Mike Milbury on WFAN 7/1/05

[p.l.f.]

but then more teams will have alot more salary on their rosters to contend with, and will have to buyout more - and if they arent allowed to re-sign those they buyout wouldnt that lead to as much chaos ?

 

[thinkwild]

And all you guys slamming Millbury must realize his hands were tied by ownership forcing him to make bad moves because of the ownership structure. I mean sure we make fun of him on fans boards, and the players he's traded would of made a great team, but I thought on a business board people might be more considered. The reason he has lasted in small market New York, forced to lose all their stars, was because he executed the unfortunate tough decisions ownership unreasonably demanded of him because they didnt have the money.

 

[thinkwild]

but then more teams will have alot more salary on their rosters to contend with, and will have to buyout more - and if they arent allowed to re-sign those they buyout wouldnt that lead to as much chaos ?

Don't see why. The buyouts would be 24% more expensive without the rollback. And the anachronistic salaries would be an albatross. The deal doesnt work properly without this player concession. Concessions in most negotiations are reciprocated. The chaos is going to come because of the year off and cap manouvering.

The buyouts are one time petty cash hits to some of the worlds wealthiest men, like Leonsis who had no problem acknowledging a plan where he would lose $75mil over 5 years, and who have a large fund put aside for buyouts.

 

[DARKSIDE]

And all you guys slamming Millbury must realize his hands were tied by ownership forcing him to make bad moves because of the ownership structure. I mean sure we make fun of him on fans boards, and the players he's traded would of made a great team, but I thought on a business board people might be more considered. The reason he has lasted in small market New York, forced to lose all their stars, was because he executed the unfortunate tough decisions ownership unreasonably demanded of him because they didnt have the money.

And, no matter what people think of Mike, he's still the GM of a professional hockey organization and I can't believe he would make a statement like this if it wasn't accurate.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

And all you guys slamming Millbury must realize his hands were tied by ownership forcing him to make bad moves because of the ownership structure. I mean sure we make fun of him on fans boards, and the players he's traded would of made a great team, but I thought on a business board people might be more considered. The reason he has lasted in small market New York, forced to lose all their stars, was because he executed the unfortunate tough decisions ownership unreasonably demanded of him because they didnt have the money.

Just wondering - do you think that Wang & Kumar told Milbury that Dipietro was going to be way better than Luongo? Or that Linden was going to be better than Bertuzzi & McCabe?

I agree that MM takes heat for a few deals that were financially related where he had to cut salary. But that doesn't give him a free ride on several REALLY, REALLY bad deals/contracts (Yashin situation all around + above deals).

 

[GSC2k2*]

Thats a funny expression - roll or toll. Very apt. Take the rollback and extension or pay the one time buyout toll. Good thing the owners put together a $300mil contingency fund that can be used for this very purpose.

That is not what "toll" means. It is a legal term of art used to describe the process by which time periods are extended. In this case, it is the process by which the contracts would have been "suspended" as of the lockout date and would be re-engaged as of the effective date of the new agreement.

It has nothing to do with the buyout.

In case you might then wonder what Milbury is doing using legal terms, Milbury is using the term because it surely has been bandied about by the negotiators in their memos describing the negotiating issues (which he would receive as a GM).

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

What Milbury said makes perfect sense. The rollback is the key. But if players are going to take a rollback, the contract has to be extended like Nolans. Maybe they will let all players with a team option to sign, to convert that into a player option to sign or something.

Thats a funny expression - roll or toll. Very apt. Take the rollback and extension or pay the one time buyout toll. Good thing the owners put together a $300mil contingency fund that can be used for this very purpose.

Disagree 100% on "honoring" the 2004-05 contracts. The only real impact will be to increase the pay-out's $-wise to the guys that are getting bought out, and increase the number of pay-outs in general.

Why do I say this? Look at 2 players - John Leclair and Gary Roberts. Leclair is almost certainly going to get bought out. If the do "honor" the 04-05 contract, the amount it takes to buy-out his contract goes up by 50% (3 years remaining instead of 2), and he makes and additional $4.1M. If Roberts contract is honored, he makes $1.5M (76% of his $2M UFA deal signed before last year). If he's a UFA again, I bet that Gary could make that same $1.5M playing for a contender.

