Out of town thread V

[LyricalLyricist]

You've moved the line plenty in your last response. You still can't justify why RFA years exist. Why should players, who risk their health and future earnings, be tied to one franchise? Is there any reason? Why do players have to pay the price for """parity"""? Why should the fans have to risk losing star players because they're RFAs and their ONE franchise doesn't want to pay them what they're worth? RFA compensation is prohibitive and discouraged, it is essentially a sham.

>Would you sign Nylander to 8 million dollars for 8 years?

You don't know how much either side have offered and you're the first to demand and insist upon evidence. So prove it.

And I would've never signed Alzner to any contract.

They exist for to protect the assets of a team and create a level playing field. I've said this several times. You've even brought it up in the lines after.

NHL players don't need to pay the price for parity but if they want we can always go back to a league with less money to give players. How does that benefit the players? I don't get it.

In 15 years the NHL salary cap has doubled despite revenue sharing being adjusted. That's double the cash to give and with a salary cap floor it helps big time. The cap FLOOR is 58.8 million. I think habs spent 38 million the year before the lockout.

We're likely to get another brand new team which is MORE jobs for players. This is good stuff isn't it?

The amount requested as per Darren Dreger exceeds 8 million.

"And obviously the Nylander fight continues with the Toronto Maple Leafs and our information suggests that Nylander to date is not willing to come off the number of $8-plus million per year so that makes it pretty easy for Kyle Dubas and the Toronto Maple Leafs to continue their position to dig in," Dreger said Thursday on Insider Trading. "Last week, [TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun] talked about the possibility of teams calling. Teams have been calling no doubt, inquiring about Willie Nylander, is he available?

I'm sure Dreger isn't the perfect source but you will never know the exact negotiations, ever. That's private.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Sure there should be a cost, but four 1st rd picks? Come on now.

4 1st round picks is if he gets 10,148,303 or higher...

Why is that even being discussed?

For $6,088,981 - $8,118,641 it's a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd. I believe that to be the likely range.

The compensation from offersheets seem to favor the team losing the player. They're essentially compensated for their poor asset management.
The team signing the player not only has to dish out huge cash, but also give up a ridiculous return. It's not for nothing they rarely ever happen, and such an interesting player like Nylander can just go unsigned without signing one.

Given you have the compensation numbers a little off I disagree. A 6 million dollar player warrants a 1st and a 3rd...

Offer Sheet Calculator - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

I think there should be a deadline to a team's inactivity in regards to RFAs. If a team hasn't settled its differences with the player, and did not move him, by game 40, offersheet compensations are halved..or something like that.

Again, you have the numbers for compensation wrong. If Nylander is asking for 6 or less it's a 1st and a 3rd, that's not much. 6 to 8 mil is a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd for what a team considers a 7 or 8 million dollar player.

Pacioretty got a 1st round prospect, a 2nd and a 2nd liner. That's a bigger price for an older player...

Karlsson got more and he's heading towards UFA...

8Mx8...Probably not. Do we know this to be his actual ask though? Or just his starting point because the Leafs are trying to bridge him?
Would he accept 7y at 6M? Cuz I'd totally do that.
For them to be so far into the season with seemingly no signs of being close to an agreement, you have to think they are world's apart.
Listening to what Shanahan said earlier, it sounds like the Leafs are the ones refusing to budge. Just like Bergey with Subban. We know PK completely gave in. Agreeing to around 5M over 2 years, when he already was in Norris shape..there is no way they gave PK anything close to what he was seeking and it's clear they were not going to negotiate a thing about it.
Feels like something similar in Toronto, except Nylander obviously doesn't mind waiting it out longer than PK did.

I posted the quote from Dreger. I believe it was rumored he used Draisaitl as a comparable but I don't know.

Ironically Subban became the highest(cap) paid D-man once his bridge was over and he was still RFA. That scary RFA status got him highest paid D at the time...

There's always a possibility Leafs are lowballing him but again if his ask if reasonable he can be offer sheeted. In fact, if Nylander is asking for 6 million that's a joke to sign. 1st and a 3rd on the offer sheet. That's cheap IMO.

As I said, the offer sheet compensation isn't as grave as you and Hemlock are making it out to be. These are reasonable numbers and I'd argue the leafs can get even more in a direct trade because they can be selective AND have power over the picks they acquire. If Washington or some cup contender sign him the pick can be a late 1st which isn't as appealing.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Why is everything a hostage? The way a business runs is up to them, as long as it does nothing illegal. I didn't mock those fans. I'm just calling it what it is. Business' often relocate to improve their bottom line because...they're a business.

