Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by TheOtherOne, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:03 AM.
That means you should build economics systems using reason, not temper tantrums.
That I will agree with, the NHL Veterans would be hard to convince. But I don't think impossible.
Because if you're taking away ELC's and RFA system (i'd include RFA if I was hockey Czar), what you're actually doing is removing the incentive for teams to go young for young sake in order to take advantage of the benefits of cheap ELCs and RFAs deals. Under a system where every player is a UFA the moment the contract is up, the best player get's the job(and the money). A team is alot more likely to spend money on a known quantity, than place their hopes on magic beans because their contract is already cheap.
ie, Daniel Winnik who did a pretty good job for the Wild last year, isn't on the street because the Wild hope Erickson Ek or Kunin can figure it out.
I've been an NHL fan long enough to see every team (except Vegas lol) be "bad" at some point. So to simply dismiss the issue as "the sucky teams will continue to suck no matter what" doesn't quite make sense.
The problem is you're easily fixing problems in your head. There are many, many, many issues that could spring up as a result of this, and countering that with essentially "all Ottawa has to do is get a new owner who wants to win and they'll totally lure all the top free agents it's that simple" solutions is naive.
I think the OP's deal was there were no more cheap ELCs. Jack Hughes could sign with the highest bidder if he wants to.
I understand that. That's the point of the thread. I wanted to expose some of the many, many issues, and brainstorm how to resolve them. Of course, as with anything, practice is much more complicated than theory.
Why do we have discussion boards?
Here is my no draft system, that I think solves most issues.
1) Hard cap w/ Guranteed contracts
2) Elimintate RFA system.
3)ELCs still exist, but have no cap on Salary/AAV. Just a term limit of 3 or 4 years (so that a bad GM doesn't completely nuke his successor with an 8 year deal to Yakapuv or Griffin Reinhart)
4) Any deal signed by an 18 or 19 year old must be a one way deal, with a player or club option to void in the event the player is not ready for the NHL and the club wants to send them to the AHL/Junior team/Europe.
5) Buyouts for players U23 @ 1/4th salary, 23-26 @ 1/3 salary, 26+ @ 2/3 salary.
I think that system has enough protection for teams to get them to agree to it, and enough contract mobility for all players to get NHLPA sign off.
So how do you propose a realistic solution to fixing crappy ownership? If the owner isn't doing something predatory or illegal, then the league can't force them to sell. It isn't like there's tons of billionaires out there, let alone billionaires that are willing to buy and run a pro sports franchise that have real potential to take financial losses, either.
*EDIT In response to your previous reply*
Clearly, the system is not as broken as you think it is. Revising the structure and odds for the top 3 picks is a fairly small revision. A minor change such as this is not evidence that the system is "broken".
So there’s no elc?
There's a ton of stuff to respond to, I'm going to start here.
That presumes that the owners would still be willing to split 50/50 with players getting UFA after 4 seasons of being under contract. I'm saying there's no way in hell the owners would give the players that kind of freedom and keep splitting revenues [as they're currently defined] 50/50. Maybe it's still "50/50" going forward, but as I said it would mean "revenues" got redefined more narrowly, in favor of the owners.
It's a piece of leverage to take away from the players. If the players are getting the freedom of being UFA in 4 years, they've got to give up security somewhere. What's a nice piece of security for the players? Getting a large check upon inking a contract and not having to wait until October 15 for that first paycheck to come in.
I'm still amused that 26 years later, people still think Gary Bettman is making decisions and forcing them on the owners. At some point, they should realize that every decision Bettman has made has been with the backing of at least a large majority of the Board of Governors.
This is critical to understand. One of the concessions the NHLPA forked over early in the 1994-95 lockout was a cap on rookie salaries. Guys who'd been in the league a number of years and put up solid stats resented the **** out of 18-year olds walking in and getting larger, longer contracts. The benefits to the owners were obvious; the benefits to the players were spelled out above.
Nah, we just contract those teams out of existence. Because some of them shouldn't even be around, and getting rid of the rest just makes the league stronger and gets rid of all the role players and makes the league so much more highly skilled and popular as a result.
[BTW, the entire notion of contraction has been asked and refuted numerous times across the years - and probably will be again numerous times yet - in the Business of Hockey forum.]
1. The owners have been offered a luxury tax 3 times now. They've flatly rejected it each time - including the Torontos and Philadelphias and Montreals and NY Rangers of the league. But who knows, maybe the 4th or 5th or eleventeenth time will be the one that finally goes through.
2. It's always hilarious when people label something they don't like as being "socialist" while demonstrating an abject lack of understanding of what "socialist" really means. It's even more hilarious when they think the owners are being forced into something "socalist" by the Dark Lord of the Sith, Chancellor Supreme Chancellor Emperor Darth Bettman.
