Lockout III: So close, and yet so far (Moderated: see post #295)

[mouser]

One thing the NBA has going for them is a much smaller roster.

Yes, but they also have a correspondingly higher average salary per player. The similarity is that both leagues have a % of league revenue going to the players,a salary cap system (soft for the NBA) that puts some constraints on how much each team can spend on those players, and ceilings on how much salary a single player can sign for.

 

[GKJ]

NBA has a small roster, and the star players often make more in endorsements than they do actually playing. Kobe, LeBron, etc. all play for fun at this point.

 

[Gobias Industries]

One thing the NBA has going for them is a much smaller roster.

Along the same lines:

Their star players have arguably more value than NHLers.

Even in the NHL playoffs you won't see most star players exceed half of the game all while not having clear opportunities for possession. In Basketball, not only will a star player have a clear opportunity to meaningfully possess the ball for a greater period of time, but he will do while playing for a larger part of the game.

In what I would argue to be LeBron James' most important game (Game 7, ECF last year) he played in 48 minutes of the 60 minute game.

I think there should be more consideration about the star's role in hockey. We've read theories now that shorter contract terms will hurt "middle class" players, and if there's one sport where this is underserving, it's hockey.

 

[Ginu]

Here is the issue and keep in mind that 20% of the cap can be allocated to a single player.

Say Crosby was up for free agency, he can make $12M/year on a 5 year deal. Let's say he takes $8.7M/year as he currently does on average.

Now let's say David Backes is up for renewal. On a 5 year deal, how much do you think he'll make? He's on $4.5M now, so $6M a season? What about Richards? $7-8M? These owners will pay them higher salaries per year to make up for the term and to get them away from other teams. And the 5% variance will ensure that if a player makes a high salary in one year of a contract, he has to be paid a high salary over each year of the contract. Just like the owners are now, they'll do whatever they can to sign the player. That's exactly what's happening in the NBA because owners are overpaying players in this sort of model.

Economics will tell you that, as teams do this, players will naturally be grouped into the higher pay bracket. As this happens more as the years go on, this'll happen with all teams. Then players that should be making $2-3M a season will make closer to $1M if since teams have no restriction on how many players in high pay brackets they can fit on a team.

That's how the middle class of the player is being destroyed in the NHL's proposal.

Now I understand the issue. But the combination of the 5% variance and a max contract length destroys the league. I was a proponent for the variance before as a substitute for max contract lengths, but both together doesn't work.

Now if they wanted a 5-year max length with say a 20% variance, that gives an owner more flexibility to not necessarily have to pay a player $6M or thereabouts every season during the 5 year contract. The owners have to either choose one: 5% variance with no contract length so they can offer a lower per year salary over a longer time, or a max contract length with a higher variance to provide flexibility in per year allowable salary.

You have to understand the problem. Don't just blame the players because you think they're greedy. The economics of the sport affects your entire experience as a fan.

Does that make sense?

 

[Sydor25]

Along the same lines:

Their star players have arguably more value than NHLers.

Even in the NHL playoffs you won't see most star players exceed half of the game all while not having clear opportunities for possession. In Basketball, not only will a star player have a clear opportunity to meaningfully possess the ball for a greater period of time, but he will do while playing for a larger part of the game.

In what I would argue to be LeBron James' most important game (Game 7, ECF last year) he played in 48 minutes of the 60 minute game.

I think there should be more consideration about the star's role in hockey. We've read theories now that shorter contract terms will hurt "middle class" players, and if there's one sport where this is underserving, it's hockey.

He actually played 47:32 of 48 minutes. Only six players on Miami played more than 4 minutes.

 

[Sydor25]

@ginu

You agree that the players will be getting 50% of HRR, right? Then why is it up to owners to distribute this for the players? If they are really upset that the top players are making too much, then they can create a system within the NHLPA to help re-distribute the funds.

It's a red herring by the NHLPA to keep the rank and file in line. I just don't see any owner/GM giving out a max cap contract in the NHL, at least if the playe and team want to ice a Stanley Cup team. I don't think the superstars would be that selfish either, they know they can make more with endorsements than the "middle class".

I don't know any Kings fan that would be upset seeing Kopitar/Doughty/Qucik making a more and Stoll/Gagne/Penner/Scuderi making a little less. Shouldn't it already be that way? The stars are what the league should be selling and they should make the most money.

