Larry Brooks Slapshots 6/5

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by RangerBoy, Jun 5, 2005.

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

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,709
    Likes Received:
    2,257
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    Larry Brooks defends Bob Goodenow and compliments the NHL at the same time

    Not until now, with the league's cooler heads finally prevailing upon the radical hardliners, has the NHL moved off its non-negotiable position that would have eviscerated player protections in these essential systemic categories. Not until now has the league committed to the PA's version of qualifiers and salary arb.

    Goodenow may not be a hero here. He may not keep his job once this settled; might choose not to, in fact. But before demonizing him and the union, an understanding the context of the landscape under which he and the PA operated last year might be valuable.


    The 24% rollback will hurt some players but benefit the rest of the players

    Obviously players under contract who have apparently lost last season's pay are mighty disturbed that they'll still have to take the 24 percent rollback the union originally offered in order to avoid a cap, but will be included anyway in the new CBA

    But those players not under contract stand to benefit from the rollback, with approximately $158.5M in previously committed monies (that the projection supplied by the PA in December) now freed to be spent within the hard-cap system.

    Yes, some players will lose. Significantly. But others stand to gain. Meaningfully.


    Should players on Injured Reserve count against the cap?Apparently NHL negotiating committee is also split on this issue

    The issue of whether to count the contracts of players on Injured Reserve against the hard cap somehow continues to be a subject of debate, not only between the parties but among the NHL negotiators, themselves.

    Understand this. Counting IR contracts against the cap doesn't penalize players, it penalizes the fans, those people the lockout was originally supposed to be about. Remember?

    It's going to be difficult enough to make trades under a hard cap system. Counting IR contracts under the cap will make it impossible.


    http://www.nypost.com/sports/47768.htm

    What does IR mean?Is it the current NHL IR?Or does the NHL need to establish another injured reserve system such as the NFL when the player is put on IR at any point during the season,the player can not play that season?
     
  2. LPHabsFan

    LPHabsFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Montreal
    Home Page:
    He's half right. At the same time that the NHL's hardliners have taken a back seat, so have the PA's. It's also hard not to see the bias from this towards Goodenow rather than the PA. If he truly cared about the PA, he would be going on and on about how it has been the players who have brought forth this new proposal that is going to save the league from desctruction and blah blah blah. But instead, he is talking about Goodenow might not even want to keep his job as if the job is useless. If this really is endgame then it's time the media blitz starts happening to get the public perception of the players away from being simply greedy *******. Make them look like the hero's by continually saying it was them who saved the league.
     
  3. Munchausen

    Munchausen Guest

    Continually saying it won't make it so. Even if you think it does, how can you praise a party for resurrecting what they have previously destroyed? I'm not talking PA only here, I'm talking both sides, how they threw the league in the gutter for financial reasons, without any consideration for its health or the fans. So no, thank you, but I'll pass on calling any of those dimwits a hero. A bit late for that.
     
  4. LPHabsFan

    LPHabsFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Montreal
    Home Page:
    To add a joke here, If marketing can make people buy $3 bottles of water, marketing can make the players look good.

    But the key part is getting across the point that it was never solely the players fault that either led to, or extended the lockout. To simplify it, the owners were stupid to pay the players that much, and the players were stupid to continually demand those high salaries starting a few years ago when it was clear that there were the beginning of economic troubles. And for extending the lockout, the owners have been stupid by not willing to negotiate by not getting off its hardline stance on cap and linkage and then screwing the players over in QO and arbitration, while the players have been stupid by not getting off it's no cap, no linkage, no actual looking at the financial books of the league.

    The reason companies spend millions of dollars on marketing is because it works. They can make the players look like the good guys if they wanted to.
     
  5. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    In fact, the IR is an obvious loophole to circumvent a cap if the NHL allows it. Teams could put guys on the IR to allow them to go pick up soeone else when they are capped out. If the NHL allows this, they are fools.
     
  6. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Funny that the league would make "concessions" on the smaller issues ONLY ONCE the PA had succumbed on the big issues. Pretending that the league wouldn't gladly have given these items and more had the players agreed to a cap and linkage PRIOR to damaging the game is laughable, but then again--its Brooks.

    As, GC pointed out, it is the height of hypocrisy for the PA apologists to now be claiming victory for the PA in the NHL adopting items that were hailed as MAJOR concession by the PA back in Dec. Spinning at its finest.
     
  7. I could see IR moneies NOT counting toward the cap if the player in question was lost for the season and his contract was then picked up by insurance. Other than that, there is no way it should not count against the cap. It is a player cost that the team must still encur and are responsible to pay out. Unless that player's salary is some how eliminated from the equation, through insurance, then the expense is still there. Here is an example of how the system SHOULD work.