It all comes down to leverage and control. Which one gives the owners the most control over the players? Answer that question, and people will start to understand why the former is preferable to the latter - and why give the players expanded free agency rights is a non-starter for the owners without significant concessions by the players in other areas to offset.
You're trying to create a solution and then search for a problem that it solves. That's a bad way to come up with solutions, because they typically create more problems that now need to be solved.
By this logic, the playing rules are broken because they're continuously modified every year, so ... what, let's throw out the rules entirely? You're not explaining how the current setup is so broken and irreparable, it has to be scrapped and replaced anew.
I mean, if "teams are tanking for a better pick" is really the problem, ... well, adjusting the lottery formulas is how the league has elected to try and overcome that. I've got a much more simple idea that I've lobbed for a dozen years and counting, and if exercised even once would instantly put an end to tanking once and for all. But the flip side of this is that more than enough teams aren't bothered by "tanking" such that they see any need to drastically change things.
So really, this "solution" is about solving your personal angst about rooting against your team at times when you feel like you should always be rooting for it. News flash: even if something like this were to happen, I guarantee you're going to have times yet when you're going to root against your team and have the same kind of conflict. [Say, "I'd rather we lose and draw XXXXX in the playoffs than win and draw YYYYY, we'd have a better chance to advance if we started with XXXXX instead.] And I'm not real inclined to have new "solutions" to fix some alleged "problem" of teams trying to jockey for late-season positioning for playoff seeding to fix someone's personal heartburn.
1. Reduce to 3 rounds over 2 days. (Saturday and Sunday)
2. Get rid of the lottery, or everyone gets 1 ball, picked until all are gone. Round 2 reverse order. Round 3 back to round 1 order.
Clearly the best solution would be for ME to decide which team gets the rights to which 18-year-old. A supreme match-maker/dictator. I would interview all players and all teams, and rule where everyone goes based on things like parity, player's favourite team, likelihood of success at their new destination, team needs and a general feeling of "this just feels right".
Kind of like how drafts work in pro wrestling.
1) We already have this.
2) I'm still waiting to hear what major concession the players are giving the owners to get this. [And it will have to be a major one.]
3) Definitely not happening. The owners went right after this in the '94-95 lockout, the NHLPA handed it over because it also wanted older players making most of the money and not kids just getting into the league who hadn't done anything at all in the NHL.
4) Really not happening, especially if all the other NHLPA members aren't getting similar 1-way deals. The "option to void" makes no sense, because that really makes the player UFA and as little as the NHLPA may care for kids just coming in, I really don't think it's that insensitive or heartless that it's going to let kids sign contracts and join the club, then get that contract yanked out from under their skates because of a club decision the kid has zero control over. [And if you're thinking about having all contracts be 1-way to help out the kids and have all contracts guaranteed, you're nuts.]
5) So, really just a "cheaper" buyout for U23s.
I'm trying to figure out what protections exist for the teams, beyond "if the kid doesn't stick, the team can void his contract." [Which, as I noted above, the NHLPA isn't going to let happen.] I see a loss of control by teams over players after ELCs expire, I don't see what the teams are getting back in return for it beyond "a slightly cheaper buyout for U23s" and that isn't nearly enough to get any team to give it more than a second's thought before saying "no ****ing way in hell" and other similar pleasantries.
That's the "everyone should have an equal chance at the #1 overall pick" idea which is better than the "no draft" idea in the same way that it's better that someone dragged me to the curb after I got hit in the parking lot so I didn't get run over again than it is they just left me there to get run over some more.
I've been in favor of abolishing the draft for awhile.
If you have a salary cap, which the NHL does, then talent will become distributed by necessity.
You can't sign McDavid to 12.5 mill per year straight out of junior if you don't have the cap space... if you don't have the cap space, then you'll have to move pieces other teams value in order to create it.
It's not broken, the lottery is modified in order to give bubble teams a better chance of moving up the draft. It's there to discourage blatant tanking (see the 76ers a couple years ago, went 10-72). That stuff won't happen in the NHL, at least not to that extent. And if a team does tank, so what? The NHL has enough parity that if Ottawa beats Tampa Bay on any given night no one would be surprised. The gap between 1st and 31st is big, but it's not a given blowout. Why shouldn't a team cheer for a better draft pick if the season is lost by February? Just because it makes you feel bad doesn't mean it's a blatant issue. This is a problem you're making a bigger deal of in your head then it really is, which is why it won't ever be implemented.
