Helene Elliott- Today's talks could pivotal

Status
Not open for further replies.

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
I like the proposal, it would give the Devils more time to reach an agreement with Niedermayer or trade his ass. Something is better then nothing. However, even with the 24% roll back, it would be interesting watching teams manuvering to get under a cap, including the Devils.
 

missK

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
2,136
0
Lightning country
Visit site
jamiebez said:
Very true. People are focusing on the big contracts (Pronger, Yashin), but I'd be interested to know the total cost of either option. Specifically, how much would each team have to commit for all existing contracts to be paid in full for 04/05, minus 24% going forward vs. not paying 04/05 and a 0% rollback going forward. If sure there are teams that win in each scenario - the question is: how many? I suspect that there are fewer teams in trouble without the rollback than people think.

Also, all this assumes the NHL won't negotiate back on the matter. Perhaps they increase the salary cap by $1M in exchange for a 5-10% rollback? Or they propose a "staggered" rollback again (where the high value contracts are cut by a higher percentage)? Just as examples...

Example: Lightning

1 - had 20 players under contract for 04-05 for a total of approx $41 Mil (only major contributor not signed was St. Louis) $41 Mil - 24% = $31,160,000

2 - has only 8 players under contract for 05-06 for a total of $20,350,000 (8 players are Sydor, Kubina, Modin, Richards, Prospal, Sarich, Grahame, Dingman)
The team would be missing major contributors Khabibulin (UFA), St. Louis, Lecavalier, Fedotenko, Boyle, Lukowich, and other fringe players too.

EDIT: Also if UFA age goes to 30 with new CBA, St. Louis turns 30 this month.

Based on the above scenerios, I know what how Lightning management would vote. The Lightning followed the NHL edict to control costs, and based on that Lightning management was RESPONSIBLE in their management of resources and signing of UFA's. If the 2nd scenerio is put in place our team gets screwed for being RESPONSIBLE.
 
Last edited:

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Larionov said:
It's been said before, but it bears repeating -- the carnage amongst veteran players is going to be massive post-lockout. Up to a third of the 'PAs membership that finished the 2003-04 season have played their last game, but just don't know it yet.
PA membership ??

How about the PA committee ??..

We know Gartner is retired .. What about Linden, Klatt, Irbe, Boughner, maybe even Damphousse..that have played their last NHL games ..Perhaps only Guerin and his guaranteed contract remain post lockout, that is if his isn't bought out for restrictive Cap reasons of course..

Looks like the committee might be down to anti-dealer Alfredsson as NHLers, but he enjoyed his time in back home last year, heck he even bowed out of the negotiating process to play in the SEL and World Championships so he doesn't seem all that interested in the proceedings anyways. .

Can someone say conflict of interest here .. As these players may not have the best interest of the rank and file in mind based on their current very tentative and precarious NHL existence themselves ..
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
gc2005 said:
Toronto might actually be worse:

Option (a): 19 players under contract for a total of $46.6 million
Option (b): Only 8 players under contract for a total of $35.6 million :amazed:
Since you mentioned the Leafs ..

I wonder what happens in the case of injured players ..

Mogilny got his full contract paid last season via insurance as he went under the knife and would have missed the year .. but if the owners took the extension option then would Mogilny get an extra contract year ??

Eddie Belfour had that disc problem that caused him to bow out of the World Cup .. He had surgery and also got paid for 1/2 the NHL season of his contract as he returned to the ice in late January and no longer received any more contract payment at that time. What would he get 1/2 a year contract extension??

A couple of exceptions to this clear cut 24% or not issue here ..
 

AH

Registered User
Nov 21, 2004
4,881
0
Woodbridge, ON
The Messenger said:
Eddie Belfour had that disc problem that caused him to bow out of the World Cup .. He had surgery and also got paid for 1/2 the NHL season of his contract as he returned to the ice in late January and no longer received any more contract payment at that time. What would he get 1/2 a year contract extension??

And Nolan as well. He missed half the year and collected a paycheck into January.

