I guess this explains maybe why alot of the National teams like Sweden, Russia, the Czechs and even Canada are finding it challenging to fill up their roster spots.....maybe the NHL players want to get back to playing this season.....even if it's a season with just a playoff format.
- Status
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
e-townchamps said:
What is there to love about a significantly lower UFA age? How will that help the whiny Oilers and their fans?
You guys always mention whenever the NHLPA offers something about a cap, you people take the FULL cap number and times it by 30.Cawz said:
Not all teams are going to be right at the cap limit. No matter WHAT the offer
nyrmessier011
Registered User
let's just wait til monday. how this stuff could leak IMO is garbage. it wouldn't leak if something to this severity would be proposed. be cautious before you get excited. Also, ive been reading all of your opinions about what the cap number "really is". It's 38.5M + 2M in extras + average of $5 mil franchise player = $45.5. Very fair
Scoogs
Registered User
I dont know if it means anything.. But..
I can confirm that 640 actually did hear the proposal posted in this thread, and by Eklund. I was just listening to 640 and they had a highlight of the last Leafs Lunch, and it was Jeff Marek talking about a possible new proposal, and named some specifics, like the 60/40 gate revenues. Others I cant remember...
Watters went on to say "I believe that if true, this has enough teeth to get the ball rolling."
So.. it either means Eklund actually has sources, or that 640 is using Eklund as a source. Which would be terrible.
I can confirm that 640 actually did hear the proposal posted in this thread, and by Eklund. I was just listening to 640 and they had a highlight of the last Leafs Lunch, and it was Jeff Marek talking about a possible new proposal, and named some specifics, like the 60/40 gate revenues. Others I cant remember...
Watters went on to say "I believe that if true, this has enough teeth to get the ball rolling."
So.. it either means Eklund actually has sources, or that 640 is using Eklund as a source. Which would be terrible.
McDonald19 said:
I think the players would agree with you, though. I'd be surprised if they expected the owners to be okay with it. The franchise player thing looks like something added to accomplish two things. I'm hoping one is to guage the owners receptiveness to some type of method of allowing teams to go over a cap in some limited way.
The other is to give themselves something to deal away in return for something else. So if the players want something like: the salaries of players on IR to not count against the cap, they can agree to discard the franchise tag idea for it. It looks like it's just some wiggle room the PA gave itself.
I think revenue sharing will be the real sticking point. It's something the PA has harped about from day one, and something the NHL has been steadfastly against in any significant manner; almost a reversal of roles each side took regarding a cap. The PA broke on the cap, but will the league budge on revenue sharing?
Epsilon
#basta
Lower the Floor to 25 million
Make the Franchise player:
Only qualified for 1 year contracts
The player cannot have made less than 4 million dollars the season before signing the contract, or cannot be given a contract for more than 2 million dollars
With a cap of 8 million dollars on the franchise contracts.
If a team decides not to franchise a player, but wants to retain them after they were the franchise player they must pay said player the same amount of money in at least the first year of the contract that is counted under the cap
A) that sets the hard cap at a set value that is quantifyable..
B) it prevents big money from being wasted on players who simply sit down and stop playing after cashing in...
C) the clause that the player had to have made over 4 million dollars the season to sign would prevent in some form a team giving a player say a 1 million contract to play under the cap..then 10 million the next year.. It would not stop abuse, but it would slow it.
D) Making teams pay a player the same amount (if he is removed from being the franchise player) the following season after being a franchise player would again help prevent some cap skulldugery as if you paid Forsberg 8 million outside the cap as your franchise player, you would have to still pay him at least 8 million the first year of his contract not being the franchise player..
Include a 10% rollback and you have a solid deal
Make the Franchise player:
Only qualified for 1 year contracts
The player cannot have made less than 4 million dollars the season before signing the contract, or cannot be given a contract for more than 2 million dollars
With a cap of 8 million dollars on the franchise contracts.
If a team decides not to franchise a player, but wants to retain them after they were the franchise player they must pay said player the same amount of money in at least the first year of the contract that is counted under the cap
A) that sets the hard cap at a set value that is quantifyable..
B) it prevents big money from being wasted on players who simply sit down and stop playing after cashing in...
C) the clause that the player had to have made over 4 million dollars the season to sign would prevent in some form a team giving a player say a 1 million contract to play under the cap..then 10 million the next year.. It would not stop abuse, but it would slow it.
