Terrific column:Nowadays, Outrage Is as Quiet as a Zamboni

[Greschner4]

The old system could have worked if the owners/Gm's used their heads. However look at the propsal the NHLPA submitted and you'll see that it wasn't the same old system.

They can't use their heads because when they do the fans and media stamp and wail to get the player back in. In other words they can either stand firm and be exposed to public and customer ridicule and frustration or they can cave and pay the player more than he's worth.

This happens over and over, which is why the player's position on the issue is ridiculous.

 

[wazee]

The old system could have worked if the owners/Gm's used their heads. However look at the propsal the NHLPA submitted and you'll see that it wasn't the same old system.

The old system could not have worked because it only takes one owner willing to spend to raise tha salary bar for the entire league. The remaining owners were prohibited from reining in the maverick owner by the 'collusion' clause. The system failed not because the owners were stupid. It failed because it was stacked in favor of the players.

 

[CarlRacki]

I'll agree that the Leavitt report was a joke, and that yes I even doubt that the Flyers lost money this past year.

The above comment though leads directly into what the heart of the problem it. TRUST. Players don't trust the owners, and owners don't trust owners.


Yes, signings by one team cause problems for other teams, but if you look at all the bad signings in recent years, just as many were made by so-called small market teams than the Flyers, Leafs, etc.

Boston: Thornton, Lapointe, Ellett
New York: Sakic, Kamensky, Lefebvre
Philly: Lindros
Carolina: Fedorov
Tampa: Richards
Ottawa: Daigle
Islanders: Yashin

etc. etc. etc. ... it's not just the big market owners driving the bus making offers that raise the bar

That's actually a pretty good list, but I think you can add John LeClair, the Jagr extension, Scott Young, Darius Kasparitis and Chris Gratton to that list. All big market signings, for what it's worth.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

They can't use their heads because when they do the fans and media stamp and wail to get the player back in. In other words they can either stand firm and be exposed to public and customer ridicule and frustration or they can cave and pay the player more than he's worth.

This happens over and over, which is why the player's position on the issue is ridiculous.

Only weak-willed people cave into public/media opinion. Amazing how it works out for you if you have some backbone:

see: Ottawa (Yashin)
see: Philadelphia (Lindros)

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The old system could not have worked because it only takes one owner willing to spend to raise tha salary bar for the entire league. The remaining owners were prohibited from reining in the maverick owner by the 'collusion' clause. The system failed not because the owners were stupid. It failed because it was stacked in favor of the players.

It failed because when the players had the hammer (UFA status) they used it.

When the owners had the hammer (anytime before the age of 31) they far too often folded up like an accordian.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That's actually a pretty good list, but I think you can add John LeClair, the Jagr extension, Scott Young, Darius Kasparitis and Chris Gratton to that list. All big market signings, for what it's worth.

Yes, Washington and the Jagr extension certainly belongs. I wasn't including any UFA signings of top flight talent.

Concentrating more on RFA's, rookies, and salaries that changed the bar for everyone.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The old system could have worked if the owners/Gm's used their heads. However look at the propsal the NHLPA submitted and you'll see that it wasn't the same old system.

Okay John, lets make this an actual negotiation. I want cost certainty. I want a cap. Here's what I am offering.

* $40 million cap.
* Individual salary cap at $6 million.
* Rookie salaries capped at $850K. Bonuses capped at $400K. Signing bonuses capped at $400K.
* No arbitration.
* Qualification at 75%.
* Guaranteed contracts.
* Free Agency at 28.
* 50% buyouts.
* Drop Dead Date (contracts must be signed by September 30th or the player is inelegible for the season)
* Non-Disclosure (the NHLPA is not allowed to share salary information with other players or agents)
* No restrictions on player representation (NHLPA certification is ended)
* Entry draft is limited to five rounds and players hust be 19 years of age. Teams own drafted players' rights indefinitely.
* Merchandising is split 50/50
* Insurance/Disability costs are split 50/50
* Player expenses reduced to $50 per day (game days only) and become a taxable benefit
* The NHL continues to pay into the NHLPA Pension fund in accordance to the last CBA

Okay John, counter.

 

[jcpenny]

The old system could have worked if the owners/Gm's used their heads. However look at the propsal the NHLPA submitted and you'll see that it wasn't the same old system.