There are plenty of things the law doesn't or can't address. There are plenty of oversights and gray areas. Deferring to legality is a cop-out. Lots of injustice is legalized. Lots of problems are enshrined into the law. "It's a business" is an absolute cop-out. There are plenty of legal businesses doing legal practices that are abhorrent, immoral, and destructive. What the NFL does to its players is abhorrent and immoral. What the NHL does in denying concussions and the link between physical sports and concussions is immoral. There isn't any need to bring up other, much more evil business practices such as IBM's sordid history or what HSBC and other banks do to launder money. They're businesses... that doesn't make them right.

​

Peter Pocklington wanted to pay off debt on other businesses but lost Gretzky. I'll repeat, he lost Gretzky. Sounds like a poor business decision to me. Could've made more keeping him.

The fans lost Gretzky. Pocklington sold Gretzky. I don't give a rat's behind about Pocklington's business debts - Edmontonians lost Wayne Gretzky in his prime through no fault of their own. It was a business decision - it sucked.

I don't follow soccer so I honestly can't respond well. If they give players all the leverage then fantastic. Is there parity though? Is it a balanced atmosphere?

The almighty alter of parity must be ripped to bits. It's a meaningless buzzword. It implies nothing that applies to competitive sports. How could there possibly be any sort of parity in sports? Parity applies to sports business, it is for the benefit of franchise owners who want to ensure their revenue.

Guaranteed contracts in the case of Rypien and Boogaard are weird to bring up. On that topic however since you brought it up, was Rypien's family paid for his final contracted season? I did a quick search and couldn't find a thing. I'm not being insensitive, just curious about what happened. I think Boogaard's family sued the NHLPA for the balance. I have no idea what happened. It seems like when they later sued the NHL it was thrown out.

For what it's worth though, Rypien was said to suffer from depression since his teens...well before he made it to the NHL. While Boogaard had a case that painkiller addiction came from prescriptions by team physicians Rypien seemed to be having an on-going battle since before he was even draft eligible.

It's an interesting side topic. Didn't Aaron Hernandez kill himself to null an appeal and ensure the NFL pay his salary to his family? I'm not sure what every happened with that.

In any case, I'm all for guaranteed contracts as its great for a player. I'm also all for RFA rules as it helps a team. My point was only that it is unfair to get without giving.

You were arguing against guaranteed contracts just earlier. It's nice to see you come around. I have hope for you yet.

Regardless of it being guaranteed contracts or something else why should the league concede something without players giving back?

Because the league sucks and is profiting off the players.

Nylander can sign tomorrow. He can play any league he wants. A likely 1st, 2nd and a 3rd shouldn't be enough to deter a team from signing him if they think he's a premium talent.

​

Nylander can sign his QO and play tomorrow at drastically below his market value. That's not a free market. Nylander can leave the NHL and still have his rights held by the Leafs. That's not a free market. The RFA compensation is designed to deter RFA approaches by giving the original club every advantage, even more than the player. That's not competitive.

If you want to argue for business, you should view the players' as individual businesses. They aren't employees, they are contractors. They are being artificially restricted and regulated by the NHL.

 

[NotProkofievian]

4 1st round picks is if he gets 10,148,303 or higher...

Why is that even being discussed?

For $6,088,981 - $8,118,641 it's a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd. I believe that to be the likely range.

That number is related to the average over the lesser of 5 years or the duration of the contract. So, for example, a 7 year 8 million per deal would push over that limit, despite the AAV being only 8 million.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

There are plenty of things the law doesn't or can't address. There are plenty of oversights and gray areas. Deferring to legality is a cop-out. Lots of injustice is legalized. Lots of problems are enshrined into the law. "It's a business" is an absolute cop-out. There are plenty of legal businesses doing legal practices that are abhorrent, immoral, and destructive. What the NFL does to its players is abhorrent and immoral. What the NHL does in denying concussions and the link between physical sports and concussions is immoral. There isn't any need to bring up other, much more evil business practices such as IBM's sordid history or what HSBC and other banks do to launder money. They're businesses... that doesn't make them right.

The NHL can deny whatever it wants. It's in the court. So it's not something they've gotten away with.

