Sportsnet: NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal

[shakes]

35 million as a hard cap = a very long lockout.

why they can't have 45 as the hard cap with 35 being the point for luxury tax is beyond me. Some teams CAN afford 45 million. I'm tired of accomodating the teams that really shouldn't be in the NHL.

 

[AM]

not that hard for you...

I think you go 29.5.....42.5
2.50 down to 39.5
1.50 down to 37.5
Doller down tax to 35
.50 tax down to 32

and call it a day fokes..

Come on.. its just not that hard...

What happens when the decision you make causes you to loose money for 10 years?

Yes they will take their time to figure it all out.

 

[SENSible1*]

so take DS's idea, which only covers the existing contracts that were signed b efore the last cba expired, and use it to cover all preexisting contracts til they end. any other contract signed from here on out counts 100% toward the cap. and as was said by gc above, when a player is traded his contract counts 100%. If i have time a little later, i might try to figure out what it all breaks down to and i'll post it here.

Peca's point was that some teams failed to prepare for the lockout and signed contracts before the last CBA expired. They should not be rewarded for that behavior.

 

[norrisnick]

Peca's point was that some teams failed to prepare for the lockout and signed contracts before the last CBA expired. They should not be rewarded for that behavior.

Neither should they be punished for operating under the rules of the game.

Trying to field a competitive team is more commendable than holding a firesale and hoping for a lottery pick.

 

[norrisnick]

If Bettman recommends the deal all he needs is 16 teams onside. The other 14 are SOL.

I realize that in many cases there is no love lost between the owners, but I don't think they want to be making mortal enemies by crippling a bunch of their fellow owners' franchises. What good is the NHL if the ownerships of Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, Philly are royally pissed off at the owners that stabbed them in the back? That is not a good situation for anyone.

 

[SENSible1*]

Neither should they be punished for operating under the rules of the game.

Trying to field a competitive team is more commendable than holding a firesale and hoping for a lottery pick.

How are they being punished by being asked to live under the same constraints as their fellow franchises?

The league let them know what was coming.

Too bad for them if they didn't pay attention.

 

[SENSible1*]

I realize that in many cases there is no love lost between the owners, but I don't think they want to be making mortal enemies by crippling a bunch of their fellow owners' franchises. What good is the NHL if the ownerships of Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, Philly are royally pissed off at the owners that stabbed them in the back? That is not a good situation for anyone.

Of course this ignores the fact that those franchises would be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[norrisnick]

How are they being punished by being asked to live under the same constraints as their fellow franchises?

The league let them know what was coming.

Too bad for them if they didn't pay attention.

Because some of these teams may be forced to part ways with crucial parts of their teams' future that they legitimately put together under the old agreement. It would be like handing out speeding tickets retroactively after lowering the speed limit. Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc... were still trying to win. Can't punish them for doing what all franchises are supposed to be doing. Legitimately competing for the Cup. That's why the league can fine teams for not fielding competitive lineups. Detroit had to come up with vague injuries so they could rest stars at the end of the season for the playoff runs under Scotty's guiding.

Was every team supposed to be selling off talent for the past few years so as to be prepared for 2004-2005 or were they supposed to be competing for the Cup?

 

[norrisnick]

Of course this ignores the fact that those franchises would be laughing all the way to the bank.

They aren't owned by Wirtz and Jacobs. These guys are willing to take a hit to win. That's why they own the franchises. To win.

 

[SENSible1*]

Because some of these teams may be forced to part ways with crucial parts of their teams' future that they legitimately put together under the old agreement. It would be like handing out speeding tickets retroactively after lowering the speed limit. Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc... were still trying to win. Can't punish them for doing what all franchises are supposed to be doing. Legitimately competing for the Cup. That's why the league can fine teams for not fielding competitive lineups. Detroit had to come up with vague injuries so they could rest stars at the end of the season for the playoff runs under Scotty's guiding.

Was every team supposed to be selling off talent for the past few years so as to be prepared for 2004-2005 or were they supposed to be competing for the Cup?

They'd have to lose crucial parts of the team? Oh the humanity!!!

Welcome to the other side. Hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[SENSible1*]

They aren't owned by Wirtz and Jacobs. These guys are willing to take a hit to win. That's why they own the franchises. To win.

They'll have the same chance to win as every other team.

 

[AM]

Let me guess....