D) Making teams pay a player the same amount (if he is removed from being the franchise player) the following season after being a franchise player would again help prevent some cap skulldugery as if you paid Forsberg 8 million outside the cap as your franchise player, you would have to still pay him at least 8 million the first year of his contract not being the franchise player..
Include a 10% rollback and you have a solid deal
codswallop
yes, i am an alcoholic
John Flyers Fan said:
I'm not one who thinks a "franchise" tag would work, but I'll play along.
What about the unsigned players as of now? I can see a handful of teams whose potential franchise player would have a larger pricetag over their current highest paid player. And what could happen in a year from now when the contract of others runs out? Or two years? And how does possibly trading these players come into the mix?
If this is part of the situation that the NHL would operate under, then the inflationary aspects would continue to increase. A possilbe lull would take place if certain players retired, but the trend would keep on chugging along.
Unless this possible addition to a new CBA were restricted more, I can't see the owners going for it. But hopefully that's where negotiations come into play; if both sides actually decide to negotiate that is. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Franchise players really aren't that bad.
#1, as far as we know, not every team needs to declare a franchise player. If you have a floor, small market teams aren't going to declare a franchise player and make it even harder for themselves to reach the floor. I would guess that as many as 10 teams won't have a franchise player. This thing might only affect around 20 players in the entire league...which does not have an affect on the overall market.
Second, I don't get why some people here say cap is $38.5 million, so now with the franchise player it is $48.5 million. How many players in the league make $10 million? What makes you think teams are going to franchise all these guys, especially if conditions come with it, such as tax on the franchise salary? I would say out of the 15-25 players that are franchised every year, the average player will only make maybe $5 or $6 million. I think you are looking at a situation where even if 10 teams use the franchise exemption to spend past the cap, they are only going to be spending aroud $45 million. $30 million to $45 million is not a problem as far as parity and competition goes.
Last, I don't think these 20 or so franchise players will have any affect on the overall market for salaries at all. FA's aren't going to be able to go to a team with a current franchise player and say "pay me as much as he makes, I'm just as good". One reason for this is that a team which currently has a franchise player a) can't have another one obviously, so it would be ridiculous for an FA to demand the salary of one and b) the team would probably be over the cap if they payed another player that much money. There would basically be no comparisons to a current franchise player for these 2 reasons, and that FA can't turn aroud and go to the other 10 teams without franchise players because those teams aren't going to be declaring one.
One change I would make though is that franchise salaries should be capped. Taxing them at 50% is a good idea, but still, the Leafs could pay a player $20 mill a season and have a $68 mil payroll overall. I say have a franchise salary cap at $10 million, and franchise salaries are taxed 50%
#1, as far as we know, not every team needs to declare a franchise player. If you have a floor, small market teams aren't going to declare a franchise player and make it even harder for themselves to reach the floor. I would guess that as many as 10 teams won't have a franchise player. This thing might only affect around 20 players in the entire league...which does not have an affect on the overall market.
Second, I don't get why some people here say cap is $38.5 million, so now with the franchise player it is $48.5 million. How many players in the league make $10 million? What makes you think teams are going to franchise all these guys, especially if conditions come with it, such as tax on the franchise salary? I would say out of the 15-25 players that are franchised every year, the average player will only make maybe $5 or $6 million. I think you are looking at a situation where even if 10 teams use the franchise exemption to spend past the cap, they are only going to be spending aroud $45 million. $30 million to $45 million is not a problem as far as parity and competition goes.
Last, I don't think these 20 or so franchise players will have any affect on the overall market for salaries at all. FA's aren't going to be able to go to a team with a current franchise player and say "pay me as much as he makes, I'm just as good". One reason for this is that a team which currently has a franchise player a) can't have another one obviously, so it would be ridiculous for an FA to demand the salary of one and b) the team would probably be over the cap if they payed another player that much money. There would basically be no comparisons to a current franchise player for these 2 reasons, and that FA can't turn aroud and go to the other 10 teams without franchise players because those teams aren't going to be declaring one.