    Peter Forsberg ($10,000,000) plays 20 games. He then breaks his leg and tears his knee up and his out for eight weeks minimum. The Avs place him on IR and get to call up a player from the minors to take his place (no penalty if the player's salary is below $100K in minor league dollars) during the period of time that the short term disability coverage is there for the insurance carrier. Once that period is up (say after another 20 games) the Avs have a decision to make. They can place Floppa on the IR for the rest of the season, losing him for the remainder of the year (including playoffs) and gain access to the funds they would have available from his contract (50% in this example as 40 games have been played) so that they may bring in another player to fill his spot. Or they can let Forsberg heal and hope he can come back and play again this year. The decision is with the team. For the system to work fairly for all parties, the teams have to declare the player inelligible and commit to another player for the rest of the season, one that fits in the budget space left by the injured player.

    To me that is fair and equitable for all parties considered and would be a good model to put in place.
     
  8. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think it's a loophole at all. Players can't be put on IR without their signature and if they were you can bet the union would have a huge problem. The idea that teams can take players and stick them in IR just to save money isn't realistic. The only players going on IR will be players who are actually injured, who aren't playing for the team, who can't practice...so they shouldn't count against a cap.

    Besides, unless a player is out for the whole year, team's aren't going to be able to go out and trade for salary because when the player comes back off IR in 2 weeks than what are they going to do? The only time an IR players salary will be replaced through a trade is if the guy is out for the whole season, otherwise you are just looking at minor leaguers coming up. And, in the case where he is out for the whole season he should not count against the cap. What if your best player is making $6M and he goes out for the year in November. Most likely you were already near the cap...your season is almost shot now. What's the point of that?
     
  9. danaluvsthekings

    danaluvsthekings Registered User

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,233
    Likes Received:
    557
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Gender:
    Female
    Sure, in theory teams could use IR and stash players on it and not have it count against the cap but there are ways to eliminate the loopholes. For example if a team wants to put a player on IR, it must send the medical reports, x-rays, mri, etc from the team doctor and the league can hire a doctor to go over these reports to make sure a team isn't just claiming a player is hurt and hiding him on IR and not counting his salary against the cap.

    The other situation is what if someone has an injury run like LA did the last 2 years or Montreal did a few years ago. LA had about $10 mil in salary between Allison and Deadmarsh on the IR, not counting the other 946 players who spent time on IR for them last season. Straka really was the only player they traded for to make up for the injuries and he ended up getting hurt when he got to LA. Palffy missed half the season, Aaron Miller only played 35 games. A lot of their higher paid players were on IR for long stretches. At one point they had 12 guys out on IR at the same time I believe. If they had to count all 12 guys plus the 23 guys that were on the active roster against a salary cap, that would have made it incredibly hard to stay under any cap.
     
  10. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    Those are mostly reasonable points, and i confess not to being aware of the requiremetn for a player sig before they go on IR (where did you read that?). However, I would point out that in the NBA guys get stashed on IR all the time. That is a generally accepted way of doing business. I was extrapolating that practice to potentially make some NHL cap room. No, i would not help in the big ticket salary guy, but it could open a big enough crack to allow teams to pick up guys when they need a little more room.

    I don't think the player would kick up a fuss if placed on IR, if it meant the team can do something. The peer pressure form his own teammates would be great.

    I like Icon's propsal above regarding potential season ending injuries, provided that the team is not absolved in the next year from getting under cap.
     
  11. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I know that's how the NFL does it and they are the other league with a cap to work under. Not sure how the NHL has done it in the past, but I can't think it would be that hard for the NHL to shut that loophole because having players sign off would probably be agreeable to the union anyway. Besides if they could have done that without an actual injury I bet the Rangers would have had plenty of guys on the IR over the last couple of years.

    Either way, I don't think it's a huge problem. Insurance is something that neither side can control I guess so who knows how that works.
     
  12. Jarqui

    Jarqui Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Home Page:
    All these "little points" don't mean much to me and in my opinion, the entire body of players. The way the NHL seems to be going at this is that they expect X % of revenues will go to the players. Several reports have come out that X% has not been agreed and the number for a cap has not been agreed to either though both appear to be in play as a system.

    At the end of the day, some NHL bean counter is plugging numbers into his spreadsheet against all these "little" items to see what the full cost is going to be. If it is greater than the NHL’s acceptable target, there won't be a deal.

    They can cap, revenue share, tax, arbitrate, rollback, signing bonus etc, etc but it's all going against one big tab that the owners appears to be getting : some form of cost certainty on that big tab. That's what the players will wind up with. All these "little wins and losses" are smoke to me.

