Primeau upset Goodenow with his contract

Status
Not open for further replies.

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
slats432 said:
My problem is with the NHLPA's "influence" on the contracts. They say they want a free market and then get pissed every time a player signs outside what "they" think is market value.

If it were the owners getting together and deciding what "market value" was collectively, it is collusion.

Which, when I bring up one of the NHL's proposals was to negotiate all the player contracts, it is the same thing that the NHLPA does now.(Which wasn't a salary cap)

If the players didn't negotiate each contract as a group of 750 players constantly trying to push the bar up for each other, I would be more inclined to live with a free(r) market.

What we need are more Keith Primeau's. I don't really like it, either, but the players themselves are in tough spots. I bet more would like to do what Primeau did, but when you have Goodenow and probably your agent and who knows who else coming over and saying you have to do this for the good of the union and Joe Grindliner on the bench a few feet down from you, I can see how it would become a very hard decision to make.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Bruwinz20 said:
I dont think anyone is arguing that this isnt the owners fault. It clearly is. That doesnt mean that the game goes on the road it is on because the owners made a big mistake. They are fixing it because there is a lot of people losing a lot of money. Who cares whose fault it is?

Before placing fault (or heaven forbid, fixing it), we must decide what the fault is.
I am not convinced a Salary Cap is the only way to fix the NHLs problems.
The problems have more to do with revenue inequities than a pure lack of revenue.
A Luxury Tax, a strict one, would do more to fix the problem than a salary cap.
One: It would provide incentives to keep salaries low, reducing demand for players and salaries throughout the league.
Two: It would allow teams at least the opportunity to keep rosters together when they decide it is imperative.
Three: It would provide revenue to poorer teams.

A salary cap will create a lot of problems that fans haven't begun to discuss.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Newsguyone said:
Before placing fault (or heaven forbid, fixing it), we must decide what the fault is.
I am not convinced a Salary Cap is the only way to fix the NHLs problems.
The problems have more to do with revenue inequities than a pure lack of revenue.
A Luxury Tax, a strict one, would do more to fix the problem than a salary cap.
One: It would provide incentives to keep salaries low, reducing demand for players and salaries throughout the league.
Two: It would allow teams at least the opportunity to keep rosters together when they decide it is imperative.
Three: It would provide revenue to poorer teams.

A salary cap will create a lot of problems that fans haven't begun to discuss.

I wonder how many posts will go by before the lame baseball reference?

A big problem I see for the salary cap is the likely increase in revenue disparity. And with less money being put into players by big revenue clubs, those funds are giong to be re-directed elsewhere. There are a few very clear places where more money will likely be spent, such as scouting and development, but there is one place where I haven't seen anyone consider more money being spent: on coaches and management.

With the talant of the league theoretically more evenly distributed because the large markets can't buy up all of the talant, coaching and management will become more important and people truly excellent at either are few and far between. So what happens when a team like Detroit or NYR decide to chuck $6 million at Minnisota's coach Or Edmonton's GM instead of Brendan Shanahan? Assuming there's a hard cap at $45 million and taking Detroit's salary of around $77 million last year, that leaves Detroit with a good $32 million to throw around in other areas.

If it gives them a noticeable edge, I can see teams like NYR, Toronto, Detroit, etc. begin raiding the scouting departments, benches and management teams of the lesser clubs. If they were given that much extra cash to begin chucking around, I don't think they'd hesitate to simply spend it elsewhere to maintain that advantage.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Winger98 said:
If it gives them a noticeable edge, I can see teams like NYR, Toronto, Detroit, etc. begin raiding the scouting departments, benches and management teams of the lesser clubs. If they were given that much extra cash to begin chucking around, I don't think they'd hesitate to simply spend it elsewhere to maintain that advantage.

What's stopping those teams from doing it now? The Rangers already can raid other teams' scouting departments, benches, etc. and have (see: Sather, Glen).
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
Newsguyone said:
Before placing fault (or heaven forbid, fixing it), we must decide what the fault is.
I am not convinced a Salary Cap is the only way to fix the NHLs problems.
The problems have more to do with revenue inequities than a pure lack of revenue.
A Luxury Tax, a strict one, would do more to fix the problem than a salary cap.
One: It would provide incentives to keep salaries low, reducing demand for players and salaries throughout the league.
Two: It would allow teams at least the opportunity to keep rosters together when they decide it is imperative.
Three: It would provide revenue to poorer teams.

