How would the NHL receive a NHLPA proposal that..

[kdb209]

The NHL contracts arent guaranteed either. They can be bought out. Two way contracts allow greater flexibility

NO. NHL contracts are guaranteed - the buyout clauses are pretty steep, like 2/3's of remaining salary. In the NFL, the contracts are not guaranteed whatsoever. An NFL team decides it doesn't like you, it can cut you and owe you zero, zip, nada on the remaining years of the deal. The only guaranteed money in the NFL is the up front signing bonus. Two way contracts are pretty limited in the NHL - QO and arbitration offers cannot be two-way and after a certain amount of experience, a player must clear waivers to sent down, making two-way contracts not really effective.

 

[Timmy]

I think my proposal really puts the posters here a chance to look inside themselves and what they are supporting ..

Many want Replacements and would support that, is this really any different then replacements at the NHL level but just with PRO players at the NHL level ..

This solution with a negotiated CBA to the owners and all the young players still under the UFA the property of the current team ..

when posters reflect on their feelings on this work stoppage ..


.

When I look inside myself all I want is viable, healthy league that is competitive, and where I don't have to live in Boston or New York to be able to tell my son that our team has a shot this year.

I believe the owners have scrapped the season in order to bring a minority of owners into line in order to save their teams, and the league as a whole, in the long run. If a proposal had been offered to them which they thought they could survive under, they would have taken it.

If somebody came to me and told me that I had to shell out 75% of my revenues to employees (who are the product in my company, btw), I'd close up shop and go back to being a one-man band.

If somebody told me that I had to shell out 60% of my revenues to employees, but that my salary costs were going to increase more quickly than my revenues, I'd close up shop.

Therefore, the owners are, through their appointed spokesperson Bettman, ensuring that a deal is done on their terms, which will give each team a chance to survive.

I support this, not the owners.

I don't care if the players feel put-upon, exploited, maltreated, underappreciated, insulted, underpaid, under-utilized, martyred, unfairly criticized, misunderstood, or generally upset with the world.

I want a healthy NHL. In ten years most of these players will be gone, and the next generation are currently in grade 9. We don't know their names yet, but we do know the league in which we want to watch them compete against each other.

I don't think players are overpaid. But I do think that some owners overspend, and they have to be brought in line by brute force, which is what is happening now.

And I look forward to taking my son (and daughter, if she wants to go) to an NHL game like my father took me when I was a kid.

 

[Digger12]

When I look inside myself all I want is viable, healthy league that is competitive, and where I don't have to live in Boston or New York to be able to tell my son that our team has a shot this year.

I believe the owners have scrapped the season in order to bring a minority of owners into line in order to save their teams, and the league as a whole, in the long run. If a proposal had been offered to them which they thought they could survive under, they would have taken it.

If somebody came to me and told me that I had to shell out 75% of my revenues to employees (who are the product in my company, btw), I'd close up shop and go back to being a one-man band.

If somebody told me that I had to shell out 60% of my revenues to employees, but that my salary costs were going to increase more quickly than my revenues, I'd close up shop.

Therefore, the owners are, through their appointed spokesperson Bettman, ensuring that a deal is done on their terms, which will give each team a chance to survive.

I support this, not the owners.

I don't care if the players feel put-upon, exploited, maltreated, underappreciated, insulted, underpaid, under-utilized, martyred, unfairly criticized, misunderstood, or generally upset with the world.

I want a healthy NHL. In ten years most of these players will be gone, and the next generation are currently in grade 9. We don't know their names yet, but we do know the league in which we want to watch them compete against each other.

I don't think players are overpaid. But I do think that some owners overspend, and they have to be brought in line by brute force, which is what is happening now.

And I look forward to taking my son (and daughter, if she wants to go) to an NHL game like my father took me when I was a kid.

This encapsulates how I've looked at these last 7 months to the letter.

All I want is a healthy NHL...and if that means siding with the owners because I feel their plan has a greater chance of making this happen, than that is all there is to it.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Kind of funny, isn't it, that this thread obviously started as a pro-PA 'gotcha' thread to the pro-owners camp and turned into what it did. Kind of shows how the pro-PA crowd thinks about the owners and their supporters. The distrust of underlying motives may explain much about why we are where we are.

 

[guymez]

When I look inside myself all I want is viable, healthy league that is competitive, and where I don't have to live in Boston or New York to be able to tell my son that our team has a shot this year.