I'm arguing against the claim of constantly using the term hostage. It's just a form of sensationalism. We've been through this when you said Weber's offer sheet was designed to make Nashville bankrupt. It's a completely ridiculous claim.

Playing hardball isn't holding someone hostage.

The fans lost Gretzky. Pocklington sold Gretzky. I don't give a rat's behind about Pocklington's business debts - Edmontonians lost Wayne Gretzky in his prime through no fault of their own. It was a business decision - it sucked.

Did Gretzky stop playing? He went to LA and in fact...helped grow the game to what it is now.

You make it sound like Gretzky suffered. Pocklington's fault. Hell, the Oilers traded Hall for Larsson and got robbed too. Trades happen. No one got hurt.

The almighty alter of parity must be ripped to bits. It's a meaningless buzzword. It implies nothing that applies to competitive sports. How could there possibly be any sort of parity in sports? Parity applies to sports business, it is for the benefit of franchise owners who want to ensure their revenue.

There is often a compelling reason to remain competitive. When habs are not competitive their sell out streak ends. We, as consumers can choose what to spend money on.

At the end of the day it is a business but the success of the team is very much tied into having a fair or similar financial playing field.

You were arguing against guaranteed contracts just earlier. It's nice to see you come around. I have hope for you yet.

I argued against RFA rules changing for free.

Because the league sucks and is profiting off the players.

Yeah, and companies profit off employees. What else is new?

Have players gotten more money as a result of these systems in place? Yup.

Nylander can sign his QO and play tomorrow at drastically below his market value. That's not a free market. Nylander can leave the NHL and still have his rights held by the Leafs. That's not a free market. The RFA compensation is designed to deter RFA approaches by giving the original club every advantage, even more than the player. That's not competitive.

If you want to argue for business, you should view the players' as individual businesses. They aren't employees, they are contractors. They are being artificially restricted and regulated by the NHL.

I never said his QO. I said he can sign an offer sheet. I've said already a 1st and 3rd or 1st 2nd and 3rd are not much for Nylander unless it's a bottom feeder team.

As for players being individual businesses, sure. So businesses often have stipulations in their contract.

The NHL system is one that demands:

1) Exclusivity
2) Non-Compete(similar) for up to 25-27 years old or until the contract is terminated(whichever comes first).

I've signed NDAs, NCs and a plethora of different things because my job paid me enough that those limitations were worth it. As would be the case on getting a bigger contract in best league in the world.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

That number is related to the average over the lesser of 5 years or the duration of the contract. So, for example, a 7 year 8 million per deal would push over that limit, despite the AAV being only 8 million.

A fair point I overlooked that can easily be remedied by avoiding going to 6 or 7 years. Not easy but if player wants out he'd have to understand the limitations.

I do think that is a strange rule and would argue it should always be divided by the term.

Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

That number is related to the average over the lesser of 5 years or the duration of the contract. So, for example, a 7 year 8 million per deal would push over that limit, despite the AAV being only 8 million.

It's all arbitrary nonsense to screw over fans and players.

I understand that teams """invest""" in these players but that's what the ELC is for. After that you have to pay up or let them find their way across the NHL at whatever rate and term they can get. It would reduce garbage UFA contracts to bum players too, the market would be larger and more competitive and older and lesser players would be taking more reasonable contracts.

For all the pro-business, anti-labour talk of the league's stooges, it is mind-boggling to see them completely miss the mark on what players actually are. They are NOT employees in the typical sense and the league is not an employer and each team is certainly not an employer among 30 others. It offers no benefit to the fans, us, that the league restricts players to this absurd degree. It is only considered accepted and NOT absurd because it's been this way for so long.

 

[Kriss E]

4 1st round picks is if he gets 10,148,303 or higher...

Why is that even being discussed?

For $6,088,981 - $8,118,641 it's a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd. I believe that to be the likely range.



Given you have the compensation numbers a little off I disagree. A 6 million dollar player warrants a 1st and a 3rd...

Offer Sheet Calculator - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps



Again, you have the numbers for compensation wrong. If Nylander is asking for 6 or less it's a 1st and a 3rd, that's not much. 6 to 8 mil is a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd for what a team considers a 7 or 8 million dollar player.

Pacioretty got a 1st round prospect, a 2nd and a 2nd liner. That's a bigger price for an older player...

Karlsson got more and he's heading towards UFA...

