If the owners backed away from a CAP...Would the PA

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by BLONG7, Jan 22, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,759
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    live without guranteed contracts? If they wont give in on the cap, would they let the owners fix their financial blunders by walking away from a contract at seasons end once they realize that Player A is not worth 6M per season??? Any thoughts?
     
  2. Benji Frank

    Benji Frank Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    Personally, I think non-guarenteed contracts is worse for small markets....

    You'll have a team like the Rangers giving superstar XXX 40 mill for 3 years and at the end of one, and if it doesn't work out, just kissing him goodbye after 1 season... then the Blues will offer Superstar BBB 14 mill for 2 seasons to replace Pronger & realize nah he ain't all that either....

    I like it now whre teams like Philly, Dallas and the Rangers gotta be stuck with their Leclair's, Holik's & Turgeon's........ even moreso under any sort of soft or hard cap system..........
     
  3. nyr34

    nyr34 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I doubt the PA would give up the guaranteed contracts, but here's something I'd rather see implemented: how about a contract totally based on incentives? I mean instead of negotitating what a player would make per year, how about per goal, point, etc.? I'm just throwing and idea out here...
     
  4. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,759
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    Teams and GM's have tried to stray from individual performances and tried to have team incentives...It does have it's merit though, maybe everyone on this board should be involved in the new CBA, at least we are trying to come up with something new, and creative...the bottom line is both sides see each other as being inflexible...
     
  5. Sanderson

    Sanderson Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Messages:
    5,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Home Page:
    Hey, I just thought about that as well. Made a system like that just for fun, basically everything is regulated by what the player brought to the team.

    The only negative: A superb season might ruin a small-market team, because they can't pay all the incentives.
     
  6. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    I have mixed feelings on the guaranteed contracts. Guaranteed contract or not, if a player wants a trade or thinks he deserves a better contract, he will do what he wants anyway. No matter what the player does, the team is still going to try to get something for that player by making a trade of some sort. Few teams will just let a player walk away whether contracts are guaranteed or not. If a team let's a player walk like that, he is just negotiates with the team he wanted a deal with, and the team gets nothing.

    A better deal for the owners would be to keep guaranteed contracts, but all contracts had to be two ways. This way, if a player thinks he can float and the team will eventually trade him, the team has the option to send him to the AHL and he can float down there. There can be some kind of appeal system so that the team can only do this if a player is not performing at the level expected when the contract was signed and not just so the team can save money.
     
  7. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It works only in bonuses, I don't think it could work as far as determining what that player actually makes per season. You have to remember this is their salary, this is how they make they're living. If I am Jan Hlavac and I can't put the puck in the net for most of the season and then I am continually a healthy scratch, what do I do? The players salaries they have to live on would vary too much from year to year. Imagine if you worked for a salary like that. It's just not reasonable.

    It would also cause too many problems between players and coaches and the players themselves. A coach would have complete control over that players income, he could easily scratch a player for the majority of a season, and the player wouldn't make ****. On the other hand, would teammates really be teammates? If I were in the situation, I would want to win, but even more than that I would want to be the one to score the goals for my line. We might see more selfishness on the ice than ever before.

    And what about the 3rd line player who doesn't score many goals but is vital to the success of the team? How do you pay him? Hockey is not an individual sport and many of the things a player does on the ice to help his team can't be quantified.

    And, on top of all of that, the integrity of the game would be killed. Why wouldn't players let certain players score if it meant money for them? If my team is up 5-1 in the third, what's the harm of letting a friend if mine on the other team score a goal? What if that friend of mine said, if your up let me get some shots and if I score I'll give you half of that money.

    Too many problems to come out of a system where players are paid only on performance.
     
  8. Sanderson

    Sanderson Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Messages:
    5,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Home Page:
    I think there might be some ways to pay a third lines what he's worth.
    First, you have a base salary, you add money for the amount of games, icetime, icetime shorthanded and certain amount for team-success. Like $50,000 per player for the best team of each month or something like that.
    He maybe wouldn't get as much as scorers would, but that's not unusual.
     
  9. HF2002

    HF2002 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    You might see more selfishness, I mean it's a reasonable expectation, but I think after a short while the players will just play. You can't get to the NHL and suddenly try to be a different type of player or else you simply won't get on the ice.

    Never the less, you can't have a players contract based entirely on a performance bonus type of system. It's a team sport and you could run into a lot of problems. It works in tennis and golf because you never have to rely on a teammate. Except in doubles play and pro/am best ball tournaments. Well, you get the idea though...
     
  10. Trottier

    Trottier Very Random

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    29,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Marketing Executive
    Location:
    San Diego
    Home Page:
    I understand your thinking, but the flaw in that system is that it will incent players to be selfish in a sport that is the epitome of teamwork. You do not want to promote a "me, me, me" attitude among players. We see enough of that in the NBA already. Guys don't talk about their individual stats in the NHL, they talk about winning the Cup. That's different than other leagues and it's a very good thing.

    A variation on the original thought in this thread (non-guaranteed contracts) is to lessen the financial burden for teams jettisoning players (i.e., instead of having to buy out 2/3s of the remaining salary, make it, 1/2), while at the same time putting a cap on just how much salary each team can choose to divest ("cut") annually.
     
  11. Holy irony Batman. A cap is a terrible thing and is the bane of the NHL's existence, but what do you suggest, a salary cap on how much salary can be divested each year. The irony of that is just unbelievable.

    :eek:
     
  12. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No relation between the 2.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"