VOTE for the CBA you would like next season ?

[Russian Fan]

This is a poll to make people aware of the CBA possibilities ?

What would you choose between

A :
CAP : 40,000,000$
UFA : 27 years old

B :
Same CBA as last year + 5% players paycut + Rookie Cap bonuses ?

C :
Luxury Tax : 45,000,000$ (1$ for 1$ after)
UFA : 29 years old
Rookie Cap bonuses

This poll is to get people think about what they can logically get in the next week or months. I don't put unilateral & utopian agreement like a CAP of 35M$ , with the same UFA age & stuff.

so VOTE & explain why you prefer the one you vote instead of the others.

Click to read more...

 

[Russian Fan]

to me it's B)

The UFA age is the most powerful tool for the small market teams & it's the deciding factor if you ask between staying in the NHL & not being able to be in the NHL.

The HARD CAP is not useful at all if we lose 4 years of UFA eligibility.

The SOFT CAP is not good enough if we lose 2 years of UFA eligibility.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Benji Frank]

I think the owners have shown that they can act responsibly with UFA's over the last couple of years. Lowering the age of UFA will also enable owners not to be pressured into qualifying a player they might think is paid too high for their liking. That's where salaries are still on the rise IMO ... qualification & arbitration. I think ultimately, more players will be fighting for the same available jobs ... it'll then become a question of which one will do it at the owners price or room within the cap.....

 

[Russian Fan]

I think the owners have shown that they can act responsibly with UFA's over the last couple of years. Lowering the age of UFA will also enable owners not to be pressured into qualifying a player they might think is paid too high for their liking. That's where salaries are still on the rise IMO ... qualification & arbitration. I think ultimately, more players will be fighting for the same available jobs ... it'll then become a question of which one will do it at the owners price or room within the cap.....

I strongly disagree with this, lowering the UFA age will penalize every teams that draft well & most of all developing well. I just don't see how Marian Hossa will have less than the free market will claim for him even if there's more UFA. I don't think OTTAWA should lose a player in his prime @ 27-28-29 years old when they took the time & energy to develop him into an ELITE player.

P.S. I'm not a Sens fan, same thing apply for any other kid turning 27-28-29 & being UFA because of a cap.

 

[DownFromNJ]

I'm against lowering the UFA age.

I like the NHLPA's October 03 proposition.

Wouldn't mind changing the rules of arbitration though.

 

[CH Wizard]

B for me.I hate salary cap.It won't resolve the problems.I don't see any problems to lose some years for Ufa eligibility.The B is the best option here.The players don't want a cap and the luxury tax won't work IMO.

Anyways Russian Fan do you think there will be a lockout ?

Me yes but not a whole year.It will do too much damage financially.I am sure the training camps wil start in Junuary.

 

[Russian Fan]

B for me.I hate salary cap.It won't resolve the problems.I don't see any problems to lose some years for Ufa eligibility.The B is the best option here.The players don't want a cap and the luxury tax won't work IMO.

Anyways Russian Fan do you think there will be a lockout ?

Me yes but not a whole year.It will do too much damage financially.I am sure the training camps wil start in Junuary.

I think there will be a lockout ? How long ? I don't believe AT ALL of a 1 year lockout +.

If there's a lockout I believe there will be a settlement in the 1st 3-weeks (sept 16 to oct 6) or in december-january.

It really depends on the owners. If they will give full autority to Bettman & Daly or if they gonna put their nose inside the negotiations.

 

[salty justice]

In a perfect world Id like to see a:

Cap/tax at $35mil
Cap on rookie conracts/bonuses $1.5mil
UFA age: 32

 

[AG9NK35DT8*]

This is a poll to make people aware of the CBA possibilities ?

What would you choose between

A :
CAP : 40,000,000$
UFA : 27 years old

B :
Same CBA as last year + 5% players paycut + Rookie Cap bonuses ?

C :
Luxury Tax : 45,000,000$ (1$ for 1$ after)
UFA : 29 years old
Rookie Cap bonuses

This poll is to get people think about what they can logically get in the next week or months. I don't put unilateral & utopian agreement like a CAP of 35M$ , with the same UFA age & stuff.

so VOTE & explain why you prefer the one you vote instead of the others.

Luxury Cap 45M$ ($ for $) + UFA @ 29 years old + Rookie Cap bonuses. 16 47.06%

 

[Benji Frank]

I strongly disagree with this, lowering the UFA age will penalize every teams that draft well & most of all developing well. I just don't see how Marian Hossa will have less than the free market will claim for him even if there's more UFA. I don't think OTTAWA should lose a player in his prime @ 27-28-29 years old when they took the time & energy to develop him into an ELITE player.

P.S. I'm not a Sens fan, same thing apply for any other kid turning 27-28-29 & being UFA because of a cap.

