Something people have missed in LA Times Report

Status
Not open for further replies.

EricBowser

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
174
0
Pittsburgh, PA
Visit site
I can't believe this hasn't gotten more play in the hockey industry.

Last night, Helene Elliott on a Vancouver radio station said notice they didn't deny my numbers or the body of the report.

When you look at the report, check this out...

"the agreement would feature a hard salary cap linked to 54 percent of league revenue, a 24 percent rollback of existing contracts and qualifying offers. It would also include a provision that would limit the salary of any player to 20 percent of the team cap figure in any season."

....let's repeat the stunning piece, "It would also include a provision that would limit the salary of any player to 20 percent of the team cap figure in any season."

Times reported $37 million hard salary cap, 20% would be $7.4 million.

The following players after 24% rollback make more than $7.4 million
Jaromir Jagr - $8.36 million
Keith Tkachuk - $7.6
Alexei Yashin - $7.6
Niklas Lidstrom - $7.6

Rangers would be saved by Washington taking on $4 million of Jagr's salary cap hit. The Blues are expected to buyout Tkachuk and Doug Weight to have a clean slate financially with the cap.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
I think it didn't get play because


(a) a lot of people think the report is bunk


(b) when you have to pay 24 guys on the team, it would be hard to give any one of them 20% of the cap.
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
go kim johnsson said:
I think it didn't get play because


(a) a lot of people think the report is bunk


(b) when you have to pay 24 guys on the team, it would be hard to give any one of them 20% of the cap.
Hopefully it's more for reason (b) than reason (a). There's been nothing to suggest that the financial numbers in her report are off.
 

EricBowser

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
174
0
Pittsburgh, PA
Visit site
A. NHL and NHLPA did not deny the details, did they? And when many of the players are quoted with the $37 million hard cap figure, I'm going to believe a HOF reporter.

B. Last CBA, it was a 23-man roster
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
It's interesting but i dont see how they wont allow these players to remain on their club. One thing to consider is are they using the 24% across the board roll back or the owners versions of the 24% rollback that was top heavy? If they use the owners plan it would help keep these guys under that 20% clause.
 

cjbhab*

Guest
there would be a max salary though, right? so ... how would this work?
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
cjbhab said:
there would be a max salary though, right? so ... how would this work?

20% of the payroll cap.

ie, a 38m cap = 7.6m max individual contract/yr

This figure changes every year as the cap is adjusted up or down according to league revenues.
 

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
Now if the Cap was 38 Mill as has been rumoured elsewhere..... 20% of that is funnily eough 7.6 Mill. The exact cut off point for the current top contracts (excluding Jagrs which is split and Forsbergs as he doesnt have one at present).

I doubt the NHL would set up a cba that would make some of the contracts after rollback illegal.... these figures are likely to have been set specifically with the current contracts in mind.
 

Old Hickory

Guest
go kim johnsson said:
(b) when you have to pay 24 guys on the team, it would be hard to give any one of them 20% of the cap.
It will hurt the negotiating power of agents/help the owners.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
go kim johnsson said:
I think it didn't get play because


(a) a lot of people think the report is bunk


(b) when you have to pay 24 guys on the team, it would be hard to give any one of them 20% of the cap.

Depends on the makeup of the team. The 03-04 Flames paid Iginla $7.5 million - including signing bonus, excluding performance bonuses - and carried a payroll of $36 million.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
ScottyBowman said:
This is such a dumb rule. Why do you need an individual cap when you have a salary cap? If a team is dumb enough to blow their money, let them do it.
Its all part and parcel of trying to make and idiot proof CBA.
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
davemess said:
Now if the Cap was 38 Mill as has been rumoured elsewhere..... 20% of that is funnily eough 7.6 Mill. The exact cut off point for the current top contracts (excluding Jagrs which is split and Forsbergs as he doesnt have one at present).

I doubt the NHL would set up a cba that would make some of the contracts after rollback illegal.... these figures are likely to have been set specifically with the current contracts in mind.

Not to mention that the floor and ceilings adjust each year. Say you give a guy the cap maximum then revenues decrease that year. He's slated to earn the same next year but is now over that 20%.

By the way is she really an HOF candidate? Never heard of her until this point. Women in the industry and all, good for her if that's the case. ;)
 

blitzkriegs

Registered User
May 26, 2003
13,150
1
Beach & Mtn & Island
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Its all part and parcel of trying to make and idiot proof CBA.

It's also trying to eliminate teams from bootstrapping themselves by consume too much cap space with one or two players.

