How does a lower UFA age help the "small markets"?

[shnagle]

It clearly does not make it worse. It cheapens the labor pool, allowing these teams to keep top-tier players they otherwise could not. How is that a bad thing?
The usual argument one gets around here is that the cap floor will force some teams to spend more than they're currently spending, thus hurting them. in most cases that's complete bunk.
Right now, that floor is $32 million. Only six NHL teams were below that last year. Two of those teams - Chicago and Minnesota - clearly have the markets and resources to exceed it. Atlanta certainly has the market for it. Pittsburgh has been well over that amount in the past and likely will in the future with a new arena and all the revenue streams that come as a result.
So, that leaves us with Nashville and Florida. Would the league be much worse off if these franchises couldn't cut it even with a cap? I think not.

You are right only 6 teams are below the current salary floor. However, my point was that the league is trying to ensure the profitability of all 30 teams. Their claim is cost certainty is the answer. My only point is that cost certainty without revenue certainty is a false claim. If you believe in either the Levitt report or the Forbes report I think we can all agree that the Forbes report gives us a "best case scenario" for the state of the NHL. The numbers used in their report are from the 02-03 season same as Levitt report. If you believe the Levitt report these numbers would actually be worse. Here is the scenario for the following teams with a 32 mil. cap:
Team...................Payroll(mil)............02-03 Profit(mil).........32 mil cap Profit(mil)
Anaheim.................. 39.0 ........................-10.8 ....................... -3.8
Atlanta ....................26............................ -0.9..........................-5.1
Buffalo.....................31.1.................. ........-5.3..........................-6.2
Calgary ...................33.3..........................-5.8..........................-4.5
Carolina...................39.2................... .......-13.0.........................-5.8
Edmonton.................30.9..................... .....-0.1..........................-1.2
Florida.....................32.7.................. .........-9.4.........................-8.7
Nashville...................25.2.................. ........-2.8..........................-9.6
Ottawa....................30.3.................... .......-2.0..........................-3.7
Phoenix....................44.3................... .......-22.1........................-10.1
Tampa.....................28.9.................... .......-0.7.........................-3.8

My only point is that without meaningful revenue sharing or a new source of revenue like a major tv contract is that a cap does not guarantee profitability for these franchises. Does it give them a more level playing field in which to compete, I think it does but if these franchises are still losing money then I don't see how a cap actually helps them survive long term. Just my two cents.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Well, I guess we'll see then.
The NHL is offering a 12-month reduction on UFA as a concession. Concessions are frequently made during negotiations (despite what pro-PA folks say about the owners making none). They're throwing the players a bone, that's all.

Ha-ha. As you have pointed out free agency under a cap isn't worth money to a player so it is a hollow offer. And concessions involve conceding a demand from the other side. The players have not demanded early free agency.

A bone. Of all the bones they could have picked, picking the one that benefits the big boys doesn't make you wonder?

Tom

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

But doesn't the league claims it needs a cap for its cost certainty in order for small market teams to survive. I would argue that without meaningful revenue sharing or an alternative revenue source(like a TV contract) that a hard cap only makes things worse for a small market team.

For arguements sake, let's say they agree to a hard cap at $35M. That would limit the star players to let's say $6M per year, with everyone else cascading down from there. Small market teams would not necessarily have to be at the salary cap max. In this case they might be outspent by the big market teams by 25% instead of 100% or more.

 

[Epsilon]

As for free agency, once again it is in the league's best interests to delay and limit free agency as much as it can. Despite your conspiracy theory -- a theory, by the way, for which you have no proof -- history bears this out. This is why every professional sports league has fought unencumbered free agency tooth and nail, even all the way to the US Supreme Court.

MLB fought free agency because the previous system was the equivalent to the players being servants. Now, I know that is the system most of the pro-NHL people here would love to have, but it is never coming back. Now, after MLB players won their freedom from the owners, Marvin Miller immediately stepped in with a CBA that restricted players from becoming free agents until they had played 6 years in the league. The owners jumped all over this, but Miller knew exactly what he was doing. By limiting the number of players who would become free agents every year, and ensuring that it would only be seasoned players with some level of success under their belts, he knew that basic supply-and-demand theory would drive up the value of the players. History shows he was exactly right.

 

[shnagle]

For arguements sake, let's say they agree to a hard cap at $35M. That would limit the star players to let's say $6M per year, with everyone else cascading down from there. Small market teams would not necessarily have to be at the salary cap max. In this case they might be outspent by the big market teams by 25% instead of 100% or more.