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. sure they get something back, but what good is that?? It's usually a good pick and/or another kid and/or a spare part to fill a roster spot with potential coming back.....

guys like thornton, gomez, tanguay, richards, datsiuk, etc are all in the same sort of age bracket as hossa (i'm guessing) ... not to mention the guys over 30 who're also elegible for UFA currently. Under a cap, If you got the cap room, and Hossa decides to leave, there's other star calibre players out there that can replace him... they have that option! In todays format, they're stuck regrooming. They can't trade for a star if they are trading their own away cuz they can't afford them!!

I see your point of view and most people probably agree with you, I just believe, the lower the age of UFA, the more supply will exceed demand ... for everything from goalies to captains and from plumbers to superstars.....

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. .

u mean like how they (OTT) had to deal Daniel Alfredsson ? oh wait, they didnt, they resigned him.

u mean how they had to deal Yashin ? oh wait, that was a fantastic trade that landed them Spezza and Chara and unloaded Yashin on NYI.

so, what players has OTT had to unload because they cant afford to resign ?

dr

 

[Russian_fanatic]

CAP 40M$ + UFA @ 27 years old

 

[Benji Frank]

u mean like how they (OTT) had to deal Daniel Alfredsson ? oh wait, they didnt, they resigned him.

u mean how they had to deal Yashin ? oh wait, that was a fantastic trade that landed them Spezza and Chara and unloaded Yashin on NYI.

so, what players has OTT had to unload because they cant afford to resign ?

dr

I used Hossa because that's who the other poster used in his arguement. I was speaking on small market teams in general. It is worth noting, that the Sens did give away Bonk, Lalime and bought out Bondra this year. It's also worth remembering that this was a team in bankruptcy only a couple of years ago ... they tried to keep a competitive team together and they almost lost the whole franchise! The only change in revenue stream is they now have an owner with deeper pockets. With no new foreseeable revenue streams, even he'll grow wary of the endless red ink sooner rather then later.......... even after getting rid of the above 3 players, I'm guessing with the raises given to Chara, Alfreddson, and Phillips and Havlat if they've signed, the owners are probably already above where they want to be in payroll for next year...

 

[hockeytown9321]

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. sure they get something back, but what good is that?? It's usually a good pick and/or another kid and/or a spare part to fill a roster spot with potential coming back.....

guys like thornton, gomez, tanguay, richards, datsiuk, etc are all in the same sort of age bracket as hossa (i'm guessing) ... not to mention the guys over 30 who're also elegible for UFA currently. Under a cap, If you got the cap room, and Hossa decides to leave, there's other star calibre players out there that can replace him... they have that option! In todays format, they're stuck regrooming. They can't trade for a star if they are trading their own away cuz they can't afford them!!

I see your point of view and most people probably agree with you, I just believe, the lower the age of UFA, the more supply will exceed demand ... for everything from goalies to captains and from plumbers to superstars.....

But under a cap, teams still won't be able to keep the good players they drafted. A cap will not allow anyone to sustain a good team for very long.

 

[justapantherfan]

Luxury Cap 45M

 

[Russian Fan]

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. sure they get something back, but what good is that?? It's usually a good pick and/or another kid and/or a spare part to fill a roster spot with potential coming back.....

So trading them in the mid late 20's for something in return is worst than losing him via FREE AGENCY ?

guys like thornton, gomez, tanguay, richards, datsiuk, etc are all in the same sort of age bracket as hossa (i'm guessing) ... not to mention the guys over 30 who're also elegible for UFA currently. Under a cap, If you got the cap room, and Hossa decides to leave, there's other star calibre players out there that can replace him... they have that option! In todays format, they're stuck regrooming. They can't trade for a star if they are trading their own away cuz they can't afford them!!

Again if I follow your reasoning, if a team had to trade his players in the mid 20's because they couldn't afford him, why suddenly they could afford a FREE AGENT in the mid 20's that will cost more than having him in a RFA ? 5 Datsyuk's UFA won't be less affordable than 1 Datsyuk's RFA because there's a lot of team in need of a player to replace him.

I see your point of view and most people probably agree with you, I just believe, the lower the age of UFA, the more supply will exceed demand ... for everything from goalies to captains and from plumbers to superstars.....

More supply will not exceed the demand. If 5 team loss a Datsyuk, that means 5 teams hungry to get a player to this caliber. Also you create what I HATE THE MOST ABOUT THE NFL THESE DAYS. No more players stick with the team, no more loyalty, every year there's a lot of changes & you stop loving the players because you think they will be moved in the next 2-3 years.