 

[Mess]

but then more teams will have alot more salary on their rosters to contend with, and will have to buyout more - and if they arent allowed to re-sign those they buyout wouldnt that lead to as much chaos ?

Not sure why you think that ..

Take the Leafs for example .. They went into the lockout with 22 players under contract and 62.0 mil in Salaries ..

Now you take the 24% rollback .. (62.0 mil *76% ) = $47.12 mil ..

Then I am sure they will have some sort of allowance for injured players .. Molgilny got his full year paid by the Leafs and Insurance .. I am guessing then his contract is done and hounoured ..

SO $ 47.12 - Mogilny ( 5.5 mil) = 41.62 mil .

If the cap ceiling is $36 - $38 mil then if they buyout 1 player Nolan and his 6.5 mil ..

You are left with $41.62 - buyout Nolan (6.5 mil) = $35.12 mil and that leaves 20 players under contract ..

Leafs were likely going to buyout Nolan either way if contracts are honoured or not.. and with minor adjustments to bring in a few rookies Steen and Carlo and your roster is complete and legal ..

What it means is that unless the Leafs buyout more contracts they are out of the UFA spending frenzy this year .. Thats all .. !!!!

Leafs were going into the lockout as one of the worst offenders of a cap system and positions (over the cap) with a few more teams like the Flyers and Detroit in similar boats and if it works for the Leafs then the rollback of 24% will work for all others as well ..

 

[Mess]

Disagree 100% on "honoring" the 2004-05 contracts. The only real impact will be to increase the pay-out's $-wise to the guys that are getting bought out, and increase the number of pay-outs in general.

Why do I say this? Look at 2 players - John Leclair and Gary Roberts. Leclair is almost certainly going to get bought out. If the do "honor" the 04-05 contract, the amount it takes to buy-out his contract goes up by 50% (3 years remaining instead of 2), and he makes and additional $4.1M. If Roberts contract is honored, he makes $1.5M (76% of his $2M UFA deal signed before last year). If he's a UFA again, I bet that Gary could make that same $1.5M playing for a contender.

However Leclair himself was going to be bought out either way if former contracts where honoured or not ..

If all contracts are honoured then it makes sense that 2003 draft picks rights are also extended and as of today Qualifying offers would need to have been qiven to RFA .. but with honouring it makes is simple and no issues here ..

If you are Bobby Clarke and you have to decide if its a possibility of losing Carter and Richards or paying the one time EXTRA year buyout of Leclair I think its a no brainer ..

In fact the honouring makes more sense then not and letting them expire ..

1) It appeases the NHLPA general players group as they feel they will get their money just one year later less 24% of course ..

2) Milbury in right about the chaos .. The more UFA the more bidding and without a solid grasp of the new CBA yet ..Salaries will expode in bidding wars for players. Lots of mistakes will occur..

3) Since a lot of less players hit the market now that is less spending but also allows the market to correct itself going forward .. Players will now know come the following season where the fit Salary wise . .Right now no one knows that .. As someone else said players might take restructed deals to reamain or add extentions and it gives GM's a full year to learn the new CBA and not a few weeks with 400 UFA on the market etc.

4) It really prevents any last minute NHLPA blowup .. If they asked for contracts to be honoured and the owners accept that thinking it might be bad for an extra year of Yashin but its also good because Hamrlik and Aucoin remain as a result .. So the trade off still benefits the owners from that standpoint ..

 

[Scoogs]

Dude if they honor the 04/05 contracts, that's not cool..

I was looking forward to the "Off-Season of Madness!"

 

[thinkwild]

That is not what "toll" means. It is a legal term of art used to describe the process by which time periods are extended. In this case, it is the process by which the contracts would have been "suspended" as of the lockout date and would be re-engaged as of the effective date of the new agreement.

It has nothing to do with the buyout.

In case you might then wonder what Milbury is doing using legal terms, Milbury is using the term because it surely has been bandied about by the negotiators in their memos describing the negotiating issues (which he would receive as a GM).

I had never heard the term before. Tolling the statute of limitations to get extra time. It does seem it would have been bandied about initially by the negotiators.

