A Solution to the current problems of the CBA

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
The NBA has a league wide cap and escrow, but it is a max limit, not a guaranteed Players Share. Total salaries are limited to 57-58% of BRI (Basketball Related Income) revenues, but the cap itself is based on only 51.5% of BRI to allow for the myriad of exceptions.

You answered my question right there. Thanks.

Yes, I know that the NBA "salary cap" is a minomer, given the plethora of exceptions. Strictly from a selfish, fan standpoint (and I'm not even a follower of that league anymore), I do like the idea that it encourages roster stability, realtive to say, MLB and the NFL.

I recognize that constant roster upheaval does not bother other fans as much.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
The one thing I could think of similar to the "franchise player" concept is to provide to a team the right to match FA offers so long as the match is at the maximum salary level. That would protect teams against losing the true "franchise player" while allowing the player to get what he would get anyway on the open market.

I don't know if this is a good concept, either. I am happy with the status quo. However, for those who demand change, that is a thought.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
In the NBA, there is only a cap if you run your team completely ***-backward and totally screw yourself.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
You will never get over this, will you, DR?

The fans "accomplished" nothing.

my friend the good carpenter. fans like you are not the issue because you educated yourself on the issues and picked your position. just because we disagree, doesnt mean i think you stand behind your position ignorantly. we simply disagree.

the part where they used the fans is the fact that most fans have zero idea what this was all about. i hear it still called a strike by many water cooler experts. if the fans opinion on the matter were of not much consequence, then the NHL would not have spent so much time and energy crushing the union on the PR front. even I, the most anti owner crusader during the lock out recognizes how badly outsmarted the PA was when it came to PR. anyone remember NHLCBANEWS.com?

if the fans were not prepared to come back, the owners might have caved earlier. the owners knew they had the hearts of the fans and therefore were able to tke the union to the wall, at least with more conviction than they ever were able to before.

afterall, Gary Bettman claimed the lockout was for the fans so they could afford ticket prices. yet even most of us who disgree on this site will agree ticket prices are set by the market, not by the costs. but the sheep hear it and believed it and cited it as good reason to support the owners cause.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,936
Halifax, NS
I think compensation for UFA signings and RFA signings should be much higher. I hate how a team like New Jersey constantly loses their developed players to other teams without being compensated. I agree in league parity but if a team runs an organization well enough they should not be penalized for doing so.
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
my friend the good carpenter. fans like you are not the issue because you educated yourself on the issues and picked your position. just because we disagree, doesnt mean i think you stand behind your position ignorantly. we simply disagree.

the part where they used the fans is the fact that most fans have zero idea what this was all about. i hear it still called a strike by many water cooler experts. if the fans opinion on the matter were of not much consequence, then the NHL would not have spent so much time and energy crushing the union on the PR front. even I, the most anti owner crusader during the lock out recognizes how badly outsmarted the PA was when it came to PR. anyone remember NHLCBANEWS.com?

if the fans were not prepared to come back, the owners might have caved earlier. the owners knew they had the hearts of the fans and therefore were able to tke the union to the wall, at least with more conviction than they ever were able to before.

afterall, Gary Bettman claimed the lockout was for the fans so they could afford ticket prices. yet even most of us who disgree on this site will agree ticket prices are set by the market, not by the costs. but the sheep hear it and believed it and cited it as good reason to support the owners cause.
It wasnt hard to outsmart the PA on the PR front. But I think it was more the media than the NHL. How many watercooler experts do you think visited NHLCBANEWS.com?

Most fans just heard the quotes of some of the players saying they will never play with a cap and will hold out as long as it takes, heard JRs quote proposing his idea for a cap, read about union members running to Europe instead of showing solidarity...

All TSN had to do was follow the PA around and people would see how disfunctional it was. The NHL didnt have to do anything PR-wise. The PA was doing it to themselves.

Not to mention the fact that many fans have the "they get paid millions to play a game" mentaility. The PA was behind PR-wise from the get-go.

For the record, I think even the most clueless fan who still calls it a strike knew the labour dispute wasnt only about the ticket prices. Your last paragraph diminishes your arguments.
 

Columbia*

Guest
Your system throws out the idea of "there's a hard cap that everyone has to abide by", not to mention it would mean rewriting provisions in the CBA that prohibit the transfer of payroll room (which was put in there to prevent exactly what you're proposing) and in effect raises the cap by another $5 million (unless these credits are supposed to kick in starting at $5 million under the cap ... you're not clear at all on this). That means teams will likely start racing for the new, higher cap (again, unless these credits kick in starting at $5 million under the cap) and guarantee even higher escrow payments by the players.

You really think the players are going to go for that?