I agree that small market teams would not have to be at the max, however, they would have to be at the floor which as it currently stands would be 32 mil. While the cap will bring down overall salaries I don't see how it makes the small market teams profitable. This is my only point. In a previous post I have shown the projected profitability for small market franchises under a 32 mil cap. Again, my question is how does the league' claim of cost cetainty without revenue certainty help small markets survive long term?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Ha-ha. As you have pointed out free agency under a cap isn't worth money to a player so it is a hollow offer. And concessions involve conceding a demand from the other side. The players have not demanded early free agency.

A bone. Of all the bones they could have picked, picking the one that benefits the big boys doesn't make you wonder?

Tom

I think that lowering the UFA age is a serious benefit to players. It gives them the opportunity to convince 30 GM's that they are worth the money their asking for. All they have to do is fool 1 out of 30 GM's, and they get paid. Until then, they are stuck convincing their GM (who by the way, knows more about them than the other 29 guys) they are worth the $'s.

Lowering the UFA age with a hard cap though doesn't allow for the big market teams to take advantage of their deeper wallets. Almost every team can support a $35M salary cap, so they all will be on the market for UFA players. Now, it's basically the same 6 or 7 teams that sign (or trade for before they become UFA eligible) every major UFA.

How much does Jagr make in endorsements in NY? Companies spend money on endorsement deals because it helps their advertising. With the dismal NHL ratings, I don't think that a major market player would have any sort of advantage in this regard. I just don't see that being enough of an "advantage" that it will destroy the system.

 

[CarlRacki]

My only point is that without meaningful revenue sharing or a new source of revenue like a major tv contract is that a cap does not guarantee profitability for these franchises. Does it give them a more level playing field in which to compete, I think it does but if these franchises are still losing money then I don't see how a cap actually helps them survive long term. Just my two cents.

I have no problem with revenue sharing, I just don't agree that it must be linked to a cap. Would it be better? Probably. But it's not necessary.
And, as I showed, at worst 2-3 teams might lose money under the cap as proposed. But that's assuming league and their individual team revenues don't increase as a result of a more competitively balanced NHL. And if they don't, those teams don't belong in the league.

 

[shnagle]

I have no problem with revenue sharing, I just don't agree that it must be linked to a cap. Would it be better? Probably. But it's not necessary.
And, as I showed, at worst 2-3 teams might lose money under the cap as proposed. But that's assuming league and their individual team revenues don't increase as a result of a more competitively balanced NHL. And if they don't, those teams don't belong in the league.

I don't see where you showed me that only 2-3 teams lose money under a cap situation. Some teams may lose less money but they are still losing money. I just gave you numbers for 11 small market teams and what their profitability might be under a 32 mil cap. How does a cap without real revenue sharing help these market survive long term? By the way, I do think contraction is necessary.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Where are you getting this age 27 from?

It was my guess. The first mention I've seen of it in the media was as one of the latest rumours at Fox.

I've also heard from a reliable media source that the owners are apparently willing to offer up many concessions to the players in exchange for a salary cap, including lowering the UFA eligibility age to 27 and better long-term benefits packages.

But many players are traded away due to salary concerns prior to age 31. That "age 31" arguement is very misleading. What about the 26 year old holdout, looking at the other markets giving the big salaries.

It is not many players. It is very few. That player can file for arbitration and most choose that route rather than a hold out. Player salaries took a real jump at about age 29 under the old system. (Actually they took two real jumps, the first being when they acquire arbitration rights and the second as they approach free agency.) That's when the expensive players get traded.

And even in the case of hold outs, the small market team who trades a player gets a return for him. If a player leaves as a free agent, the player gets the return.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

MLB fought free agency because the previous system was the equivalent to the players being servants. Now, I know that is the system most of the pro-NHL people here would love to have, but it is never coming back. Now, after MLB players won their freedom from the owners, Marvin Miller immediately stepped in with a CBA that restricted players from becoming free agents until they had played 6 years in the league. The owners jumped all over this, but Miller knew exactly what he was doing. By limiting the number of players who would become free agents every year, and ensuring that it would only be seasoned players with some level of success under their belts, he knew that basic supply-and-demand theory would drive up the value of the players. History shows he was exactly right.

I think this was a bogus argument. The justification for the players giving up free agency they had won in the courts was competitive balance. It is the only justification for it.

