The players, winner now?

[kostitsyn1489]

With the cap going up between 48 and 50M did the players did a good thing signing this CBA?

If I remember well the players wanted a fixed cap at 42 or so, but the NHL wanted to cap to be related with the revenues. Now that the cap going up near 50M the players got more then they wanted to. In the end while getting everything they wanted the NHL are in worse shape then they were if they wouldve had a fixed cap.

Anyway I think this cap related with revenue is stupid cause it goes up every year so the contract signed a while ago looks low by now.

Anyway, your thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[GSC2k2*]

Well, for starters, your facts are wrong. The players wanted a cap in the high 40's with the cap escalating from there based on percentage increases in what would be an artificially depressed base year.

So, no, the players did not "win".

 

[Sens Rule]

Both are losers really because of the lock out.

But the owners have seen a franchise worth 60-85 million before the lockout be worth 142, or 175 or 220 million today. So I think they did pretty good.

The players are mega-losers because they could have signed the CBA they did get without a lock-out and maybe without a 24% roll back in salary.

 

[kostitsyn1489]

Both are losers really because of the lock out.

But the owners have seen a franchise worth 60-85 million before the lockout be worth 142, or 175 or 220 million today. So I think they did pretty good.

The players are mega-losers because they could have signed the CBA they did get without a lock-out and maybe without a 24% roll back in salary.

Well I was talking about the cap only not about any other thing like the roll back. For the number they wanted I thought it was between 42 and 45, but anyway. The cap will probably go higher next year so it wouldve been better for the NHL to accept a fixed cap IMO.

 

[RTWAP*]

Well I was talking about the cap only not about any other thing like the roll back. For the number they wanted I thought it was between 42 and 45, but anyway. The cap will probably go higher next year so it wouldve been better for the NHL to accept a fixed cap IMO.

The cap is irrelevant, it is the mid-point that is important. The league knows that the players will receive a fixed percentage of revenues (approximated by the mid-point - $36 mil this year). Players, the press, and the fans seem to be fixated on the cap but it is really just a way for the league to allow big-market teams to gain an advantage.

If the league really wanted to make things fair for fans of smaller market teams then they could reduce the cap to $3 mil over the mid-point, from $8 mil over, and the players would make EXACTLY the same amount of money. But teams with $39 mil budgets would be on par with the Rangers, Leafs, etc.

 

[Whiplash27]

Why because small market teams getting a nice portion of the Rangers and Leafs revenues isn't enough?

 

[RTWAP*]

Why because small market teams getting a nice portion of the Rangers and Leafs revenues isn't enough?

It isn't a matter of not enough or too much. If we accept that fans of small market teams should expect their teams to have budgets competitive with big market teams (note: I am not arguing this point, just following its logical path) then the current CBA defines one simple way to accomplish that.

And the revenues don't go to small market teams, they go to the players. If the league ends up owing the players money to get them to the midpoint then it's not going to come from only the big teams. It will come from all of them. To the best of my knowledge, the mechanism for generating money for the revenue sharing pool is independent of the difference between midpoint and cap.

The larger question is whether it IS fair to prevent big market teams from leveraging their better market opportunities to field better teams. There are good arguments on either side. I think the league is somewhere in the middle. They didn't like what was happening pre-lockout but they do have an interest in ensuring their highest profile teams do well. A Stanley Cup final with the Kings vs. Rangers or Wings vs. Bruins would be heaven.

I think the current system has been carefully designed with that balance in mind. It will be interesting to see which direction they tweak it next time around. We won't know that until the next CBA, I guess.

 

[Sens Rule]

Well I was talking about the cap only not about any other thing like the roll back. For the number they wanted I thought it was between 42 and 45, but anyway. The cap will probably go higher next year so it wouldve been better for the NHL to accept a fixed cap IMO.

I disagree. The Cap linked to revenues is very good for both sides. It makes negotiating the next CBA so much easier. They can just keep going with a similar Cap system. With a fixed Cap it would be harder to negotiate a new Cap come the next CBA negotiations.

 

[thinkwild]

The players as a whole would be making more money if there wasnt a salary depressing salary cap. So definitely the players lost relative to what they had.

But of course even all the players offers proposed in cba talks would have led to them losing relative to before.

The owners got everything the fans thought they wanted. In hindsight, do you suppose fans may have missed a few things?

More interesting than are they players winners, which of course all that make it to the NHL are, may be are the fans winners? 30 equal teams, everyone can win, now we wonder whether ott-ana is good for the league? 10 mil contract just around the corner. Nashville still threatened. Arena not cap saved the Pens. Small market ott and buf still losing their star players to big markets. Did fans get all they bargained for? What will they think of Bettmans 3rd lockout?

 

[pavvento]

The reason teams like Ottawa or Buffalo will be losing players is not b/c they are small market, but because they can't fit them under the cap, which means they are spending just as much as the 'big market' teams.

I think it's hard to feel bad for a team like Buffalo when they lead the league in sales and other revenue generating figures.

What would be 'more fair' is if re-signing a player counted a 75-80% against your cap (instead of 100%), so that you can keep the talent you develop.

IMHO that would be healthier for the sport b/c you'd have less players moving every two years and allow fans to become emotionally attached to the players on their team, which just increases the time, money,and support fans give to their team, and increases the 'love' a player has for their city.

This will also make owners put more resources into scouting b/c they know if they get a gem it will be 'cheaper' for them to hold onto that player as opposed to signing one.

Bad teams get rewarded with high picks, and then (like what will happen in Pitt) when those draft picks are ready to win a cup they will be on other teams, not b/c Pitt can't afford them, but b/c Pitt can't keep them with the cap.