Why the owners SHOULD honor the 04-05 contracts to get the rollback

[likea]

the owners would be very very stupid to accept the rollback if it means adding the year that was lost

in the salary cap era and with 250 UFA's, teams are going to have their choice of who they want and the market is going to be a buyers market with salary control

players will come a heck of alot cheaper now then if they would take the rollback and give the years salary

alot of older players that made a killing but didn't produce are out of a contract, you think the owners will want to pay these over the hill players that didn't produce 2 years ago when they just sat out a year...

no way

plus if the owners give in on the issue, it will make the players think they can do this again next time the CBA ends....and then get their contracts back later....

again, no way

 

[AXN]

the owners would be very very stupid to accept the rollback if it means adding the year that was lost

in the salary cap era and with 250 UFA's, teams are going to have their choice of who they want and the market is going to be a buyers market with salary control

players will come a heck of alot cheaper now then if they would take the rollback and give the years salary

alot of older players that made a killing but didn't produce are out of a contract, you think the owners will want to pay these over the hill players that didn't produce 2 years ago when they just sat out a year...

no way

plus if the owners give in on the issue, it will make the players think they can do this again next time the CBA ends....and then get their contracts back later....

again, no way

Players will come a lot cheaper but are they willing to sign with the same team.
You can see Toronto lose players. Players they paid a high price to get. The same thing with teams like Detroit and Philadelphia. Some players you don't want to pay but there are others you don't want to lose to unrestricted free agency without at least trying to trade them.

 

[NYR469]

The league has to take the 24%. Whether or not '04-'05 gets honored is secondary IMO.

it isn't a question about whether or not the league wants to take it, its whether or not the nhlpa wants to give it. the league has absolutely no legal way to force those cuts on binding contracts. the players must voluntarily give that $$ up, and why would the players do that unless they get atleast something in return?

 

[NYR469]

imo the league has to give the players something major if they want the 04-05 contracts to expire and be let off the hook of $1b worth of salaries...

when yashin held out the league took him to court and argued that contracts were based on seasons NOT calender years and the court agreed forcing yashin to return to ottawa for 1 year, setting a legal precedence. now that the opposite benefits the league they are claiming that the contracts are based on calender dates, not seasons.

if the nhlpa takes the league to court over it, it will take any judge in the US about 15 minutes to rule in favor of the nhlpa because not only is their a legal precedence but that precedence was set based on what the nhl wanted, so they can't claim that it isn't fair now. it would be the ultimate slamdunk case...

i fully expect them to take care of these during negotations and one way or another the nhlpa will agree to not go to court over this, but the league is going to have to give them something for it. they can't expect to get everything they want and then have the nhlpa to rollover on this too (thats a LOT of $$)...

of course while they can make it part of the deal that the nhlpa agrees to not challenge this in court, neither the league nor nhlpa has any control over agents so a group like IMG could take the league to court on behalf of their clients. some might think that agents would rather have guys be free agents, but if this will cost them commission on the final year of those contracts that might be enough $$ for them to fight it...bottom line things will only get uglier lol

 

[norrisnick]

imo the league has to give the players something major if they want the 04-05 contracts to expire and be let off the hook of $1b worth of salaries...

when yashin held out the league took him to court and argued that contracts were based on seasons NOT calender years and the court agreed forcing yashin to return to ottawa for 1 year, setting a legal precedence. now that the opposite benefits the league they are claiming that the contracts are based on calender dates, not seasons.

if the nhlpa takes the league to court over it, it will take any judge in the US about 15 minutes to rule in favor of the nhlpa because not only is their a legal precedence but that precedence was set based on what the nhl wanted, so they can't claim that it isn't fair now. it would be the ultimate slamdunk case...

i fully expect them to take care of these during negotations and one way or another the nhlpa will agree to not go to court over this, but the league is going to have to give them something for it. they can't expect to get everything they want and then have the nhlpa to rollover on this too (thats a LOT of $$)...

of course while they can make it part of the deal that the nhlpa agrees to not challenge this in court, neither the league nor nhlpa has any control over agents so a group like IMG could take the league to court on behalf of their clients. some might think that agents would rather have guys be free agents, but if this will cost them commission on the final year of those contracts that might be enough $$ for them to fight it...bottom line things will only get uglier lol

Not quite. The league had the right via collective bargaining rules to lockout the players and not pay them once the agreement expired. Yashin did not have the right to withhold his services given the contract he signed. Two different issues that do not compare.