No matter what system is proposed there will be a very limited supply of free agents each year. There were 90 27 year olds in the NHL last year. There were 60 30 year olds. Most of the extra 27 year old players were not very good - they don't survive until age 30. They are irrelevant. There would be more free agents because guys would be getting free agency more than once, but it would not be a deluge.

Even in an absolutely wide open system there would not be a huge increase in the number of significant free agents because teams would sign the best players to long term contracts.

Even with free agency at age 27 there would not be more than a relative handful of really good players on the market.

Tom

 

[PecaFan]

As for why the NHL proposed the deal, what makes you think that those 1/3 are behind the proposal? If Bettman only needs 8 owners to back him, perhaps he's only looking out for those 8-10 teams.

You've got it backwards. It doesn't take 8 owners to *back* Bettman, it takes 8 to *kill* something. Meaning, it takes the approval of at least 23 owners for a CBA proposal to be ratified.

And I wouldn't be surprised if it took 23 owners just to ok the offers, before they're even shown to the PA.

So again, how are the small market teams saved by a cap that doesn't boost their revenues?

It keeps their expenses down. That's it. There is no revenue growth component to the cap.

Again, for the millionth time, it's *cost* certainty. Not profit certainty. Small market teams will have to work hard, draft well, be run by good management, promote themselves well in their community, and become better to make profits.

 

[PecaFan]

The players did not mention it in their proposal. The NHL proposed a timetable to reduce free agency to 30. A timetable to reduce it a year?

Really Tom. This isn't difficult. You need a timetable, even for only one year, because the timetable sets when the one year happens. Ya know? The *time* when things happen?

NHL Proposal Timetable:

2005: UFA age - 31
2006: UFA age - 31
2007: UFA age - 31
2008: UFA age - 30

Got it?

 

[NYIsles1*]

And that has to change if the NHL is going to ever go big time in the US. How do you do that? Hockey was hot in 1994. Bettman got the NHL their biggest TV deal ever on Fox. Why? The Rangers were coming off the Messier Cup. That didn't make a splash in New York? Gretzky was in LA and they made the Cup Finals in 1993. Chicago made the Finals in 1992 and were in the playoffs every year. Boston was also a perennial contender.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that the league was perceived to be hot when the league had contenders in the big US markets. It is perceived to be on the road to obscurity with the good teams in Ottawa, Tampa, Vancouver, and Colorado.

The NHL has NEVER been considered a big time sport in the US, not in 1994, not when Gretzky played Montrel for a cup as king and not when Chicago lost to the Pens. That's just not going to happen.

Hockey was hot for three weeks in 1994 because three teams gave everyone a great show. A Ranger sweep against New Jersey or Vancouver gives hockey the same boost Detroit winning it's first cup gave hockey. Credit the quality of the play and the seven game series and all the teams. Also credit the millions of fans in Canada that helped drive the ratings. The Rangers were in the 1997
semi-finals with Detroit, Philadelphia and Colorado and those four markets did nothing to make the game more popular as a sport when it was over.

The problem since then is unlike other sports Fox and Abc gave us a decade of Leetch, Yzerman, Roenick and Hull, they never gave the fans a next generation of stars, the decided to show markets, not players and it failed badly. It failed for Espn, Abc and Fox.

Basketball was smart, the showed New Jersey over New York City because Kidd and Martin and Jefferson were better. The Knicks can only get on national television when LeBron James is the opposition these days. ABC even made sure to get the Lebron billboard next to Msg on television last year. Vince Carter was traded to the Nets and has his new billboard in New York City..

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Really Tom. This isn't difficult. You need a timetable, even for only one year, because the timetable sets when the one year happens. Ya know? The *time* when things happen?

Teehee. That's laughable, but okay, I'll take your word for it. This is what Bettman meant when he declared the NHL wanted to liberalize free agency. Drop it by a year over a four year period. Otherwise, the NHL will fight tooth and nail to keep the free agency age high enough to protect the small markets.

We'll see. I hope you won't be too disappointed by the final offer from the league. If it turns out to actually do anything for the small markets, I'll be pleasantly surprised. If it is like the offer they made in December, they want a CBA that is for the big markets by the big markets.

Tom

 

[NYIsles1*]

This Mets claim is flat out wrong, and I've seen you make it over and over. The Mets spent 29 million in 1994, nowhere near the Yankees at 44 million. The Jays were over the 40+ million mark for the third season in a row. Your point is valid that the New York market is different now, but I don't know where this Mets stuff comes from.

