Primeau upset Goodenow with his contract

[mooseOAK*]

So you seem to be saying then that the system is like real estate, which is what the owners want, which is what they currently have. Great then, we're in agreement. The Scores system is no more unethical or unusual than a real estate listing, and the owners have the system they want.

No that is not what I am saying, you seem to have a comprehension problem.

The Scores system used by the NHLPA is like the real estate system because players salaries, like house prices, are pushed up. This is what the players want which would be okay if league revenues were going up, but they aren't.

The owners had the agreement they wanted but then some stupid things messed it up. Since we know where the blame lies, it is easily now adressable and everyone has learned from the mistakes.

Now you have it! The owners have to fix past mistakes which is what this whole lockout is about.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

By your arguement you could also say the players aren't willing to compromise because they keep saying no salary cap (and the definition of salary cap has now been expanded to encompass everything except what the NHLPA wants)

Agreeing to a 24% across the board salary cut, to a LT, changes to arbitration, free agency, qualifying rules and entry level salaries are a hell of alot of comprimises, and alot more than the owners have moved. Just because the owners weren't able to use a very owner friendly CBA in their favour is not the player's fault. Fault the owners who are so bloody irresponsible that they set new precedents when negotiating new deals and set the bar higher and higher. IMO the best way is still to have every team share 50% or more revenues, have a very tough LT (alot tougher than the one proposed by the players), and even tougher changes to arbitration, free agency, qualifying rules and entry level salaries. I see no reason why the players offer couldn't have been used as a starting point to negotiations. I'd also like to see the UFA age increase back to 32 or higher rather than decrease. Any CBA should be geared towards allowing teams to keep the players they have developed. IMO a salary cap would make it more difficult to keep a team together. The NFL is a perfect example of this.

A deal that's good for both the owners and players is there to be had, and it doesn't have to have a cap provided there are enough mechanisms to put a significant drag on salaries.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better.

So you're saying the PA's action amount to storming Europe.

 

[mooseOAK*]

So you're saying the PA's action amount to storming Europe.

What I mean is that compromise isn't always in a bargaining party's best interest and can come back to burn them. With Goodenow around they have to make sure that any agreement is locked tightly.

 

[thinkwild]

So you're saying the PA's action amount to storming Europe.

And that would make Bettman ... ?

What exactly about a comparables based system is inflationary? There is nothing there that pushes salaries up. There is no reason anything there should push salaries up. The precedents are all set. All they are doing is slotting people in it. A salary slotting system, yeah thats the ticket. There is nothing inherently inflationary about it. Nevertheless, further levers in the trigger points have been offered.

 

[hockeytown9321]

We don't know that they will get their way 100% on that issue when all is said and done.

But in the event of a hard cap, there will not be a tax. And if there's a tax, there will not be a hard cap.

 

[Wetcoaster]

They owners are willing to compromise. they have said so many times. on the percentage of salary to revenues they are flexible 54% is just their first offer. If the union came back with 60% they could start talking.

54% of what?????

We do not yet know what the revenues are and until that is determined there cannot be a formula for a cap.

 

[mooseOAK*]

And that would make Bettman ... ?

What exactly about a comparables based system is inflationary? There is nothing there that pushes salaries up. There is no reason anything there should push salaries up. The precedents are all set. All they are doing is slotting people in it. A salary slotting system, yeah thats the ticket. There is nothing inherently inflationary about it. Nevertheless, further levers in the trigger points have been offered.

A comparables based salary system is inflationary because you know what they are using as a comparison? Right, the highest paid comparable player. The players and agents go after that number and all the salaries of similar players are brought up to that level.

That is where the inflation comes from.

 

[thinkwild]

If all the comparable were reset 24% lower, which persons salary that can be used as a comparable would still be too high? Until a better player comes along, how does it then become inflationary. Even if a better player comes along, the salary scale is pretty well known. If the best RFA player is Iginla and is making $5mil prior to becoming a UFA, while the rookies are capped at $850k, we can guess Crosby may pass $5mil perhaps a year or two earlier than Iginla did and raise the bar to $6 or $7, where does the inflation come from? Bad management? Especially if new reverse arbitration levers are allowed to market correct salaries that are causing problems, rather than allowing them to perpetuate.

