If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    Why are they signing off on all of these 6+ year contracts?

    I'm no expert on the stuff that happens off the ice, perhaps I'm missing something here?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    Why are they signing off on all of these 6+ year contracts? I'm no expert on the stuff that happens off the ice, perhaps I'm missing something here?
    Posted by Bisson1


    BC the owners are morons.  But I have no problem with a rollback or a 5 yr max.  What I have a problem with is the owners butchering their own system of a cap that they wanted...ruined a year of hockey and now are trying to make the players tap out again and ruin hockey again. 
    All the teams that have players with over 5 year deals since the last CBA should have to pay a fine.  And that fine can go to rollback ticket prices. 
    Idiots.  Yeah lets give Weber 24+ mllion in a calendar year and the want a rollback...this while they are trying to get a new CBA.  Lets see how rich teams like the Rangers figure out how to munipulate this new system.  I dont think the CBA is between players and owners.  It should start with Owner vs Owner.
    IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : BC the owners are morons.  But I have no problem with a rollback or a 5 yr max.  What I have a problem with is the owners butchering their own system of a cap that they wanted...ruined a year of hockey and now are trying to make the players tap out again and ruin hockey again.  All the teams that have players with over 5 year deals since the last CBA should have to pay a fine.  And that fine can go to rollback ticket prices.  Idiots.  Yeah lets give Weber 24+ mllion in a calendar year and the want a rollback...this while they are trying to get a new CBA.  Lets see how rich teams like the Rangers figure out how to munipulate this new system.  I dont think the CBA is between players and owners.  It should start with Owner vs Owner. IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posted by shuperman

    I agree, the owners won the last CBA now they are crying foul. How much more do they expect the players to absorb ?
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : I agree, the owners won the last CBA now they are crying foul. How much more do they expect the players to absorb ?
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan


    Did they really win?  There have only been three teams with combined salaries over $70M (Ranger$ twice...shocking) before.  The players got free agency dropped to 27 allowing much increased mobility.  On the surface, it looked like the players got thumped, but I'd say the majority of NHL players are doing quite well these days despite the "loss".

    When complete goons can make a million for staging fights and jumping up and down on the bench, things are pretty rosy for the players.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Did they really win?  There have only been three teams with combined salaries over $70M (Ranger$ twice...shocking) before.  The players got free agency dropped to 27 allowing much increased mobility.  On the surface, it looked like the players got thumped, but I'd say the majority of NHL players are doing quite well these days despite the "loss". When complete goons can make a million for staging fights and jumping up and down on the bench, things are pretty rosy for the players.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    Who was the third, the Avalanche?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    Detroit was at $77M in '03-04.

    Hasek and Cujo were $14M by themselves, plus Lidstrom at $10M, Shanahan at $6.5M and Yzerman and Chelios at around $6M.

    About $42M for those six players.  Not even a full line!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    Detroit was at $77M in '03-04. Hasek and Cujo were $14M by themselves, plus Lidstrom at $10M, Shanahan at $6.5M and Yzerman and Chelios at around $6M. About $42M for those six players.  Not even a full line!
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    I think Fedorov was off the books or it might have been higher.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    They want it in the rules so that no one can do it. As it stands, if you want to sign a big free agent you need to offer a very long deal. They are signing players to long contracts because they have to in order to compete. Teams are competitors with each other, they aren't one collective mind.

    In Response to If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    Why are they signing off on all of these 6+ year contracts? I'm no expert on the stuff that happens off the ice, perhaps I'm missing something here?
    Posted by Bisson1

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Did they really win?  There have only been three teams with combined salaries over $70M (Ranger$ twice...shocking) before.  The players got free agency dropped to 27 allowing much increased mobility.  On the surface, it looked like the players got thumped, but I'd say the majority of NHL players are doing quite well these days despite the "loss". When complete goons can make a million for staging fights and jumping up and down on the bench, things are pretty rosy for the players.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Maybe to say they won or lost takes us down the wrong path.  There's no question the balance of power was distorted prior to the last contract.  The economic landscape wasn't fair to the owners and they dug their heels in til it was fixed.  The spirit of fair play, economic, competitive and western business principle, would suggest it's close to being absolutely fair. 