    1) The players have lost a year's pay
    2) It looks as if coming out of this deal they will reset the bar 24% lower going forward (which will carry forward for years to some extent)
    3) If there is linkage, that 24% could be even larger at the end of a season with revenue losses due to the lockout

    It's been a lose, lose & will lose some more for the players and ditto for the owners.

    I think Brooks is interpreting sparkle of a silver lining which is really lightning bolts coming from the very dark cloud over the sport and it's finances.
     
  13. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,879
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    They would seem to have to manage it on a macro level, through the escrow boardroom battle no doubt. There's probably a way they can do that and keep it out of our faces which would be at least one nice thing that could happen.


    These are 2 points that worry me. The first seems self evident. Choosing that the teams cant spend on injuries is really being a brown noser against your fellow fans interests it seems to me. What fan would support this?

    And 2nd, trades under a hard cap. You can never ADD a missing piece. You SWAP pieces.

    And its not just IR, what about a team that in January is out of the playoffs and dont want to carry their UFA anymore as they wont be making the playoffs maybe for 2 more years. Can they not dump him for a some good picks and prospects? When does the cap take place? Can you bank floor space?


    I agree. The PA is not winning anything here. However when the NHL went from 31 to 42, as the PA found when they went to discuss all the systemic issues, they got worse. A good hardball tactic, but not one designed to save a season. Now the PA may win them back, but this is not a win to brag about. Though neither is it a win they could have had in February.
     
  14. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    I think that in a sport like hockey, which loses a lot of man-games to injury, there should be some sort of allowance for salary paid to players on the IR. The NBA has a cap relief for teams that lose players for the season, I believe.
     
  15. The Old Master

    The Old Master Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    8,758
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    burgh
    agreed they will be able to stash but for how long? sooner or later they have to come off.
     
  16. blitzkriegs

    blitzkriegs Registered User

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    13,150
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Beach & Mtn & Island
    Home Page:
    That 24% giveback was probably one of the most miscalculated moves by BG (not gonna say PA because it was a surprise to a majority of its membership). What may have seemed like a shocker to entice the owners, now has turned into a baseline for the CBA that the PA can't get away from.

    What if BG never offered THAT much?
     
  17. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,709
    Likes Received:
    2,257
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    Stashing players?If a team loses a player to a season ending injury in November,then that team should be able to use the rest of that players pro-rated money on a replacement.The NBA allows for an injury exemption after the NBA hears the request from a team for losing a player to a season ending injury.If the team is lying about the injury,then NHL should be able to penalize that team by taking away draft picks.We'll see how many teams attempt to circumvent the injured reserve when they lose two first round picks.David Stern fined the T-Wolves 4 first round picks when they entered to a contract with Joe Smith when they were not allowed.Create an injured reserve list for season ending injuries.When that player is placed on that list,he can not return until the start of the following season.No miracle comebacks allowed.Sometimes the NBA does not grant the injury exemption when they disagree with the team on the medical condition of the player
     
  18. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    It was a big miscalculation. The really funny part is that some people believe the PA can just take it off the table, yet it's always there.

    On the good side, it will help a lot of teams get salaries down so that the rumors of a dispersal draft may remain only rumors...
     
  19. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,879
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? On the good side, it will help the owners solve their immediate problems, but Goodenow miscaculated. He should never have proposed the salaries be corrected to what the owners are stating is their new market value. This helps the players how?
     
  20. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    Goodenow miscalculated because he thought that that would be enough to split the owners and avoid a cap or linkage deal. He didn't accomplish that and now has to take the 24% with a linkage and cap deal.

    It helps the owners by reducing salaries, but the 24% reduction alone would not have resolved all the owners problems. It would have been a band-aid solution that would have reduced loses for a year or two, but probably also would have resulted in another lockout the next time the CBA expired if the owners had agreed to it.

    Sounds ridiculous?
     
  21. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,879
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I think it was a step that had to be taken in order to move into the new marketplace. IF the cap came in, it was inevitable anyway. The 24% of course wasnt the only part of the offer, which at the end also included a cap. Goodenow calculated for 2 years. Bettman calculated the players would split. They did. Because they want to play. And they still need him to get the best deal possible. Like last time when everyone said Goodenow was pwn3d.
     
  22. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Absolutely. As always it's a simple equation - all money paid to players by a team counts against the cap.

    In your example, a player out for the long term, the team pays a portion of his salary, the insurance company the rest. So only the portion the team pays counts.

    Dead simple, easy to calculate each pay period, and at the end of the year.
     
  23. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,396
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    And insurance companies don't like being stiffed on faked injuries. That's a pretty good reason for teams not to try and cheat.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"