The NHLPA CBA proposal....

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I'm just an Electrical Engineer.

That's ALL you are? An electrical engineer?

Dude, most of the people in here sound like they are still in high school.

 

[vanlady]

OK let's look at this a little differently other than the Bettman way

LA struggled last year with injuries and had to add payroll for players because they had players out for the season. Under the proposed plan LA would not be heavily penalized for having to add players to accomodate injury. I think this is fair to every team, simply because the injury bug can bite at any time.

I however do agree when the union proposes a index plan for repeat offenders. This should include penalties that start in the 75 cent range and escalate to $5 depending how many times a team has gone over and by how much.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

I extremely misunderstood the salary roll back. I mistook it as rollbqack for only one year of the existing contracts, when if I am now understanding correctly, it is for the entire contract. The way they explained it on TSN last night led to this apparently wrong conclusion.

I now think that maybe this is a good starting point, that with some work on the luxury tax component, we might actually see a season. (gone from less than 1% chance to maybe 30%)

The luxury tax needs to have more bite to make this work. It needs to kick in around 32 million and by 40 million needs more than dollar for dollar.

 

[vanlady]

I personally think this is the best solution, we need a system that punishes repeat offenders.

How about we put the target on teams that are habitual offenders. Teams sometimes are going to have to go over, case in point LA last year, how many players did they have on IR?

OK so leave the tax the way it is for one time events such as IR or the situation Vancouver ran into at the end of last year.

However, lets look at the hard core offenders, year two changes

45 - 48 million - 75 cents on the dollar
48 - 53 million - $1 on every dollar over
53 - 60 million - $2 on every dollar over
over 60 million - $3 on every dollar over

Third year

45 - 48 million - $1 on every dollar over
48 - 53 million - $3 on every dollar over
53 - 60 million - $5 on every dollar over
over 60 million - $10 on every dollar over

Toronto would definately think twice with an index on repeat offences.

I am not in any way supporting that the luxury tax stay the same for repeat offenders, they are the ones that need to be taught a lesson. I also think provisions need to be built into the index so that teams can't go over more than once every 5 years. The lower tax should be meant for one time events, not a way for owners to supplement there teams for cup runs.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Let's set the record straight here: Los Angeles didn't have to pay all their chronically injured players. Teams have insurance policies on player contracts to protect their investments.

 

[tantalum]

I'm guessing that under a luxury tax any injured players salaries won't count towards the threshold. As only the 23 players on the active roster would count...a player on the IR is not on the active roster. Meaning provided a player can be picked up at that same salary (or more if the team has room under the cap) it isn't a problem. You only really replace a player if he's gone for the season anyways. As well there may be options to temporarily go over the threshold or increasing the threshold a bit for the playoffs or whatever else you can think of to be negotiated. Or teams could just plan on leaving some damn room to prepare for those possibilities they may need ot add someone.

 

[vanlady]

I'm guessing that under a luxury tax any injured players salaries won't count towards the threshold. As only the 23 players on the active roster would count...a player on the IR is not on the active roster. Meaning provided a player can be picked up at that same salary (or more if the team has room under the cap) it isn't a problem. You only really replace a player if he's gone for the season anyways. As well there may be options to temporarily go over the threshold or increasing the threshold a bit for the playoffs or whatever else you can think of to be negotiated. Or teams could just plan on leaving some damn room to prepare for those possibilities they may need ot add someone.

Ah then you have a problem, because players in the minors that have 2 way contracts are currently being counted. So if they are being counted then IR will have to be.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Using this proposal as a basis, does anyone think that:
a) the NHLPA would be willing to turn the luxury tax into something really punitive; and

b) that a really puitive luxury tax along with the rest of the proposals would make the league viable?

Just a question, I'm not really sure.

 

[Mess]

THE NHLPA had the right idea ..They just didn't take it far enough ..IMO

A better solution to get the Owners knocked off the Hard Cap would be a big rollback as the NHLPA just offered . combined with small salary % increase Cap per year based on the lower contact amount... Lets say 2 % per year for example on new contracts for ease of math..

Lets take Pronger for example:

Current Salary $10 Million

Apply the rollback (25 %)

New Salary $7.5 Million

Apply the 2% maximum increase allowed in salary based on new base (7.5 mil) in any current year

So after 5 years the most Pronger would be able to earn ( 2% x 5 years = 10%) ....7.5 Million + 10 % ($750,000)

New Salary max $ 8.25 Million after 5 years

(which could be the length of this new CBA agreement rather than the proposed 6 years)

So Pronger will make from 7.5 mil to 8.25 mil in the next 5 years ..now cap rookie entry level contracts as well as discussed..