If only it was as simple as that NHL would be ok right now but its not. Onwers have fan pressure to get deals done, pressure to win now and Marketing pressure. These factors will push a GM and Onwer to give more than they should. EX.: Free agents and players on Holdouts when teams arent doing well...

 

[Marshall]

Only weak-willed people cave into public/media opinion.

Sorry, can't agree with this. Only weak-willed people, or people who are trying to sell tickets to that same public.

Fans who whine about over-paying for a free agent <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Fans who buy tickets because of that free agent.

Dismissing that pressure, out of hand, is ridiculous, and branding any of that as weak-willed is the same.

Not to get on anybody, but the weak-willed comment was absurd, and more than a bit arrogant.

Edit: I am a Caps fan, and the Jagr extension was @ssinine, no doubt about that.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Okay John, lets make this an actual negotiation. I want cost certainty. I want a cap. Here's what I am offering.

* $40 million cap.
* Individual salary cap at $6 million.
* Rookie salaries capped at $850K. Bonuses capped at $400K. Signing bonuses capped at $400K.
* No arbitration.
* Qualification at 75%.
* Guaranteed contracts.
* Free Agency at 28.
* 50% buyouts.
* Drop Dead Date (contracts must be signed by September 30th or the player is inelegible for the season)
* Non-Disclosure (the NHLPA is not allowed to share salary information with other players or agents)
* No restrictions on player representation (NHLPA certification is ended)
* Entry draft is limited to five rounds and players hust be 19 years of age. Teams own drafted players' rights indefinitely.
* Merchandising is split 50/50
* Insurance/Disability costs are split 50/50
* Player expenses reduced to $50 per day (game days only) and become a taxable benefit
* The NHL continues to pay into the NHLPA Pension fund in accordance to the last CBA

Okay John, counter.

Gary is that you ??? ... that's above and beyond what the last reported offer was.

I'm not going to negotiate here, because of soemthing else I have going on the HF Boards, were there is an ownership group and a NHLPA group.

Our first bargaining session is tonight, after each side has met individually a few times. If you're interested in joining the Owners group you can PM TiesRLikeWins4Us.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

If only it was as simple as that NHL would be ok right now but its not. Onwers have fan pressure to get deals done, pressure to win now and Marketing pressure. These factors will push a GM and Onwer to give more than they should. EX.: Free agents and players on Holdouts when teams arent doing well...

Hold firm and make the correct deal. Will the loss of a player hurt short-term ??? Yes, it could, however making bad money decisions or personnel moves hurts a helluva lot more.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Sorry, can't agree with this. Only weak-willed people, or people who are trying to sell tickets to that same public.

Fans who whine about over-paying for a free agent <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Fans who buy tickets because of that free agent.

Dismissing that pressure, out of hand, is ridiculous, and branding any of that as weak-willed is the same.

Not to get on anybody, but the weak-willed comment was absurd, and more than a bit arrogant.

Would not-signing one player that is asking for a ridiculous contract have a big monetary effect on a team ???

Have your GM tell the public your reasoning:

i.e. "so-and-so" will not be in the line-up becuase his contract demands are out of line. He will play for us when he becomes realistic.

We will not trade him just for trades sake, he will only be dealt if the right deal for our club comes along.


You can see right now how it works, the majority of fans are on the teams side because they believe in what they're saying.

If for example, Scott Gomez went to Lamarillo and said, "I lead the NHL in assists last year, I should be making $5 million per year"

Do you think that Lou would either:

a. Cave in and pay the salary
b. Trade Gomez for less than what he perceives as fair-value

No chance. Lou would let him rot, until he got a fair deal done, by either trade or contract.

Just because most teams end up foliding doesn't make it right and/or smart. When teams hold the hammer, they MUST use it.

 

[CarlRacki]

Just because most teams end up foliding doesn't make it right and/or smart. When teams hold the hammer, they MUST use it.

I don't disagree with the substance of your post, but I would argue that the teams as a unit are holding the hammer and using it right now.

I would also note that bad contracts come not only from weak-willed ownership, but ownership that truly believes, whether mistaken or not, that they are just one or two special players away from a Cup. When those teams can afford to overpay they often will for that opportunity. This is what the Rangers were thinking when they tendered the giant offer to Sakic. It's what Philly was thinking when they gave $10 million up front to Gratton. It's what Detroit was thinking (correctly, as it turns out) when they agreed to give Hasek $8 million.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

How do any of you know a luxury tax/soft cap WONT work? No one has a crystal ball here its all speculation. What if this is the system that gets implemented and 5 years down the road the NHL is in excellent shape. Will you still blame these greedy players for a year without hockey?

