Trade - CAP for NON-GUARANTEED CONTRACTS

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Mr.Sinister, Sep 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Mr.Sinister

    Mr.Sinister Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Those are the concessions that each side should make,
    reasoning being, if a player is one year a 5 million dollar star forward and then after 1 year a 40pt 3rd liner, IE Pierre turgeon, then the team should be able to cut this guy loose.
    How do the New York Islanders give Alexei Yashin an 11 year contract, thats the problem with this CBA. The Islanders already want to cut that contract.

    Thats the Answer, No more Guaranteed contracts, and no cap.

    now lets spread the word, and get some games going.
     
  2. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,686
    Likes Received:
    581
    Trophy Points:
    225
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    If the players aren't going to agree to a cap, why would they agree to contracts that aren't guaranteed?

    Their only goal in life seems to be making more money, not less.
     
  3. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is why they've offered a $75 million paycut as a starting point.
     
  4. littleHossa

    littleHossa Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    What they should do is run a vote for a new NHLPA representative, I'm sure that all the players under 25 who are part of the NHLPA would be more in favor of non-guaranteed contracts than the 35+ year olds, but these last ones are the ones with the most power. This is a union and it should represent all of the union's members, yet it doesn't. Where's democracy for the younger/lower payed players.
     
  5. kurt

    kurt the last emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8,680
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Victoria
    Home Page:
    "Non-guaranteed contracts"

    Can it even be called a contract if it's not guaranteed? The idea seems ridiculous to me. Could you imagine if you were under contract for work, and your employer just walked away from it?

    I thought this was what bonuses were for. You set goals for the player, if they achieve, they get money. If they don't, they don't. Shouldn't bonuses work well enough?
     
  6. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,686
    Likes Received:
    581
    Trophy Points:
    225
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    Yeah, 5%. Wow. That's a one-time deal that only applies to current contracts. So it's pretty much worthless, and one of the weakest "concessions" in that whole proposal/joke.
     
  7. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    LMAO !!

    Players under 25 would accept NON-GUARANTEED contract ? No way, you just tell them that from now on, you won't be sure to get a paycheck.

    Stop thinking as a fan & start thinking as a player.

    You got a better chance that 35 years old player would accept a non-guaranteed contract because they would just want to play this season since there's no much gas (seasons) left in the tank (player).
     
  8. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,686
    Likes Received:
    581
    Trophy Points:
    225
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    Why? The 35-year old has much more to gain from guaranteed contracts. His career is going downhill and his contract is based on past performances.
     
  9. littleHossa

    littleHossa Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    I am thinking as a player, the only thing keeping up anyone under 25 in the NHL is their consistency and effort. If I was an NHL player on the bubble and I knew that some old veterans on my team who earned $4 millions/year didn't give a full effort, I would really look forward to the day when the GM cuts his lazy ass and gives me a chance. Start thinking more along the terms of ALL the players in the NHL/AHL, not just the 20 man roster being happy together.
     
  10. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You think $75 million, or 33% of the league's supposed losses last year is a worthless starting point?
     
  11. Optimist*

    Optimist* Guest

    yes its worthless.
     
  12. Egghammer

    Egghammer Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    London, ON
    What if the NHL had a "hard" salary cap, but with guaranteed bonuses to players for meeting certain team and individual metrics. Make this standard across the board. Make both the team and player metrics achievable to allow players the ability to achieve a larger salary.

    Player A has a 4 million contract per season, but can make 1 million more if his team is over .500 and makes the playoffs, another 1 million if he ends up with 90 pts, etc.

    What are the pluses and negatives to this type of a situation? This way a lot of the bonuses being paid will be to players on successful teams or good players on bad teams.
     
  13. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    146
    well it certainly isnt "status quo".

    the owners are free to negotiate those #'s. why dont they say "ok, lets use your model, with these changes:

    - 30% roll back
    - only teams can take players to arbitration
    - 50% qualifying offers
    - $3 for $1 on a luxury tax at 30m"

    im not suggesting the above #'s are the right #'s, im simply pointing out that the owners could at least find a way to negotiate at least the #'s in the players proposal ?

    dr
     
  14. Enoch

    Enoch This is my boomstick

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,885
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Cookeville TN
    It is worthless b/c it essentially does nothing to curb the problem of arbitration, errant spending, and an overwhelming large amount of money being lost. The rollback is a one time event that will just reescalate up in a few years time.

    In the NFL, if a player starts the season on the roster, he will make his full salary. Looking at it like this, I think it can be a very reasonable way to approach things.....although the Union would never agree to it.
     
  15. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    146
    1) the owners can negotiate arbitration if they felt it was a big deal. so far the owners have just rejected the players offer outright.

    2) why would the owners continue to operate their business the way they always have. i can think of two options

    i) they are dumber than doorknobs ? why should we lose sleep over people who are too dumb to run their business properly.
    or
    ii) they can afford to offer what they offer.

    dr
     
  16. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For those that think $75 million is worthless, can you send me some of your money?
     
  17. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,686
    Likes Received:
    581
    Trophy Points:
    225
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    If you mean 5% of my salary, then no. I need that money so I don't have to live in the streets. And next year, my salary isn't going to go up 20-60%.

    So I don't see the relevence here. You're comparing peas to planets.
     
  18. Optimist*

    Optimist* Guest

    Its worthless because it doesnt give the owners the cost certainty that they want.
    The most important term in cost certainty is CERTAIN. Wouldnt you want to make SURE that the next agreement didnt cost you 1.8bb again because you thought it MIGHT work. No, they want to be CERTAIN. So basically and unfortunately for the players, a weaker NHL only hurts them. Because when the owners get their CERTAIN system, no matter how long it takes, they will make money no matter how low the revenues are. The players, on the other hand, will take the brunt of the lower revenues, dollar for dollar. Thats why the owners don't care how long it takes. The players are thowing away alot of money in a foolish attempt. They will never recoup their losses this year.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"