The players must vote ..

[hockeytown9321]

That's kind of irrelevant. While you're perhaps correct regarding team's ability to pay larges bonuses, they would be completely unnecessary anyhow. As long as guaranteed contracts remain the norm - and both sides say they will - there's no demand/need for the mega bonus.

According to Gary Bettman, guaranteed contracts are up for discussion, een if he doesn't say so publically.

And, if there ends up being a hard cap, guaranteed contracts would be a disaster. Injury issues alone would necessitate the ability to cut guys. At the very least, the league would have to have very favorable buyout clauses (something the NHL has discussed publically). If players can be bought out at less than half their deal, they will demand, and the superstars will get, big signing bonuses.

 

[me2]

Here's how I break down what theBob said: older and marginal players are currently sacrificing their careers during the lockout in order to prevent a salary cap, becuase the PA wants to ensure that guys like Pronger will continue to make superstar money.

Pretty much everyone will get hit. The stars will get hit at least as hard as everyone else. The only players that will get badly hit are the UFAs who cash in on their FA status, guys like DeVries who are decent but nothing exceptional. They'll have to settle for the same amounts of money they made before UFA status.

Here's how I break down what I said: superstar players will get superstar money, whether there's a cap, whether there's a tax, or wheter there's any other system. If there's a cap, that means there is a fixed limit of what a team can spend. If superstars still get superstar money, that means there's less money to be paid to non superstars, which includes the 3rd and 4th liners theBob talked about. It is my belief that a cap would hurt marginal players much more than it would hurt superstars. Therefore it is in the best interests of those marginal players to support the union in its efforts to avoid a salary cap.

Hockey is a team game that needs depth from top to bottom. The only key position is goal. Even the best forwards only manage 20 minutes a game, that leaves 40mins for the rest. Anyone who forks out $10m to forward or a defense is going to have a very weak players backing that player up in a capped system. One star quality player and two marginal 4th liners is going to be a worse line than 3 quality players.

Which starting 5 would you rather

One that pays Pronger and Forsberg $10m deals and hires scrubs

Muckalt + Forsberg + Hendrickson
Pronger + Bert Robertsson
Snow

or solid lineup without elite stars

Lehtinen + Madden + Satan
Ohlund + Schneider
Khabibulin


As I said, hockey is a team game, and it possible to put together a hardworking team that can be successful if its well balanced. Some teams might throw $10m at elite players, but these teams should expect other teams to throw that $10m at 3 quality players. The team with expensive elite player will find all of the good middle tier players have been taken by other clubs, so now they'll be left in a bidding war best of tier 3 players. That's why I see every player taking a roughly equal hit.

 

[me2]

According to Gary Bettman, guaranteed contracts are up for discussion, een if he doesn't say so publically.

And, if there ends up being a hard cap, guaranteed contracts would be a disaster. Injury issues alone would necessitate the ability to cut guys. At the very least, the league would have to have very favorable buyout clauses (something the NHL has discussed publically). If players can be bought out at less than half their deal, they will demand, and the superstars will get, big signing bonuses.

Get hit with injuries and you are required to bring up minor league reserves. Their might just be less trades, which isn't a bad thing because it rewards teams with depth. This is especially true if a team overpays on stars and neglects depth then loses a star to injury.


If the injuries are longer term then some percentage (50% to 100%) of the injured player's salary may become exempt from the cap while the player remains injured. The players get paid, teams get cap space back so its a win-win.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Pretty much everyone will get hit. The stars will get hit at least as hard as everyone else.

Really? The hard capped NFL says otherwise.

 

[R0CKET]

Totally wrong. A cap won't hurt guys like Pronger. Superstars will still get superstar money. Its the 3rd and 4th liners that will be hurt the most.

Totally WRONG...

Without a cap the bottom 15 - 20 % of the league will no longer have any permanant job in the NHL for the simple fact that these teams will go out of business.