I think the variance rule should only be for players 32 or older. This way you won't see stupid retirement contracts for players that should only get a 2 or 3 year deal instead of a 5 year deal with a huge back dive to lower the cap hit. The league also needs to just make it a flat 6 year max. A variable contact term length just creates stupid "sign and trade" deals, it doesn't really have the desired effect of a "home" team advantage.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

But somehow the economics of 3.5M for Upshall because his team needs to get to the floor is good. While his market value of 1.5 being used instead would be bad. Economics for the players money or the good of the game? Which one is it?

 

[Ginu]

@ginu

You agree that the players will be getting 50% of HRR, right? Then why is it up to owners to distribute this for the players? If they are really upset that the top players are making too much, then they can create a system within the NHLPA to help re-distribute the funds.

It's a red herring by the NHLPA to keep the rank and file in line. I just don't see any owner/GM giving out a max cap contract in the NHL, at least if the playe and team want to ice a Stanley Cup team. I don't think the superstars would be that selfish either, they know they can make more with endorsements than the "middle class".

I don't know any Kings fan that would be upset seeing Kopitar/Doughty/Qucik making a more and Stoll/Gagne/Penner/Scuderi making a little less. Shouldn't it already be that way? The stars are what the league should be selling and they should make the most money.

I think the variance rule should only be for players 32 or older. This way you won't see stupid retirement contracts for players that should only get a 2 or 3 year deal instead of a 5 year deal with a huge back dive to lower the cap hit. The league also needs to just make it a flat 6 year max. A variable contact term length just creates stupid "sign and trade" deals, it doesn't really have the desired effect of a "home" team advantage.

The issue is that Kopitar, Doughty and Quick will make near the max. Stoll, Gagne, Penner and Scuderi will either be paid near the minimum or leave for teams who are willing to give them a higher contract, so fans of the Kings won't see those some of their favorite players stay. As this happens more and more over all teams, you'll see the salary disparity between high and low earners. Any combination of 5% and 5 year contract will have this effect. The only solution to fix this is to choose one and leave the other flexible.

 

[Ginu]

But somehow the economics of 3.5M for Upshall because his team needs to get to the floor is good. While his market value of 1.5 being used instead would be bad. Economics for the players money or the good of the game? Which one is it?

The floor actually accelerates the problem, makes it happen faster. Because teams have to pay more players near the higher bracket to get over the floor. You'll actually see this happen sooner than it otherwise would.

 

[Pyromaniac3]

Here is the issue and keep in mind that 20% of the cap can be allocated to a single player.

Say Crosby was up for free agency, he can make $12M/year on a 5 year deal. Let's say he takes $8.7M/year as he currently does on average.

Now let's say David Backes is up for renewal. On a 5 year deal, how much do you think he'll make? He's on $4.5M now, so $6M a season? What about Richards? $7-8M? These owners will pay them higher salaries per year to make up for the term and to get them away from other teams. And the 5% variance will ensure that if a player makes a high salary in one year of a contract, he has to be paid a high salary over each year of the contract. Just like the owners are now, they'll do whatever they can to sign the player. That's exactly what's happening in the NBA because owners are overpaying players in this sort of model.

No GM should pay Backes 6m or Richards 7-8mil. If they want to, then go suffer with sub-par roster.

 

[Sydor25]

The issue is that Kopitar, Doughty and Quick will make near the max. Stoll, Gagne, Penner and Scuderi will either be paid near the minimum or leave for teams who are willing to give them a higher contract, so fans of the Kings won't see those some of their favorite players stay. As this happens more and more over all teams, you'll see the salary disparity between high and low earners. Any combination of 5% and 5 year contract will have this effect. The only solution to fix this is to choose one and leave the other flexible.

Not a chance. Nobody is going to give 3 players 50-60% of the cap.

Kopitar, Doughty and Quick are all going to make less then they would in an open market and Stoll, Gagne, Penner and Scuderi will make more than they would in an open market. The cap makes sure of this. It is the top players that are hurt by a cap, not the middle.

Look at baseball, look at the disparity in an open market. An open market hurts the middle and helps the top.

