are decent at best. Howard? Liv? I'm not terribly impressed. Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Kronwall were nice finds,but don't try to pass that off as justification for calling Detroit a good-drafting team. Thanks for playing.

C. Well, you might brag about players like Lapointe and Dandenault..but uh...I wouldn't. All i see from most of that list is that the Wings are great at drafting third liners.
 

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
33,346
14,024
Exurban Cbus
This isn't a chicken and egg situation. The high revenue teams are going to, for the most part, be good, whether it's paying their own quiality draftees or free agents, or acquiring a player at the trade deadline. This is an advantage over the low revenue teams. You can't simply say "We draft better players." and have that diparity go away.

The question is "What is fair?" Is it fair to have all teams on a level playing field regarding how much money can be spent on players? If so, how do we achieve this? A hard cap will be difficult. The NFL already shared almost all of its revenue equally prior to implementing the cap. The NHL doesn't, and likely can't, because it's revenue streams are markedly different and more market-dependent.

Or is it fair to allow teams with the luxury of location or the willingnes of an owner to supplement his team's payroll to accumulate the majority of the league's best players? This has been and will continue to happen. Sure, each team develops good players, but which teams keep them, and which teams scoop them up at th trade deadline or in free agency?

A hard cap is too simple. If a team generates revenue, it should be able to spend it. However, those teams should also recognize that their revenue stream is, in part, based on their opponent's ability to put a competitive team on the ice.

Soft cap, revenue sharing, whatever. It's in there somewhere. I'm just not convinced the leadership of either side is bright enough to find it.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
hockeytown9321 said:
I've read some insane posts in my day, but this has got to be the worst. Are you kidding?


Like jaded-fan said, this is all for another thread..but on a closing note...no, i'm not kidding. Drafting Alfredsson, Hossa, Havlat, Redden, Phillips...and then keeping them together with an AVERAGE payroll(read, not 70+million) impresses me far more than throwing together a team of Shanahans, Langs and CuJos
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Jaded-Fan said:
That would be, and has been, another thread (with points made about keeping that roster together and players signed who would not have been, mistakes made that Detroit could spend their way out of, etc.)

The point is very simple. Either you are for a level playing field or not. Both sides have self interest in this 'argument' but only one side wants to maintain what has been a competitive advantage over everyone else that lets them be favorites for the cup every year.

Guess which side you are on?

Detroit's competitve adantage has come from good management first, and added payroll second. Look at what their payroll was when the won in 97 and 98. They were basically in the midle fo the pack. The high spending only came in after the team was built and provided Ilitch with the revenue to sustain it. I'm on the side that allows a team to continue its success if it wants to.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
nomorekids said:
A. You said 15 years. Take out a nice chunk of your list right there. We're not talking about the awful Wings of the late 80s here.

B. Some of the prospects you're bragging about are decent at best. Howard? Liv? I'm not terribly impressed. Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Kronwall were nice finds,but don't try to pass that off as justification for calling Detroit a good-drafting team. Thanks for playing.

C. Well, you might brag about players like Lapointe and Dandenault..but uh...I wouldn't. All i see from most of that list is that the Wings are great at drafting third liners.

You forgot ...
D. To believe my theory, you must completely ignore the fact Detroit has been drafting in the upper 20s of each round for more than a decade while Ottawa five top 5 picks in a row.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
nomorekids said:
A. You said 15 years. Take out a nice chunk of your list right there. We're not talking about the awful Wings of the late 80s here.

B. Some of the prospects you're bragging about are decent at best. Howard? Liv? I'm not terribly impressed. Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Kronwall were nice finds,but don't try to pass that off as justification for calling Detroit a good-drafting team. Thanks for playing.

C. Well, you might brag about players like Lapointe and Dandenault..but uh...I wouldn't. All i see from most of that list is that the Wings are great at drafting third liners.

15 years ago was the 1989 draft. The only one on that list who is eliminated is Yzerman.

If you want, I can give you detroit's 3 cup winning rosters and we can go through player by player to see exactly who they drafted and who they traded for and who they bought. Or you can take my word for it now, they had exactly 2 major free agents between the 3 teams-Robitaille and Hull. They both took less money to come to Detroit for a chance to win. I guess thats another unfair advantage Detroit has.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
You forgot ...
D. To believe my theory, you must completely ignore the fact Detroit has been drafting in the upper 20s of each round for more than a decade while Ottawa five top 5 picks in a row.

You're agreeing with me? Pop the champale.
 

octopi

Registered User
Dec 29, 2004
31,547
4
hockeytown9321 said:
Detroit's competitve adantage has come from good management first, and added payroll second. Look at what their payroll was when the won in 97 and 98. They were basically in the midle fo the pack. The high spending only came in after the team was built and provided Ilitch with the revenue to sustain it. I'm on the side that allows a team to continue its success if it wants to.