Actually your correct, the Mets payroll was 39 million in 1992. There was even a book written about them. " The Worst Team that money can Buy"...

Clearly my point is about the NY market and how things have dramatically changed.

The league could change the playoff formats tomorrow and the Islanders-Rangers could meet for a cup and and would not see more backpages than Mets-Yankees over a week.

If Pedro hit Jeter in a Yankee-Met series it would knock either the Islanders or Rangers winning the cup off the back pages in New York City.

 

[PecaFan]

We'll see. I hope you won't be too disappointed by the final offer from the league. If it turns out to actually do anything for the small markets, I'll be pleasantly surprised. If it is like the offer they made in December, they want a CBA that is for the big markets by the big markets.

If it has cap in it, then everything's fine. That *does* something for the small markets. "Here you go everybody, even playing field." Let the best managed teams be the successful teams.

The cap is the carrot for small market teams, the lack of revenue sharing is the carrot for large market teams. That's why all the owners are behind Gary in this thing.

The only way I'll be disappointed is if the owners cave, and we get a luxury tax. Or status quo.

 

[SENSible1*]

If it has cap in it, then everything's fine. That *does* something for the small markets. "Here you go everybody, even playing field." Let the best managed teams be the successful teams.

The cap is the carrot for small market teams, the lack of revenue sharing is the carrot for large market teams. That's why all the owners are behind Gary in this thing.

The only way I'll be disappointed is if the owners cave, and we get a luxury tax. Or status quo.

Exactly

 

[YellHockey*]

The NHL is offering a 12-month reduction on UFA as a concession. Concessions are frequently made during negotiations (despite what pro-PA folks say about the owners making none). They're throwing the players a bone, that's all.

Why would the owners be giving the players any concessions? I thought the owners were united, and because they're billionaires up against mere millionaires can dictate anything they want (i.e. a salary cap)?

 

[PecaFan]

Why would the owners be giving the players any concessions? I thought the owners were united, and because they're billionaires up against mere millionaires can dictate anything they want (i.e. a salary cap)?

Oh please. You're acting like you're 12. But if you insist.

"Sometimes adults have to ne-go-ti-ate. That's like when someone gives you a dollar to mow the lawn. You get something, but you have to give up something in return."

If the owners are steadfast, you say they're refusing to bargain in good faith. If they offer concessions, you say they're cracking, and no longer united.

You're just showing yourself to be an NHLPA toady.

 

[YellHockey*]

"Sometimes adults have to ne-go-ti-ate. That's like when someone gives you a dollar to mow the lawn. You get something, but you have to give up something in return."

If the owners are steadfast, you say they're refusing to bargain in good faith. If they offer concessions, you say they're cracking, and no longer united.

You're just showing yourself to be an NHLPA toady.

I have said no such thing.

I have read on here from many of the ownership poodles that the players will cave and that they have no leverage because the owners are so much richer then the players. The only reason that the players "won" in the past is that the owners weren't united. But this time the owners are united and the players had better accept whatever the owners are prepared to give them.

If the owners have the players backed into a corner, why are they giving in on something like earlier free agency? Why are they giving in on anything? Much less something that the other side has never asked for? If they were offering a concession, they'd offer something the players have suggested they are interested in.

If blowing holes in the logic of the ownership poodles makes me an NHLPA toady, then so be it. At least I'd be a logical NHLPA toady.

 

[CarlRacki]

I have said no such thing.

I have read on here from many of the ownership poodles that the players will cave and that they have no leverage because the owners are so much richer then the players. The only reason that the players "won" in the past is that the owners weren't united. But this time the owners are united and the players had better accept whatever the owners are prepared to give them.

If the owners have the players backed into a corner, why are they giving in on something like earlier free agency? Why are they giving in on anything? Much less something that the other side has never asked for? If they were offering a concession, they'd offer something the players have suggested they are interested in.

If blowing holes in the logic of the ownership poodles makes me an NHLPA toady, then so be it. At least I'd be a logical NHLPA toady.

Sigh ... because if this going to the NLRB on an impasse declaration, the owners are going to have to show they did some good-faith bargaining. Making concessions on unresricted free agency - long viewed as anthema for owners in every sport - shows bargaining.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Sigh ... because if this going to the NLRB on an impasse declaration, the owners are going to have to show they did some good-faith bargaining. Making concessions on unresricted free agency - long viewed as anthema for owners in every sport - shows bargaining.

i guess for some of you, its more important how the game is being played and not actually working towards a solution.

dr