CBA - What the owners want

Status
Not open for further replies.

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Tom_Benjamin said:
Everybody already does that. One of the myths perpetrated by the NHL is that different teams value different players differently prior to the date the player becomes a UFA. The benchmark is the salary paid to similar players around the league.

The salary paid to another 'similar' player is just the opinion (suggestion) of the team that paid the salary - at the time the salary was agreed to... Obviously, the team that paid the salary felt that the player was worth the salary at the time- but this neglects the opinion of the other teams as a whole - It also ignores the players 'variable' worth year-to-year... Because Boston felt that Lapointe was worth $5 million at the time of the signing, IMO, this does not imply that the league as a whole feels that Lapointe is worth $5 million... Nor does this imply that Boston thinks that Lapointe is worth $5 million to them now... Therefore, IMO, Lapointe's salary (and other current similar player salaries) shouldn't be the only formal benchmark for which other similar player salaries are based... It should be included - but not the only formal consideration... IMO, in determining player salary, it would be useful for GM's and teams to know what the NHL and the other teams think (as a group) about a given player's value... It would be useful to have a formal player assessment available by the NHL - so that there is the potential for better player salary decisions...

The specific team can choose to ignore this assessment, or use this assessment to help them determine for themselves what the player is worth...

IMO, it's not surpressing wages... The individual team is free to offer the player more (or less) than what the assessment says... The assessment (suggestion) is merely an informational guide... The player agent is free to argue why the 'suggestion' is too low (or over generous - in the cases where the agent feels that the player is being over-valued in the NHL 'suggestion')...

Edit: I'm not suggesting that this type of system would solve the league's problems... I'm just trying to get an idea of what is legal or not (in the current franchisor/franchisee relationship, as currently spelled out in the CBA)... Basically, thinking about how things could possibly work for the owners assuming the 'status quo' - i.e. What could possibly work in what, IMO, is the worst case scenario...
 
Last edited:

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I in the Eye said:
IMO, in determining player salary, it would be useful for GM's and teams to know what the NHL and the other teams think (as a group) about a given player's value... It would be useful to have a formal player assessment available by the NHL - so that there is the potential for better player salary decisions...

The lawyers seem to have a pretty good handle on it now dont you think?

Tom Benjamin said:
The NHL needs the union more than the players do.

Geez, they should be paying dues.

Tom Benjamin said:
Some people seem to think that the existing CBA is structured so the players would get more than they would get in a completely open market. It is hard to tell whether this is true or not. I doubt it, but maybe. I'm sure they would get more in a completely open market than they will in a "salary cap at $31 million" world.

With players under 31 not having the leverage to negotiate their current system market value, its tempting to come to the conclusion they're not getting their free market value. Does this seem a areasonable statement to make?


Tom Benjamin said:
A player like, say, Simone Gagne is worth a lot more in Philadelphia than in Edmonton in the sense that the Flyers will generate more revenue with him and they can afford to pay more. But they do not pay more for him. That would be very silly. They do not pay more for Gagne than they have to pay for him.

The Flyers have exactly the same leverage over the player as the Oilers do. They pay what the market says they should pay. If Gagne went to arbitration, the Flyers can enter Oiler contracts to support their case. Gagne's agent can't reject those contracts because he is worth more in Philly than in Alberta.

And as you had mentioned before, Iginla, Théo, and Jovo are the current setters of the salary bars, all from small market Canadian teams. Although with Vancouvers franchise on the market evidently being sold for a similar value to Philadelphias, its categorization as small market must now be suspect at best.

Seems Holik and Lapointe are setting nothing. And the arbitration comparables are being set by small markets in Canadian dollars. And all arbitration is deciding is whether they should get 55% or 65% of their market value anyway.


djhn579 said:
I know this wouldn't solve all the problems, but could the NHL pass a by-law that if an NHL team lost more than $5M in any one season, or has lost money for 3 straight years, or has a combined loss of over $10M over a 5 year period, the NHL could put a control board over that teams finances, with the goal of ensuring decisions are made to keep the team competetive and profitable? The nunbers of course are debatable, and what constitutes profit or loss would need to be defined.

This would not be directly aimed at lowering salaries, but maintaining the NHL's long term viability


Or put them under the control of a bankruptcy trustee perhaps and force them to sell. losses at their expense, to someone more capable?