 

[CarlRacki]

How do any of you know a luxury tax/soft cap WONT work? No one has a crystal ball here its all speculation. What if this is the system that gets implemented and 5 years down the road the NHL is in excellent shape. Will you still blame these greedy players for a year without hockey?

The best we can do is look at the other professional sports league that operates under a system with only a luxury, that being major-league baseball. In the two (going on three) seasons with a luxury tax, the disparities between the haves and have nots seems to have become worse. Also, the tax has proven utterly ineffective at reducing the spending habits of the teams it targetted, namely the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets.

Can it work differently for hockey? It's possible. But given its ineffectiveness in MLB, I'm not surprised the owners are unwilling to find out.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Gary is that you ??? ... that's above and beyond what the last reported offer was.

I'm not going to negotiate here, because of soemthing else I have going on the HF Boards, were there is an ownership group and a NHLPA group.

Our first bargaining session is tonight, after each side has met individually a few times. If you're interested in joining the Owners group you can PM TiesRLikeWins4Us.

Ah, that's disappointing. Seems like a bit of a cop-out though. You could have considered this practice.

 

[NJD Jester]

You can see right now how it works, the majority of fans are on the teams side because they believe in what they're saying.
If for example, Scott Gomez went to Lamarillo and said, "I lead the NHL in assists last year, I should be making $5 million per year"

1. The fans are the owners side because, as a whole, they are trying to fix the system. Within that system, however, fans will hold the owners accountable if they aren't spending the money to put a competitive team on the ice. And refusing to pay a restricted free agent whatever his agent is asking for is going to get an owner in trouble with his fans and the media. You can't deny that pressure is real, can you?

2. Replace Gomez with Marty. And then flip the Devils with the Hurricanes in the standings. Does the situation change? Lou has been able to throw his weight around with players like Niedermayer and Guerin in their early years, but even he would have to play the game under the right circumstances.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The best we can do is look at the other professional sports league that operates under a system with only a luxury, that being major-league baseball. In the two (going on three) seasons with a luxury tax, the disparities between the haves and have nots seems to have become worse. Also, the tax has proven utterly ineffective at reducing the spending habits of the teams it targetted, namely the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets.

Can it work differently for hockey? It's possible. But given its ineffectiveness in MLB, I'm not surprised the owners are unwilling to find out.

Here is a question for you, and one I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out.

If the MLB luxury tax was structured as follows:

$75-90 million --> $0.50
$90-100 million --> $0.75
$100-120 million --> $1.00
$120-150 million --> $1.50
$150 million or more --> $2.00

Do ou think it might be just a bit more effective than whan the currently have, which is:

2005 season:

$128 million or more --> $0.225 for a first time offender, $0.30 for 2nd time offender and $0.40 for 3rd or 4th time offenders.

This year the Yankees payroll will be approx $215 million.

Under their system the Yankees will pay $86 million in payroll tax, and essentially $300 million in salary. They finally seem to be at their limit, as they chose not to go after Carlos Beltran.

Now if the other program was put in place the Yankees would pay: $210 million in luxury tax for a total of $425 million in payroll+tax.


A luxury tax can certainly work, it's all about setting the proper thresholds and tax rates. Also the NHL has no team with the kind of revenues that the NY Yankees have.

 

[CarlRacki]

Here is a question for you, and one I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out.

If the MLB luxury tax was structured as follows:

$75-90 million --> $0.50
$90-100 million --> $0.75
$100-120 million --> $1.00
$120-150 million --> $1.50
$150 million or more --> $2.00

Do ou think it might be just a bit more effective than whan the currently have, which is:

2005 season:

$128 million or more --> $0.225 for a first time offender, $0.30 for 2nd time offender and $0.40 for 3rd or 4th time offenders.

This year the Yankees payroll will be approx $215 million.

Under their system the Yankees will pay $86 million in payroll tax, and essentially $300 million in salary. They finally seem to be at their limit, as they chose not to go after Carlos Beltran.

Now if the other program was put in place the Yankees would pay: $210 million in luxury tax for a total of $425 million in payroll+tax.


A luxury tax can certainly work, it's all about setting the proper thresholds and tax rates. Also the NHL has no team with the kind of revenues that the NY Yankees have.