All the salaries arent brought up to that level. All salaries remain consistent within those levels. Ya gotta admit, its pretty effective spin that leads you to believe otherwise. But Im sure that if you put your mind to it, you will come up with one of those aha moments. And will start to realize that like everything else, the owners have lied to us about everything about the business of hockey.

 

[djhn579]

If all the comparable were reset 24% lower, which persons salary that can be used as a comparable would still be too high? Until a better player comes along, how does it then become inflationary. Even if a better player comes along, the salary scale is pretty well known. If the best RFA player is Iginla and is making $5mil prior to becoming a UFA, while the rookies are capped at $850k, we can guess Crosby may pass $5mil perhaps a year or two earlier than Iginla did and raise the bar to $6 or $7, where does the inflation come from? Bad management? Especially if new reverse arbitration levers are allowed to market correct salaries that are causing problems, rather than allowing them to perpetuate.

All the salaries arent brought up to that level. All salaries remain consistent within those levels. Ya gotta admit, its pretty effective spin that leads you to believe otherwise. But Im sure that if you put your mind to it, you will come up with one of those aha moments. And will start to realize that like everything else, the owners have lied to us about everything about the business of hockey.

You don't think that with all the players right now without contracts, the NHLPA is not going to immediately use their SCORE system to start pushing up the salaries again? And don't get me wrong, there are a handful of owners that will happily help drive up salaries. Those owners will make sure they have a good team. Is that bad management? Once those teams jack up the prices, those will be the comparables used in arbitration. Owners will have to match or come close to matching or let talent walk. Is that bad management? The NHLPA's proposal is just going to put us back in the same situation. I'd rather they fix the problem now than end up having another lock out in 4 or 5 years.

 

[thinkwild]

You don't think that with all the players right now without contracts, the NHLPA is not going to immediately use their SCORE system to start pushing up the salaries again? And don't get me wrong, there are a handful of owners that will happily help drive up salaries. Those owners will make sure they have a good team. Is that bad management? Once those teams jack up the prices, those will be the comparables used in arbitration. Owners will have to match or come close to matching or let talent walk. Is that bad management? The NHLPA's proposal is just going to put us back in the same situation. I'd rather they fix the problem now than end up having another lock out in 4 or 5 years.

How will the magical SCORES system drive up prices?

Why would teams jack up the prices for RFAs. All their salaries are basically set. We know what an Iginla is worth. We know what Havlat and Gaborik should get. What they have always held out for was their fair value in the system the owners have defined. Once its stabalized after these changes, why would anyone jack up their salaries. NYR will be forced to pay the comparable rates set in Calgary, Florida and Phoenix.

Now UFA salaries wont be capped. But of course they arent used in arbitration, and it doesnt matter what they are paid at. Owners will have the ability to make a decision that risks losing money. Nothing wrong with that. Some of them are risk takers. Others succeed without big spending risks

I cant see why this framework of the players doesnt fix the system. It is fixed.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

.... using as a comparison? Right, the highest paid comparable player. The players and agents go after that number and all the salaries of similar players are brought up to that level.

ok, and the other negotiating party can use the lowest comparables if they choose. at some point in negotiating, both parties decide the offer is fair and they agree or one side doesnt and they dont agree.

if they dont agree on a rate, so what ? the player can go flip burgers, thats his human right to not play hockey.

and if they did agree on a rate, then it means the system works.

dr

 

[mooseOAK*]

If all the comparable were reset 24% lower, which persons salary that can be used as a comparable would still be too high? Until a better player comes along, how does it then become inflationary. Even if a better player comes along, the salary scale is pretty well known. If the best RFA player is Iginla and is making $5mil prior to becoming a UFA, while the rookies are capped at $850k, we can guess Crosby may pass $5mil perhaps a year or two earlier than Iginla did and raise the bar to $6 or $7, where does the inflation come from? Bad management? Especially if new reverse arbitration levers are allowed to market correct salaries that are causing problems, rather than allowing them to perpetuate.

All the salaries arent brought up to that level. All salaries remain consistent within those levels. Ya gotta admit, its pretty effective spin that leads you to believe otherwise. But Im sure that if you put your mind to it, you will come up with one of those aha moments. And will start to realize that like everything else, the owners have lied to us about everything about the business of hockey.

All the salaries arent brought up to that level. All salaries remain consistent within those levels.

Being consistent with those levels means being brought up to those levels. Unless you have another explanation for the word "consistent".