I would totally give a 1st + 3rd for Nylander, if I didn't think we could end with a top 10 pick.
Don't see how Detroit's 1st is equal to Nashville's. If I were NSH, I'd gladly sign him on and give up 1st+3rd. Our case though, not really.

I posted the quote from Dreger. I believe it was rumored he used Draisaitl as a comparable but I don't know.

Ironically Subban became the highest(cap) paid D-man once his bridge was over and he was still RFA. That scary RFA status got him highest paid D at the time...

There's always a possibility Leafs are lowballing him but again if his ask if reasonable he can be offer sheeted. In fact, if Nylander is asking for 6 million that's a joke to sign. 1st and a 3rd on the offer sheet. That's cheap IMO.

As I said, the offer sheet compensation isn't as grave as you and Hemlock are making it out to be. These are reasonable numbers and I'd argue the leafs can get even more in a direct trade because they can be selective AND have power over the picks they acquire. If Washington or some cup contender sign him the pick can be a late 1st which isn't as appealing.

Dreger knows as much as about my little pinky. He's useless. He's the Renaud Lavoie of TSN.
He also said Subban wanted Doughty cash and there is no way he would have dropped from wanting such a huge amount to just 5M..lol. No way.
Drai is a ppg player. Not sure how that's the comparable. 8years at 7M, ya maybe, but again that's probably their starting point. I don't think Shanahan is trying to negotiate down to a reasonable 6x6 deal and Nylander is categorically refusing to bring down his ask.
It makes a heck of a lot more sense that Toronto is playing hard ball and is trying to get him signed to cheap bridge deal. That would fall in line with Shanahan's rather bad press conference talking about it.

 

[NotProkofievian]

A fair point I overlooked that can easily be remedied by avoiding going to 6 or 7 years. Not easy but if player wants out he'd have to understand the limitations.

I do think that is a strange rule and would argue it should always be divided by the term.

Thanks for pointing it out.

The most pressing offer sheet that could be tabled would be 8.1 x 5, as the compensation would just be a 1st, a 2nd, and a 3rd for that. Toronto I think would be forced to match, and they would be really unhappy about it.

 

[NotProkofievian]

It's all arbitrary nonsense to screw over fans and players.

I understand that teams """invest""" in these players but that's what the ELC is for. After that you have to pay up or let them find their way across the NHL at whatever rate and term they can get. It would reduce garbage UFA contracts to bum players too, the market would be larger and more competitive and older and lesser players would be taking more reasonable contracts.

For all the pro-business, anti-labour talk of the league's stooges, it is mind-boggling to see them completely miss the mark on what players actually are. They are NOT employees in the typical sense and the league is not an employer and each team is certainly not an employer among 30 others. It offers no benefit to the fans, us, that the league restricts players to this absurd degree. It is only considered accepted and NOT absurd because it's been this way for so long.

I'm generally more in favour of things that would increase activity on the market for players. I really don't like the 7 years or 27 rule, for example. I think it should be reduced to 5. First 3 years, they're on ELCs, they're eligible for artibtration right away and RFA for only 2 years. Instantaneously the free agent market would be a more viable tool for team building than the after thought that it already is.

That said, I'm not sure what the players would give up in order to get such a concession.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

The NHL can deny whatever it wants. It's in the court. So it's not something they've gotten away with.

So far they haven't paid a penny.

I'm arguing against the claim of constantly using the term hostage. It's just a form of sensationalism. We've been through this when you said Weber's offer sheet was designed to make Nashville bankrupt. It's a completely ridiculous claim.

Playing hardball isn't holding someone hostage.

A franchise demanding tax breaks or a free arena or else it would move is absolutely taking the fans and city hostage. Ask how the mayor of Calgary feels about the Flames ownership.

Did Gretzky stop playing? He went to LA and in fact...helped grow the game to what it is now.

You make it sound like Gretzky suffered. Pocklington's fault. Hell, the Oilers traded Hall for Larsson and got robbed too. Trades happen. No one got hurt.

He stopped playing in Edmonton. The fans got hurt through no fault of their own. Trades happen and are a part of the league (I disagree with them too) but selling a player as Pocklington did is beyond the pale and the rules were changed in response to the outrage. There is outrage in this case too - there is no reason for RFA rules to exist.

There is often a compelling reason to remain competitive. When habs are not competitive their sell out streak ends. We, as consumers can choose what to spend money on.

You keep confusing where you are pro-market and where you are anti-competitive to suit your argument. If consumers get to choose what to spend money on, why can't other teams choose which FAs to sign?