HOW MUCH MORE COST CERTAINTY would owners need to tie Player Salaries to Revenue .. ???

They will know today what any given player could make for the next five years and plan accordingly on spending..

Look I can do it without a Hard Cap or Luxury Tax required .. because I don't really believe in either .. and the MAX a player can earn, will eliminate bidding wars and escalating Salaries in the future, and for the same money offered by multiple teams the player as a UFA could chose where (lifestyle) he wanted to play, and the richer teams are not punished by any CAP TYPE or penalty for running a better business, and it totally controls GM's and owners over spending habits.

The NHL better get me in there to the negotiating table so all those Knuckleheads on both sides can give the fans hockey again ...

 

[pacde]

Its a great start

A lot of people have commented that this is a great start to negotiations and although Im pro-owner in this, I like what a lot of the points the NHLPA has proposed. In my view, significant contributors to salary escalation have been the arbitration process and the differential markets. These two factors are really at the heart of the matter (again in my opinion) and the NHLPA has indicated that both of them are up for negotiation by trying to address them in this proposal.

Ive never been for a hard cap and I think the luxury tax along with the revenue sharing idea (Im squarely behind the players on this one) will help create a more even footing for the teams - I realize the proposal states the tax will go to a disretionary fund, but the wording on that could be changed to mean that the fund will go to teams that both the NHL and NHLPA agree are worthy (maybe providing great environments for their players, well managed etc).

The arbitration process is clearly broken and needs to be retrenched from the ground up. The proposal indicates that teams will be able to take players to arbitration as well, but I think its only the one time. Clearly the arbitrators need some clear guidelines in their process and Im not convinced that Baseball style arbitration will give them that. Having said that, the proposal indicates its up for negotiation and thats really encouraging.

To all the people who think this is because GM's arent responsible and nobody is holding a gun to their head, remember that GM's have to balance the need of three distinct groups in running their operation. First the fans who pay their wage (and dont want to see their star players leave for more lucrative markets), second there is the league consisting partially of 29 other GM's who set the market value for their players ( and they cant "Collude" with) and third, the players themselves who only are looking out for #1 (and in some cases care deeply about who they play for and where they play). I think its clear that when fans want the player to stay and the other GM's in the league have set a market value beyond what the team can reasonably afford and the player threatens to hold out (thereby presumably reducing the teams competitiveness and thereby ticket sales and income), a lot of GM's must feel like there are three guns to their head. I would agree with you if the NHL GM's could form some sort of association and come up with an agreement amongst themselves, but thats against the law.

 

[Trottier]

To all the people who think this is because GM's arent responsible and nobody is holding a gun to their head, remember that GM's have to balance the need of three distinct groups in running their operation. First the fans who pay their wage (and dont want to see their star players leave for more lucrative markets), second there is the league consisting partially of 29 other GM's who set the market value for their players ( and they cant "Collude" with) and third, the players themselves who only are looking out for #1 (and in some cases care deeply about who they play for and where they play). I think its clear that when fans want the player to stay and the other GM's in the league have set a market value beyond what the team can reasonably afford and the player threatens to hold out (thereby presumably reducing the teams competitiveness and thereby ticket sales and income), a lot of GM's must feel like there are three guns to their head.

Since I used the gun to the head metaphor, I'll respond. No shedding of tears here for the challenges of an NHL GM, which you outlined well. That's why they get paid the big bucks. They are managing a multi-million dollar business, not a rotisserie team, you know?

The very best ones manage to navigate around each of the hurdles you describe. Others are less successful. The capitalist system at work.

"Navigating" sometimes means making the hard decisions on free agents, in the light of silly fan hysteria and what others are willing to pay. Like Lou L. allowing Mogilny and Holik to walk. Like Anaheim allowing Kariya to walk, etc. Fan reaction is important, as you need customers, but they do not dictate personnel decisions of the best GMs.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Since I used the gun to the head metaphor, I'll respond. No shedding of tears here for the challenges of an NHL GM, which you outlined well. That's why they get paid the big bucks. They are managing a multi-million dollar business, not a rotisserie team, you know?

The very best ones manage to navigate around each of the hurdles you describe. Others are less successful. The capitalist system at work.