Before I go too far, I'd say the Yankees chose not to go after Carlos Beltran first because they didn't need him in their lineup and second because Brian Cashman was smart enough not to give $17 million per to a career .284 hitter who priot to last year never hit more than 30 homers in a season.

Your luxury tax proposal may be more effective, but the NHLPA has offered nothing comparable. Perhaps if they did, it would be worth further discussion.

 

[AM]

I disagree with you

that is pure speculation ....

entirely.

Luxury taxes do nothing to stop inflation.

The owners dont need an agreement with the players to share money amongst themselves.

There is a huge problem in the NHL with competative balance and its hurting the developement of the market in all the lower cost cities.

Nothing you've said does anything about these things.

Time to flush these players away and bring on new ones.

 

[Icey]

1. The fans are the owners side because, as a whole, they are trying to fix the system. Within that system, however, fans will hold the owners accountable if they aren't spending the money to put a competitive team on the ice. And refusing to pay a restricted free agent whatever his agent is asking for is going to get an owner in trouble with his fans and the media. You can't deny that pressure is real, can you?

2. Replace Gomez with Marty. And then flip the Devils with the Hurricanes in the standings. Does the situation change? Lou has been able to throw his weight around with players like Niedermayer and Guerin in their early years, but even he would have to play the game under the right circumstances.

Actually what I hear is most fans are on the owners side because they truly believe that when the owners get their hard cap system it will affect them directly -- i.e. ticket prices. Nothing could be further from the truth. Teams payrolls may be cut in half or a third, but the cost of your ticket, parking, concessions or fan merchandise is going to stay the same or it might actually go up. Why is that? Because none of that has a direct correlation with salaries.

And there is no proof that a hard cap system (NFL) will work in the NHL. THe NFL system is successful in the NFL because of their revenues and their revenue sharing system (60/40 gate split, etc.). None of that exists in the NHL nor is it proposed to exist. As long as NHL revenues are a fraction of the NFL's there is absolutely nothing that would prove it would work.

The NHL should be more concerned with revenue sharing and growing revenues than capping salaries. What happens when capping salaries doesn't work, what then??? The reason they want to cap salaries is because they have no clue nor any ideas on how to grow revenue. The NHL system they are proposing (pick any proposal, they are all the same) does nothing to promote the growth of the sport and grow revenues and that is just a recipe for disaster. It rewards mediocore management and bad management just becomes the status quo.

I have no real objection to a salary cap, I would just prefer one that is a soft cap with a serious luxury tax tied in. But more than that they need a substantial revenue sharing system because that in itself could fix the system, but as the NHL has stated many times that is something they are not interested in.

 

[BLONG7]

Actually what I hear is most fans are on the owners side because they truly believe that when the owners get their hard cap system it will affect them directly -- i.e. ticket prices. Nothing could be further from the truth. Teams payrolls may be cut in half or a third, but the cost of your ticket, parking, concessions or fan merchandise is going to stay the same or it might actually go up. Why is that? Because none of that has a direct correlation with salaries.

It would if the fans stay away for awhile, you will then see prices of tickets come down in a hurry...

 

[Icey]

Maybe, but by that time 10 of the leagues 30 teams have gone under.

Ticket prices are not going to drop, just accept that.

 

[likea]

Maybe, but by that time 10 of the leagues 30 teams have gone under.

Ticket prices are not going to drop, just accept that.

lol

ticket prices have already dropped in a few markets AND owners are on record stating that they feel the have bled the market dry

look for comments by Hicks in Dallas and the Bruins owners

the Penguins, Dallas and another team has already reduced prices

cost certainty also brings cost certainty to the prices

do you remember what tickets in the lower bowl section of arenas cost in the early 90's

some have doubled or tripled in price....now check out salaries from the early 90's...hmmm....the top teams have tripled or quadrupled

but you think salaries have no effect on ticket prices even tho this is a ticket driven league...

lol

where do you come up with this stuff

tickets will at the very least remain at a reasonable price which is way better than what we have been getting

 

[John Flyers Fan]

entirely.

Luxury taxes do nothing to stop inflation.

The owners dont need an agreement with the players to share money amongst themselves.

There is a huge problem in the NHL with competative balance and its hurting the developement of the market in all the lower cost cities.

Nothing you've said does anything about these things.

Time to flush these players away and bring on new ones.

I'd love to hear your reasoning why Luxury taxes don't stop inflation.

I'd also love to hear you big competitive balance issue that's going on in the NHL right now.