I believe the owners have scrapped the season in order to bring a minority of owners into line in order to save their teams, and the league as a whole, in the long run. If a proposal had been offered to them which they thought they could survive under, they would have taken it.

If somebody came to me and told me that I had to shell out 75% of my revenues to employees (who are the product in my company, btw), I'd close up shop and go back to being a one-man band.

If somebody told me that I had to shell out 60% of my revenues to employees, but that my salary costs were going to increase more quickly than my revenues, I'd close up shop.

Therefore, the owners are, through their appointed spokesperson Bettman, ensuring that a deal is done on their terms, which will give each team a chance to survive.

I support this, not the owners.

I don't care if the players feel put-upon, exploited, maltreated, underappreciated, insulted, underpaid, under-utilized, martyred, unfairly criticized, misunderstood, or generally upset with the world.

I want a healthy NHL. In ten years most of these players will be gone, and the next generation are currently in grade 9. We don't know their names yet, but we do know the league in which we want to watch them compete against each other.

I don't think players are overpaid. But I do think that some owners overspend, and they have to be brought in line by brute force, which is what is happening now.

And I look forward to taking my son (and daughter, if she wants to go) to an NHL game like my father took me when I was a kid.

Solid post Timmy.
I think you have outlined how a lot of people (including myself) are looking at this issue. If people want to portray this as pro owner...so be it.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

I think it is in the NHL's best interest to make adjustments to unrestricted Free Agency. Part of the problem is the limited number of quality free agents available without compensation. If the NHL could create a more favourable supply/demand, teams may not be compelled to spend as foolishly on marginal players. The stars would still be paid greatly, but the salaries for the place holder players on rosters would come down to the minimum.

I think I put forth before a system where players sign 4-5 year terms as entry level players, play where they are drafted and get unrestricted free agency at the end of their first contract. I think I also had stipulated that they would have to sign on for 5 years when they got to choose where they worked.

 

[mooseOAK*]

So What ??

The owners are all making money in the New NHL with a Cap and they called players Auto workers and interchangeable ..

So teams develope young players then others ... If a team loses a young player then that they spent time on then they can go an replace him with another that someone else has ..

Not all teams will make the big a deal out of that .. Joe Sakic and Nik Lidstrom and Jerome Iginla to build around will be just as likely as a 24 year old player. If a team choses to go after the younger player and give him the big money then they are passing up other players and NHL STARS that can just as easily make them money which really this is all about ..

Then as GM of my team I will trade all of my draft picks and scrap my whole farm system and sign who I like after they turn 24 and become UFA's.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

In the NFL the draft age is basically 20, which is a huge difference from evaluating 17 year olds like the NHL. If we are going to lower the UFA age to something like 24, they should raise the draft eligible age to 20.

 

[Mess]

This encapsulates how I've looked at these last 7 months to the letter.

All I want is a healthy NHL...and if that means siding with the owners because I feel their plan has a greater chance of making this happen, than that is all there is to it.

But this really isn't about explain what side you support of why .. We are all fans and the common goal is that we want NHL hockey back ..

This is about deciding what it would take for that to happen ..

I have been far more generous here then the NHLPA is ever going to be and still many people feel that this is not fair ..

This does address all the owners issues and ON ICE PARITY as well ..

So where is the Solution .. ??

 

[mackdogs*]

So where is the Solution .. ??

55% of third party audited numbers.
Drop the puck.

 

[Digger12]

But this really isn't about explain what side you support of why .. We are all fans and the common goal is that we want NHL hockey back ..

This is about deciding what it would take for that to happen ..

I have been far more generous here then the NHLPA is ever going to be and still many people feel that this is not fair ..

This does address all the owners issues and ON ICE PARITY as well ..

So where is the Solution .. ??

I never said I didn't like your solution, but since it's a figment of your imagination and not an official NHLPA proposal, I'm really not that interested in playing hypothetical ping-pong.

Wake me up when there's something REAL.

 

[Timmy]

I never said I didn't like your solution, but since it's a figment of your imagination and not an official NHLPA proposal, I'm really not that interested in playing hypothetical ping-pong.

Wake me up when there's something REAL.

I like whatever future deal the required number of owners decide is good enough for them to sustain the league into the future.

 

[Shawnski]

So where is the Solution .. ??