Absolutly right. The Wings didn't get expensive until they'd won a few Cups. No trades they made before '99 were considered lopsided because of salaries. I'm pretty sure they didn't sign anyone considered to be a significant free agent before the 98-99 season. You can darn well bet the Senators would have a good deal higher roll had they won Cups, too.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Jaded-Fan said:
That would be, and has been, another thread (with points made about keeping that roster together and players signed who would not have been, mistakes made that Detroit could spend their way out of, etc.)

The point is very simple. Either you are for a level playing field or not. Both sides have self interest in this 'argument' but only one side wants to maintain what has been a competitive advantage over everyone else that lets them be favorites for the cup every year.

Guess which side you are on?

Let me ask you this: How do teams get around the cap in the NFL? Through massive signing bonuses. If there's a hard cap in thr NHL, teams have to have a favorable way to get out of contracts. Really, gaurantted contracts should be gone, but they at least need very favorable buyout clauses. If a superstar player signs a long term deal under those conditions, he knows there's a good chance he won't see the enitre contract fulfilled. Thats just the way it goes. So he asks for a big signing bonus.

Now tell me, how do the low reveue teams pay $7 or 8 million(or more) bonuses to guys when they can't give them $7 or 8 million in salary now? Don't the big spending teams still have an advantage?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
octopi said:
Absolutly right. The Wings didn't get expensive until they'd won a few Cups. No trades they made before '99 were considered lopsided because of salaries. I'm pretty sure they didn't sign anyone considered to be a significant free agent before the 98-99 season. You can darn well bet the Senators would have a good deal higher roll had they won Cups, too.

The only major trades they made were for Shanahan, for whom they gave up Primeau and Coffey, Larionov for whom they gave up Sheppard, and Vernon for whom they gave up Chaisson.

The biggest name free agent they had was Bob Rouse.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeytown9321 said:
Let me ask you this: How do teams get around the cap in the NFL? Through massive signing bonuses. If there's a hard cap in thr NHL, teams have to have a favorable way to get out of contracts. Really, gaurantted contracts should be gone, but they at least need very favorable buyout clauses. If a superstar player signs a long term deal under those conditions, he knows there's a good chance he won't see the enitre contract fulfilled. Thats just the way it goes. So he asks for a big signing bonus.

In the NFL you can play with the numbers to make a run for a year or two, pay for it later when those deferred salaries, etc, come due. I would have no problem with that happening in the NHL. NBA has similar and even a few other outs such as the abiltiy to exceed the Cap for your own drafted player to a degree. But the spending spree eventually comes due and the team has to go through a rebuilding. Some NHL teams never have it come due and will be competitive solely based on the ability to spend. That I will not agree with.

Now tell me, how do the low reveue teams pay $7 or 8 million(or more) bonuses to guys when they can't give them $7 or 8 million in salary now? Don't the big spending teams still have an advantage?

No, under a Cap, those come due eventually too and count against a Cap.


...
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
Jaded-Fan said:
The Pens had something like a 37 million dollar payroll only three years ago. They averaged pretty well over 15,000 the past 3 years despite having the worst record in hockey last year and third worst the year before. .

AVERAGED 15000 over the last 3 years, thats just not true
 

darth5

No!
Mar 28, 2002
2,584
74
Smashville, TN
revenue streams

Trying not to get caught in the 'noise' part of this thread, the mention of revenue is the real key here. A key difference between the NHL and the top 3 team sports is that TV and merch. revenue subsidizes whatever they decide to do. They command a huge ratings share even when the particular matchup stinks. Even the best hockey game probably couldn't match the bottom two NFL teams playing a meaningless last game of the season. That is just the current state of the market.

Now, what does it leave for revenue? Logo merchandise and gate revenue. Explains why there can be such wide disparity in NHL ticket prices --- owners more or less have nowhere else to go. The franchise that is not winning really loses gate, so that limits their free agent room.

Now, could a luxury tax help that? Maybe if it is 300-400%, and indexed to salaries. So why didn't the NHLPA throw that out there? If somebody like me can think of it, you can't tell me they couldn't, if they would just think outside the box for a minute. The only reason their are no creative proposals here is that EGOS are in the way. Bettman's and Goodenow's. The end result may just be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. There are NO salaries or profits to be drawn from a DEAD PRODUCT. What kind of morons are we dealing with on both sides?

The real casualty here is the fan.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Jaded-Fan said:
In the NFL you can play with the numbers to make a run for a year or two, pay for it later when those deferred salaries, etc, come due. I would have no problem with that happening in the NHL.

I have no problem with that in the NHL either. The problem is that some teams do not have the revenue to pay those huge bonuses upfront.

Jaded-Fan said:
No, under a Cap, those come due eventually too and count against a Cap

In the NFL, the signing bonuses are paid upon signing the contract. The amount of the bonus is averaged and spread over the length of the deal. That is what counts against the cap. So how does Calgary pay Iginla a $10 million signing bonus upfront to match an offer Detroit gave him?
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
hockeytown9321 said:
I have no problem with that in the NHL either. The problem is that some teams do not have the revenue to pay those huge bonuses upfront.