So tell me again how it hurts these players by allowing them to remain employed as NHL players rather than being AHL scrubs for the rest of their careers?

This IS the essense of this disput, accept the plain thruth that these Teams (the bottom 6-8) will no longer be in business without a cap.

So in the end it is about the top paid guys being able to command their outrageous salries, while their former teammates (the ones who get their noses dirty for them the most) get sent to the Hockey Gulags.

Yeah, these are some highly principal'd and caring Union Members.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Without a cap the bottom 15 - 20 % of the league will no longer have any permanant job in the NHL for the simple fact that these teams will go out of business.

so which owner is going to walk away from his 100m or so investment ?

dr

 

[Isles72]

Doesnt it just boil down to the owners are going to get what they want at all costs ?

if the season is lost , the shared 2 billion dollar pie next year becomes alot less due to the loss of revenue from disinterested fans,advertisers,potential t.v. deal suiters et all

if the ''pa'' agrees to cost certainty , I'm fairly optimistic that the nhl will bend on their ''no arbitration ,rookie cap 850 k no bonus,and QO's,FA age reductions ''

I'm still somewhat positive that the ''pa'' will come to their senses

 

[R0CKET]

so which owner is going to walk away from his 100m or so investment ?

dr

Probably the same ones who aren't worried about what's going on TODAY cuz they are actually losing LESS money.

Businesses that don't make money don't stay in business.

There's a free Business 101 lesson for some of the Business Challenged out there.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Probably the same ones who aren't worried about what's going on TODAY cuz they are actually losing LESS money.

Businesses that don't make money don't stay in business.

There's a free Business 101 lesson for some of the Business Challenged out there.

well, you failed. when was the last pro franchise that just shut down its operations ?

You didn’t answer the question, which owner(s)specifically will walk away from their investment of 100m or more ?

dr

 

[hockeytown9321]

Totally WRONG...

Without a cap the bottom 15 - 20 % of the league will no longer have any permanant job in the NHL for the simple fact that these teams will go out of business.

Instead of increasing some of those team's costs(which is what the NHL proposed salary floor would do), wouldn't it be better if those teams increased their revenue? If they can't increase it on their own, and the other teams in the league are serious about wanting 30 healthy teams, shouldn't it be up to the rest of the league to ensure those teams stay in business?

 

[hockeytown9321]

.

Businesses that don't make money don't stay in business.

Tell that to Gary Bettman.

 

[tantalum]

Tell that to Gary Bettman.

Hmmm...isn't that what Gary Bettman HAS been telling the NHLPA for quite some time now?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Hmmm...isn't that what Gary Bettman HAS been telling the NHLPA for quite some time now?

how is Bettman helping NSH and PIT (2 examples) make money by forcing them spend 8-10million more per season but not giving them any meaningful revenue sharing ?

hmm ... ???

dr

 

[hockeytown9321]

Hmmm...isn't that what Gary Bettman HAS been telling the NHLPA for quite some time now?

No, he's been telling the PA that some of his teams are incapable of making enough money to surevive, and its their responsibilty to fix it.

 

[txomisc]

According to Gary Bettman, guaranteed contracts are up for discussion, een if he doesn't say so publically.

And, if there ends up being a hard cap, guaranteed contracts would be a disaster. Injury issues alone would necessitate the ability to cut guys. At the very least, the league would have to have very favorable buyout clauses (something the NHL has discussed publically). If players can be bought out at less than half their deal, they will demand, and the superstars will get, big signing bonuses.

i dont see this as much of a problem....we can have a system where you still have to buy players out for the same amount of money but they no longer fully count against the cap

 

[hockeytown9321]

i dont see this as much of a problem....we can have a system where you still have to buy players out for the same amount of money but they no longer fully count against the cap

Sure, you can have that system, but I haven't heard the league mention that as an option.

In any case, its going to be much easier for teams to get out of deals, and the players will want siging bonuses in return.