First of all, thanks for making an attempt at a solution. Beats the hell out of the "I'm right, you're wrong" BS that has clogged most threads here.

I sent the following e-mail to a well respected and balance hockey writer (whom will remain unnamed at this point). Within 30 minutes I received this reply:

shawn: i like your idea a lot. at some point, with your permission, i'll float it out there.

Here is the body of the email:

Having a compensation background (worked with a major cellular provider in a
management position, in charge of compensating all the dealers for sales
activity) and also having some bargaining background within that same
company (as a union VP), and lastly, following all the rhetoric from both
sides, I fail to see how they cannot find a simple middle ground such as:

Initial Salary Floor of $25 million.
Initial Salary Cap of $40 million.
**Ability to trade for cap space that will allow a club to spend up to $47.5
million.

This last point is very simple, (that KISS principle has always been a
favourite of mine). If a team like Toronto wants to exceed the $40 million,
they can buy space from other clubs at a cost of $1.5 million for each $1
million in space. The team that is selling the space has their floor raised
by $1 million for each $1 million in cap they sell. This is a form of
volunteer revenue sharing, which does not in anyway require any financial
reporting by the clubs. It also allows larger markets, who do have higher
revenues to retain a slight benefit for having those revenues.

Here is an example.

Pittsburgh sells the Leafs $7.5 million in cap space. The Leafs now have the
maximum of $47.5 to spend. The Leafs send Pittsburgh $11.25 million in cash
for this ability. Should the Leafs spend to their limit, it will cost them a
total of $58.75 million for a $47.5 payroll.

Pittsburgh now has a floor of $32.5 million, but the first $11.25 million
has already been covered by the Leafs transaction (thus reducing the amount
they are out of pocket to a minimum of $21.25 million.) They could field a
more competitive team.

This solution is quite simple, and can address each market individually, and
on their individual terms.

The NHL gets its cost certainty, and the NHLPA gets a variable market to
some degree. Larger markets get to spend a little more if they like, but not
to a significant detriment to smaller markets. The effective salary range is
$25 million to $47.5 million.

I am not pretending that those numbers are not "hard and fast", just that
the concept is sound.

To your knowledge, has anything like this been proposed?

Comments?

 

[Mess]

In the NFL the draft age is basically 20, which is a huge difference from evaluating 17 year olds like the NHL. If we are going to lower the UFA age to something like 24, they should raise the draft eligible age to 20.

While you statement is true ..

What really is the difference .. A NFL team drafts a player at 20 and retains his rights until he is 24

The NHL drafts at 17-18 and retains the player until he is 24 .. The NHL would have the advantage of a few extra years ..

The biggest difference is potential at 18 verses 20 .. but still no guarantees.. Even in the NFL do they draft their Cade McNown's, and Akili Smith's and Ryan Leaf's etc ..

 

[Phanuthier*]

I would jump all over it faster then a fast chick on a smartie.

The NFL model is ideally what the NHL wants.

 

[mooseOAK*]

While you statement is true ..

What really is the difference .. A NFL team drafts a player at 20 and retains his rights until he is 24

The NHL drafts at 17-18 and retains the player until he is 24 .. The NHL would have the advantage of a few extra years ..

The biggest difference is potential at 18 verses 20 .. but still no guarantees.. Even in the NFL do they draft their Cade McNown's, and Akili Smith's and Ryan Leaf's etc ..

The average NFL career is also 3 years and the NHL's is 5 years so it is more imperative that the football player maximize his earning potential while he is still around so they do deserve younger free agency ages.

 

[EricBowser]

Let me just say, if the NHLPA offered the hard cap range of $30-40 million, the NHL would be crazy to say no to that aspect of the CBA.

I think UFA should be attained after 7 NHL seasons or by the age of 27. This is more than fair for both sides. The first four years are locked into the ELC standards and then final 3 years need to have some kind of mechanism to force team/player to an agreement.

Maybe a roster deadline by October to be eligible to play that season if your rights are owned, UFAs would still be allowed to sign a contract before the trade deadline.

The NHLPA doing something that forces the NHL to react would be a great move to block the impasse and maybe gain some fan support/pressure for an agreement.

 

[me2]

resembled the NFL model.

I wonder what the NHL would do with a proposal from the NHPA that offered UFA at say age 24, that would eliminate the need for Arbitration and Qualifying offers in the new CBA, which are the 2 biggest systemic problems of the old CBA for escalating Salaries...