There is no "spin" either. We have seen players hold out trying to drive their salaries higher and opting for arbitration after one good season and the leak of the Scores program and Primeau's comments only reinforce our knowledge of what the NHLPA has done while blaming salary escalation on the owners.

 

[djhn579]

How will the magical SCORES system drive up prices?

Why would teams jack up the prices for RFAs. All their salaries are basically set. We know what an Iginla is worth. We know what Havlat and Gaborik should get. What they have always held out for was their fair value in the system the owners have defined. Once its stabalized after these changes, why would anyone jack up their salaries. NYR will be forced to pay the comparable rates set in Calgary, Florida and Phoenix.

Now UFA salaries wont be capped. But of course they arent used in arbitration, and it doesnt matter what they are paid at. Owners will have the ability to make a decision that risks losing money. Nothing wrong with that. Some of them are risk takers. Others succeed without big spending risks

I cant see why this framework of the players doesnt fix the system. It is fixed.

The SCORES System helps them jack up prices by identifying which players are the comparables. The NHLPA then decides whether players should actually go to arbitration or hold out and puts pressure on players (and agents) to not settle for less than the NHLPA thinks they should.

You think that players won't decide to skip arbitration and just hold out because they don't want to accept salaries based on the 24% rollback? (Not that Goodenow would let them anyway...)

Some teams, the same ones that voluntarily run their teams at a lose to try to win the cup, are the ones that drove up salaries before, and they will do so again.

That's what has been happening under the last CBA, and that's what will happen under a new CBA if there is not a cap linked to revenues (whether a hard cap or stiff soft cap...)

 

[mooseOAK*]

ok, and the other negotiating party can use the lowest comparables if they choose. at some point in negotiating, both parties decide the offer is fair and they agree or one side doesnt and they dont agree.

If it's a coordinated effort by the NHLPA, players, and agents then if a team says no to player A, player B is going to be coming in with the same salary demands, and so on.

if they dont agree on a rate, so what ? the player can go flip burgers, thats his human right to not play hockey.

Then the collusion accusations begin.

and if they did agree on a rate, then it means the system works.

Typically it means that the owner caved because even though he doesn't like the price, he needs the player.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

reinforce our knowledge of what the NHLPA has done while blaming salary escalation on the owners.

interesting spin ...

although, if you were paying another person 3-6 % of your salary for their "services", would you not expect and demand them to provide a return ?

i see nothing wrong with the association using there resources to increase their clients pay. thats why they exist !

do you not expect a raise every year by the way ? do you think just because the players make so much money they shouldnt try to increase their pay too ?

the owners of pro hockey teams have a much better ability to deny a raise then your boss. lets not feel sorry for the owners, ok ?

dr

 

[mooseOAK*]

interesting spin ...

although, if you were paying another person 3-6 % of your salary for their "services", would you not expect and demand them to provide a return ?

i see nothing wrong with the association using there resources to increase their clients pay. thats why they exist !

do you not expect a raise every year by the way ? do you think just because the players make so much money they shouldnt try to increase their pay too ?

the owners of pro hockey teams have a much better ability to deny a raise then your boss. lets not feel sorry for the owners, ok ?

dr

Okay, let's get all the fans to agree to a 10% ticket price increase per season, even though they aren't getting raises like that, and the players can have what they want.

Get that petition started right away.

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

I can't read the whole thread, but has Keith retracted his statement?

 

[thinkwild]

The SCORES System helps them jack up prices by identifying which players are the comparables. The NHLPA then decides whether players should actually go to arbitration or hold out and puts pressure on players (and agents) to not settle for less than the NHLPA thinks they should.

Good thing they had that magical computer program or they would never know who those players are.

Everyone knows who those players are, and who the comparables are. Sometimes a player like Peca makes a case that he is special enough to set a salary bar for his type of player. Someone like Crosby will likely have a case for raising the previous salary bar. A player like Matt Cooke or Nathan Perrot may make a case for their particular skill being ranked differently. But it is generally pretty clear what the appropriate salaries are.

If the 24% rollback sets salaries for RFAs and all the appropriate comparable where they want them to be, there are no real salary bars to set. Just where they slot on that scale at their particular age. By definition it sounds non-inflationary to me.

You think that players won't decide to skip arbitration and just hold out because they don't want to accept salaries based on the 24% rollback? (Not that Goodenow would let them anyway...)