At the end of the day it is a business but the success of the team is very much tied into having a fair or similar financial playing field.

How is the sporting success of a team related to a "fair financial playing field"?

I argued against RFA rules changing for free.

It doesn't cost anything to change any rules.

Yeah, and companies profit off employees. What else is new?

Players aren't employees.

Have players gotten more money as a result of these systems in place? Yup.

Take your gruel and enjoy it! You only get what the league gives you, don't you dare ask for more!

I never said his QO. I said he can sign an offer sheet. I've said already a 1st and 3rd or 1st 2nd and 3rd are not much for Nylander unless it's a bottom feeder team.

Justify why there should be compensation to Leafs in addition to giving the Leafs the right of first refusal? If Nylander doesn't want to sign there, why should he be compelled to?

As for players being individual businesses, sure. So businesses often have stipulations in their contract.

The NHL system is one that demands:

1) Exclusivity
2) Non-Compete(similar) for up to 25-27 years old or until the contract is terminated(whichever comes first).

And IBM helped the Nazis systematically butcher millions of innocent people. Businesses aren't always right and their demands don't need to be accepted at every turn.

I've signed NDAs, NCs and a plethora of different things because my job paid me enough that those limitations were worth it. As would be the case on getting a bigger contract in best league in the world.

Being forced to sign another contract or have your future employee pay an prohibitive cost to sign you IS, however, onerous. And many contracts have clauses which prevent onerous restrictions.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

I'm generally more in favour of things that would increase activity on the market for players. I really don't like the 7 years or 27 rule, for example. I think it should be reduced to 5. First 3 years, they're on ELCs, they're eligible for artibtration right away and RFA for only 2 years. Instantaneously the free agent market would be a more viable tool for team building than the after thought that it already is.

That said, I'm not sure what the players would give up in order to get such a concession.

I'm against RFAs entirely and I think the entire North American pro sports industry should adopt European-style market liberalism. It doesn't make sense to place these arbitrary restrictions on the fans.

The only way the players can get this concession is if they work with broadcasters and advertisers and flank the league somehow. Otherwise ghouls like Jacobs and the late Ed Snider (Molson is no angel either) will impose their will.

The NHL will survive and thrive if competition increases and sporting quality goes up. Both those aspects require the best players to do what they're best at. So they should let them do it with minimal restrictions and impositions.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I'm against RFAs entirely and I think the entire North American pro sports industry should adopt European-style market liberalism. It doesn't make sense to place these arbitrary restrictions on the fans.

The only way the players can get this concession is if they work with broadcasters and advertisers and flank the league somehow. Otherwise ghouls like Jacobs and the late Ed Snider (Molson is no angel either) will impose their will.

The NHL will survive and thrive if competition increases and sporting quality goes up. Both those aspects require the best players to do what they're best at. So they should let them do it with minimal restrictions and impositions.

To be honest, the thing that I find the most distasteful about European soccer is the economic liberalism. There is essentially no strategy involved. Big teams owned by big investors (who can spend Molson's net worth in an afternoon if they so feel like it) get the big players and win the trophy. The end (in before ''but muh leicester''). Rules make the game, whatever it is. I do like the strategic aspect to team building currently in the NHL, I just wish it were more balanced between UFA and the draft. The trade market would follow the UFA market.

 

[PaulD]

There are plenty of things the law doesn't or can't address. There are plenty of oversights and gray areas. Deferring to legality is a cop-out. Lots of injustice is legalized. Lots of problems are enshrined into the law. "It's a business" is an absolute cop-out. There are plenty of legal businesses doing legal practices that are abhorrent, immoral, and destructive. What the NFL does to its players is abhorrent and immoral. What the NHL does in denying concussions and the link between physical sports and concussions is immoral. There isn't any need to bring up other, much more evil business practices such as IBM's sordid history or what HSBC and other banks do to launder money. They're businesses... that doesn't make them right.

​

The fans lost Gretzky. Pocklington sold Gretzky. I don't give a rat's behind about Pocklington's business debts - Edmontonians lost Wayne Gretzky in his prime through no fault of their own. It was a business decision - it sucked.

The almighty alter of parity must be ripped to bits. It's a meaningless buzzword. It implies nothing that applies to competitive sports. How could there possibly be any sort of parity in sports? Parity applies to sports business, it is for the benefit of franchise owners who want to ensure their revenue.