A salary cap will create a lot of problems that fans haven't begun to discuss.

I am not anti-tax by any stretch. I just think that unless the tax is so restrictive that it is in essence a cap, the owners will reject it. Both sides are at fault with these negotiations. They have barely been negotiating and both are more concerned by winning over popular support rather than getting a deal done. The players proposals are band aids and the owners proposals are too extreme. No mid ground has been explored.

I am not sure why poor teams dont want a revenue share and are intent on a cap. They probably are afraid that the same 3-4 teams will still spend like crazy and little will change. All I am saying is that playing the blame game is a waste of time. The owners are to blame, but the players need to make some more concessions that will establish a system that will ensure long term stability.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
CarlRacki said:
What's stopping those teams from doing it now? The Rangers already can raid other teams' scouting departments, benches, etc. and have (see: Sather, Glen).

Not as much of a need. They haven't had to distance themselves from the rest of the pack through secondary methods, instead simply icing more talanted (and more expensive) lineups. Take away the ability to pull ahead through simply stacking their lineup, and things that made less of a difference to them before will likely take on added significance.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Bruwinz20 said:
I am not anti-tax by any stretch. I just think that unless the tax is so restrictive that it is in essence a cap, the owners will reject it. Both sides are at fault with these negotiations. They have barely been negotiating and both are more concerned by winning over popular support rather than getting a deal done. The players proposals are band aids and the owners proposals are too extreme. No mid ground has been explored.

I am not sure why poor teams dont want a revenue share and are intent on a cap. They probably are afraid that the same 3-4 teams will still spend like crazy and little will change. All I am saying is that playing the blame game is a waste of time. The owners are to blame, but the players need to make some more concessions that will establish a system that will ensure long term stability.

Dude, let's say we have a graduated tax.
$35 Million at 50 percent
$40-50 at 75 percent
Over 50 at 100 percent.

With the possible exception of the Rangers, it's really going to bring down salaries a ton.
Do you think Mike Illitch, who lost $16 Million last year, is going to want to increase his payroll by 50 percent? He had a 75 Million payroll. He'd be penalized about $37.5 Million.
Now you're looking at a loss of 53.5 Million.
Illitch can't afford that.

The market for UFAs would dry up in a hurry (as it did, somewhat in the last two years)
The big market teams would probably stay in the low to mid 40s and maybe top 50 when they felt they had a good shot.

What kills me is the hard cap.
Because we know that superstars are going to be in demand. They are the guys who will still collect big money, just like they do in the NBA and NFL.
But what happens to Atlanta, with Heatly, Kovalchuk and Lehtonen in a few years.

I keep thinking of Detroit in the early 90s when Fedorov, Lidstrom and Konstantinov emerged to join Yzerman and form the nucleus of a great team.
The greatest hockey icon in Detroit is Yzerman. And Detroit nearly traded him.
With a salary cap, and with Fedorov, Lidstrom, Konstantinov and Primeau in the Wings, Yzerman would have surely been traded.

Hockey already has too much player movement. A salary cap will mean even more movement.
Now I know small market fans will say "so what, we've been losing our stars for years"
And they have a point.
But I think a salary cap is the wrong answer.
It's the lowest common demoninator. It means that all teams are going to have problems holding onto their stars.
A luxury tax would allow the big markets (and let's be honest, the markets that are MOST important to the NHL) to have the flexibility to keep teams together when they're close.
A luxury tax would also allow the Flames to keep Iginla or the Nucks to keep Naslund, Bert and Jovocop together if they were very close to the cup but bulging over the limit ever so slightly.

The other thing is this: For a salary cap to be effective in terms of roster flexibility, owners must have the ability to tear up contracts.

Call me old fashioned, but a deal is a deal.
People who sign contracts should stick to them. And yes, that goes for Alexi Yashin, too.