I would guess that these players would have to give it back or have their contracts adjusted to reflect the amount "forwarded".
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
And under a cap system with or without the rollback, the owners get what they want. If there is no rollback all it means is less money for all the free agents out there, if the NHLPA agrees to the rollback then that extra money can be distributed.
PA trade-off is that market prices never get reset .. All players under contract get paid at old CBA rates until complete .. Then those rates apply for QO and Arbitration and set he whole bar higher ..

When the NHLPA offered the Dec 9th 24% rollback proposal the NHL response was great that corrects the market but in a few years they would be right back to as before prices we can't afford.

Now your post suggests that the owners start their rather then escalating salaries in the future the problem happening it is present from day 1 of the new CBA ..
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
PA trade-off is that market prices never get reset .. All players under contract get paid at old CBA rates until complete .. Then those rates apply for QO and Arbitration and set he whole bar higher ..

When the NHLPA offered the Dec 9th 24% rollback proposal the NHL response was great that corrects the market but in a few years they would be right back to as before prices we can't afford.

Now your post suggests that the owners start their rather then escalating salaries in the future the problem happening it is present from day 1 of the new CBA ..
After "Now your post suggests" you seem to have morphed into Yoda. What am I suggesting again?
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
That's not true at all unless you are still trying to sell your grandfathering Idea..

However Bettman said they where warned no grandfathering . .

Take your Leafs ..

The PA would be sticking it to them good, never mind not being able to spend on UFA thats minor compared to the the fact that going into the lockout they had a Salary or $62 Mil in place ..

Based on the new CBA cap and lets just use rough math for arguements sake they need to cut $30 mil from the roster. If the Leafs have to Buyout that much at 2/3rds (old cba buyout rate) as before then the PA just stuck Larry Tannenbaum with a $20 mil bil so he can buyout Leetch, Nolan, Roberts, Newy and Domi to get under the new Cap ..

Those players can nearly offer their services for free as they just got the paid up front almost as a signing bonus as a result of the buyout.

The league is also going to have to come up with some special run that you can't resign the players you buyout either .. Otherwise big market teams would buy out all contracts give the player his money and sign him or 1 or 2 mil again and manipulate the cap .. If as others have suggested the buyout does not count towards the cap in year 1 as transition..

So the few players you mentioned get a bonus because they get paid 2/3 of their salary and after that go and shop themselves to the highest bidder. What sense does that make in terms of the overall CBA negotiation?

Anyway, teams were warned but not that there was a chance of having the clock turned back on contracts. As I said before, grandfathering contracts is a bargaining chip the league can use for the NHLPA and not too many people are going to complain about it.
 

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
I do like the idea (can't recall who posted it) about buyouts not being counted under the cap if they keep the 04/05 contracts on the books. I guess this could be considered a form of grandfathering, but it's a pretty slight one, more like a transition, as Messenger said. Otherwise, teams like Philly that have a lot of payroll committed to players that they want/need to keep could use the NFL approach of "restructuring contracts" and deferring money to future years, assuming their players go for it.

As far as allowing the teams to choose on a player-by-player basis, on the surface it seems like a good idea, but it may make it harder for the market to "correct itself" if there is a hybrid of rolled-back and un-rolled-back players out there. Although, I guess that happens regardless if there's no rollback ... Needs more thought
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
So the few players you mentioned get a bonus because they get paid 2/3 of their salary and after that go and shop themselves to the highest bidder. What sense does that make in terms of the overall CBA negotiation?

Anyway, teams were warned but not that there was a chance of having the clock turned back on contracts. As I said before, grandfathering contracts is a bargaining chip the league can use for the NHLPA and not too many people are going to complain about it.
But your point was about buying UFA ..

If you have a 62.5 mil roster and take the 24% that still leave you at $47.5 left still way over any NHL number offered .

How do you see them being players in the UFA with or without the 24%??
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,238
New York
www.youtube.com
The Messenger said:
That's not true at all unless you are still trying to sell your grandfathering Idea..

However Bettman said they where warned no grandfathering . .

Take your Leafs ..

The PA would be sticking it to them good, never mind not being able to spend on UFA thats minor compared to the the fact that going into the lockout they had a Salary or $62 Mil in place ..