 

[Russian Fan]

I used Hossa because that's who the other poster used in his arguement. I was speaking on small market teams in general. It is worth noting, that the Sens did give away Bonk, Lalime and bought out Bondra this year. It's also worth remembering that this was a team in bankruptcy only a couple of years ago ... they tried to keep a competitive team together and they almost lost the whole franchise! The only change in revenue stream is they now have an owner with deeper pockets. With no new foreseeable revenue streams, even he'll grow wary of the endless red ink sooner rather then later.......... even after getting rid of the above 3 players, I'm guessing with the raises given to Chara, Alfreddson, and Phillips and Havlat if they've signed, the owners are probably already above where they want to be in payroll for next year...

Again they receive a pick for Bonk instead of nothing if Bonk was a UFA. Also what makes you think trading Bonk & Lalime was trade for financial reason ? To me it seems more & more about John Muckler incompetency & like Bobby Clarke did with Cechmanek they put the blame on those 2 guys & by the same time diminish the value of these 2 players. Muckler can't expect to get more of him if they tell everyone how bad they were for the team dont they ?

Also it's funny how the Montreal Canadiens didn't hesitate to pay a little more for Bonk than what the Sens receive from the Kings ? To me it just show again about the GM competency or lack thereof. Also did I need to mention that Bonk negotiate a new contract for Bonk ? That must mean that Bonk had a specific value for some teams & not for the Sens. This is not a problem of the CBA this is a MANAGEMENT PROBLEM.

That's the thing about what people here make the same mistake time after time with their arguments, they don't look the management part & they blame the CBA for everything that goes wrong with 1 team (usually THE team that they're fan).

 

[Benji Frank]

I'm running around in circles trying to explain my logic ... I'm dropping out. You're right The current CBA is just perfect. Sorry for initially thinking otherwise.......

 

[Russian Fan]

I'm running around in circles trying to explain my logic ... I'm dropping out. You're right The current CBA is just perfect. Sorry for initially thinking otherwise.......

Everyone here including me , dr or other can tell you that nobody think the CBA is perfect.

But is the CBA that flawed that there is a need for a lock-out ? I don't think so.

There's something that can be fix inside the actual CBA & some things that could be negotiate without having a lockout like stopping to pay a 1st round pick 3-4-5M$ a year with the bonuses.

It's now 2 summers that the GM's are saying to their to employers that the CBA can work on their side if they apply the rules that benefit them. If they manage properly & if they try to take of every little detail like any other business.

- good staff to evaluate a player vs the need for the team
- good staff for scouting
- good staff to developing our prospect
- good staff for the medicals
- good staff for the legal aspect
ect......

The CBA is not perfect but it's very workable & it's not deserving of stealing 1 year of hockey for us the FANS !!!

 

[BMC]

I voted for "C".
The small market guys would have their cap. The rich teams could do what they want but they pay extra for it (I would divide that money amongst the Canadian franchises to offset the difference between Canadian/US dollar and the small market clubs). The players would get to be free agents at 27, going into their prime earning years. A cap of on rookie salaries is a good idea too. Let these "can't miss" guys earn their first fat contract after proving it in the NHL.
Everybody gives up something, but everyone gets something.

 

[Jeffrey]

i dont mind the UFA age at 20 actually .. or 2nd contract ...
so A for me ...
I would also add 5 millions to the cap for a 45M$ soft cap with no bonuses for rookie !

 

[loveshack2]

"C" is a good compromise IMHO. I could even see the Luxury threshold being higher than that.

 

[me2]

I like A the best, but it won't happen.
B is just unsustainable.

I voted C because it will do enough good and should get up. *


* I'd modify C as I think UFA age should stays at 31 or go up to 32 if the cap+luxury is $45m+luxury. $45m won't damage salary that much and the UFA age at 31-32 would help teams stay under the $45m mark and maintain good fan relation through player maintenance.

$40m+luxury tax and the UFA age could come down to 29, and that would also work because it trades off $5m against player-fan relations.


===============================

$40m + $ for $ luxury tax, UFA age 31 and 20% cap discount for long term players (players drafted by that club without being traded away or arrived as rookies in a trade/players who have been there 5 years straight/players who have played the majority of their games there).

This would allow teams built through the draft to be maintained a bit longer.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I'll vote for #3 depending on what happens to the revenue generated from the luxury tax.


Also, one thing i dont see alot if a salary floor. I dont know if we want owners just pocketing revenue from the luxury tax and not re-investing it into their teams.

BTW both the NBA and NFL have a salary floor.

 

[no13matssundin]

All these choices are completely wrong:

31 Mil hard cap + equal revenue sharing.

anything else, as has been said over and over and over again yet for some reason people just dont seem to get it, continues to make the NHL non-viable as a business and they will continue to bleed money until it goes bankrupt.

Hard cap & revenue sharing... No ifs, ands, or buts about it.