You also mention how this system can be abused. Right there should be a huge red flag, even if you try to put safeguards into place. The current system is designed to eventually bring parity to the league by spreading the talent level out among all 30 teams ... giving a team a way to take advantage of the existing system by increasing the amount they can spend is a sure-fire way to encourage the former system to return (and someone will push it to the absolute limit).

It's a nice thought, but in reality it will encourage the have's to spend away again at the expense of the have-not's ... something the current CBA was designed to prevent from happening again.

This system ensures that more of the cap space aloted to player salaries will be used than the current system. If a team isn't going to spend at the cap, they just trade away their cap space to a team that does. In the end the players will get more money, how can they not like this? Your argument about players having to pay more escrow because their salaries are higher is akin to somoene arguing that they don't want to make more money because they have to pay more taxes. Unless you are right at the tax bracket, that argument is fallacious because even if you do pay more taxes/escrow on the extra dollars you earn at the end of the day you are still making more money. So this is how players benefit.

Fans benefit because the 'window of success' lasts longer for their team. let's take a 'small' market team like Calgary for example. In 2 years their major stars players' contracts expire. Under the current system the Flames will find it very hard to keep Iginla, Phaneuf, Kipper and Regehr all on the same team while still icing a competitive team. With my system in place a team like Calgary can trade away their draft picks and prospects for cap space so they can keep their team together. Calgary fans are happy because their team stays together, and the team who traded their cap space gets assets to help them get to a point where they wouldn't need to trade cap space anymore. This system basically regulates itself against extreme abuse. No team can keep up that strategy for long as they will soon run out of assets to trade for cap space, also the other teams who were trading their cap space away should in theory become better teams because of it and may become buyers in the cap space market as supposed to sellers. I even suggested that a limit be placed on the ammount of cap space a team can 'acquire' to really crack down on abuse. Yes it will create a system of salary disparity, but no where near the ammount that exsisted before the lockout. Also it is not a given that big market teams will be the ones adding salary, it is any team who for whatever reason needs that extra space to ice a competitive team.
 

Columbia*

Guest
I think compensation for UFA signings and RFA signings should be much higher. I hate how a team like New Jersey constantly loses their developed players to other teams without being compensated. I agree in league parity but if a team runs an organization well enough they should not be penalized for doing so.

The system I proposed does just what you suggested. If a team wants to sign UFA's and RFA's they pay a higher price because they will most likely have to increase their cap space to do so, which they acquire through picks and prospects.

Under the current system an organization that drafts well will be forced to say goodbye to their players once they mature because of cap constraints, my system gives teams more of a chance to keep their valued players for a longer period of time.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
This system ensures that more of the cap space aloted to player salaries will be used than the current system. If a team isn't going to spend at the cap, they just trade away their cap space to a team that does. In the end the players will get more money, how can they not like this?
Are you lifting the cap on player salaries as a percentage of revenue?

No? Then guys on the lower end are going to have even higher escrow payments while the few who get more money in this scenario benefit. That is why they won't like it ... never mind the fact that it nearly gives teams like Detroit, Toronto, Colorado, and the Rangers a free license to spend away again.

It may look reasonable and fair, but it's not going to work and it's certainly not going to get approved by the group of teams that hung together trying to reign in the big-spending teams.

Believe me ... it's not a viable solution.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
This system ensures that more of the cap space aloted to player salaries will be used than the current system. If a team isn't going to spend at the cap, they just trade away their cap space to a team that does. In the end the players will get more money, how can they not like this? Your argument about players having to pay more escrow because their salaries are higher is akin to somoene arguing that they don't want to make more money because they have to pay more taxes. Unless you are right at the tax bracket, that argument is fallacious because even if you do pay more taxes/escrow on the extra dollars you earn at the end of the day you are still making more money. So this is how players benefit.
No. The players as a group get no more money under your system - the players get 54% of revenue, no more no less.

It is a zero sum game. If a few superstars get more money because of your increased use of cap space, every other player gets less because they are giving back more through escrow.

And, as I said before - the current cap system and cap limits are not designed for every dollar of cap space to be used and for every team to spend up to the cap. The system assumes that the average team payroll will be at the Cap Mid-Point - $36M. The Upper and Lower Limits are set at that Mid Point +/- $8M ($44M / $28M). If the average team payroll is above that Mid Point, every player loses money through escrow.

For your cap credit trading system to work (as anything other than an escrow giveaway from the players), the cap would have to be set at the Mid Point - your baseline cap (before trading credits) would then be $36M, not $44M.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,415
16,383
South Rectangle
It wasnt hard to outsmart the PA on the PR front. But I think it was more the media than the NHL. How many watercooler experts do you think visited NHLCBANEWS.com?

Most fans just heard the quotes of some of the players saying they will never play with a cap and will hold out as long as it takes, heard JRs quote proposing his idea for a cap, read about union members running to Europe instead of showing solidarity...

