Is there a way the PA can agree to a cap?

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I'm not sure.
There is no way for the PA to do it, really.
Anyway you slice it, they will take a huge bath in this CBA if they agree.

However, if that's what will happen, then that is what will happen.

So I'm trying to image a cap scenario that is palatable.

1. Doubtful, but would it be possible to agree to the cap on the condition that Bettman is replaced by the start of next season?
Bettman might be finally be able to win a war with the PA. But is record in terms of promoting the sport is abysmal. The players are going to want something close to a guarantee that revenues will increase. Especially tv revenues. And that is an area where Bettman has failed.
Might Bettman simply agree to step aside (triumphantly, with this win)?
It would soothe the players somewhat if he were canned and replaced with a real hockey man.

2. If the PA agrees to a cap, the PA should demand the following:

a) UFA at any age - Why? Why not. If there is a salary cap in place, there is no worry that unrestricted free agency will drive up salaries.

b) No limits on entry salaries: A guy like Sidney Crosby should not be limited in his negotiations. With a cap, there is no worry that entry level salaries will raise salary costs, so why limit entry level salaries (unless GMs need even more protection from their own abilities to assess talent, but with a cap, they have all the protection they need. They might get stuck with a bum for a few years, but at least they shouldn't lose much money)

c)A salary floor reasonably close to a salary cap

d) Since there are no RFAs anymore, there is no need for arbitration.

e) Draft picks not signed by the next draft become automatic UFAs.

The players would obviously be giving up a ton financially if the owners win the cap. In return, they must win something.
Unlimited freedom for those without contract would be the best thing.
The new economic structure wouldn't allow it to drive up costs. So owners should have no problems relinquishing these limitations.

Click to read more...

 

[pacde]

Actually I think I agree with most of those points. Im leaning with the owners, but overall I think your pretty close on a lot of these. Im not in favour of the draft picks re-entering the draft prematurely though.

Im also not against allowing teams to break the cap if they only use players that they have developed in their system. For example, I would set the cap by stating that the team can pay their current players anything they want, but the league will not approve any more contracts for new players (including rookies) signed by that team until they are back under that magic number.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

2. If the PA agrees to a cap, the PA should demand the following:

a) UFA at any age - Why? Why not. If there is a salary cap in place, there is no worry that unrestricted free agency will drive up salaries.

Won't work. In a league where development time is so long and expensive you cannot expect a team to spend a bunch of time and money in developing an asset and not get any productive years out of the player. Football and baseball all have mature players enter the league (21-24 years of age). If the NHLPA wants to have their players play for free during these development years, then that's a possibility. But like any business, when you invest money in developing the individual you expect to see some return for that investment.

Personally I think UFA status at 28 is more than fair. The team gets the first four years of a player's prime in return for development and the player gets the second four years to sell to the highest bidder.

b) No limits on entry salaries: A guy like Sidney Crosby should not be limited in his negotiations. With a cap, there is no worry that entry level salaries will raise salary costs, so why limit entry level salaries (unless GMs need even more protection from their own abilities to assess talent, but with a cap, they have all the protection they need. They might get stuck with a bum for a few years, but at least they shouldn't lose much money)

Another big no. That's really how we got into this mess. Until a young player proves his worth he does not warrant the big money. No other industry works that way and no other successful league works that way either.

c)A salary floor reasonably close to a salary cap

This is exactly what the league has suggested.

d) Since there are no RFAs anymore, there is no need for arbitration.

Arbitration should be dashed period. Its that or all contracts go before an arbitration committee and they decide the salary structure league wide.

e) Draft picks not signed by the next draft become automatic UFAs.

Bump the draft age to 19 or make it two years and you have a deal.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Won't work. In a league where development time is so long and expensive you cannot expect a team to spend a bunch of time and money in developing an asset and not get any productive years out of the player. Football and baseball all have mature players enter the league (21-24 years of age). If the NHLPA wants to have their players play for free during these development years, then that's a possibility. But like any business, when you invest money in developing the individual you expect to see some return for that investment..

All businesses like that. But outside of sports, no businesses get that.
People learn the ropes all the time at one company and then jump ship to another once they have marketable skills.

If the owners have cost-certainty, they're gonna have to give up a lot in return.
If the wings use Henrik Zetterberg, c'est la vie. They can go out and sign Robert Nilsson.