Simple as that. No need to change anything just get some guys who realize its not rotisserie. Nevermind its not a normal business they are running but a business in the framework of a 30 team league of NHL players. Yes simple as pie.

 

[Trottier]

Simple as that. No need to change anything just get some guys who realize its not rotisserie. Nevermind its not a normal business they are running but a business in the framework of a 30 team league of NHL players. Yes simple as pie.

Great reply! Now go back to your rotisserie league draft and "Economics for Dummies" book, sport. :lol

If you are going to pounce genius, at least don't misrepresent the poster's comment. Your's truly is in favor of allowing the best GMs to win out. Apparently, you and your ilk are in favor of "engineering" the process so that (forced) parrrrrity and equalllllity rules the day. Intelligence? Business acumen? Who needs it in your hardcap vision of the world, where we reggggggulate success? Mediocrity now, mediocrity forever. Punish the wealthy teams, the successful teams and let the ordinary have their day. Like intramurals. Everybody wins, equalllly! Regardless of merit. Happy, happy, feel good. Pathetic socialism.

 

[Peter]

A *huge* hole. I don't want the PA deciding where the bonus money goes.



How are you getting that number? The PA offer adds up to 16.2 (pgs 6-8).

And something that's gone unnoticed it seems, is that half the season is already gone. But the PA's "savings" are based on a full season. So they toss around a $269 million dollar figure for 04/05, when in reality the reductions would be half that.

Add one of my favourite bits of misdirection is the Qualifying Offer savings tables. Why, the Canucks will save $6 million in qualifying offers!

Which would be fine, if every player accepted QO's. But they don't. That number is meaningless. Many of those players will turn their noses up at a base QO. Many will file for arbitration. Others will hold out, until they get a deal they think is worthy.



Nope. Any new salaries can be used as comparables as well. Otherwise, in a few years, there'd be no players left on the 24% contracts, and no one could be used as a comparable any more. Arbitration would cease to exist.

So any player who's currently unsigned, and signs as soon as the CBA is done instantly becomes a comparable. And the whole process inflates again.

1) I agree with you - there has to be a distribution of any luxury tax money to the lower salaried teams. Not to a "league improvement fund" as one suggested by the proposed CBA.

2) I got the 20 million for the Canucks by rounding up...16.2 is the more accurate number.

3) I meant that only the new rollbacked salaries AND any new salaries of course would be the new benchmark for comparables. My point was that the old salaries can not be used any more...which is a positive thing.

As for as the QO's...I don't exactly see it the way you do. The QO's are a good thing. You are right though, the player's don't have to accept them...just like it works under the expired CBA. Or they can go to the new arbitration. I see no problem with this at all. A smart GM a la Brian Burke can use the QO's to their team's advantage. The problem comes when GM's won't use it to their advantage.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Great reply! Now go back to your rotisserie league draft and "Economics for Dummies" book, sport. :lol

I think you should go back to econimics for dummies, it is neither a capitalist system or a regular business.

Edit: forget it I think I misunderstood.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Great reply! Now go back to your rotisserie league draft and "Economics for Dummies" book, sport. :lol

If you are going to pounce genius, at least don't misrepresent the poster's comment. Your's truly is in favor of allowing the best GMs to win out. Apparently, you and your ilk are in favor of "engineering" the process so that (forced) parrrrrity and equalllllity rules the day. Intelligence? Business acumen? Who needs it in your hardcap vision of the world, where we reggggggulate success? Mediocrity now, mediocrity forever. Punish the wealthy teams, the successful teams and let the ordinary have their day. Like intramurals. Everybody wins, equalllly! Regardless of merit. Happy, happy, feel good. Pathetic socialism.

Wow, what an aimless rant. Are you drunk this afternoon?

 

[PecaFan]

To all the people who think this is because GM's arent responsible and nobody is holding a gun to their head, remember that GM's have to balance the need of three distinct groups in running their operation. First the fans who pay their wage (and dont want to see their star players leave for more lucrative markets), second there is the league consisting partially of 29 other GM's who set the market value for their players ( and they cant "Collude" with) and third, the players themselves who only are looking out for #1 (and in some cases care deeply about who they play for and where they play).

Excellent first post. Maybe best "first post" of the year. Well thought out, well stated. Well, except for that "against a hard cap" stand, but we'll forgive you.