Based on the new CBA cap and lets just use rough math for arguements sake they need to cut $30 mil from the roster. If the Leafs have to Buyout that much at 2/3rds (old cba buyout rate) as before then the PA just stuck Larry Tannenbaum with a $20 mil bil so he can buyout Leetch, Nolan, Roberts, Newy and Domi to get under the new Cap ..

Those players can nearly offer their services for free as they just got the paid up front almost as a signing bonus as a result of the buyout.

The league is also going to have to come up with some special run that you can't resign the players you buyout either .. Otherwise big market teams would buy out all contracts give the player his money and sign him or 1 or 2 mil again and manipulate the cap .. If as others have suggested the buyout does not count towards the cap in year 1 as transition..

Some of those players are not under contract for 2005-06

Mats Sundin,Owen Nolan,Ed Belfour,Bryan McCabe,Tomas Kaberle,Ken Klee,Darcy Tucker and Matt Stajan are the Leafs under contract for 05-06 for a total of $35,614,009.After the rollback,it's $27,066,647
 

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
The Messenger said:
PA membership ??

How about the PA committee ??..

We know Gartner is retired .. What about Linden, Klatt, Irbe, Boughner, maybe even Damphousse..that have played their last NHL games ..Perhaps only Guerin and his guaranteed contract remain post lockout, that is if his isn't bought out for restrictive Cap reasons of course..

Looks like the committee might be down to anti-dealer Alfredsson as NHLers, but he enjoyed his time in back home last year, heck he even bowed out of the negotiating process to play in the SEL and World Championships so he doesn't seem all that interested in the proceedings anyways. .

Can someone say conflict of interest here .. As these players may not have the best interest of the rank and file in mind based on their current very tentative and precarious NHL existence themselves ..
I assume these guys were elected by the membership? If so, the PA members at large deserve what they get, just like with any other elected official.

Besides, I think a new deal will be voted on by the membership as a whole. If they don't like it, they can vote against it then.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
RangerBoy said:
Some of those players are not under contract for 2005-06

Mats Sundin,Owen Nolan,Ed Belfour,Bryan McCabe,Tomas Kaberle,Ken Klee,Darcy Tucker and Matt Stajan are the Leafs under contract for 05-06 for a total of $35,614,009.After the rollback,it's $27,066,647
I realize that .. IF they take the 24% deal .. If they don't is the point of my post

You have taken the best of both worlds for the owners in your post .. Old Contracts not extended leaving only 8 players left and then 24% taken ..

We are discussing the either or option in this thread or at least I was ..
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
But your point was about buying UFA ..

If you have a 62.5 mil roster and take the 24% that still leave you at $47.5 left still way over any NHL number offered .

How do you see them being players in the UFA with or without the 24%??
If they can't participate in the UFA market this season, they will still have a good team. That doesn't worry me but the players out there who have to settle for the best bid betweent Atlanta and Nashville may not like a team like the Leafs being kept out of the mix.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
jamiebez said:
I assume these guys were elected by the membership? If so, the PA members at large deserve what they get, just like with any other elected official.

Besides, I think a new deal will be voted on by the membership as a whole. If they don't like it, they can vote against it then.
That is true and I really didn't want to change the topic of the 24% or honour contracts option just an observation I made based on what another poster said and notice that most of the Committee pushing for a deal are player whose careers are nearly over ..

I was wondering if the group that has lots of years remaining in careers supports this position .. You are right a vote will let us know that answer ..
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
If they can't participate in the UFA market this season, they will still have a good team. That doesn't worry me but the players out there who have to settle for the best bid betweent Atlanta and Nashville may not like a team like the Leafs being kept out of the mix.
That is exactly why the NHLPA is fighting so hard as they feel the same way that there is no market for its players based on the current offer on the table by the NHL be it now or before ..

By the NHL capping the big market teams then that leaves only the small market that can't afford anyone .. without a lot of revenue sharing ..

Sounds like you are starting to understand the NHLPA position in this dispute .. by stepping out of your pro-owner shoes and putting yourself in the NHLPA shoes for a moment ..
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
mooseOAK said:
After "Now your post suggests" you seem to have morphed into Yoda. What am I suggesting again?