 

[CarlRacki]

According to Gary Bettman, guaranteed contracts are up for discussion, een if he doesn't say so publically.

If he's not saying it publicly, then how do you know he's saying it? Are you his secretary?
I hope I'm not the only here who's tired of posters who claim to know exactly what Bettman is thinking or what Goodenow is planning. We don't know anything and all we can do is speculate.

 

[hockeytown9321]

If he's not saying it publicly, then how do you know he's saying it? Are you his secretary?
I hope I'm not the only here who's tired of posters who claim to know exactly what Bettman is thinking or what Goodenow is planning. We don't know anything and all we can do is speculate.

Its mentioned in the letter he sent to Goodenow in the summer. Peole here dismiss it because it was Larry Brooks who obtained the letter, so they feel he made it up.

I'm sure someone can point you in the direction of the article.

 

[SENSible1*]

Its mentioned in the letter he sent to Goodenow in the summer. Peole here dismiss it because it was Larry Brooks who obtained the letter, so they feel he made it up.

I'm sure someone can point you in the direction of the article.

People here ignore it because the NHL has since the letter repeatedly cleared the air on this by emphatically stating their postition that garaunteed contracts are NOT an issue.

The PA wants to use it as a fear tactic to keep the members in line, but they are lying and they know it.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

People here ignore it because the NHL has since the letter repeatedly cleared the air on this by emphatically stating their postition that garaunteed contracts are NOT an issue.

:lol

Is that like their emphatic statements regarding Impasse?

 

[me2]

Really? The hard capped NFL says otherwise.

NFL has a different labour supply. Rosters are much larger which gives teams the option to screw down wages. There are more players available to fill out rosters, in the NHL once you get down below NHL level there is big drop off.

NFL teams have different team needs. There is no equivalent QB position in the NHL (possible exception of goalie). How much would an elite QB get if they were on the field for 40% of the time their team has the ball and reserve QBs took up the other 60%? Even Mario and Wayne had to leave the ice and let other lines take over the scoring.

Despite this the Vick ($130m/10 years, $13m/y) and Manning ($98/7 years, $14m/y) only take up about 17-18% of their teams $80m+ budgets. $14/y out $80m

Who is going to pay Pronger $10m out of a $35m budget? That's 28-29% of budget. That blows away whatever Vick and Manning are getting in percentage terms and, no offense to Pronger, QBs are much more vital components of their teams than #1 D. Pronger is just another cog, a good cog, but still just a cog.

 

[me2]

i dont see this as much of a problem....we can have a system where you still have to buy players out for the same amount of money but they no longer fully count against the cap

Not sold on that idea. TO offers Igilna $30m/5, wink wink they buy him out after 3 because it was really $10m/y but they needed a way around the cap.

 

[SENSible1*]

:lol

Is that like their emphatic statements regarding Impasse?

The statement concering garaunteed contracts is on paper as part of their proposal. As such, it carries far greater weight than a memo of items for discussion sent months ago, but hailed as a smoking gun by those who would prefer to keep the players in line by lying to them.

Show me a link that states the league will NEVER consider impasse. They always qualify it by stating they haven't discussed it or considered it as an option "at this time."

The threat is clear, as is the attempt to show that they are bargaining in "good faith."

 

[struckmatch]

how is Bettman helping NSH and PIT (2 examples) make money by forcing them spend 8-10million more per season but not giving them any meaningful revenue sharing ?

hmm ... ???

dr

If the PA agreed to negotiate cost certainty, only on the condition of meaningful revenue charing, and lowered UFA age, the league would be more than willing to agree to that. All the players have to do is concede a salary cap, and then the owners will basically give them lowered UFA, and meaningful revenue sharing.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

The statement concering garaunteed contracts is on paper as part of their proposal. As such, it carries far greater weight than a memo of items for discussion sent months ago, but hailed as a smoking gun by those who would prefer to keep the players in line by lying to them.

That proposal was rejected. Everything goes back to square one, as they say in the business.