Anyway. I'm not sure the PA would agree to the tax.
But I suspect that they are waiting for the owners to budge first.
If the players propose a strong tax and the owners reject it, the season is history.

If the owners budge from the cap and suggest a strong cap, then I think the players will negotiate a number.

What kills me is that the owners are holding the league hostage and demanding radical concessions.
I don't care who you are, if you compare what the players had to what the owners want, it's a radical fix.
And if the players can get the owners 60 to 70 percent there in one deal, Bettman should take it, for the good of the game.
Bettman's strategy is arrogant and reckless. I've got a feeling it's going to cause more harm than good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
Newsguy, like I said I am not opposed to a luxury tax. I am a little surprised why the NHL is opposed to one to be honest. You are right, salaries would come down in a New York (pun intended) minute. The tax you suggest would work. Let me ask you this, though, if the Rangers and their ilk bring down their overall salaries to ~40 million then how long before the players scream collusion?

I am fine with a tax like the one you suggested but for some reason the owners are hell bent on a cap. I just hope someone blinks before the 15th.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Bruwinz20 said:
Newsguy, like I said I am not opposed to a luxury tax. I am a little surprised why the NHL is opposed to one to be honest. You are right, salaries would come down in a New York (pun intended) minute. The tax you suggest would work. Let me ask you this, though, if the Rangers and their ilk bring down their overall salaries to ~40 million then how long before the players scream collusion?

I am fine with a tax like the one you suggested but for some reason the owners are hell bent on a cap. I just hope someone blinks before the 15th.

Players can't scream collusion.
By agreeing to a LT, they are essentially agreeing that there is a certain salary threshold that teams shouldn't cross.
A LT won't require actual collusion to bring salaries down. It strong LT will bring them down because a Detroit or Toronto or whoever won't be going gangbusters to sign Alex Kovalev because they know that to compete with Pittsburg's offer of $4 Million a year, it's going to cost them $8 Million a year.
Or that to compete with Calgary's $7 Million offer to Iginla, it will cost them 14M.
So less teams will be in the hunt for UFAs because of economic realities.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Newsguyone said:
It strong LT will bring them down because a Detroit or Toronto or whoever won't be going gangbusters to sign Alex Kovalev because they know that to compete with Pittsburg's offer of $4 Million a year, it's going to cost them $8 Million a year.
Or that to compete with Calgary's $7 Million offer to Iginla, it will cost them 14M.
So less teams will be in the hunt for UFAs because of economic realities.

maybe you need to clarify. why wouldnt CGY be subject to a LT at 7m but TOR would be ?

unless you mean, if it puts TOR over the threshold. isnt it fair to suggest that if CGY signs Iginla to a 7m deal and it puts them over, it will cost the same as if TOR did it ?

dr
 

Juicer

Registered User
Mar 14, 2004
863
19
If this is acceptable behaviour by Goodenow, I don't think collusion by the owners should be frowned upon.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
Juicer said:
If this is acceptable behaviour by Goodenow, I don't think collusion by the owners should be frowned upon.

Except that Goodenow didn't prevent Primeau from signing that contract, impede the negotiations, or tear up the contract after the fact. Nor did Goodenow fine Primeau and his agent.

Bob Goodenow dispensed advice. That's what he is paid to do.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Bicycle Repairman said:
Except that Goodenow didn't prevent Primeau from signing that contract, impede the negotiations, or tear up the contract after the fact. Nor did Goodenow fine Primeau and his agent.

Bob Goodenow dispensed advice. That's what he is paid to do.

When Ray Bourque and Chris Chelios signed for less than what was felt to be their market worth years ago the NHLPA basically censured them for it because they were making it worse for all the other players in the league. There has always been pressure of some sort on the players and their agents to hold their teams ransom for as much money as they could get. They don't have specific rules about it but it is still done.
 

Juicer

Registered User
Mar 14, 2004
863
19
Bicycle Repairman said:
Except that Goodenow didn't prevent Primeau from signing that contract, impede the negotiations, or tear up the contract after the fact. Nor did Goodenow fine Primeau and his agent.

He doesn't have the legal authority to do that.

Bicycle Repairman said:
Bob Goodenow dispensed advice. That's what he is paid to do.

