How far are you willing to see the owners push their agenda?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
me2 said:
But there is nothing stopping Igilna from asking for $10m in arbitration. If he's one of the best players and previous best players got $10m it stands to reason the NHLPA would make sure he'd ask for it in arbitration.

Joe Thornton went to arbitration and he is arguable as good and acomplished as Iginla. In fact, he may be the one and only player who can be compared to Iginla.

His award was 5.5m (correct me if i am wrong). How do you figure Iginla could ask for 10 and win ? There is a reason Iginla doesnt file for arbitration and its because he would be compared to Thornton at 5.5m. (edit: potentially 5.5m minus 24%)

no ?

DR
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Who would Iginla point to as a comparable to get $10mil?

I still think there should be room to lock in the RFA salaries, or guarantee the comparables schedule maximums so that Iginla' salary is set pretty much on the schedule of salaries set after the roll back. And they could even tie raises in the maximum RFA salary to revenues through some formula. I dont see why it couldnt be done for RFAs. As long as players still have the opportunity for true free agency at some time in their career. I think thats pretty much what the PAs offer was, but maybe there is room here to do something with guarantees.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Thornton got $6.75 million.
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/sports/3661792/detail.html

Iginla is way better than Thornton, has led his team to the Cup final, has already won the Richard trophy twice.

Iggy gets $7.5 million in arbitration easily, maybe even $8.0. And that's right now. In a year or two, after some more contracts get decided? Wouldn't surprise me at all to see an award of $10 million.

Iggy wouldn't get $7.5 million.

With Thornton getting $6.75, that figure gets reduced down to $5.13 million. Iginla would be lucky to get more than $6 million.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
Thornton got $6.75 million.
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/sports/3661792/detail.html

Iginla is way better than Thornton, has led his team to the Cup final, has already won the Richard trophy twice.

Iggy gets $7.5 million in arbitration easily, maybe even $8.0. And that's right now. In a year or two, after some more contracts get decided? Wouldn't surprise me at all to see an award of $10 million.

and the problem with Iginla getting 10m is what ?

ok, JT got 6.75m, but its now 5m with the paycut. How do you figure JI can ask for 7.5m ?

look, i get it that the owners ar exterting their power, but i dont see why everyone claims the sky is falling with the players offer.

in my estimate it puts the stars salaries back 10 years. 10 years ago, Pavel Bure was arguably the biggest star forward in the NHL and he signed a spanking new contract for 5.5m. Iginla might sign for give or take close and we are 10 years back.

Doesnt this give the owners 10 years to get their revenue up to a place that can support the salaries the players are earning today ?

its not so chicken little, although i understand completly why the owners choose to refuse it.

dr
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
thinkwild said:
Who would Iginla point to as a comparable to get $10mil?

Look around as RFAs that were near the top in goals and points, you have to spread it over a few years because there aren't a lot a his level.

Keith Tkachuk: you can't argue Igilna isn't every bit as good. Tkachuk was an RFA when signed his 4 year $40m deal.

Doug Weight

Paul Kariya

Pavel Bure

Forsberg: Igilna's not that good but he's not that far behind either after his big playoff run and he's healthy.

All of these are comparables in Igilna's sphere. Whether the arbitrator rules these out for various reason would be up for argument (Tkachuk was approaching UFA but still RFA, Bure and Kariya were a fair while ago, etc). I'd certainly try to use them if I was Igilna's agent in arbitration if they were acceptable.

I still think there should be room to lock in the RFA salaries, or guarantee the comparables schedule maximums so that Iginla' salary is set pretty much on the schedule of salaries set after the roll back.

If you fix payscales based on the rollback, relative to inflation to be fair, then teams know exactly how much things cost. Now you are coming dangerously close to cost certainty and the NHLPA has rejected that. Its recent offer has decidedly sidestepped the issue, and the NHLPA aren't fools that did that by accident.
 

Scoot

Registered User
Jun 5, 2004
1,041
0
Texas
thinkwild said:
Why should Atlanta have the right to buy what detroit built? They have the ability to build it too. Thats whats fair. Once they have 5 years of deep playoff rounds, 70 playoff gates under their belt, the scores of interest, seellouts, new season ticket sales, concessions that go along with it, Atlanta will be in a position to spend that money like Detroit earned the right to do.

Detroit didn't build it, Detroit BOUGHT it, :shakehead and this is why there needs to be a salary cap to stop the Detroits, Leafs, Flyers, Avs from buying smaller market teams talent that they have developed through their farm systems, it's unfair. :banghead:
 

Scoot

Registered User
Jun 5, 2004
1,041
0
Texas
No problem with spending under a cap, but spending sprees to make up for bad management will have ended. The teams that manage themselves best will be the dominat teams and a new generation of stars will emerge in whatever markets they play.[/QUOTE]

Like the big spenders, Det, Col, Tor, Phi, The only reason these teams remain competative is because they can buy their way into it. :yo:

Like the New Jersey Devils :handclap:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->