Luxury tax offer okay with NHL

[thinkwild]

The owners have always said that they don't care whether its a luxury tax or a cap or whatever, but it just has to be a percentage of revenues. The PA has basically said that's what their definition of a cap is.

This is the issue isnt it. It probably is a fascinating debate, but we never hear it. If the owners wish to establish a threshold from which they raise tax money for redistribution, and even combine it with a player contribution tax, this still enable players to negotiate their market value. A system is needed to allow the equality of opportunity to succeed while recognizing many wont.

They may not reach $10M, but they'd certainly be demanding more than $4M

Alfie signed as a UFA for $6mil. These guys probably would get more. If they keep winning, like Colorado and Detroit, have 70 playoff gates under their belt in 5 years, they will be able to afford it. If they dont win, they wont be able to afford to keep the top players when they turn 31 and get their choice. Convenient how that works.

(Lecavalier already makes more than $4M). Pronger, Neidermayer, Lidstrom, Kariya, Bertuzzi, Naslund, Iginla, Thornton, Theodore, Giguere, Fedorov, Hejduk, Modano, etc are examples of players that got huge raises early in their careers (well before UFA), and some have accomplished less than guys like Richards and St. Louis have.

And im sure you have noticed the trend changing and the market correction occurring. THose RFA offer sheets arent made anymore are they? Its interesting that you mentioned Pronger and Niedermayer side by side. Market correcting quite significantly id say.

Pronger and Kariya got their money as remnants of the old old CBA that Daigle caused to be fixed. That problem is already fixed. The top RFAs now like Iginla and Thornton and Bertuzzi all make $7mil. And there are very few of them. If you are ucky enough to have been one of the teams that drafted them, you'll find it worth it, and probably be able to afford it. Or be like Ottawa and trade Yashin for Chara and Spezza.

there'd only be 60 exemptions, and some teams wouldn't even use the exemption for star players. So if Lecavalier, Richards, and St. Louis all walk at UFA age, it shouldn't matter as much because other star players will be looking for work (maybe a guy like Weight will be willing to sign for $5M because the Blues sign Richards at 7 and have Pronger as their other exempt player).

This seems destined to put the leagues top players on the richest teams doess it? Shuffling UFAs around constantly with the best going to the richest teams, and filtering everyone else down. And limiting teams to only 2 stars. Perhaps Pittsburgh would get Tkachuk and Naslund for $4mil each, and that will improve their chances, attendance and the fairness of the league.

That's just it though... neither side would probably go for this. There are a million other ways to work a deal like this that I think could curb spending. I even think a simple luxury tax might be the best and simplest solution... but if the threshold isn't calculated based on the previous year's revenues then the owners won't look at it. And if it does, then the PA will call it a hard cap and turn it down.

Its a pickle isnt it?

Any team could sign him, and he could still be granted arbitration rights... he just couldn't make more than $4M until he was a UFA. If the Oilers only wanted to sign York for $3M, and he wanted $4M as an RFA, he could still get an offer sheet from the Penguins (who would probably be in a better position to make that kind of offer).

RIght now, Calgary keeps Iginla until he is 31, at which time if they are winning, they will be able to afford him from the playoff revenue. No one gives offer sheets. The old problems dont need fixing, just a market corection If we kne wwhat the exact problem was, they could design something to fix it, but Bettman doesnt want to talk about blame, because then he would have to show what the real problems are and people would realize other ways of fixing it.

 

[MrMackey]

And im sure you have noticed the trend changing and the market correction occurring. THose RFA offer sheets arent made anymore are they? Its interesting that you mentioned Pronger and Niedermayer side by side. Market correcting quite significantly id say.

Pronger and Kariya got their money as remnants of the old old CBA that Daigle caused to be fixed. That problem is already fixed. The top RFAs now like Iginla and Thornton and Bertuzzi all make $7mil. And there are very few of them. If you are ucky enough to have been one of the teams that drafted them, you'll find it worth it, and probably be able to afford it. Or be like Ottawa and trade Yashin for Chara and Spezza.