There's a couple of groups involved you missed. Fourth, his owner. He has to make his owner happy. That can mean being forced to do things that he personally is against. A perfect example would be Messier in Vancouver.

And finally, another group is the GM himself. He also has to look out for himself, protect his job security, etc. If his team does poorly in the standings, he may find himself out of a job. Suddenly, balancing the bottom line financially doesn't look so important. So, it becomes a wise decision to pay a little more than you want to get a player signed and back in training camp, etc. And the converse applies as well. If a team is doing well, a GM can afford to "drive a player to the airport", and hold the line financially, but at the cost of hurting the club a bit on the ice.

Essentially, there's a straight line scale in running a club. At one end, "Pure Financial Decisions". At the other, "Pure Hockey Decisions". Various GM moves are made at differing points along this scale. Some are financial only, some hockey only, some a mixture at various points along the scale. Occasionally, you get really lucky and a move at one end jumps to the other. A perfect example would be the Yashin trade, where it was primarily made for monetary reasons, yet worked out great hockey wise.

Sometimes, hockey moves are made that are financially risky if they don't work out. Is this bad? I think not. The alternative is to be the Blackhawks, where pretty much all moves are made for financial reasons, and the team suffers for decades.

 

[PecaFan]

As for as the QO's...I don't exactly see it the way you do. The QO's are a good thing. You are right though, the player's don't have to accept them...just like it works under the expired CBA. Or they can go to the new arbitration. I see no problem with this at all. A smart GM a la Brian Burke can use the QO's to their team's advantage. The problem comes when GM's won't use it to their advantage.

My point is simply that QO's are not salaries. So you can't add them up, and say "Look! A savings!". A smart GM can do everything right, and yet at the end of the day pay nowhere even close to that number they're trumpeting. That number is a theoretical minimum that is impossible to achieve, because it ignores arbitration, and the concept of free will by hockey players. Only a small percentage of players will accept a minimum QO.

It's like saying I can run a business with five employee $10,000 a year. All I need is to find five folks who will work for $2,000 a year.

 

[pacde]

Since I used the gun to the head metaphor, I'll respond. No shedding of tears here for the challenges of an NHL GM, which you outlined well. That's why they get paid the big bucks. They are managing a multi-million dollar business, not a rotisserie team, you know?

The very best ones manage to navigate around each of the hurdles you describe. Others are less successful. The capitalist system at work.

"Navigating" sometimes means making the hard decisions on free agents, in the light of silly fan hysteria and what others are willing to pay. Like Lou L. allowing Mogilny and Holik to walk. Like Anaheim allowing Kariya to walk, etc. Fan reaction is important, as you need customers, but they do not dictate personnel decisions of the best GMs.

You make some good point and I understand your reasoning, but I guess I just have philisophical differences because I dont believe that only the biggest markets or most inviting economies should be the only ones to be able to support an NHL team. Maybe part of that is that my team is in a country that puts an emphasis on social systems which influence the tax structure, and in recent years has had a lower dollar value. Now we also fail the tradition test (only in business 24 ish years in present market) so my fathers not going to the game means that I probably wont go due to tradition reasons.
I also realize we went to the finals last season but remember this was our first taste of the playoffs in seven seasons. You might say Calgary isnt a hockey market, but I dont think attendance has been a problem here when we have a competitive team on the ice and even when we didnt, people still go. But still the team has problems keeping its star players even with a hockey genius at the helm (maybe thats overstating Sutters status, but not around these parts) simply because we cant float a 45 to 50 million dollar payroll. So we inherently are at a disadvantage in the present day NHL. In your estimation and "capitalism at work" we would have an NHL that consists of 5 or 6 top tier teams and the rest just grateful to be able to ice a team. Yes sometimes there is synergy and a team gets inspired, but I think its well established that the vast majority of the time, the grail goes to the richest teams. Im not against dynasties, but Im against them when they are built on economic terms. Fundamentally I believe that any team should be able to build a winner and reasonably keep that team until a better team beats them. Currently this isnt possible for my team and there are all sorts of things that make our footing less than equal. Even your quoted Lou L was scheduled to ice a $50 mill + team this season - I dont think this is an acceptable standard.

Edit for typo

 

[Donnie D]

For those of you who still cannot see through the player's association smokescreen let me try and explain it a differenct way. Ok it's not a perfect analogy, but you should be able to get the idea:

For sale - New LEXUS for 24% off the sticker price.

You have to finance it from me for 5 years at an 18% interest rate and you can't pay it off early.