There is a competitive nature to it as well. If those 1/2 players consume so much cap space, the rest of the team will probably be less than competitive on the ice. Yes, there are exceptions, but 14.8 consumed doesn't get you a lot of NHL talent for another 20 mil for 21 players...
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
ScottyBowman said:
This is such a dumb rule. Why do you need an individual cap when you have a salary cap? If a team is dumb enough to blow their money, let them do it.
Some will lead you to believe Bettman wants a brain-over-bucks plan. What he really wants is a luck-over-bucks plan. He wants every team to be competitive no matter how moronic the owner is.
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
It's going to take everyone in hockey a long while to adjust to the new normal level of salaries. You can look at a guy right now and say what his salary should be approximately, in the old system.

With this new system you're not going to be able to do that for a while. When you look at the sum of $20 million, that was three players on a Rangers or Red Wings team in the old system. Now that could very well be 5-6 GREAT players on any team, or as many as 10-15 players of varying calibre.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
blitzkriegs said:
It's also trying to eliminate teams from bootstrapping themselves by consume too much cap space with one or two players.

There is a competitive nature to it as well. If those 1/2 players consume so much cap space, the rest of the team will probably be less than competitive on the ice. Yes, there are exceptions, but 14.8 consumed doesn't get you a lot of NHL talent for another 20 mil for 21 players...
It makes sense ..

In fact the Leafs Lunch guys had Helene Elliott on and they together had a different interpretation ..

In short .. They said the 20% was not based on League max cap ie. 20% of 37 mil or 7.4 mil for all teams but on TEAM CAP..

They said if you were a small market team and you are receiving revenue sharing money to help you and top you up to get above the $24 mil floor.. Then the max you could offer a UFA was 20% of $24 mil or $4.8 mil max and not the $7.4 mil.

Its all based on 54% spending/budget per team .. & the 15% Escow account of holding back salaries and the amount of Revenue sharing you receive..

It does make some sense for the reason you gave above if your team spending is at 24 mil total then if you allowed a single UFA player to make 7.4 mil then you would have 22 remaining players with only $16.6 mil or $755K ..

Don't shoot the messenger that is how Bill Waters , Marek, Steve Kouleuos and Helene Elliott layed it out ..
 

CMUMike

Registered User
Feb 13, 2005
68
0
The Messenger said:
Don't shoot the messenger that is how Bill Waters , Marek, Steve Kouleuos and Helene Elliott layed it out ..
Helene Elliot said the opposite on Fan 590 yesterday, but I'll take your word for it.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
CMUMike said:
Helene Elliot said the opposite on Fan 590 yesterday, but I'll take your word for it.
Well it was the Leaf Lunch guys that presented it that way based on the info she gave them ..

They used the exact $24 mil team and $4.8 mil UFA example.

What do you think she said ??
 

kingbrath

Registered User
Jul 15, 2002
4,466
9
Calgary, AB
Visit site
So I assume that if a star player is offered a multiyear deal at 7.4, than their salary could change year to year accordingly, if the cap goes up or down. I suppose some players would just be offered maximum salaries instead of any actual number. :confused:
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
Weary said:
Some will lead you to believe Bettman wants a brain-over-bucks plan. What he really wants is a luck-over-bucks plan. He wants every team to be competitive no matter how moronic the owner is.

Ah more Weary absurdities. We missed you. The current system ensures that a "moronic" owner will overspend on the wrong type of player and his team will do poorly. This is an improvement over before (your favorite time) when a "moronic" owner could just grab every high salary UFA and every player on a team that can't afford them he wanted.

You're not still pushing your tinfoil hat interpretation of Bettman's words from a few weeks ago, are you? The one where you declared that his intention was to cause 100% player turnover every year?

:D
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Crazy_Ike said:
Ah more Weary absurdities. We missed you. The current system ensures that a "moronic" owner will overspend on the wrong type of player and his team will do poorly. This is an improvement over before (your favorite time) when a "moronic" owner could just grab every high salary UFA and every player on a team that can't afford them he wanted.
Then why take the decisoin making out of how much to pay players out of the owners' hands? Bettman is getting his team salary caps, why does he need an individual player cap? One owner giving 50% of his salary cap to one player wouldn't hurt the other teams in the league. It would help them. Bettman is trying to save stupid owners from their own stupidity.

You're not still pushing your tinfoil hat interpretation of Bettman's words from a few weeks ago, are you? The one where you declared that his intention was to cause 100% player turnover every year?
No interpretation of Bettman's words was needed. His words were clear and I quoted them exactly. It's those who didn't like what he said that offered up 'interpretations.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->