I personally think the downward trend had more to do with the impending lockout. Guys like Hatcher and Prospal signed front-loaded contracts last season, so that their teams were more flexible once the season ended. Its not a coincidence that so many great players became UFAs this summer and they're all unsigned.

I agree that a certain amount of spending has been tempered by weaker than expected demand for the NHL product, however its impact is small compared to what the lockout created. Uncertainty does a funny thing to spending habits. I don't know many people that go out and buy a car, big house and expensive xmas presents if they think their job is in jeapordy.

Up until 3 years ago people were still making ridiculous signings (Leclair, Geurin, Weight, Tkachuk, Joseph, Holik)

Somehow, average salaries still rose this offseason. The average salary among the 561 players signed and listed on the NHLPA Web site is $1,953,730.96.

Anyways I agree that its quite a pickle. I think this is very very solvable on both sides. The PA really has to accept a correlation between revenues and salaries, and the owners have got to give the players something they can work with.

I'd be disappointed in a hard cap, because I think teams like the Lightning, Senators, Capitals and Penguins will be forced to dismantle their teams as soon as their prospects hit their prime. Even teams like the Oilers and Flames, who aren't as blessed with top-end talent will be hurt by a hard cap IMO, even though it will allow them to be more competitive on a year-to-year basis.

I believe hard caps promote too much player movement, and it becomes harder for the local fan to connect with the team. Although its likely better for the overall game, because a fan will connect with individual players more and will be more familiar with other teams. This allows for more opportunities in licensing and TV contracts... perhaps this is what the owners are going for, but its a mistake IMHO.

 

[thinkwild]

Up until 3 years ago people were still making ridiculous signings (Leclair, Geurin, Weight, Tkachuk, Joseph, Holik)

And all those teams are now losing money. And claiming the league needs to be fixed for small markets like Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Calgary, San Jose, Vancouver, who just cant compete. I cant see how one of those contracts hindered any of these teams ability to succesfully build a team on a budget in their means.

Until the owners recognize, that part of being in business means you have to tie your salaries to your revenues, there will be problems. The players are offering ways that good businessmen can succeed.

 

[MrMackey]

And all those teams are now losing money. And claiming the league needs to be fixed for small markets like Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Calgary, San Jose, Vancouver, who just cant compete. I cant see how one of those contracts hindered any of these teams ability to succesfully build a team on a budget in their means.

Until the owners recognize, that part of being in business means you have to tie your salaries to your revenues, there will be problems. The players are offering ways that good businessmen can succeed.

You've got to get over this making money thing. On an overall basis, of course owners want to make money, however as far as hockey teams are concerned, its not so much about turning a profit every single year.

Take Ottawa for example. When Melnyk took over, he said that he'd keep the core of the team together. Redden might be on another team if Melnyk was not the owner, and especially if there was some sort of rule that the team MUST be profitable. I'm not sure if Ottawa made money or not last season, but Melnyk made a strategic decision to go over budget in the hopes of maintaining a fan base and for good PR for himself personally.

You can be certain that Meehan used Redden as a comparable in negotiating Brewer's contract (probably how he was able to get a decent raise w/o going to arb., despite the tough talk by Lowe before the hearing)... and Regehr and Hannan will use him as a comparable as well in the future. That is how this hurts teams like the Flames and Oilers.

If salaries are tied to revenues, and there's a minimum salary in place, then it certainly is a benefit to the players because it is within their power to create more revenue for the league.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Guys like Hatcher and Prospal signed front-loaded contracts last season, so that their teams were more flexible once the season ended.

Actually thats not true with Hatcher, his 5 year 30 million dollar deal is back loaded
2003-2004 5 million
2004-2005 5 million
2005-2006 6.5 million
2006-2007 6.5 million
2007-2008 7 million

It should also be noted that Ray Whitneys contact is back loaded.

I see your point but Ken Holland and his moronic signing throw a wrench arguement.

http://www.allsports.com/nhl/redwings/features/orgchart.html