You were arguing against guaranteed contracts just earlier. It's nice to see you come around. I have hope for you yet.


Because the league sucks and is profiting off the players.

​

Nylander can sign his QO and play tomorrow at drastically below his market value. That's not a free market. Nylander can leave the NHL and still have his rights held by the Leafs. That's not a free market. The RFA compensation is designed to deter RFA approaches by giving the original club every advantage, even more than the player. That's not competitive.

If you want to argue for business, you should view the players' as individual businesses. They aren't employees, they are contractors. They are being artificially restricted and regulated by the NHL.

Parity is described in many ways. As are the results of so called parity in the NHL.

"Parity in the NHL" is like house league . At local rinks around the country house league coaches and convenors all meet about 4 weeks into the season. The best players from top teams are then shared by shuffling and switching them around to the losing teams to even out the competition. (You could say they are traded for weaker players) Once all the line ups look to be even, we all go for beer.

In kids house league we call that being fair. Achieved at the coaches meeting four weeks into the season.

In the NHL they call that parity. Achieved by the salary cap and the salary floor.

The bottom feeders have to be propped up while the top teams have to be kept down.

While I see the benefits to the league as a whole, A major consequence is we will never again see Stanley Cup finals (or semi finals) loaded with mega talented rosters going head to head.

 

[PaulD]

To be honest, the thing that I find the most distasteful about European soccer is the economic liberalism. There is essentially no strategy involved. Big teams owned by big investors (who can spend Molson's net worth in an afternoon if they so feel like it) get the big players and win the trophy. The end (in before ''but muh leicester''). Rules make the game, whatever it is. I do like the strategic aspect to team building currently in the NHL, I just wish it were more balanced between UFA and the draft. The trade market would follow the UFA market.

big investors who get the big players and win the trophy.........yea, playing against opposing teams "owned by big investors who get big players" and compete for the trophy.

Cream rises to the top and gives fans the best of the best going head to head. Ill take that any day over the NHLs everyone gets a trophy mentality.

 

[Tyson]

Nylander thinks he is worth 8 mil per season, the market seems to think otherwise. Pastrnak money seems fair. He could sign a two year at 6 mil deal and see where he is after that. One thing for sure, with every passing day he is losing money he won’t recoup

 

[NotProkofievian]

big investors who get the big players and win the trophy.........yea, playing against opposing teams "owned by big investors who get big players" and compete for the trophy.

Cream rises to the top and gives fans the best of the best going head to head. Ill take that any day over the NHLs everyone gets a trophy mentality.

Everyone doesn't get a trophy in the NHL. Only the ones who were smart enough to understand the metagame do. Rich, idiotic teams like ours manage to win nothing. I like that aspect of the NHL, even if we didn't benefit from it.

Also, Montreal fans who think that we are unable to throw our weight around should think twice about what they wish for. Molson's pockets aren't that deep.

 

[Perrah]

Everyone doesn't get a trophy in the NHL. Only the ones who were smart enough to understand the metagame do. Rich, idiotic teams like ours manage to win nothing. I like that aspect of the NHL, even if we didn't benefit from it.

Also, Montreal fans who think that we are unable to throw our weight around should think twice about what they wish for. Molson's pockets aren't that deep.

How would changing the RFA rules in a hard cap world be anything like European football? You can still only spend X amount on your team. Maybe if they nixed guaranteed contracts too, then the rich would run wild.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Nylander thinks he is worth 8 mil per season, the market seems to think otherwise. Pastrnak money seems fair. He could sign a two year at 6 mil deal and see where he is after that. One thing for sure, with every passing day he is losing money he won’t recoup

8m PLUS a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, or whatever.

That's why it's not "the market", and that's why RFA rules are fundementally broken and young players get the shaft.

 

[NotProkofievian]

How would changing the RFA rules in a hard cap world be anything like European football? You can still only spend X amount on your team. Maybe if they nixed guaranteed contracts too, then the rich would run wild.

I'm just stating my preference in opposition to ''European-style market Liberalism,'' I'm not advancing the position that any change to the RFA rules would lead to it. In fact I do think they should be changed and moved towards a more liberal direction. But Hemlock at least seems like he'd want to go a lot further.

 

[Perrah]

I'm just stating my preference in opposition to ''European-style market Liberalism,'' I'm not advancing the position that any change to the RFA rules would lead to it. In fact I do think they should be changed and moved towards a more liberal direction. But Hemlock at least seems like he'd want to go a lot further.