In the NFL, the signing bonuses are paid upon signing the contract. The amount of the bonus is averaged and spread over the length of the deal. That is what counts against the cap. So how does Calgary pay Iginla a $10 million signing bonus upfront to match an offer Detroit gave him?

I'm still confused about your supposition that guaranteed contracts cannot work under a cap. Leaving behind the astronomical chance the PA would abandon guaranteed deals, why would they not work. Would they make clubs more cautious and punish teams that spend unwisely? Absolutely, but isn't that the whole idea?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
I'm still confused about your supposition that guaranteed contracts cannot work under a cap. Leaving behind the astronomical chance the PA would abandon guaranteed deals, why would they not work. Would they make clubs more cautious and punish teams that spend unwisely? Absolutely, but isn't that the whole idea?

Teams have to have a way to get out of deals, plain and simple. Look at the injury rate last year. Two thirds of the league wouldn't have been able to field a roster to finish the season.

And the non gauranteed contracts is one of the things that lets NFL teams maintain their cores. They can give the huge backloaded deals that both sides know will never be paid. Of course, thats where signing bonuses come in.

If salaries are set as low as Bettman wants, there's no room for error. Its not about good or bad management. A team would need perfect management to succed long term.
 

missK

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
2,136
0
Lightning country
Visit site
Benji Frank said:
I was in Calgary for Christmas & in speaking to a guy who owns a sports memorabilia store out there, he said a few of the players he spoke to said much the same thing. Apparently over half the players wouldn't have any cut at all under the owners scenario and the cap offered was pretty close to what the average payroll was last year. They could have used the 37 or 38 mill the league offerred as the starting point for their luxury tax system and used the owners rollback proposal but cap it at their original 24% offer of a few days earlier. Then at least it's back in the owners court and everyone not sitting around like little stubborn school kids (my thinking not the sports memorabilia guys!!! :D).

Here's my take, IMO the NHLPA didn't counter the NHL's last offer because the players that run the union all make way too much money and they are the ones that would be taking the BIG paycuts under the NHL's last proposal. The players making big paychecks run the union, not the 500-odd other players in the league who cuts would have been a small % or even zero. The big money players are the driving force behind the lack of negotiation.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
hockeytown9321 said:
Teams have to have a way to get out of deals, plain and simple. Look at the injury rate last year. Two thirds of the league wouldn't have been able to field a roster to finish the season.

And the non gauranteed contracts is one of the things that lets NFL teams maintain their cores. They can give the huge backloaded deals that both sides know will never be paid. Of course, thats where signing bonuses come in.

So you're suggesting a system by which teams would waive injured players in mid-season because of the cap? Interesting, but highly unlikely. More likely is that the cap would include provisions allowing teams to go over the cap to call up injury replacements (i.e. players on an injured list). 10 times out of 10, that AHL player is going to be paid less than the injured player he is replacing anyhow.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Benji Frank said:
I was in Calgary for Christmas & in speaking to a guy who owns a sports memorabilia store out there, he said a few of the players he spoke to said much the same thing. Apparently over half the players wouldn't have any cut at all under the owners scenario and the cap offered was pretty close to what the average payroll was last year.

Here are the numbers (Exhibit 7, NHL Plan):

21 guys do *better* on Calgary under the league's plan. That's from Montador ($425K) up to Gelinas ($1.95 million). Eight of those get no cut at all, the rest ranging up to Gelinas who gets less than the 24% cut. That leaves 4 guys who do the *same*, 24% rollback.

Not a single player does worse.

Only Iginla is left, and being unsigned, he's free to sign for whatever he can get, with enough leverage he doesn't even have to get a rollback at all.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
So you're suggesting a system by which teams would waive injured players in mid-season because of the cap? Interesting, but highly unlikely. More likely is that the cap would include provisions allowing teams to go over the cap to call up injury replacements (i.e. players on an injured list). 10 times out of 10, that AHL player is going to be paid less than the injured player he is replacing anyhow.

I'm sure you're right. I'm not just talking minor injuries. What happens of your $5 million a year player gets his career ended by injury? The team would likely have the contract insured, but if its still valid, it would have to count against the cap. And I haven't seen Mr. Bettman address any of these issues yet.

There are lots of other issues too, not just realting to injuries. The biggest of which is what I mentioned earler, about backloading contracts. If contracts are guaranteed, which team is going to backload? It'd be insane. But backloading is one of the ways NFL teams hang onto their core guys.

Frankly, a salary floor contirbutes to the need too. There's such a small variation in the floor and the cap, that most players pretty much know wht they're going to get. No matter how good or bad a player is, they know they're guaranteed the same percentage. Players will need the threat of being cut to motivate them.

And again, it would take perfect management to always stay under the cap if teams couldn't get out of deals favorably. Its not an issue of good or bad management.
 

Hockey_Nut99

Guest
I don't understand why the players proposal has to be THE proposal. Why does their proposal have to be the framework for a new agreement? They seem hard lined just like the owners are. They aren't really helping anything either. Both sides are being like this. They will never agree on the framework. Without that they can't build a cba.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->