If they combined that with a Hard Cap floor at 30 mil min and a 40 mil max Ceiling, and could leave Revenue sharing up to the NHL to decide how to compensate for different markets.

As we know the main trade-off in the NFL Hard Cap world to eliminate anti-trust claims was to not restrict the players within a Hard Cap World..

If the NHL does want a NFL system then they have to take the good with the bad .. NO??

I wonder how the NLRB would rule?? ..

The owners are getting their Hard Cap to become profitable and an offer like that could never be considered Bad Faith bargaining if its based on a present working sports system. It also addresses the on Ice Parity issue if the cap range was say $30 min - 40 mil max.

It does address all the NHL concerns and demands.

Why not. Works for both sides. Heck I follow sports that have salary caps and no RFA/draft. All UFA isn't scarey at all. If you are going to have a draft, I think 6 years (20+ per year) or 26 for UFAs.

Expect to see a lot of goalies get ignored in the 1st few rounds.

 

[Mess]

The average NFL career is also 3 years and the NHL's is 5 years so it is more imperative that the football player maximize his earning potential while he is still around so they do deserve younger free agency ages.

The Trade off is no Salary Arbitration issues , No Qualifying Issue the two biggest systemic problems with the first major 24% rollback proposal offer that the NHL said would not work ..

The trade off is UFA .. I wonder which is more important to the OWNERS ..

Keeping in mind they feel the players are Auto Workers and that quote certainly will come up often if this went to the NLRB or other people making decisions ..

Next to Football ..Hockey certainly is the next most physical of the major sports .. and careers are short .. No sure if AVERAGE would be a good argument against younger UFA for Hockey players .. Career ending injuries can happen at any time so ..

Even in this UFA Free Society ..bad contracts by GM's don't even factor in .. So what if some GM gave Holik or Guerin or Doug Weight too big a previous deal .. No agent can use that in negotiating as a tactic as RFA comparison and with NO Arbitration.. NO court ruling to give a player a 100 % raise when he is compared to his peers .. In this system the agent and player simply try to get the MAX they can for their player and are restricted by available Cap room by team ...

Who knows maybe a minor twist could be that the former team has the right to match any offer a player receives between the ages of 24-26 lets say. That way the players market value is set by the NHL and not arbitration .. Hardline owners would have to match or lose the player and go elsewhere for a replacement .. From the players point of view .. Why move if you get the same money to stay .. and teams can't play games as they risk that the former team will not match so they better be prepared to make sure any offer fits into their cap system .. That makes TOTAL UFA at 27 years old ..

 

[Guest]

I can't say I am against this idea in principal at all. I think you have to consider the numbers we are talking about, and I think age 24 is perhaps a little too young to give UFA, otherwise there is almost no reason to have a draft as most players would be free agents before they were fully developed. I like the idea of having the entry level contract worth 3 years, and then maybe another additional contract worth up to another 3 years. Then for the superstars who enter the league at 18, if they can get past a franchise tag exempting them from unrestricted free agency, they could play the market at 24. Most players who start playing in the NHL at age 20-22 would then not become unrestricted free agents until age 26-28. That would allow teams to develop players and get a short term return on their investment, as well as the superstars to explore the market if they are not franchise tagged.

I really think there should be more revenue sharing in the NHL as I think it would be the ultimate solution, but I'm not holding my breath anymore.

 

[vadardog]

First of all, thanks for making an attempt at a solution. Beats the hell out of the "I'm right, you're wrong" BS that has clogged most threads here.

I sent the following e-mail to a well respected and balance hockey writer (whom will remain unnamed at this point). Within 30 minutes I received this reply:

shawn: i like your idea a lot. at some point, with your permission, i'll float it out there.

Here is the body of the email:

Having a compensation background (worked with a major cellular provider in a
management position, in charge of compensating all the dealers for sales
activity) and also having some bargaining background within that same
company (as a union VP), and lastly, following all the rhetoric from both
sides, I fail to see how they cannot find a simple middle ground such as:

Initial Salary Floor of $25 million.
Initial Salary Cap of $40 million.
**Ability to trade for cap space that will allow a club to spend up to $47.5
million.