Personally I think UFA status at 28 is more than fair. The team gets the first four years of a player's prime in return for development and the player gets the second four years to sell to the highest bidder...

In the context of the current agreement, you;d be right.
But if players are going to give up 30 percent of their salary and then get it locked their for the forseeable future, it no longer matters.
If you don't want to lose your youngster after three years, sign him to a 7 year deal. If the NHLPA is going to take on 100 percent of the responsibility of fixing the league's mess, then they deserve freedom in return.

Another big no. That's really how we got into this mess. Until a young player proves his worth he does not warrant the big money. No other industry works that way and no other successful league works that way either....

Why not? If you want Sidney Crosby, pay for him. You just don't luck into him for finishing last.
There is no way this could get the ENTIRE league in trouble. The league has already been guaranteed cost-certainty.
WHat is there to fear. Any monkey could find a way to make a profit with what the league is suggesting.
If you don't want to pay Crosby what he's worth, then trade his rights or let him sit for a year and go to another team.
This could potentially devestate the team that signs him to a 7-year-50 Million dollar deal.
But come on, high risk, high reward.
That's life.
How many protectections to these monkey's need.

 

[thinkwild]

How many monkeys indeed

Arbitration should be dashed period. Its that or all contracts go before an arbitration committee and they decide the salary structure league wide.

I think the latter, for RFAs only, might be something to explore

Bump the draft age to 19 or make it two years and you have a deal.

Well this would be a good way of solving the draft problems pending. How about leave at 18, but only 1 round of the draft. Those are the only ones you have a reasonable shot with anyway. Let the rest be UFAs.

 

[thinkwild]

The PA has already agreed to a cap - the rookie cap. But players have many unique skills that make them valuable to a team. And they would like to negotiate that value.

But the rookie cap is used to contain and shape the market towards a more normal salary progression where you start of low and earn your way up. If a cap is selectively used but the overall ability to spend is maintained, a compromise could be found. Tricky, but like the rookie cap - possible.

 

[SENSible1*]

The PA has already agreed to a cap - the rookie cap. But players have many unique skills that make them valuable to a team. And they would like to negotiate that value.

But the rookie cap is used to contain and shape the market towards a more normal salary progression where you start of low and earn your way up. If a cap is selectively used but the overall ability to spend is maintained, a compromise could be found. Tricky, but like the rookie cap - possible.

The players will get to negotiate their % of the teams allotted salaries. If they have unique skills, they will earn a larger % of their teams cap.

Let's not be so foolish as to pretend we are substituting an artificial system for a free market. The move to a linkage simply substitutes one artificial system for another.

 

[codswallop]

The players will get to negotiate their % of the teams allotted salaries. If they have unique skills, they will earn a larger % of their teams cap.

Let's not be so foolish as to pretend we are substituting an artificial system for a free market. The move to a linkage simply substitutes one artificial system for another.

Foolishness is a staple on these boards, heaven forbid we take that right away from some people

I'm tempted to go into an tirade, tackling some of the myths I've seen here about the economic situation pertaining to the NHL. It's a bit annoying to see people talk of free markets and use it as rationale, when the NHL is far from that.

But I suppose something even slightly technical on economics will either be ignored or mis-interpreted (I have precedent on that).

 

[thinkwild]

But I suppose something even slightly technical on economics will either be ignored or mis-interpreted (I have precedent on that).

Why not give it a try. There's some smart people, despite your protestestations in every post that no one knows what they are talking about. Instead of always telling us how smart a grad student you are, and how you could blow us away with the truth if you had the time, give it a shot. Blow us away.

 

[misterjaggers]

Is there a way the PA can agree to a cap?

They must; otherwise you won't recognise hockey when it eventually resumes in dynamited form with replacement players, etc.

The issue is the salary cap; the owners demand it and that's why Bettman is doggedly pursuing it. The owners also wanted expansion because it lined their pockets. Turning Bettman into the pariah is kind of ridiculous. Do you really think he can operate independently from the owners?

 

[codswallop]

Why not give it a try. There's some smart people, despite your protestestations in every post that no one knows what they are talking about. Instead of always telling us how smart a grad student you are, and how you could blow us away with the truth if you had the time, give it a shot. Blow us away.