If the teams are legitimately losing money or struggling by 5 or 10mil because of systemic inequities, a very light luxury tax, designed to raise $60mil rather than punish, and perhaps even matched by a player contribution for harmony sake, could provide a fund worthy teams can dip into. A market corrrecting fund. THis seems reasonable to me
 

David A. Rainer

Registered User
Jun 10, 2002
7,287
1
Huntington Beach
profile.myspace.com
djhn579 said:
I know this wouldn't solve all the problems, but could the NHL pass a by-law that if an NHL team lost more than $5M in any one season, or has lost money for 3 straight years, or has a combined loss of over $10M over a 5 year period, the NHL could put a control board over that teams finances, with the goal of ensuring decisions are made to keep the team competetive and profitable? The nunbers of course are debatable, and what constitutes profit or loss would need to be defined.

This would not be directly aimed at lowering salaries, but maintaining the NHL's long term viability. Lower salaries would be a by-product though, since teams couldn't afford to risk paying high salaries and losing money.

There would still be a disparity in what teams can afford, but it wouldn't be as heavily skewed by teams that currently don't care if they lose money.
I think they could do this unilaterally (so long as the reason why they are stepping in is to right a failing ship and not to just slash salaries), but, as you mentioned, it would be a by-law, so it would have to be passed by whatever voting process the NHL has set-up. I'm not too sure there would be very many owners in favor of giving up control of their teams. HOWEVER, if a trend developed where everytime the NHL stepped in, they slashed salaries, there will definitely be a grievance filed by the union and might result in a collusion lawsuit.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Stich said:
Smail - It's called collusion. It's illegal and doing what your suggesting would result in owners getting sued for a ton of money.

Ok... let's put it another way.

One condition to earn a franchise is to be and stay accredited with the "Good hockey business management".

The organism that delivers the "good hockey business management" only delivers it to teams with less than "x" in payroll.

Anyway, there are so many leagues out there born with cap schemes (or weird salary schemes), I doubt it's that hard to make.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
I in the Eye said:
The salary paid to another 'similar' player is just the opinion (suggestion) of the team that paid the salary - at the time the salary was agreed to... Obviously, the team that paid the salary felt that the player was worth the salary at the time- but this neglects the opinion of the other teams as a whole - It also ignores the players 'variable' worth year-to-year...

I don't think so. I think it reflects the actual market. The Flyers don't think about Gagne in isolation. They look at the money guys like Tanquay and Legwand and Lecavalier are getting. They decide where Simon fits on that scale and makes an appropriate offer. The player agent looks at the same comparables and tailors a demand. Disagreements usually happen because one side thinks the player is close to Lecavalier and the other side thinks he is closer to Malhotra.

Nobody on either side would even dream of mentioning Martin Lapointe when negotiating Gagne's contract.

Because Boston felt that Lapointe was worth $5 million at the time of the signing, IMO, this does not imply that the league as a whole feels that Lapointe is worth $5 million... Nor does this imply that Boston thinks that Lapointe is worth $5 million to them now... Therefore, IMO, Lapointe's salary (and other current similar player salaries) shouldn't be the only formal benchmark for which other similar player salaries are based...

This comment reflects a basic ignorance of the way the old CBA worked. I don't mean to be insulting, but it really reflects on your credibility. Martin LaPointe was a Group V free agent. He became a free agent at age 28. This made him much more valuable than the typical UFA. Burke was asked about his contract at the time and he said that while Boston had overpaid substantially for the player, at least it was fairly certain he would hold most of his value as a player over the life of his contract. Boston paid for a player in his prime.

That said, Martin LaPointe is irrelevant. He was a UFA. Only players who signed their contracts as Group II RFA's can be used as comparables in arbitration. Nobody has ever mentioned Martin LaPointe's salary in negotiations. Martin Lapointe is not a benchmark for anyone. His contract affected 1) Boston, 2) the other teams pursuing him and 3) Martin Lapointe. Nobody else.

That is a fact. You can ask any player agent or any NHL GM. Martin Lapointe is not part of the salary structure. All UFA's get what they can get. Their contracts have almost no impact on anyone else. They do affect the ALS in a slight way, a way that affects the qualifying offer for a handful of players. That's it.