World Series Winner
http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/sf/san-francisco-giants


Stanley Cup Champion

http://www.capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=17

 

[Freudian]

I think one consequence of a maximum length on contracts is that star salaries will go down a bit too. I have a hard time seeing Brad Richards type players making $9.5M/year (which is what he does in the non-circumventing part of his deal) or Shea Webers making $10.4M/year over the next ten years.

I think that is the main reason NHLPA is so opposed to it. Star players will have their salaries come down. They can't cheat the system by having an artificially low cap hit (which the middle class has to pay for through escrow). Their cap hit will now be a reflection on their importance to the team. A Malkin might be worth a $10M cap hit. A Richards will not.

The change is good for parity. Teams that manage to build depth will do better. Teams that throw out huge UFA offers or offer sheets will not. It's good medicine against the stupid behavior of GMs not only affecting their own team but also every team trying to act responsible.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

5 year max contracts is just another way to the Owners to try and crack the union. they know it's mostly star players getting those deals to they are trying to create a wedge.

nothing more, nothing less

If some owners felts felt contracts over 5 years were bad for their business they wouldn't offer them. Just like how teams like the Leafs wont offer back diving contracts. Its not an issue of collusion either as long as it isn't a directive from the NHL.

This has and always will be about breaking the PA, to think otherwise is naive.

 

[Sydor25]

I think one consequence of a maximum length on contracts is that star salaries will go down a bit too. I have a hard time seeing Brad Richards type players making $9.5M/year (which is what he does in the non-circumventing part of his deal) or Shea Webers making $10.4M/year over the next ten years.

I think that is the main reason NHLPA is so opposed to it. Star players will have their salaries come down. They can't cheat the system by having an artificially low cap hit (which the middle class has to pay for through escrow). Their cap hit will now be a reflection on their importance to the team. A Malkin might be worth a $10M cap hit. A Richards will not.

The change is good for parity. Teams that manage to build depth will do better. Teams that throw out huge UFA offers or offer sheets will not. It's good medicine against the stupid behavior of GMs not only affecting their own team but also every team trying to act responsible.

But Fehr is telling the players that the opposite will occur. The top players will make more and the middle will lose. He says the NBA salary structure will take over the NHL because of term limits.

 

[Sydor25]

5 year max contracts is just another way to the Owners to try and crack the union. they know it's mostly star players getting those deals to they are trying to create a wedge.

nothing more, nothing less

If some owners felts felt contracts over 5 years were bad for their business they wouldn't offer them. Just like how teams like the Leafs wont offer back diving contracts. Its not an issue of collusion either as long as it isn't a directive from the NHL.

This has and always will be about breaking the PA, to think otherwise is naive.

The Leafs don't have to because they will make their massive revenue no matter how good the product is on the ice. They never made the playoffs during the last CBA and yet still generate the most revenue.

Other teams need to ice a competitive team to sell out their arenas.

 

[Gobias Industries]

He actually played 47:32 of 48 minutes. Only six players on Miami played more than 4 minutes.

A 28 second correction, when I accurately rounded up? Come on!

What point are you making about the six players?

 

[Scurr]

The NBA is a vastly different sport. I would argue it's not a vastly different business model. Some elements of the business are more valuable or profitable, but both business include mostly the same levers.

Other than both being sports they really aren't comparable. The rosters are different, the payrolls are different, the revenue streams are different, the players are different. The NHL isn't going to come into its own until they have leadership that is willing to carve out its own path rather than chasing big brother around.

 

[Sydor25]

A 28 second correction, when I accurately rounded up? Come on!

More about the fact that an NBA game is only 48 minutes, not 60.

What point are you making about the six players?

Just that there is a reason that the top players in the NBA get most of the money. They play most of the game. Why would you spend millions of dollars per year for a player that only plays 3 minutes in the most important game of the season? The answer is that you wouldn't and it doesn't have anything to do with contract term limits.

Fehr is trying to paint an enforcer in the NHL as the "middle class" and will lose out with 5 year term limits.

He has told the players that the NBA salary structure is because they have a 4/5 year term limit. Instead of informing the NHL players that the NBA has a much more unbalanced roster and that is why the stars make most of the money.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[Gobias Industries]

More about the fact that an NBA game is only 48 minutes, not 60.

Just that there is a reason that the top players in the NBA get most of the money. They play most of the game. Why would you spend millions of dollars per year for a player that only plays 3 minutes in the most important game of the season.