That is why Primeau has an agent. Goodenow's job is not to screw the owners at the expense of a players happiness.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
Juicer said:
He doesn't have the legal authority to do that.

And collusion by owners is illegal too. That's my point.

Juicer said:
That is why Primeau has an agent. Goodenow's job is not to screw the owners at the expense of a players happiness.

Goodenow provides counsel in the course of his duties as Executive Director of the NHLPA. He doesn't work for the owners. But I'm sure you know that already.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
mooseOAK said:
When Ray Bourque and Chris Chelios signed for less than what was felt to be their market worth years ago the NHLPA basically censured them for it because they were making it worse for all the other players in the league. There has always been pressure of some sort on the players and their agents to hold their teams ransom for as much money as they could get. They don't have specific rules about it but it is still done.
Chelios still has his card, does he not?

If Chelios was censured by every person he's ever cheesed off in his career, he wouldn't be the popular fellow he is still today.

He should get his own sitcom Oh, That Chelios! [cut to crowd shot of people shaking their fists].
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Bicycle Repairman said:
Chelios still has his card, does he not?

If Chelios was censured by every person he's ever cheesed off in his career, he wouldn't be the popular fellow he is still today.

He should get his own sitcom Oh, That Chelios! [cut to crowd shot of people shaking their fists].

Excellent non-response. A lot of creativity put into it.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
JWI19 said:
No it doesn't, just like the NFL and NBA. Salaries are set based on revenue, not player cost. Bettman has done a good job of letting people confuse the two. And Goodenow has done a poor job explaining the two.

In terms of players salaries the NHL is on par with the NBA and NFL in terms of percentage of revenue going to players SALARIES. We dont know is what the percentage of revenue to players COST because unlike the NHL the owners aren't crying about that.

Are you serious?
So what's the deal?
Why can the other sports make it work with similar percentages of revenues going to salary?

If true, this really busts a hole in Bettman's argument, even if people ignorantly avoid it.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
DementedReality said:
maybe you need to clarify. why wouldnt CGY be subject to a LT at 7m but TOR would be ?

unless you mean, if it puts TOR over the threshold. isnt it fair to suggest that if CGY signs Iginla to a 7m deal and it puts them over, it will cost the same as if TOR did it ?

dr

I imagine that teams with big revenue sources will always be near or somewhat above the threshold.
I doubt that Calgarys of the world will ever be at the threshold (except, perhaps, if they've created a truly great core of players capable of competing, year in, year out)

So I am going under the premise that TO will go over the threshold to get him, and Calgary won't need to.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
mooseOAK said:
When Ray Bourque and Chris Chelios signed for less than what was felt to be their market worth years ago the NHLPA basically censured them

You're going to have to be more specific when levelling these charges.
What is "basically censuring"?

Obviously Chelios wasn't too upset.
He got a two-year $11M deal from the Wings and has been adamant in his support for the union.
If he was censured by the big, bad PA, he doesn't seem to have any ill will toward them.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Juicer said:
Goodenow's job is not to screw the owners at the expense of a players happiness.

You think that is Goodenow's "job?"
 

HckyFght*

Guest
BLONG7 said:
The character of Primeau shows through here, the league could use a few more guys like him...The PA shows it's true colours here, which is why pro sports, and especially the NHL is in serious trouble.

It also proves that Goodenow is capable of putting presure on players behind the scenes, by going over their heads to their agents...another player's agent might have used Goodenow to gang up on the guy to get him to hold out.
-HckyFght!
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
You're going to have to be more specific when levelling these charges.
What is "basically censuring"?

Obviously Chelios wasn't too upset.
He got a two-year $11M deal from the Wings and has been adamant in his support for the union.
If he was censured by the big, bad PA, he doesn't seem to have any ill will toward them.

What I meant was that Bourque and Chelios were given a lot of crap for signing contracts that were felt by the NHLPA to be below market value for them which put pressure on other players not to do that again in the future.

The contract that I am referring to for Chelios was back when he was with Chicago. Yes, he has changed his tune but Goodenow seems to have magical powers over the players. Ten years ago "no salary tax" say the players, now "we love salary taxes" say the same players. Truly amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->