 

[norrisnick]

it isn't a question about whether or not the league wants to take it, its whether or not the nhlpa wants to give it. the league has absolutely no legal way to force those cuts on binding contracts. the players must voluntarily give that $$ up, and why would the players do that unless they get atleast something in return?

The league needs that 24% rollback. Moreso than cancelling the '04-'05 contracts so however they go about getting that rollback they need to do so.

 

[likea]

The league needs that 24% rollback. Moreso than cancelling the '04-'05 contracts so however they go about getting that rollback they need to do so.

can you explain why you feel the league needs the 24% rollback

because without the 2004-2005 season, the NHL has over 250-300 free agents...thats alot of contracts off the books

 

[WC Handy*]

the owners would be very very stupid to accept the rollback if it means adding the year that was lost

in the salary cap era and with 250 UFA's, teams are going to have their choice of who they want and the market is going to be a buyers market with salary control

players will come a heck of alot cheaper now then if they would take the rollback and give the years salary

alot of older players that made a killing but didn't produce are out of a contract, you think the owners will want to pay these over the hill players that didn't produce 2 years ago when they just sat out a year...

no way

plus if the owners give in on the issue, it will make the players think they can do this again next time the CBA ends....and then get their contracts back later....

again, no way

You obviously didn't read the numbers that I posted at the start of this thread. The owners will be better off honoring the 04-05 contracts. It's as simple as that.

 

[WC Handy*]

can you explain why you feel the league needs the 24% rollback

because without the 2004-2005 season, the NHL has over 250-300 free agents...thats alot of contracts off the books

Mr Hunter explained this on the previous page. The players under contract for the 05-06 season are under contract for an average of $2.29mil/player. The players under contract for the 04-05 season, less the rollback, are under contract for an average of 1.1mil/player.

 

[Mess]

You obviously didn't read the numbers that I posted at the start of this thread. The owners will be better off honoring the 04-05 contracts. It's as simple as that.

That should make it a slam dunk really ..

If the 24% and honouring 04-05 contracts favours the Owners and the PA offered it in the negotiationg process and the players would like that certainty of a guaranteed contract in a uncertain world at least in year 1 of transition ..

Then I really do not see where the problem is ?? .

Good Job BTW on the numbers work ..

 

[Hunter74]

Mr Hunter explained this on the previous page. The players under contract for the 05-06 season are under contract for an average of $2.29mil/player. The players under contract for the 04-05 season, less the rollback, are under contract for an average of 1.1mil/player.

Yeah thats a huge difference in player salaries. But you cant forget these other numbers aswell.

Season/# of players who need contracts/Cap space per team(averaged)/Average player $alary out of remaining cap space.
04-05 - 128 - 16.39 - 3.899mil/player
05-06 - 432 - 16.04 - 1.1138mil/player

If they let the 04-05 season contracts expire they will have a larger number of players who need contracts but with only a very limited amount of budget spce left to fit htme all under. Thus essentially forcing 432 out of the 720 players to really take huge pay cuts just in order to fit under the league cap.

Either which way you still get alot of players who are gonna be making alot less then 03-04. Though if the owners turn down the rollback they also eliminate alot of the older players who turned UFA after the 04-05 season b/c they most likly wont be getting resigned. Why pay for a 38year old who sat out and entire year when you can let him go and bring in a rokkie or young guy whos super cheap and less resentment towards teh league.

I dont know how either chioce is gonna affect contract negotiations in the summer of '06?

EDIT: In my scenarios i made all teams pay up to the cap limite of rumoured 38mil per team. In reality alot of teams wont want to do that or unable to.

 

[WC Handy*]

While I understand your logic, Mr Hunter, I think each owner's natural desire to put itself in the best position to win will result in the owners fighting for the option that does just that.

 

[Mess]

Yeah thats a huge difference in player salaries. But you cant forget these other numbers aswell.

Season/# of players who need contracts/Cap space per team(averaged)/Average player $alary out of remaining cap space.
04-05 - 128 - 16.39 - 3.899mil/player
05-06 - 432 - 16.04 - 1.1138mil/player

If they let the 04-05 season contracts expire they will have a larger number of players who need contracts but with only a very limited amount of budget spce left to fit htme all under. Thus essentially forcing 432 out of the 720 players to really take huge pay cuts just in order to fit under the league cap.

Either which way you still get alot of players who are gonna be making alot less then 03-04. Though if the owners turn down the rollback they also eliminate alot of the older players who turned UFA after the 04-05 season b/c they most likly wont be getting resigned. Why pay for a 38year old who sat out and entire year when you can let him go and bring in a rokkie or young guy whos super cheap and less resentment towards teh league.