All TSN had to do was follow the PA around and people would see how disfunctional it was. The NHL didnt have to do anything PR-wise. The PA was doing it to themselves.

Not to mention the fact that many fans have the "they get paid millions to play a game" mentaility. The PA was behind PR-wise from the get-go.

For the record, I think even the most clueless fan who still calls it a strike knew the labour dispute wasnt only about the ticket prices. Your last paragraph diminishes your arguments.
Yeah and even the compitantly managed PAs are a PR disaster. Since the big money hit thet've never come up with a case that they are the lesser of evils.

Hell they aren't even smart enough to tell the players not to say it's about feeding their family.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
What about allowing teams the caveat of exceeding the cap limit to retain their own players (only)?

That's the Larry Bird rule--you can resign your own player to a number over the cap and the portion that goes over the cap won't count against you. Seeing as how the limit on a player's individual salary is tied to a percentage of the payroll, it would have to be tied to a percentage as well.

Or, if that is too liberal, allowing teams to exceed the cap to retain their own drafted players?

Better make sure that the writing says specifically players that were drafted and have not changed organizations. Otherwise you could have, say, the Flyers re-signing Peter Forsberg to a big contract if they were so inclined.

I do not see that giving unfair advantage to wealthier franchises, certainly not on a significant scale.

I agree, and I really like the idea of it being for players you drafted. I think it would benefit everyone--teams, players and fans.
 

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,463
39,917
Hamburg,NY
This system ensures that more of the cap space aloted to player salaries will be used than the current system. If a team isn't going to spend at the cap, they just trade away their cap space to a team that does. In the end the players will get more money, how can they not like this? Your argument about players having to pay more escrow because their salaries are higher is akin to somoene arguing that they don't want to make more money because they have to pay more taxes. Unless you are right at the tax bracket, that argument is fallacious because even if you do pay more taxes/escrow on the extra dollars you earn at the end of the day you are still making more money. So this is how players benefit.

Fans benefit because the 'window of success' lasts longer for their team. let's take a 'small' market team like Calgary for example. In 2 years their major stars players' contracts expire. Under the current system the Flames will find it very hard to keep Iginla, Phaneuf, Kipper and Regehr all on the same team while still icing a competitive team. With my system in place a team like Calgary can trade away their draft picks and prospects for cap space so they can keep their team together. Calgary fans are happy because their team stays together, and the team who traded their cap space gets assets to help them get to a point where they wouldn't need to trade cap space anymore. This system basically regulates itself against extreme abuse. No team can keep up that strategy for long as they will soon run out of assets to trade for cap space, also the other teams who were trading their cap space away should in theory become better teams because of it and may become buyers in the cap space market as supposed to sellers. I even suggested that a limit be placed on the ammount of cap space a team can 'acquire' to really crack down on abuse. Yes it will create a system of salary disparity, but no where near the ammount that exsisted before the lockout. Also it is not a given that big market teams will be the ones adding salary, it is any team who for whatever reason needs that extra space to ice a competitive team.

The "cap space" you are refering to isn't what you are portraying it to be. The upper limit of the salary range is not the "cap" or the 54% alloted for player salaries. The actually "cap" or 54% mark is the midpoint of the salary range. If every team spent to the midpoint or the league's average payroll was the midpoint that would be 54% of the league revenues. Your are argueing that the "cap space " is money being wasted or not being utilized and if it was it would benefit the players. Thats just not the case. If teams all spent up to the upper limit or by buying "cap space" allowed teams to exceed the upper limit. The league's average payroll would far exceed the midpoint thus causing the players to give back a large amount of their salary. With an escrow possibly exceeding 20%

That means the players who didn't get the huge raise are also getting hit with the escrow charge. Its an across the board for every player tax. The way you are portraying it. You put forth that the higher your salary the higher your escrow payment. Thats just not the case. Iginla and Tanguay pay at the same rate as Byron Ritchie and Lundmark. I highly doubt the lower paid players in the league want give back a good chunk of their salary so certain teams can stay together.


Also this whining by Nonis about losing players at 25 or 27 is a joke IMO. That means every team will still control a player for 7-9 years. Hardly a small window. Sidney Crosby is also making peanuts compared to his achievements as are Malkin and Staal.That is also a product of the CBA. The Pens will control these guys for at least 7 years. Thats an eternity in pro sports. I'm a Sabres fan and we lost players this past off season and will lose more next offseason. But we have a good amount of players coming up that will fill in as the team loses players. Contrary to what a few others have posted. This CBA and the system it created makes the draft and player development more important than ever. Also this new system protects the economic viability of this franchise and many others for years to come.

Some folks seem to forget that in the old CBA days Calgary,Pittsburgh, Buffalo ...etc. wouldn't be able to hold onto these players anyway and they wouldn't be able to compete in free agency to replace them either.

How soon we forget.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->