Fair enough. Id be intrigued to see how it would play out. I dont think it would change much, you still need to choose the right guys in the end. I could see a team like Carolina getting stripped to the bone though, and that would be the biggest problem.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

To be honest, the thing that I find the most distasteful about European soccer is the economic liberalism. There is essentially no strategy involved. Big teams owned by big investors (who can spend Molson's net worth in an afternoon if they so feel like it) get the big players and win the trophy. The end (in before ''but muh leicester''). Rules make the game, whatever it is. I do like the strategic aspect to team building currently in the NHL, I just wish it were more balanced between UFA and the draft. The trade market would follow the UFA market.

If you can't tell from my posts, I'm definitely not into economic liberalism (aka free market, supply side economics).

Yet sports are paradoxically the opposite. You want ruthless competition. You want the best to face off against the best. You want to see domination. It works because sports are contained. Instead of wars and skirmishes we can have sportsmen fight on our behalf.

The protectionist racket pits the NHL versus the players versus the fans and taxpayers. It's neither liberalised nor competitive. The NHL, fundementally, wants the success of the NHL. That's why teams get ripped out of struggling markets (as opposed to relegating into a more suitable division).

European soccer's influx of billionaire money isn't something to admire whatsoever but at least the structure is intact. Players have much more rights, fans have much more diversity. It is as open a market as it can get. Billionaires are already entrenched in the North American sports leagues and they've only managed to help themselves. Salaries went up only begrudgingly and through extremely acrimonious circumstances. It was like any other labour strife, the investors have an inch and acted like they had to cut off their arm to do so.

 

[Adam Michaels]

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Fair enough. Id be intrigued to see how it would play out. I dont think it would change much, you still need to choose the right guys in the end. I could see a team like Carolina getting stripped to the bone though, and that would be the biggest problem.

There could be a salary cap, to protect smaller markets, but players shouldn't be locked into RFA deals. They get the ELC plus one or two years of RFA and then that's it. Let them earn what they're worth.

And I think players shouldn't be traded. Their contracts should be bought and sold like in soccer. Let them choose where they go and how much they should get to go there.

Have a transfer cap and a salary cap if you must, if only to protect the league's weaker clubs. Let the rest compete. What's the point otherwise? Who benefits from McJesus and Eichel on trash franchises who actively seek to lose.

You'd eliminate tanking with this too. It won't be worth to crash your club for 3-5 years of a single good player.

 

[NotProkofievian]

If you can't tell from my posts, I'm definitely not into economic liberalism (aka free market, supply side economics).

Yet sports are paradoxically the opposite. You want ruthless competition. You want the best to face off against the best. You want to see domination. It works because sports are contained. Instead of wars and skirmishes we can have sportsmen fight on our behalf.

The protectionist racket pits the NHL versus the players versus the fans and taxpayers. It's neither liberalised nor competitive. The NHL, fundementally, wants the success of the NHL. That's why teams get ripped out of struggling markets (as opposed to relegating into a more suitable division).

The NHL is still very much in a growth mode. I guess I'm as much a fan of shrewd management as I am of what actually happens on the ice. I get excited for the strategy and the maneuvering. But I do also understand the excitement of watching two juggernauts face off against one another.

One thing that Europe has going for it that the NHL doesn't is competition between leagues. If you don't like one league, you can watch a different one. Every year the best from all over face off against one another for the real prize. That's the thing that I like most about European sports. To me having the bad aspect without the good aspect is something I don't really want to sign up for: especially since it would benefit Toronto more than us lol.

European soccer's influx of billionaire money isn't something to admire whatsoever but at least the structure is intact. Players have much more rights, fans have much more diversity. It is as open a market as it can get. Billionaires are already entrenched in the North American sports leagues and they've only managed to help themselves. Salaries went up only begrudgingly and through extremely acrimonious circumstances. It was like any other labour strife, the investors have an inch and acted like they had to cut off their arm to do so.

I'm generally in favour of more player rights, and I'll be there along side you arguing for less RFA years if there's another lockout. What I would like to see is a much smaller term of player ''control'' that would give teams a small window to plan their core. I think this would be enough to open things up to a great degree. Let's say they immediately get arbitration rights, that cuts into cost control to an enormous degree. This may force more trades, or just lead to more players with more of their prime years available to the UFA market. All of a sudden, team building can happen in different, viable ways.