I dont know how either chioce is gonna affect contract negotiations in the summer of '06?

EDIT: In my scenarios i made all teams pay up to the cap limite of rumoured 38mil per team. In reality alot of teams wont want to do that or unable to.

"forcing 432 out of the 720 players to really take huge pay cuts just in order to fit under the league cap. "

Why do you necessarily feel that ? ..

Your numbers show $ 1.1138mil/player and Bettman has be quoting the new NHL would have an average wage of 1.3 per player..

Not really to far off his projections .

Also that average could be addressed 2 players at a time (buddy system of planning) per team and Cap space ..

ex.. League mim $$ is 300k .. So for every young player/AHLer you bring in at those levels then you can add the dif ( $1.113 - $300K ) = $ 813.8 k to add to the ave $ 1.1138 for the next player = $ 1.9726 mil .. or Nearly $2 mil for the next player ..

$2 mil is going to be a real good wage in the new NHL and by your numbers again 432 players / 2 (split or the buddy system if you like ) = 216 players available to make near $2 mil each ..

If you told 1/2 those unemployed players that they would make near $2 mil per would many consider that all that bad ??.

 

[Hunter74]

I looked at it alot simpler.

Over half the players in the league 60% need contracts with only $16.04mil(42%) out of a max of 38 available on ave from each team. Just seemed like alot less $$ and bargaining room for players to negotiate off of which seemed would beneifit the Owners moreso. It didn't matter what palyers signed for what the bottom line was there was only 481.2mil left for the 432 players. Even though thats still pretty good money just alot tighter than $1140mil for teh 720 players which equals 1.583mil/player. A difference of .469mil/player or $202.8mil for those 432 players or under the whole 720 it woudl be $337mil.

That 202.8mil saving would be a big difference for teh players who didn't have the benefit of having that money available in there contract negotiations.

In the end I dont care who gets the better start of this deal b/c if the do it right it shoudl work itself out. Hopefully this doesn't get in teh way of us getting back to hockey and soon.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The league lost any revenue, a TV deal and a lot of sponsors. This is money they won't be getting back. So I can see why they wouldn't want to have the 2004-2005 contracts to carry over.
Also put into consideration those who played in the minor leagues, or earned money playing in Europe.
The owners will argue they took a hit in revenue having no season, so the players will take a hit in not collecting a paycheck.

But on the other hand I can see why the players would ask for their 2004-2005 contracts to be honored, with the 24% roll back. A big reason why I think owners won't want to see this happen is the fact that a few teams will still have a very high payroll, even with the 24% roll back.

Another dilemma is the amount of free agents that will be available if the 2004-2005 contracts are not honored. But I guess that is the risk they took and knew what they were getting themselves into (or should have been prepared for it).

 

[Mess]

I looked at it alot simpler.

Over half the players in the league 60% need contracts with only $16.04mil(42%) out of a max of 38 available on ave from each team. Just seemed like alot less $$ and bargaining room for players to negotiate off of which seemed would beneifit the Owners moreso. It didn't matter what palyers signed for what the bottom line was there was only 481.2mil left for the 432 players. Even though thats still pretty good money just alot tighter than $1140mil for teh 720 players which equals 1.583mil/player. A difference of .469mil/player or $202.8mil for those 432 players or under the whole 720 it woudl be $337mil.

That 202.8mil saving would be a big difference for teh players who didn't have the benefit of having that money available in there contract negotiations.

In the end I dont care who gets the better start of this deal b/c if the do it right it shoudl work itself out. Hopefully this doesn't get in teh way of us getting back to hockey and soon.

From ERIC DUHATSCHEK article today.

One of the few possible face-saving gambits left to the NHLPA is trying to convince the league to let 2004-05 contracts "slide" a year. That simply means contracts governing the 2004-05 season would be pushed over into next year, theoretically saving NHLPA members millions of dollars. If the NHLPA could ever win that argument, it would salvage fortunes for unproductive 30 somethings such as the Flyers' John LeClair or the Dallas Stars' Pierre Turgeon, who would otherwise never recoup the $9 million and $7.5 million respectively that they were scheduled to earn last season. Of course, teams are under the impression that this is a concession that the league would never give up, even if meant scuttling the current round of comparatively productive talks. Too many teams saw the evaporation of all those bad contracts as the only silver lining in a lost season. To surrender on that issue at this late stage of the proceedings might just undermine any deal that's there for the making

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050603.wduha3/BNStory/Sports/

 

[likea]