We could hold their children hostage and force them to accept whatever the owners offer.

Some teams, the same ones that voluntarily run their teams at a lose to try to win the cup, are the ones that drove up salaries before, and they will do so again.

That's what has been happening under the last CBA, and that's what will happen under a new CBA if there is not a cap linked to revenues (whether a hard cap or stiff soft cap...)

It will happen to UFA salaries. But it wont happen to RFA salaries if the proper leverage triggers and levers are put in place. Perrhaps there is even a way the union could guarantee it. personally I think thats where theres room for a solution. Cost certainty for RFAs only.

 

[thinkwild]

Okay, let's get all the fans to agree to a 10% ticket price increase per season, even though they aren't getting raises like that, and the players can have what they want.

Get that petition started right away.

A lot of fans similarly fail this logic test. Because players get 10% raises, they think it proves the system is inflationary. But the overall payroll envelope is filled with players at different rates of pay on dofferent tracks of pay increases as they start off capped and rise to free agency. Even though players within the envelope are getting raises, the overall system isnt inherently inflationary.

Owners making more money is however inflationary. The more they make, the more its worth to them to spend. They make more by winning in the playoffs. WHich also provides them with more to spend. Its quite an elegant circle actually.

 

[mooseOAK*]

A lot of fans similarly fail this logic test. Because players get 10% raises, they think it proves the system is inflationary. But the overall payroll envelope is filled with players at different rates of pay on dofferent tracks of pay increases as they start off capped and rise to free agency. Even though players within the envelope are getting raises, the overall system isnt inherently inflationary.

Owners making more money is however inflationary. The more they make, the more its worth to them to spend. They make more by winning in the playoffs. WHich also provides them with more to spend. Its quite an elegant circle actually.

There's your solution. All 30 teams make the playoffs and we make it five rounds long and all best of 11 series. Problem solved.

Every player in the league is guaranteed a minimum 10% raise per year until UFA under the current CBA if a team wants to maintain his rights, regardless of how much they make.

 

[PecaFan]

Every player in the league is guaranteed a minimum 10% raise per year until UFA under the current CBA if a team wants to maintain his rights, regardless of how much they make.

Only until they pass league average, then the guarantee is gone.

But luckily arbitration and holdouts step in at this stage, and the mandatory 10% raise is replaced with a common 50%, 80%, 100%, 300% raise etc.

 

[thinkwild]

Well yes, this what Bettman is basically proposing. Silliness aside, that all team equally benefit from playoff revenue. Now you are proposing ideas like Bettman. Each team is the same each year. All made to fit into a similar artificial budget, so that Disney can show its risk on the books as a smaller amount and thus recoup more of their investment they worked hard for. Similarly, the teachers pension fund wants a better return when it sells the Leafs. So we get no hockey for 2 years, surely supporting these billion dollar investment funds and corporations is worth shutting down hockey for 2 years for.

No building year over year, but finding new ways to spend that money each year to stay the same, but with equal hope.

 

[thinkwild]

Only until they pass league average, then the guarantee is gone.

But luckily arbitration and holdouts step in at this stage, and the mandatory 10% raise is replaced with a common 50%, 80%, 100%, 300% raise etc.

This is a one time logical step in the progression in the rise of salaries from about $850k for rookies up to about $7mil for the top RFAs. The first leverage point when salaries jump is when they reach arbitration age. Another is when they are in their primes about 27. And finally when they first hit UFA age. At each stage, here is a jumpo to the next level. Hardly surprising, shocking, or unnatural. Certainly not a sign of an inflationary system. Its a normal, predicatable system.


Crosby gets $850 k for about 3 years, then perhaps $1.5-2 mil for 2 years. Then 4-5 mil until he is 27 when he gets 7 mil. Then at 31 he is a UFA. Although you;d think a smart organization would offer him a 7 year contract when is 27. Most importantly he can accept whatever he chooses from whoever he chooses as a UFA. IF his current team is good, is winning, he likes it, he will accept a reasonable ofer to stay like Alfie, and they will afford it. If he doesnt want to stay he will leave even if there is a cap.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Every player in the league is guaranteed a minimum 10% raise per year until UFA under the current CBA if a team wants to maintain his rights, regardless of how much they make.

They most certainly are not. Even if each player qualified to be qualified at 110% when they reached RFA status, they do not reach RFA ststus every year.