One change I would make though is that franchise salaries should be capped. Taxing them at 50% is a good idea, but still, the Leafs could pay a player $20 mill a season and have a $68 mil payroll overall. I say have a franchise salary cap at $10 million, and franchise salaries are taxed 50%
cw7 said:
How does inflation continue to increase with a $38 million cap? If small market teams are spending high 20's or even $31 with this salary floor, even if inflation took place how far could it actually go?
ti-vite said:Because of lock out, revenu goes down to 1.5B$ (?)
31 M$ X 30 teams = 930M$
38 + franchise (7M$?) = 45M$ X 30 teams = 1.35B$
So, BEFORE BONUSES, the players want 62% to 90% of league revenue based on 1.5B$, when you have Burke saying revenue may go south of a billion on the short term, Bob Goodemnow can shove this.
HAHA. 30 teams spending $45 million under this proposal? Are you crazy? You pro-owners have just as solid a position as the pro-pa posters, but only if you use common sense. This post is just ridiculous
Converse said:
If you look at the top 10 payrolls per USAToday's salary database for the 2003-2004 season, it shows that one of the big differences is the free agent spending for the big teams. For example, take a look at the following teams and how much roster money was dedicated to free agents on their rosters.
TOR $23.8 million
DET $23.6
DAL $23.0
NYR $22.2
ANA $16.5
PHI $11.5
WAS $7.7
COL $7.0
STL $6.5
NJD $4.8
TBL $3.9
PHO $2.8
CGY $2.4
LAK $2.3
I would consider Philly a market that doesn't totally rely on free agency to built it's team, so in my thinking imagine if they capped free agent spending at $12 million. I'm talking only about free agents that have previously played in the NHL and sign as UFA's. Take a look at the rosters of DET, NYR, TOR, and DAL if they had to cut $10 million off their roster in free agent signings. Then consider how it would have improved other teams, with lower payrolls, had those free agents signed there instead. It says a lot to me. I'd be curious to see numbers for every team how it ranks out, because clearly there are just a couple of teams that were driving the free agent market.
PecaFan
Registered User
John Flyers Fan said:
Some of those numbers are just horrible. Totally out of date, highly misleading.
Using the numbers for 04/05: Atlanta would be Kovalchuk or Heatley, with salaries much higher than Kozlov now that they're out of the entry level system. Boston would be Thornton at $6.75 million. Satan makes $5.25 million. Sullivan makes $3.8 million for Nashville. Niedermayer makes $7 million. Yashin makes $10 million. Khabibulin makes $6.5 million. Bertuzzi makes $7.1 million.
And I presume Montreal and Pittsburgh have been contracted in your world?
PecaFan
Registered User
nyr7andcounting said:
Only if you can't understand what you read.
Hint: He's calculating the percentage range the players are asking for. It requires calculating the theoretical minimum and maximum.
PecaFan said:Some of those numbers are just horrible. Totally out of date, highly misleading.
Using the numbers for 04/05: Atlanta would be Kovalchuk or Heatley, with salaries much higher than Kozlov now that they're out of the entry level system. Boston would be Thornton at $6.75 million. Satan makes $5.25 million. Sullivan makes $3.8 million for Nashville. Niedermayer makes $7 million. Yashin makes $10 million. Khabibulin makes $6.5 million. Bertuzzi makes $7.1 million.
And I presume Montreal and Pittsburgh have been contracted in your world?
there's absolutely nothing misleading about it. the first sentence is "Franchise player salaries for each team if this was 2003-04".
codswallop
yes, i am an alcoholic
nyr7andcounting said:
If the franchise player tag is an exception and not included against the cap, then it is most definitely inflationary. It's not that difficult to see and to imagine how this could be exploited if someone chooses to do so. And you can bet the mortgage that it would be exploited.
Pretty basic rule; if you have an advantage, you use it. No excuses or apologies. That's what good executives do.
This is pretty much speculation though. I'm not that convinced that the NHLPA proposal includes this in the terms that we're assuming here. Eklund's name was mentioned, so I am immediately skeptical. Better to wait until Monday or Tuesday until we hear something at least decently concrete before we start debating too much. Makes it at least a bit more realistic.
cw7 said:
how is it inflationary ? it's optional for teams to use.
if team A has their franchise player making $ 5 million/year for four years, how does it affect team B ? it doesn't. team B has the option of employing a franchise player or not. if they do, team A is no longer a competitor to sign such players, so in essence the market is already weaker for that player.