While I understand why you're pushing this idea, it's really poorly thought out. A team overpaying for Yakupov is no different than him being drafted first overall and busting. Both can set a franchise back years. Drafting and development is literally already a "franchise skill" that utilizes an entire department (or multiple if you include GM, coaches input), it's why teams like the 90's-2010's Redwings, Tampa Bay, Winnipeg, Nashville, and even Anaheim (until this year) have stayed good for so long. It's why Arizona, Edmonton, Buffalo (until this year) have been basement dwellers, drafting and development is so important to the long-term health of a franchise.
The one realistic change I could see happening is RFA's having arbitration rights sooner than say age 25.
Scrap ELCs and RFAs. Keep the cap.
I'd enjoy that system.
None of these are happening in isolation within the context of our current system, so you can't evaluate them that way. And it's obviously not going to happen, because they'd need some fore-sight and guts. But this is the world i'm hockey czar.
As for why teams would do these, i'd imagine their are owners that would like to get better without having to try and suck. You're criticism's are stuck in the past. IE you're criticism of point 3 based on 93-94 precedence. Its largely irrelevant in a world with cost certainty for the owners. The original point of ELCs and RFA systems is to slow down when players get paid, and in general keep salaries down, but it didn't work. The two highest paid players in the league next year will be right off their ELC. Given the owners are getting their 50% and the players their 50% why should the owners care about what player that cash goes to?
I grant you provision 4 is a weird one. Basically, the idea is you don't want every player signing their rights away the moment they hit 18, you want them signing when they are ready to move up without decimating the CHL/NCAA/European leagues. So if a players ready for the NHL, great sign them and play them in the NHL. But if it becomes clear they aren't ready, the NHL team can't stash them in the AHL without the players permission, but also isn't tied to them. The player becomes can head back to juniors, and try it again next summer. Or if the player agree's to play in the minor's they can. It's not a career ender, just because a player isn't ready at 18, doesn't mean they won't be at 19 or 20. It's also a provision that will inherently promote parity in that a cup contending team is less likely to give an 18/19 year old a lot of slack and willing to hand out those deals, somewhat pushing higher end talent to worse teams.
The GMs will certainly hate it, because it forces them to be competent. But I think owners would be more open to it if they actually thought about.
Why would you even ask that? Did I ever claim I had a "solution to fixing crappy ownership?" This thread has nothing to do with that.
I really don't understand why you guys are throwing a fit over this.
I identified an aspect of the NHL that I don't like. I proposed a solution to it. I laid out my thoughts on the solution's difficulties and benefits, and invited further discussion. I gave thoughtful arguments about why some of your criticisms may not be the problems you think they are.
I think there were a lot of interesting points made and I am enjoying the parts of the conversation that aren't personal attacks. Isn't that why we have a discussion board?
Don't worry, I'm not going to unilaterally buy the league and implement this new system. I just want to talk about what effects it would have.
What personal attacks lol? No one's attacking you, it's the idea that's bad. It's like you basically said: "Here, what if we took away the draft? Tell me why you think that's a bad idea." And people told you multiple reasons why it's a bad idea.
Whether it was intentional or not, the defensive tone you've had since the beginning of the thread isn't helping either. It brings a lot of uninvited tension into the thread on your part.
It's amazing how players accept the draft system as it is and aren't working towards eliminating it. The best young players and their talent is often being wasted in the first few years of their respective careers. They have no say where they want to play and are being thrown into some horrible teams who're competing in who'll lose the most games in order to have better chances of winning a lottery which'll determine who'll choose first! A lottery!
Meanwhile the salary cap makes sure you can't keep your best players because they want higher salaries as a consequence of how well they perform on the ice. As a result whole championship teams are being dismantled piece by piece so someone else who's done nothing in order to deserve good players and successful teams are being rewarded.
The whole system is ridiculous but it's just proof that you can actually sell anything to people who follow the sport in the US and Canada.
While I get where you're coming from, this set up would encourage corruption.
That's a horrible thing to say, if you think about it.
You should, considering you stated "if a team sucks because their owner is cheap, then I don't have any ****ing sympathy for them whatsoever." and then followed up with "The team's fans should strike and demand new ownership."
This was in response to someone pointing out that a cheap owner (or incompetent one for that matter) would not fare well under the system your suggesting for obvious reasons. Your suggestion for fans to "strike and demand new ownership" is a simplistic and unrealistic suggestion to that response.
So, I would like to see an actual solution to removing crappy/cheap owner under your structure other than "having fans strike for a new owner". I've seen a million ideas similar to yours tossed around the forums over the years, and we always hear how these types of systems would refine/remove bad owners and force them to spend and start operating more efficiently. I don't believe that to be the case at all, and the evidence to prove otherwise has literally been non-existent other than "it would just work because it does in my mind and that's how I want it to be" or "The team's fans should strike and demand new ownership".
Separate names with a comma.