Mr Hunter explained this on the previous page. The players under contract for the 05-06 season are under contract for an average of $2.29mil/player. The players under contract for the 04-05 season, less the rollback, are under contract for an average of 1.1mil/player.

your numbers don't take into account a few things. lets take a major player that is old and on the last legs of his career in 2003-2004...he made 4 million that year and will make 4 million in 2004-2005. he has one year left on his contract.

with the rollback he will make 3 million....without the rollback and allowing the contract to expire he will make 0 dollars and be replaced by a rookie

thats a savings of 3 million dollars instead of the savings that your looking at of 1 million

now apply that 3 million to the RFA that will only get 100% when the CBA is over

also think of all the players that will take a huge cut...more than 24% when they have to deal with a cap and 300 players as UFA.


ALSO, IF THE OWNERS GIVE IN ON THIS THEN IT WILL MAKE THE PLAYERS THINK THEY CAN SIT OUT SEASONS THE NEXT TIME THE CBA EXPIRES!!!!!!

 

[tantalum]

your numbers don't take into account a few things. lets take a major player that is old and on the last legs of his career in 2003-2004...he made 4 million that year and will make 4 million in 2004-2005. he has one year left on his contract.

with the rollback he will make 3 million....without the rollback and allowing the contract to expire he will make 0 dollars and be replaced by a rookie

thats a savings of 3 million dollars instead of the savings that your looking at of 1 million

now apply that 3 million to the RFA that will only get 100% when the CBA is over

also think of all the players that will take a huge cut...more than 24% when they have to deal with a cap and 300 players as UFA.


ALSO, IF THE OWNERS GIVE IN ON THIS THEN IT WILL MAKE THE PLAYERS THINK THEY CAN SIT OUT SEASONS THE NEXT TIME THE CBA EXPIRES!!!!!!

Absolutely correct. until you know what the free agent ages are you can't say what is good or bad for the teams. Yeah some teams may have 21 players under contract with honouring the contracts and 10 without but those 11 players may still be RFA's and not UFA's and with a reset market due to the influx of free agents and a cap does it really matter? Is a team better off losing those players and improving with UFA's or internally? Way to complicated an analysis that needs all the facts from the new CBA to be truly discussed (or atleast some assumptions such as UFA age will be dropped to 30 this upcoming summer and then 28 after). Simply taking a look at X players with honouring and Y players without is not truly representative of the situation. It is necessary to look at the rosters one by one.

 

[WC Handy*]

your numbers don't take into account a few things. lets take a major player that is old and on the last legs of his career in 2003-2004...he made 4 million that year and will make 4 million in 2004-2005. he has one year left on his contract.

with the rollback he will make 3 million....without the rollback and allowing the contract to expire he will make 0 dollars and be replaced by a rookie

thats a savings of 3 million dollars instead of the savings that your looking at of 1 million

now apply that 3 million to the RFA that will only get 100% when the CBA is over

also think of all the players that will take a huge cut...more than 24% when they have to deal with a cap and 300 players as UFA.


ALSO, IF THE OWNERS GIVE IN ON THIS THEN IT WILL MAKE THE PLAYERS THINK THEY CAN SIT OUT SEASONS THE NEXT TIME THE CBA EXPIRES!!!!!!

Actually, I did take that into account. In almost every instance it was worth having to keep that player at $3M to retain other players on the roster at their cheaper price (espcially considering most players that many players whose contracts are running out are due a raise).

 

[Hunter74]

your numbers don't take into account a few things. lets take a major player that is old and on the last legs of his career in 2003-2004...he made 4 million that year and will make 4 million in 2004-2005. he has one year left on his contract.

with the rollback he will make 3 million....without the rollback and allowing the contract to expire he will make 0 dollars and be replaced by a rookie

thats a savings of 3 million dollars instead of the savings that your looking at of 1 million

now apply that 3 million to the RFA that will only get 100% when the CBA is over

also think of all the players that will take a huge cut...more than 24% when they have to deal with a cap and 300 players as UFA.


ALSO, IF THE OWNERS GIVE IN ON THIS THEN IT WILL MAKE THE PLAYERS THINK THEY CAN SIT OUT SEASONS THE NEXT TIME THE CBA EXPIRES!!!!!!

Your right it would be very difficult to figure out what each teams budgets might be. Especially when you have to take into account rookeis, retiring older players and pay cuts. Without this valuable information all you can do is a guesstemets

Thats why I just took the number of players that every team needs to have under contract to run a hockey club(24 i beleive or 720) subtract the players who have contracts going into 05-06 (288) which gives you 432 roster spots that the league needs to fill. That 432 is gonna be a mixeture between UFA,RFA and rookies.