110% qualifying offers were inflationary. the franchise player exemption isn't. teams have the discretion to use it, or to not use it. the more i think about the concept, the more i like it, especially with revenue sharing.
Steve L*
Registered User
The trouble is is that its not a $38m cap. Its not a cap at all as theorectically a team could still have a $100m payroll.sXe said:
Steve L said:
wow, i wonder who'll be sports' first $ 60 million/year player ?
not to mention the team paying an additional $ 30 million tax.
Steve L*
Registered User
Exactly, thats why the NHL will laugh at this offer and the franchise player exemption because they know they will get screwed with it.cw7 said:
Its going to be a hard cap and nothing else for the NHL, no way for loopholes or hyper inflation.
Steve L said:
why ? because owners who have to share revenues are still going to spend like crazy ?
the revenue sharing is what's going to kill this deal, the salary cap/franchise player sure won't.
small market teams will look at the revenue sharing, sit back, and say.."yep, this can work for us".
large market teams (including wirtz and jacobs) will say never. this proposal puts the onus squarely on the owners to ensure a healthy league.
as a fan, if this proposal is factual, and the owners outright refuse to negotiate it, then they can have their replacement league. i'll gladly support the wha or any league that pops up to provide quality hockey.
this deal just makes too much sense. it redistributes revenues and limits spending. what else does the nhl need to ensure the health of all 30 teams.
McDonald19
Registered User
Well I will look at it piece by piece:
- Salary cap of $38.5 million, + $2 million for player compensation & benefits
This could work!
- Salary floor of $31 million
This is going to have to be compromised. Maybe a 25 million floor.
- "Franchise player" exemption from salary cap
Owners aren't going to like this. Players are including this with the hopes that it basically is a hidden way to have a 45-50 million cap for the richer teams. This is the one aspect the owners will reject I think.
- No salary rollback
Owners will accept this as a concession to the PA. After 04-05 wiped out the final years of many players contracts, the rollback isn't that important anymore.
- 60/40 revenue sharing on gate receipts
Something can be negotiated from this to work.
- Unrestricted free agency at age 27, or 6 years in the NHL
This will be compromised to 28 or 29 years of age.
- Entry-level contracts limited to $1.2 million plus bonuses
This will be compromised to between 750,000-1 million.
- Qualifying offers @ 75%
Owners will accept this.
- Baseball-style arbitration
Don't know enough about it to comment yet.
In conclusion if this proposal is real then there is hope for a 05-06 season with NHL players. The Franchise exemption thing will be the big problem.
- Salary cap of $38.5 million, + $2 million for player compensation & benefits
This could work!
- Salary floor of $31 million
This is going to have to be compromised. Maybe a 25 million floor.
- "Franchise player" exemption from salary cap
Owners aren't going to like this. Players are including this with the hopes that it basically is a hidden way to have a 45-50 million cap for the richer teams. This is the one aspect the owners will reject I think.
- No salary rollback
Owners will accept this as a concession to the PA. After 04-05 wiped out the final years of many players contracts, the rollback isn't that important anymore.
- 60/40 revenue sharing on gate receipts
Something can be negotiated from this to work.
- Unrestricted free agency at age 27, or 6 years in the NHL
This will be compromised to 28 or 29 years of age.
- Entry-level contracts limited to $1.2 million plus bonuses
This will be compromised to between 750,000-1 million.
- Qualifying offers @ 75%
Owners will accept this.
- Baseball-style arbitration
Don't know enough about it to comment yet.
In conclusion if this proposal is real then there is hope for a 05-06 season with NHL players. The Franchise exemption thing will be the big problem.
McDonald19 said:
because owners, even sitting out a year losing revenues, are still so stupid that they'll spend whatever they possibly can ? and only the nhlpa can prevent them from catastrophe ?
GO NHLPA !!! TAKE AWAY THE OWNERS' PENS SO THAT THEY CAN'T SIGN ANY MORE STUPID CONTRACTS !!! make sure you hold their arms down too, just in case they get crazy ideas when you're not looking.
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
No way the NHLPA gives up that much at this point when they have nothing to lose untill September. I call BS.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Rumor: 2024 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Thread: Post Deadline- Latest: BobRossColton
-
Upcoming events
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 4Staked: $710.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 3Staked: $145.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 8Staked: $8,175.00Event closes- Updated:
-