Something people have missed in LA Times Report

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by EricBowser, Jul 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. EricBowser

    EricBowser Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Customer/Technical Support
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  2. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    140,631
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Trophy Points:
    232
    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.
     
  3. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    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.
     
  4. SedinFan*

    SedinFan* Guest

    Plus they won't be honouring last years contracts.
     
  5. EricBowser

    EricBowser Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Customer/Technical Support
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Home Page:
    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
     
  6. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  7. cjbhab*

    cjbhab* Guest

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

    Timmy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    10,691
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Awards:
    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.
     
  9. davemess

    davemess Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Scotland
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  10. Old Hickory

    Old Hickory Guest

    It will hurt the negotiating power of agents/help the owners.
     
  11. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    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.
     
  12. ScottyBowman

    ScottyBowman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  13. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,534
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Its all part and parcel of trying to make and idiot proof CBA.
     
  14. BigE

    BigE Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    New York, NY
    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. ;)
     
  15. blitzkriegs

    blitzkriegs Registered User

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    13,150
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Beach & Mtn & Island
    Home Page:
    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...
     
  16. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. BigE

    BigE Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    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.
     
  18. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    21,216
    Likes Received:
    2,107
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Yeesh... salaries aren't going to be that high anyway.
     
  19. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,534
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    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 ..
     
  20. CMUMike

    CMUMike Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Helene Elliot said the opposite on Fan 590 yesterday, but I'll take your word for it.
     
  21. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,534
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    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 ??
     
  22. danaluvsthekings

    danaluvsthekings Registered User

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    547
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes she is really going to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Either click up top where it says 2005 media honorees (or honourees if you wish) or scroll down about 2/3 of the page.
    http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/ind05prolog.htm
     
  23. kingbrath

    kingbrath Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    4,449
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Home Page:
    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:
     
  24. Crazy_Ike

    Crazy_Ike Cookin' with fire.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,081
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  25. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    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.'
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"