I still like the paying the buyout toll metaphor, it seems more apt. What time period would they be tolling to extend? The amount of time to make a decision on whether to buyout? Or is it because they were time-barred from making RFA offer sheets and UFA offers on time? But then what is the or roll referring to?

 

[Mess]

Dude if they honor the 04/05 contracts, that's not cool..

I was looking forward to the "Off-Season of Madness!"

You may not like it ..but its the best thing for the NHL ..

Your wish for madness will come the following year for your team as lots of 1 year contracts come off the books and because of age will mean lots of turnover if that is what you are hoping for ..

There would still be lots of madness provided some teams still have only a handful of palyers under contract as you will see lots of signings in that regard .

Think about the excitement next year if Revenue goes up and so does the CAP and UFA comes down and more players to create that madness ..

 

[blitzkriegs]

I agree that MM takes heat for a few deals that were financially related where he had to cut salary. But that doesn't give him a free ride on several REALLY, REALLY bad deals/contracts (Yashin situation all around + above deals).

Bash MM however you want. However, when you are misrepresenting facts, then I think you need to know the truth. the Yashin contract & Peca contract are 100% Wang. MM maybe at fault for not talking Wang out of it, but they are Wang's deals.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/news/2001/09/05/yashin_islanders_ap/

The 10-year offer came shortly after a phone conversation between Yashin and team owner Charles Wang on July 18. The next day, while Milbury and Yashin were having lunch in the Hamptons, Wang called Milbury and said he wanted to offer Yashin the 10-year deal. Milbury said that it was agreed to, and the reason for the delay was solely to work out the tricky insurance issues.

http://www.isles-list.com/index.cfm?action=news&articleid=3747

The Islanders did prolong the inevitable, however, by not sewing the
captain's "C" to Peca's No. 27 sweater, which he wore for the cameras at
the news conference where he also put his signature on the five-year, $20
million contract.

Peca will make $3 million this season and by the fifth year, which
overlaps his first year of unrestricted free agency, he'll make $5.25
million.

Peca was considering an eight-year offer, but, much like Yashin's deal,
the quirks of such a long-term contract made it less appealing. Still, as
Peca put it, he doesn't plan on changing addresses again.

 

[thinkwild]

Dude if they honor the 04/05 contracts, that's not cool..

I was looking forward to the "Off-Season of Madness!"

Maybe they should do it every 6 years. All teams start from scratch and get 6 years as equals to try for the cup. Then they have another off-season of madness and do it all over again. It will liven things up and create a big change to teams so that things dont get boring. Wouldnt you love it?

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

so Adam Foote wouldn't be UFA righT??

 

[Mess]

so Adam Foote wouldn't be UFA righT??

Not until the Av's buy him out that is due to the cap..

 

[Bill Peckerskull]

so Adam Foote wouldn't be UFA righT??

No, but Forsberg would still be. And there would be no room for him unless someone like Blake, Sakic, Tanguay, Hejduk, or Foote was bought out or traded for a bag of Cheetos.

 

[PecaFan]

That is not what "toll" means. It is a legal term of art used to describe the process by which time periods are extended. In this case, it is the process by which the contracts would have been "suspended" as of the lockout date and would be re-engaged as of the effective date of the new agreement.

Hadn't heard that before, it makes perfect sense then. So the choices were Roll (let the contracts expire) or Toll (extend them a year, the lockout year didn't count).

And of course, he said they would be Rolled.

 

[DARKSIDE]

Hadn't heard that before, it makes perfect sense then. So the choices were Roll (let the contracts expire) or Toll (extend them a year, the lockout year didn't count).

And of course, he said they would be Rolled.

Miburys quote was: That means pull everyone's contract back a year. Otherwise there would be too many free agents. It would be utter chaos.

 

[Scoogs]

You may not like it ..but its the best thing for the NHL ..

Your wish for madness will come the following year for your team as lots of 1 year contracts come off the books and because of age will mean lots of turnover if that is what you are hoping for ..

There would still be lots of madness provided some teams still have only a handful of palyers under contract as you will see lots of signings in that regard .

Think about the excitement next year if Revenue goes up and so does the CAP and UFA comes down and more players to create that madness ..