Don't believe I've ever mentioned anything about being in college right now. Since I'm four or five years past graduate school, wouldn't make too much sense for me to do so. And in case you haven't noticed, in the last month or so (with very few exceptions), I've tried to either give more perspective to the topic at hand or be a peacemaker. Your generalizations and antagonism don't really help the discourse.

I've said on many, many occasions that I don't know sh*t about what is really going on here. None of us do, we simply don't have enough info. I choose not to speculate based on incomplete information, the resulting opinion doesn't carry much if any real weight. Others do, that's fine. Everyone has an opinion. But I see too many posts that have an arrogance about them, they believe what they're saying is actually how it is. I don't, I accept that my knowledge is limited.

I am tempted to try. Previous attempts have been met by crickets or having the topic quickly spun off on another tangent. Not great incentive to try again, but I may. You could actually read an economics textbook and see it for yourself if you didn't want to believe me. The start of what I would say begins with the definition of an oligopolistic market, why the NHL falls in that category, and some basic descriptions of that market. Such as larger firms are capable of influencing price and the firms are aware of their mutual interdependence (ie, they consider the reactions of their rivals in such matters as prices when making decisions).

If I do write about it in full (still up in the air), that will just be a starting point. There would be a fair amount more that I'd include about how some basic economic concepts relate to the NHL. It won't actually give you answers to some of the problems in this labor dispute, it just provides a bit more perspective. That's all I (or any of us for that matter) can realistically give to this debate.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

I was watching Prime Time Sports with Bob M on tv today(didn't get a chance to listen to it on the radio) and Bettman finally guarntees that yes, the NHL is going only for a cap. One of the guys on the show started a question to Gary in this manner: "Gary if you get the cost certainty(I don't remember if he said cap but it's the same thing)"....Gary responded by saying "Well WHEN we get it...etc etc etc.."

 

[Polydorus]

Is there a way the PA can agree to a cap?

With a fair (to both sides) definition of Revenue that is verifiable.

 

[misterjaggers]

Is there a way the PA can agree to a cap?

With a fair (to both sides) definition of Revenue that is verifiable.

They can use a formula similar to what the NFL uses.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Is there a way the PA can agree to a cap?

With a fair (to both sides) definition of Revenue that is verifiable.

The Unions smokescreen excuse about the #'s not being right is a joke now. The NHL wanted an average salary of 1.3M..If the numbers are wrong from the Levitt Report then why did the players give a rollback that almost equaled the NHL average salary? Because they are nice? No b/c a cap is a non starter for those poor chaps. They will do anything to retain the current inflationary system. They are also not budging at all. I can't wait to see their reactions when the season is cancelled. Well I hope it is. Things are totally different this time around. There is no way in hell the owners are going to back down this time like they have 2 times prior already

 

[red devil]

Chris Pronger was on Sportscentre last night and they asked him why he didn't want a linkage between revenues and salaries, or as the PA calls it a hard cap. He said the reason why was because he didn't trust the owners when they said that the contracts would be guaranteed. He said many provisions can put in them such as: buyout clauses, two-way clauses, and IR clauses. He finished be expressing that if a player would sign a 3-year contract, he could end up just getting paid for 1-year.

I believe that Pronger is player rep., so he may be expressing how the union feels towards linkage. If this is the main complaint between linkage, then the owners must find a way to prove to the PA that all contracts will be guaranteed. I understand why the players don't want to give up contracts, because they are the only form of job security they have, especially for the lower tier players. The solution to this should easier, and then if the players feel teams should pay players in a more of a free market system. This is presuming that Pronger is expressing the thoughts of the association, not his own personal thoughts.

 

[chara]

Yes, they will eventually accept a cap.

They'll be painted as heroes for making this ultimate sacrifice and doing "what's best for the game." In the end, they have to be the heroes of this battle for the game to succeed. No one in their right mind has a poster of Gary Bettman or Bob Goodenow on their walls.

 

[me2]

Chris Pronger [blah blah blah] He said many provisions can put in them such as: buyout clauses, two-way clauses, and IR clauses.

a) How exactly is that different from the old CBA?

b) what exactly is the NHLPA doing to allow new clauses in any negotiated CBA

If that is worst the players are worried about that then they are either lying or have no confidence in Goodenow.