Because some of these teams may be forced to part ways with crucial parts of their teams' future that they legitimately put together under the old agreement. It would be like handing out speeding tickets retroactively after lowering the speed limit. Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc... were still trying to win. Can't punish them for doing what all franchises are supposed to be doing. Legitimately competing for the Cup. That's why the league can fine teams for not fielding competitive lineups. Detroit had to come up with vague injuries so they could rest stars at the end of the season for the playoff runs under Scotty's guiding.

Was every team supposed to be selling off talent for the past few years so as to be prepared for 2004-2005 or were they supposed to be competing for the Cup?

you cant understand why there's been a lockout?

(sorry for the post now, I see thunder covered this ground above)

 

[norrisnick]

They'll have the same chance to win as every other team.

Nope. Teams with veteran (expensive) talent will have a distinct disadvantage to teams with young (inexpensive) talent, because they won't have as much room to fill out a team with NHL calibre players. Players with equal production, but unequal tenure, do not have equal pricetags. Jagr and Kovalchuk, both provide about the same impact for your team and one makes $11M and the other (with bonuses) made around $2-3M. Luongo and Brodeur. Lang and Datsyuk. etc...

 

[norrisnick]

you cant understand why there's been a lockout?

(sorry for the post now, I see thunder covered this ground above)

I know full well why there is a lockout. I just don't think the resolution thereof should cripple a handful of teams because they operated, as they were supposed to operate, under the old CBA.

Some measure of rollback, grandfathering, contract restructuring, etc... needs to be factored into the new CBA otherwise this whole lockout was for nothing. Rather than creating parity you just flip the power structure upside down.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

They'd have to lose crucial parts of the team? Oh the humanity!!!

Welcome to the other side. Hope you enjoy your stay.

What crucial parts of the team did Ottawa lose? Poor Sensible makes no sense

 

[mackdogs*]

What crucial parts of the team did Ottawa lose? Poor Sensible makes no sense

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that some of these free spending teams having to cough up some of their players is the same as when they were stealing players away from other teams by out spending them. It's getting a dose of your own medicine.

Ottawa was not mentioned in the discussion, not sure why you are bringing them up.

 

[Titanium]

I still think my idea about percentaging payrolls down under whatever the cap is should be a concept used by the PA

Take colorados 55 million from last season... % it down under the new(say 39.5 million cap)...that means all remaining contracts would only count 72% AGAINST the cap...

How?

39.5/55 is .72.. or 72%

Toronot and their (just rough numbers) 60 million..... 39.5/60... whatever that is is the % that their remaining contracts will count against the cap...

There's another problem with this! At 55m, you have 28% left, according to Drury_Sakic's figures! At 60m, you have around 34% left! Those that are FURTHER over, get MORE cap room...which is just insane! It's a commendable suggestion (at the very least) if you want to grandfather in contracts, but the mechanics would need to be worked out!

 

[norrisnick]

They'd have to lose crucial parts of the team? Oh the humanity!!!

Welcome to the other side. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Lost this one in the page shuffle.

Was the purpose of this whole mess parity or punishing the big teams and flipping the balance of power?

 

[mooseOAK*]

They'd have to lose crucial parts of the team? Oh the humanity!!!

Welcome to the other side. Hope you enjoy your stay.

The Sens will be affected soon also because they have a fairly large group of good younger players. With a cap they won't be able to afford to keep all of their best ones as they all get into the higher salary ranges.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
How are they being punished by being asked to live under the same constraints as their fellow franchises?

The league let them know what was coming.

Too bad for them if they didn't pay attention.

Because some of these teams may be forced to part ways with crucial parts of their teams' future that they legitimately put together under the old agreement. It would be like handing out speeding tickets retroactively after lowering the speed limit.

No it's more like the league putting out a big "Speed Zone Ahead" sign that Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc ignored and blew past (by signing contracts that went past the expiration of the current CBA) and now suddenly are getting their speeding tickets for violating the speed limits they were told were coming.

Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc... were still trying to win. Can't punish them for doing what all franchises are supposed to be doing. Legitimately competing for the Cup. That's why the league can fine teams for not fielding competitive lineups. Detroit had to come up with vague injuries so they could rest stars at the end of the season for the playoff runs under Scotty's guiding.

Was every team supposed to be selling off talent for the past few years so as to be prepared for 2004-2005 or were they supposed to be competing for the Cup?

No, they needed to to both. Play to win, but keep in mind the impact of signing contracts that extended past the last CBA and into a likely salary cap period. They could have signed shorter contracts or front-loaded them. It's not like they didn't know it was coming. I have no sympathy for them, just like I have no symapthy for teams like the 49ers who abused the salary cap and got what they had coming (in terms of dead cap space, etc).