Fehr is trying to paint an enforcer in the NHL is the "middle class" and will lose out with 5 year term limits.

He has told the players that the NBA salary structure is because they have a 4/5 year term limit. Instead of informing the NHL players that the NBA has a much more unbalanced roster and that is why the stars make most of the money.

I was agreeing with you.

So stupid...thanks...

 

[kdb209]

Any owner can call for a vote in BoG. Back in october there was a chance to vote but nobody called for it. Bettman has the support of all 30 owners.

No. It takes 3 members of the BoG (or the Commissioner) to request a special meeting of the BoG - and even in that case the Commissioner has the power to set the agenda and decide what does and does not get voted on.

 

[KINGS17]

I think one consequence of a maximum length on contracts is that star salaries will go down a bit too. I have a hard time seeing Brad Richards type players making $9.5M/year (which is what he does in the non-circumventing part of his deal) or Shea Webers making $10.4M/year over the next ten years.

I think that is the main reason NHLPA is so opposed to it. Star players will have their salaries come down. They can't cheat the system by having an artificially low cap hit (which the middle class has to pay for through escrow). Their cap hit will now be a reflection on their importance to the team. A Malkin might be worth a $10M cap hit. A Richards will not.

The change is good for parity. Teams that manage to build depth will do better. Teams that throw out huge UFA offers or offer sheets will not. It's good medicine against the stupid behavior of GMs not only affecting their own team but also every team trying to act responsible.

This is exactly right. The superstars will be able to command a very high cap hit. The question for the GM and player (if he cares about winning) will be is that the right approach to take in building a team.

Fehr knows this. The elimination of cap circumventing contracts will mean star players that are not superstars will make less money.

 

[mouser]

Other than both being sports they really aren't comparable. The rosters are different, the payrolls are different, the revenue streams are different, the players are different. The NHL isn't going to come into its own until they have leadership that is willing to carve out its own path rather than chasing big brother around.

The revenue streams are almost exactly the same.
- Gate receipts
- TV deals (local and national)
- Merchandising
- Corporate sponsorships
- Ancillary arena revenue streams (concessions, parking, etc)

The respective amounts for some of those streams differ between the NBA and NHL, most especially in the national TV deal, but the sources of revenue for the two leagues are pretty much the same.

 

[kdb209]

The revenue streams are almost exactly the same.
- Gate receipts
- TV deals (local and national)
- Merchandising
- Corporate sponsorships
- Ancillary arena revenue streams (concessions, parking, etc)

The respective amounts for some of those streams differ between the NBA and NHL, most especially in the national TV deal, but the sources of revenue for the two leagues are pretty much the same.

Yup - and the vast majority of the ~$900M difference between the NHL's HRR and the NBA's BRI is attributable solely to the difference in US national broadcast deals.

 

[Ernie]

Actually, yearly salaries for the stars will likely go up as they maximize their short term earnings, squeezing everyone else:

What a lot of people are wondering is why the players are being so stubborn about term limits (they’ve proposed eight-year maximums) when the large majority of them will never sign a contract as long as five years anyway.

The best answer to that may come in the form of a question: What would Sidney Crosby’s contract look like if there was a five-year limit?

The contract Crosby did recently sign was for 12 years and $104.4 million, which renders a cap hit of $8.7 million. Given his concussion history, committing all that money over such a long term was a pretty big risk for Penguins ownership, and it’s safe to assume Crosby had to “pay” for some of the security he got by taking a lower average annual salary.

If Crosby wasn’t able to get that type of security, it’s highly likely he’d demand a higher average annual salary. Under the last CBA, the maximum a player could earn was 20 percent of the salary cap. So for the 2012-13 season (upper limit of $70.2 million), the max salary was set at $14.04 million.

So let’s say Crosby got the max (he probably could if he threatened to walk away), that would then leave less money for GM Ray Shero to fill out the rest of his roster, thus putting the squeeze on guys like Tyler Kennedy and Craig Adams when they tried to re-sign for 2013-14.

This is why the players don’t want five-year limits. Because the simple fact is this: great players win Stanley Cups and sell tickets. Yeah, teams need depth too, but they need the great players first.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/...e-nhl-look-like-with-five-year-max-contracts/

 

[stuffradio]

Why is Don Fehr wasting everyone's time talking about his life story when he should be trying to accept a deal. What a waste of time this "update on the lockout" is.