It's really not the best thing for the NHL. If you look at teams that are still greatly over the cap after the rollback (Our beloved Maple Leafs), they will have to spend alot of money on just buying players out. And possible players that said they would come back for alot cheaper.

Unless a good handful of those players agree to renegotiate...

 

[CREW99AW]

That's exactly what he meant. Though if the islanders dont want say aucoin under the previous contract, they could cut buy him out. Thought Milbury did not say that. But that's what i assume could happen.

When Aucoin won his $4.25m in arbitration(the summer of 2004),Milbury immediately told the press how pleased the isles were with Aucoin,how they looked forward to having him back.

With Jonsson retiring,it frees up $3m in salary.I think it's very unlikely the isles would walk away from either Hamrlik or Aucoin.Especially after the rollbacks.

 

[NYR469]

honoring 04-05 contracts would not suprise me in the least simply because the nhlpa has given everything and gotten nothing on any of the other points...and if they took it to court it would be a slamdunk based on the yashin case imo anyway, so the league might as well just give it to them to say they gave back something.

my guess would be that the nhlpa simply required the contracts to be rolled forward or the 24% rollback would be off the table, they weren't going to let the owners get off the hook for $1b worth of salaries and give them a 24% rollback on top.

so the league agrees to honor the contracts, in turn they get the rollback, cap and everything else...and a whole bunch of players get bought out and become free agents anyway but they atleast get that $$ instead of being left with nothing.

plus even more importantly it could smooth things over as far as bad blood goes between players and the league...

 

[norrisnick]

honoring 04-05 contracts would not suprise me in the least simply because the nhlpa has given everything and gotten nothing on any of the other points...and if they took it to court it would be a slamdunk based on the yashin case imo anyway, so the league might as well just give it to them to say they gave back something.

my guess would be that the nhlpa simply required the contracts to be rolled forward or the 24% rollback would be off the table, they weren't going to let the owners get off the hook for $1b worth of salaries and give them a 24% rollback on top.

so the league agrees to honor the contracts, in turn they get the rollback, cap and everything else...and a whole bunch of players get bought out and become free agents anyway but they atleast get that $$ instead of being left with nothing.

plus even more importantly it could smooth things over as far as bad blood goes between players and the league...

Yashin has no bearing in this case. His was during the course of an active CBA, this is during the course of an expired CBA. Plus the cases of Mogilny, Belfour, and whoever else got paid for injuries sustained last season as well as Nolan's extra year clause in the event of lockout tip the legal scales directly towards the owners.

 

[kdb209]

honoring 04-05 contracts would not suprise me in the least simply because the nhlpa has given everything and gotten nothing on any of the other points...and if they took it to court it would be a slamdunk based on the yashin case imo anyway, so the league might as well just give it to them to say they gave back something.

People keep bringing this up, but:

YASHIN'S CASE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION

OK. I feel better now.

The Yashin arbitration decision has little to do with this question and offers no precedent.

1. It was an arbiter's (Lawrence Holden's) decision made under the dispute resolution mechanisms of the last CBA and not a court case. The only court case just upheld that arbitration according to the CBA was the correct venue and did not rule at all on the merits of the case. There is no legal precedent established by Yashin's non case, except possibly in other NHL arbitration cases.

2. The point that Holden ruled on was very narrow. He made no global rulings on whether contracts are for calendar years of playing years. All he did was rely on an obscure ruling made during the Zeigler/Stein era (which became part of the body of league rules and bylaws which accompany the CBA) which specifically dealt with players holding out and full performance of contracts. The previous rulings on which Holden's decision were based were pretty one sided in terms of performance - explicitly calling out the case of a holdout player.

 

[crashthenet]

Have you considered the possibility that Yashin, who wants to be in New York, will renegotiate his deal?

Alot of Milbury bashing and I am not a Milbury apologist but don't think for a minute this franchise would have survived without Yashin, Peca, Aucoin and Osgood being brought in. They did what they had to do to sell tickets. I had gone to too many games with 5,000 of my closest friends to think otherwise. At least he gave you some insight today.

I also wondering how Luongo will look in his new streamlined equipment and tightfitting jersey, hmmm