Then I took the amount of payroll thats already on the books for '05-06 season which averaged $21.96mil per team and subtracted it from the cap ceiling of rumoured $38mil per team which gave me an average of $16.04mil left for each team to spend on those 432 roster spots that need to be filled. Of course this isn't exact as its more hypothetical b/c we dont knwo what the cap is or wether every team is gonna spend to the cap limite.

Then i took the $16.04mil per team and multiplied it by the 30 clubs and then divided it by the amount of players the league needs in order to function(720-288 under contract for '05-06= 432 open roster spots). This gave me a dollar average of what these 432 players are gonna have to sign for IF the teams spent to the max limites of the cap. Those 432 players salaries are gonna average a maximum of $1.11per player. Thats the highest possibly player average for these 432 who need contracts.

So as long as every team spent to the $38mil limite it wouldn't matter what there combination of rookies, UFA, RFA b/c it would all average out.

Of course every team is gonna be looking to come well under the cap which is most likly gonna force these 432 players who need contracts to take drastic pay cuts or go play in Europe. Of course if they go to Europe they arent gonna be making much of a case for themselves to get raising in '06-07.

Either way i just had some fun cracking some hypothetical numbers. And just to show the other side of the story. Letting the '04-05 contracts expire does help the owners financially otherwise the players wouldn't of asked the owners to let the '04-05 contracts slide a year. But I am not an expert so thers a chance that my numbers are all messed up.lol

 

[Jester]

Philadelphia Flyers
2004-05 Contracts: 24 players, $50M after rollback
2005-06 Contracts: 13 players, $44.5M without rollback

Conclusion: For $5.5M, the Flyers will have an additional 11 players under contract if the league honors the 2004-05 contracts and accepts the rollback. Those 11 players are Hackett, Burke, Ragnarsson, Johnsson, Gagne, Lapoint, Esche, Somik, Radivojevic, Sharp, & Seidenberg.

Verdict: This is close because either way the Flyers will have to get under the cap, but given the fact that the 11 players only average 500K extra added to their payroll, they should honor 04-05 contracts to get 24%.

Retired: Hackett, Ragnarsson, Lapoint(?)

Further Consideration: Buy-outs for Leclair and Amonte are probably coming whether they honor the contracts or not, and I would imagine that some mechanism (potentially buy-outs) will be negotiated to get the former big spenders below the cap-line, maybe through a dispersal draft as well.

 

[CGG]

Retired: Hackett, Ragnarsson, Lapoint(?)

Further Consideration: Buy-outs for Leclair and Amonte are probably coming whether they honor the contracts or not, and I would imagine that some mechanism (potentially buy-outs) will be negotiated to get the former big spenders below the cap-line, maybe through a dispersal draft as well.

If they do honour the 05-06 contracts, Philly has to buy out two years a piece for LeClair and Amonte. That makes it a lot more expensive. Instead of 2/3 for one year's salary post-rollback (roughly $7.5 million total) they'd have to spend 2/3 of two year's salary post-rollback (roughly $15 million total).

 

[Resolute]

The league has to take the 24%. Whether or not '04-'05 gets honored is secondary IMO.

Plus I think the individual players ought to be able to choose whether they want that year or not. There are a bunch that I believe would rather have free agency than the deals they are in.

This is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Why should the players get to pick and choose whether they get to keep that year?

Why not let the owners pick and choose what to do with that year? Hmmm?

Better yet, write them all off the books, but if both the team and player is willing to keep that year, let them extend it.

 

[Jester]

If they do honour the 05-06 contracts, Philly has to buy out two years a piece for LeClair and Amonte. That makes it a lot more expensive. Instead of 2/3 for one year's salary post-rollback (roughly $7.5 million total) they'd have to spend 2/3 of two year's salary post-rollback (roughly $15 million total).

matters not one bit to comcast... they were planning on doing this prior to the lockout anyway. thus, if they had to honor those contract years AND get the 24% on top of that, they would save money on the buy-outs they were willing to make... plus the rest of their contracts.

 

[Hunter74]

maybe through a dispersal draft as well.

Man i hate the sounds of that, Dispersal draft. Yeah lets f**k over the rest of the league b/c a couple of teams didn't give a rats ass about the lockout and the fact theres gonna be a cap of some sort.

It hink they should negotiate a 1 time deal were teams are allowed to buyout or restructure deals so that they can fit under the cap. Its fair to the players and its fair to all the teams not just the ones looking to unload salary.