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

A wonderful line it is.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
The Messenger said:
That is exactly why the NHLPA is fighting so hard as they feel the same way that there is no market for its players based on the current offer on the table by the NHL be it now or before ..

By the NHL capping the big market teams then that leaves only the small market that can't afford anyone .. without a lot of revenue sharing ..

Sounds like you are starting to understand the NHLPA position in this dispute .. by stepping out of your pro-owner shoes and putting yourself in the NHLPA shoes for a moment ..

It's called market correction and the parties that will be most effected, the overspending teams and the overpaid veterans will be getting exactly what they deserve.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
The Messenger said:
By the NHL capping the big market teams then that leaves only the small market that can't afford anyone .. without a lot of revenue sharing ..

I am not sure what you mean by "can't afford anyone". Maybe not at current prices. What they can "afford" is whatever they are prepared to offer. If the players get no offers except form small market teams with cap room, then the smaller teams can afford them.

To take an example, if Player X goes on the Fa market after making $7.5 million in his last year, and all the big market teams are capped out, and Nashville and Edmonton are only able to pay him $2 million, it does not matter that they could not afford $7.5 million. They can "afford" Player X because all he can muster in offers is $2 million.
 

King_Brown

Guest
There has to be revenue sharing just like the NFL, or even close to that. Withouth revenue sharing, I have no idea how they expect any teams to make money, when Carolina has a payroll of what 32 million, and the cap is at 38 million, and they loose 15 million a year.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
The Messenger said:
Can someone say conflict of interest here .. As these players may not have the best interest of the rank and file in mind based on their current very tentative and precarious NHL existence themselves ..

Why should their current career status matter? Nobody was bringing it up back in September, seemed like a non-issue then...

I thought they were fighting the good fight for the future players anyway...right?

Or not? ;)
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
getnziggywidit said:
At this time, I stand behind my thought that the NHL taking the 24% over the 1 year is a no-brainer.

Absolutely. 24% takes the players back about two years in salary. This is the *only* way salaries can be reduced for the majority of the players (only a handfull of players ever reach UFA age, and sign for less than what they'd been making).

Remember, a ton of the free agents that would be available if you took the 1 year option are restricted, and thus wouldn't have any reductions. Throw in arbitration, and many of them would be increasing. There's not a chance in hell all the UFA's could be signed at such big reductions that the net savings were greater.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
That is exactly why the NHLPA is fighting so hard as they feel the same way that there is no market for its players based on the current offer on the table by the NHL be it now or before ..

By the NHL capping the big market teams then that leaves only the small market that can't afford anyone .. without a lot of revenue sharing ..

Sounds like you are starting to understand the NHLPA position in this dispute .. by stepping out of your pro-owner shoes and putting yourself in the NHLPA shoes for a moment ..
As far as I know, no NHL offer included extending contracts by a year nor a dispersal draft with teams paying players to play elsewhere.

In any event the negotiations should be focused on getting a deal done for the long term health of the league and not punishing a few teams in the short term.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
The Messenger said:
PA trade-off is that market prices never get reset .. All players under contract get paid at old CBA rates until complete .. Then those rates apply for QO and Arbitration and set he whole bar higher ..

When the NHLPA offered the Dec 9th 24% rollback proposal the NHL response was great that corrects the market but in a few years they would be right back to as before prices we can't afford.

Now your post suggests that the owners start their rather then escalating salaries in the future the problem happening it is present from day 1 of the new CBA ..

i guarantee that if the league were to accept a deal that did not include the 24% rollback on existing contracts all QO and Arbitration numbers would view those contacts as if the 24% rollback had occured. there is no way the league is going to let those contracts come in and set the bar going forward.

neverminding that it simply wouldn't make sense to use those contracts in QO and Arbitration underneath of a cap because they wouldn't reflect the cap environment at all.
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
the league will get their cake and eat it too

rollback, and 04-05 contracts wiped .

if thats all Bob has left in his holster , goodnight Irene
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->