VOTE for the CBA you would like next season ?

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Russian Fan, Sep 5, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  2. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  3. Benji Frank

    Benji Frank Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    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.....
     
  4. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  5. DownFromNJ

    DownFromNJ Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm against lowering the UFA age.

    I like the NHLPA's October 03 proposition.

    Wouldn't mind changing the rules of arbitration though.
     
  6. CH Wizard

    CH Wizard Guest

    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.
     
  7. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  8. salty justice

    salty justice Registered User

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    7,194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    In a perfect world Id like to see a:

    Cap/tax at $35mil
    Cap on rookie conracts/bonuses $1.5mil
    UFA age: 32
     
  9. AG9NK35DT8*

    AG9NK35DT8* Guest

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

    Benji Frank Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    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.....
     
  11. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,155
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    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
     
  12. Russian_fanatic

    Russian_fanatic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,704
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    101
    CAP 40M$ + UFA @ 27 years old
     
  13. Benji Frank

    Benji Frank Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    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...
     
  14. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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.
     
  15. justapantherfan

    justapantherfan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    3,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    www.simplaying.com
    Location:
    Sunrise, Fl
    Home Page:
    Luxury Cap 45M
     
  16. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    So trading them in the mid late 20's for something in return is worst than losing him via FREE AGENCY ?

    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.

    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.
     
  17. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    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).
     
  18. Benji Frank

    Benji Frank Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    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.......
     
  19. Russian Fan

    Russian Fan Registered User

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

    BMC Per Johan Axelsson Sponsor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    38,488
    Likes Received:
    8,031
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Northeastern CT
    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.
     
  21. Jeffrey

    Jeffrey Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,436
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Montreal
    Home Page:
    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 ! :D
     
  22. loveshack2

    loveshack2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Old School
    Home Page:
    "C" is a good compromise IMHO. I could even see the Luxury threshold being higher than that.
     
  23. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,602
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2004
  24. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  25. no13matssundin

    no13matssundin Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. :shakehead
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"