This last point is very simple, (that KISS principle has always been a
favourite of mine). If a team like Toronto wants to exceed the $40 million,
they can buy space from other clubs at a cost of $1.5 million for each $1
million in space. The team that is selling the space has their floor raised
by $1 million for each $1 million in cap they sell. This is a form of
volunteer revenue sharing, which does not in anyway require any financial
reporting by the clubs. It also allows larger markets, who do have higher
revenues to retain a slight benefit for having those revenues.

Here is an example.

Pittsburgh sells the Leafs $7.5 million in cap space. The Leafs now have the
maximum of $47.5 to spend. The Leafs send Pittsburgh $11.25 million in cash
for this ability. Should the Leafs spend to their limit, it will cost them a
total of $58.75 million for a $47.5 payroll.

Pittsburgh now has a floor of $32.5 million, but the first $11.25 million
has already been covered by the Leafs transaction (thus reducing the amount
they are out of pocket to a minimum of $21.25 million.) They could field a
more competitive team.

This solution is quite simple, and can address each market individually, and
on their individual terms.

The NHL gets its cost certainty, and the NHLPA gets a variable market to
some degree. Larger markets get to spend a little more if they like, but not
to a significant detriment to smaller markets. The effective salary range is
$25 million to $47.5 million.

I am not pretending that those numbers are not "hard and fast", just that
the concept is sound.

To your knowledge, has anything like this been proposed?

Comments?

Best suggestion I've read.

 

[Shawnski]

In said example, the Penguins could sell off $7.5 million of their cap to Toronto, and $7.5 million of their cap to New York for a profit of $22.5 million.

Not exactly. IF, in the example above, they sell $7.5 million to Toronto, their floor is $32.5 million as well as their cap (since they parted with $7.5 to Toronto).

They would not have another $7.5 to sell to New York.

They would probably have to field a roster around $30-31 million, and pay additional "bonuses" to get to exactly $32.5. It is the worst case scenario, for a team that wants to sell the max cap.

I think it would work though. Getting great feedback from all that I have discussed it with...

Thanks for YOUR feedback.

 

[Guest]

Not exactly. IF, in the example above, they sell $7.5 million to Toronto, their floor is $32.5 million as well as their cap (since they parted with $7.5 to Toronto).

They would not have another $7.5 to sell to New York.

They would probably have to field a roster around $30-31 million, and pay additional "bonuses" to get to exactly $32.5. It is the worst case scenario, for a team that wants to sell the max cap.

I think it would work though. Getting great feedback from all that I have discussed it with...

Thanks for YOUR feedback.

My apologies, I must have missed the part where it said that a MAX of $7.5 million could be sold, and that in turn makes the floor go up equally as well. That allows for an even distribution where you could essentially have 15 teams sell their cap surpluss for $11.25 million and you end up with up to 15 teams at $32.5 Million, and no more than 15 teams at $47.5 million in a maxed out world. That allows the NHLPA to get the biggest piece of the pie it can, if it can count on half of the league buying up the cap surplus. I'm sure the NHLPA would try to make it a dollar for dollar exchange, or less to acquire the cap surplus, and that would be a negotiating point.

Under such a system, I wouldn't like to see cap surplus bought or sold beyond a years time. Considering the structure of the arangement, it's balanced, and a team should be able to find a seller every year it requires.

 

[Shawnski]

Yes Converse, totally year to year. NO multiple year selling of cap (but, hey, a handshake agreement for two or three years could occur).

Free market. Make business judgements on the fly within each season. Think you have a shot at the Cup? Perhaps there is a pending UFA or two that would not put you over the cap for the year (but what do you do NEXT year....) More business management would be allocated to the teams.

And sorry about the clarity of selling cap. Assumed it was clear that cap sold would be removed from the cap limit.

All in all, it would certainly make things interesting though.

 

[me2]

To your knowledge, has anything like this been proposed?[/I]

It was talked about a while ago on HF but its still a novel approach that needs some more consideration because it could work.

Comments?

While the ceiling of the seller must come down, I don't think the floor should come up. It should stay at $25m (or whatever it was originally set to). The seller would than have $25m-$32.5, which should be enough range to keep things even.

The main problem is working out who gets to sell space. If 5 buyers and 6 sellers, is it fair that 1 seller misses out? If there are 7 buyers and 4 sellers, is it fair 3 buyers miss out. I wouldn't mind seeing the sold cap space pooled and then distributed from there. That way all the buyers get a chunk and all the sellers get a bit back.