It is better to penalize them than the responsible teams who knew what was coming and prepared for it.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

How are they being punished by being asked to live under the same constraints as their fellow franchises?

The league let them know what was coming.

Too bad for them if they didn't pay attention.

This is why it is pointless to even discuss salary cap issues.

I suppose the Red Wings were guilty of ruining the league.
Yet, never once did they go out and sign a UFA still coveted by his old team. Nearly all the UFAs signed by the Wings were guys at the end of their career.

Never once did the Wings go out and offer a huge contract to an RFA, unlike the the "responsible" small market owners like Karmanos, who is might just be the dumbest SOB involved in the lockout. (He moves a struggling team to Carolina??? Then he makes one of the most inflationary contract offers in recent league history. And now he says it's not fair??? Pshaw!)

Nope. Illitch turned around a franchise that was struggling for 30 years. In the process, he helped bring much needed life to downtown Detroit (without the success of the Wings, the Lions would still be out in the suburbs).
And guess what? Detroit isn't some mega market.
In baseball, it's a medium to small market. In football, it's a medium market.
Chicago or Boston could have done every thing Detroit did, quite easily.

All Detroit did was MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team. And it paid off.
Wings tickets are still the hottest item in town. ANd fans willing to pay the big bucks are gauranteed to see one of the most talented teams in the league.

Thank god the league is getting a salary cap, so this never happens again.

 

[norrisnick]

No it's more like the league putting out a big "Speed Zone Ahead" sign that Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc ignored and blew past (by signing contracts that went past the expiration of the current CBA) and now suddenly are getting their speeding tickets for violating the speed limits they were told were coming.

No, they needed to to both. Play to win, but keep in mind the impact of signing contracts that extended past the last CBA and into a likely salary cap period. They could have signed shorter contracts or front-loaded them. It's not like they didn't know it was coming. I have no sympathy for them, just like I have no symapthy for teams like the 49ers who abused the salary cap and got what they had coming (in terms of dead cap space, etc).

It is better to penalize them than the responsible teams who knew what was coming and prepared for it.

Oh? When did the early announcement of a hard cap at $35M come out? I and a couple of GMs must have missed it.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The People VS. Pro-owner hockey "fans"
The Charge: Fraud

The people contend the pro-owner hockey fans have misrepresented their position that a salary cap will improve the game. In fact, we will demonstrate that these fans, pathetic and miserable after years of supporting horsepuckey teams like Boston, Chicago, and Carolina, have no interest in bettering the game. They only seek to take a pound out of the hide of the successful teams and their fans.

Exhibit A:

They'd have to lose crucial parts of the team? Oh the humanity!!!

Welcome to the other side. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Exhibit B:

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that some of these free spending teams having to cough up some of their players is the same as when they were stealing players away from other teams by out spending them. It's getting a dose of your own medicine.

 

[kdb209]

This is why it is pointless to even discuss salary cap issues.

I suppose the Red Wings were guilty of ruining the league.
Yet, never once did they go out and sign a UFA still coveted by his old team. Nearly all the UFAs signed by the Wings were guys at the end of their career.

Never once did the Wings go out and offer a huge contract to an RFA, unlike the the "responsible" small market owners like Karmanos, who is might just be the dumbest SOB involved in the lockout. (He moves a struggling team to Carolina??? Then he makes one of the most inflationary contract offers in recent league history. And now he says it's not fair??? Pshaw!)

Nope. Illitch turned around a franchise that was struggling for 30 years. In the process, he helped bring much needed life to downtown Detroit (without the success of the Wings, the Lions would still be out in the suburbs).
And guess what? Detroit isn't some mega market.
In baseball, it's a medium to small market. In football, it's a medium market.
Chicago or Boston could have done every thing Detroit did, quite easily.

All Detroit did was MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team. And it paid off.
Wings tickets are still the hottest item in town. ANd fans willing to pay the big bucks are gauranteed to see one of the most talented teams in the league.

Thank god the league is getting a salary cap, so this never happens again.

Well if Detroit does continue to MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team, it will pay off even more - to the tune of an extra $30M a year profit into Illich's pocket. When salries drop from $75M to $45M do you really expect them to lower ticket prices for the "hottest tickets in town" - ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

 

[Weary]

Well if Detroit does continue to MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team, it will pay off even more - to the tune of an extra $30M a year profit into Illich's pocket. When salries drop from $75M to $45M do you really expect them to lower ticket prices for the "hottest tickets in town" - ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

So when Bettman said lower ticket prices was one of the goals of this agreement, he was full of it?