IMO, in determining player salary, it would be useful for GM's and teams to know what the NHL and the other teams think (as a group) about a given player's value...

I don't think your suggestion is illegal. It just doesn't get anywhere. A player's value is fairly obvious to all parties. There are probably 1,000 or so players who are signed each season if you include the prospects. I'd bet 970 of them are settled between the two parties without any problems at all. In a typical year maybe 20-30 players actually get to arbitration and perhaps two or three end up as holdouts.

It isn't that hard. The best players set the bar and everyone else falls into line. The Canucks have signed three influential contracts in the last few years - Jovanovski, Naslund, and Bertuzzi. It isn't that hard to pick out the important deals. Iginla is obviously one. Theodore. Richards. Elias. The best players in each age group and at each position are the key players, the ones who set the standards.

Name a single player on a big market, free spending team who has had any impact on a comparable the CBA allows. The bar is being set by Calgary, by Vancouver, by Tampa, by Ottawa (Chara) by Edmonton (Brewer) by Buffalo (Satan) by Florida (Luongo) by Boston (Thornton) by Colorado (Hejduk, Tanguay) by Carolina (O'Neill).

Which Toronto contract has had an impact? Antropov? Which Ranger contract do you think made the biggest difference - Puriton or Lundmark? Which Dallas or Detroit player ruined the salary structure for everyone? Which Flyer?

The assumptions people have about how the old CBA worked are flat out wrong. It is a combination of media ignorance and a deliberate disinformation campaign from the NHL.

Tom
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Tom_Benjamin said:
I don't think so. I think it reflects the actual market. The Flyers don't think about Gagne in isolation. They look at the money guys like Tanquay and Legwand and Lecavalier are getting. They decide where Simon fits on that scale and makes an appropriate offer. The player agent looks at the same comparables and tailors a demand. Disagreements usually happen because one side thinks the player is close to Lecavalier and the other side thinks he is closer to Malhotra.

Salary is an interpretation of worth, based on what 'comparables' are earning - the GM interprets the players worth, as does the player agent... Each of the parties offer their 'suggestions' as to what the player's compensation should be - until agreement is reached... My idea arms the GM with the NHL's 'suggestion' as to what the player's worth should be... It offers the GM a formal 'league perspective' during contract negotiations... As you say, the team doesn't think about the player's worth in isolation... Salaries and determination of worth do not occur in a vaccuum - and neither does it's impact... Each player's contract has a direct impact on future NHL salaries (as salary negotiations do not occur in isolation)... It affects comparable players in comparable situations... IMO, the NHL should at least have it formally known their opinion of player worth in the market... Even if the player agent and the individual GM choose to ignore it... Because things don't occur in isolation, IMO, the NHL deserves at least a say in decisions that will have an impact throughout the league...

Tom_Benjamin said:
Nobody on either side would even dream of mentioning Martin Lapointe when negotiating Gagne's contract.

I agree... Where did I say that Lapointe's contract has an impact on Gagne's contract?? I'm talking about comparable players, comparable situations... For players of 'comparable' talent to Lapointe, in a 'comparable' situation to Lapointe, IMO, his salary then comes into play... Lapointe's salary becomes a precedent - a benchmark... You argue that as an UFA, his contract has 'almost' no impact on anyone else... At this point, from the best that I can tell, this is just your opinion...


Tom_Benjamin said:
This comment reflects a basic ignorance of the way the old CBA worked. I don't mean to be insulting, but it really reflects on your credibility.

No insult taken... I never claimed to be an expert in the business of hockey... Nor do I think I am... I'm simply a hockey fan trying to make sense of what is going on - why it is going on - and offering ideas about how to solve it... Just like I enjoy discussing 'the hockey game' (and some on the Canucks board will agree, I am sometimes ignorant in that subject as well)... I'm finding that I enjoy discussing 'the business of hockey' (I find it fascinating and I want to learn more - thus why I am on this board posting - and sometimes making an ass of myself through my ignorance)... I am not a credible source for the subject, and I don't take myself too seriously here... May this be a warning to other posters - when reading my posts on this subject - DO NOT take it too seriously... If you, Tom, would rather discuss things with those who are not ignorant in the subject, I suggest that you simply ignore my posts and questions... I'm here for a good time... not a long time... as I hope that hockey starts up sooner rather than later...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->