You are getting hung up on the 24% off and missing the point that salaries will continue to increase as they have for the past 10 years.

 

[Trottier]

For those of you who still cannot see through the player's association smokescreen let me try and explain it a differenct way. Ok it's not a perfect analogy, but you should be able to get the idea:

For sale - New LEXUS for 24% off the sticker price.

You have to finance it from me for 5 years at an 18% interest rate and you can't pay it off early.

You are getting hung up on the 24% off and missing the point that salaries will continue to increase as they have for the past 10 years.

Does your analogy not assume that the escalation in NHL salaries is mandated, as is the payback (with high interest) on the car loan?

Seems to me that it is not. Clearly, as the NHL owners have operated over the years, one could easily believe that they must hand out high salaries.

A 24% rollback, in combination with meaningful luxury tax and fiscal discipline can be the basis for curbing the rise of overall salaries. Worth repeating: a "token" luxury tax instituted in the 2002 MLB CBA has resulted in the steep decline of the median MLB salary. That is simply fact. Owners, with the notable exception of the "evil empire" in the Bronx, NY, have used that tax threshold to adhere to more stable payrolls. To be sure, many players still see increased salaries (and we read about the largest ones in the sports pages regularly this time of the year), but not nearly at the rate of prior years.

It seems that you and others assume continued fiscal irresponsibility and a "follow-the-Rangers/Leafs/Wings, etc." payroll mentality with regard to handing out ridiculous contracts. And, NHL history backs you up, without question.

But in response, would simply suggest that the market "correction" offered by the NHLPA, in concert with other measures, allows NHL GMs/owners equal opportunity to continue their silly spending ways, or to exhibit discipline and manage their resources more effectively. That is, they can walk away from arbitration, they can walk away from over-demanding UFAs. And, they can win with more modest payrolls.

Regardless, your previous post made for very engaging reading.

 

[Peter]

My point is simply that QO's are not salaries. So you can't add them up, and say "Look! A savings!". A smart GM can do everything right, and yet at the end of the day pay nowhere even close to that number they're trumpeting. That number is a theoretical minimum that is impossible to achieve, because it ignores arbitration, and the concept of free will by hockey players. Only a small percentage of players will accept a minimum QO.

It's like saying I can run a business with five employee $10,000 a year. All I need is to find five folks who will work for $2,000 a year.

Good point. QO's aren't salaries and you are right, it is deception to declare a savings. However, I think the QO's are a good drag on salaries and that is something the league was looking for.

 

[Donnie D]

Does your analogy not assume that the escalation in NHL salaries is mandated, as is the payback (with high interest) on the car loan?

Sort of mandated since those with the deep pockets will use their resources to their advantage. That will require, the other teams that want to remain competitive to try and stay in the game and lead to an inevitable increase in salaries.

One question I have, unrelated, and I don't have the answer so someone please help me out. An attorney perhaps.

Let's say the owners and union agree to a rollback. Since the union only negotiates benefits and not individual salaries, could a player sue either or both saying that the union didn't have the right to reduce an individual player's salary? Well $10 and cabfare allows you to file a suit, but what realistic chance do they have in winning? It's one thing to negotiate a cap, it's another to reduce an already agreed to contract between 2 other entities.

 

[thinkwild]

THe players will get a chance to ratify the proposal and if they dont think their union is acting in their best interests they dont have to. But the player have no reason to think their union wont do the thing best in their interest.

 

[Hawker14]

after reading the NHLPA's CBA proposal in it's entirety, i'm actually impressed by the 24% wage reduction and the owners' ability to take an underperforming RFA to arbitration.

it is a very serious offer and I'm not surprised the players think they're giving up too much.

however, the offer by itself, even with tweaking, will not address the fundamental problem facing the NHL.

the problem is the difference in revenue generating ability among the individual teams. unless the NHL is willing to share at least 75% of revenues, the NHLPA will never accept a salary cap.

as long as teams like Toronto and the NY Rangers are generating US$ 100 million in revenues, the NHLPA will never accept a salary cap that would leave these teams making $30-50 million annually in profits.

in my view, the nhl has to come back to the table with revenue sharing of at least 75% between it's member teams, and then, and only then, will the NHLPA grudgingly accept a salary cap, which will be in the $38-40 million range.

if the NHL refuses to have true revenue sharing among it's teams, the NHLPA will not accept a salary cap, and this season is lost. next season will likely be lost as well.