    It's important to remember, the caps dramatic rise is not a function of anything the players "got", it's merely a function of unprecedented prosperity within the industry.  Had that amazing growth not been there, the cap hit would still currently sit at 39 mil, and I'd suggest the league would be very happy.  The big dog teams always made good money.  The cap was to protect the little guys financially, and a big bonus was that it could be logically sold that it increased competitive balance.
    What wasn't taken into consideration, was a comparable percentage of revenues to be set aside for the struggling teams as the game grew.  At 39 mil, the Phoenix's were getting a fair compensations from the Toronto's.  As the revenue grew, this should have grown at the same percentage.   
    But, the TO's want to keep all that extra money, and not share more  with the Phoenix's.  They feel the players should top that up. That's the biggest problem right now, and it's really not the players fault.  Also, if revenues go down, so does the cap under this system, and for sure that will happen in the future. Everything stops growing at some point and regresses.
    Personally, I think the potential of a work stoppage in any industry, in the middle of unprecedented good times, is absolutely sickening.  It virtually never happens, and it's easy to pin-point the greed in these cases.  It's the side that insists on huge concessions from the other, while wading in unprecedented bounty.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Eric66. Show Eric66's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    great post stevegm
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TommyD603. Show TommyD603's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Did they really win?  There have only been three teams with combined salaries over $70M (Ranger$ twice...shocking) before.  The players got free agency dropped to 27 allowing much increased mobility.  On the surface, it looked like the players got thumped, but I'd say the majority of NHL players are doing quite well these days despite the "loss". When complete goons can make a million for staging fights and jumping up and down on the bench, things are pretty rosy for the players.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    True, but as the total salaries and cap are tied to league revenue at the percentage that they set, and they've never had to call in the money from Escrow, the fact that the players are doing well is a direct result of the owners doing EXTREMELY well. The players are making more money than ever before because the owners are making WAY more money than ever before.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... :  Yeah lets give Weber 24+ mllion in a calendar year and the want a rollback...this while they are trying to get a new CBA.  Lets see how rich teams like the Rangers figure out how to munipulate this new system.  I dont think the CBA is between players and owners.  It should start with Owner vs Owner.Posted by shuperman


    Yep it's the richer owners that control everything and the ones across the table laughing at Fehr's alternative.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    They want it in the rules so that no one can do it. As it stands, if you want to sign a big free agent you need to offer a very long deal. They are signing players to long contracts because they have to in order to compete. Teams are competitors with each other, they aren't one collective mind. In Response to If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... :
    Posted by OatesCam



    The first part of your statement just isn't correct.  The second part is, but it's no justification for any additional legislation for self-protection.    In this hemisphere,  in our business models, one of the most basic fundamental principles, is our belief in the sanctity of competition, and it's importance to our values as a people.  The issues of supply and demand are core to our western civilization.
    Sometimes, for overall good, we move away from that a little, in this example, we go with a cap.  The virtues of risk/reward though, should never be almost totally removed.
    What the league is really asking for is a guarantee that Phoenix is a good business decision, and that guarantee is coming from the players. They want no competitive pressure whatsoever, when paying their employees til well after the average NHL career.  They want it guaranteed, that employees have virtually no say whatsoever, in terms of where they work, or how much they make, for a term that is several times, the average NHL career, and they want a guarantee that they can offer employees whatever salary they please, and the employee have absolutely no independent 3rd party weigh in on it.
    And on the flip side, these poor whining billionaires, who are constantly showing the intellect, and judgement of the absolute poorest and dumbest of us, expect legislation to protect them from virtually any economic pitfall imaginable.  This, while being "entitled" to "push and explore the ceiling" of the spending habits of their fans.
    There is an absolutely loathsome double standard here.  
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    "At 39 mil, the Phoenix's were getting a fair compensations from the Toronto's.  As the revenue grew, this should have grown at the same percentage.   
    But, the TO's want to keep all that extra money, and not share more  with the Phoenix's.  They feel the players should top that up. That's the biggest problem right now, and it's really not the players fault."

    Bang on, stevegm!!! As a lot have already noted, this is really owner v. owner, not owner v. player.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    Plenty of markets are regulated to ensure that the market itself is stable.  What you're tacitly proposing is further regulation - a % based revenue sharing is effectively a luxury tax applied before the team spends to a threshold.  Teams in strong markets would be subsidizing their competitors.

    I find it no less crazy to talk about the poor downtrodden players in this age than I do to talk about the owners as innocent victims.  There is no CBA that they don't sign off on, and the last negotiation showed us both how apathetic some of them were and how willing to play the slime game others were.  The fact is that the owners cannot legally change the system they use to govern spending on salaries without changing the CBA, meaning the players have a say in any change. No one forced them to accept a Cap, for instance; they got tired of not collecting cheques.  

    A successful system has to be strong enough to contain competitive behaviour between franchises that are, in truth, distinct but affiliated businesses.  It has to be flexible to reward creativity and risk, but, like the banking system, it can't allow that risk to exceed a certain level.  The percentage of revenues for players is a bit like the capitalization required for a Bank - what can you cover to prevent a failure that would damage the entire economic system?  Because if the system is sufficiently flawed, more teams will end up like Phoenix, and the NHL has already floated contraction as an option rather than propping up existing franchises. Contraction = fewer NHL jobs = better buyer's market for player services.  No one wants that.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    If I were a tree-hugging hemp lover, I'd also add that the indignation expressed on behalf of NHL players is better expressed for those in US manufacturing jobs that are increasingly shipped overseas as a way to control labour costs.  Also a great example of when union pork choppers fail their constituency.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    "At 39 mil, the Phoenix's were getting a fair compensations from the Toronto's.  As the revenue grew, this should have grown at the same percentage.    But, the TO's want to keep all that extra money, and not share more  with the Phoenix's.  They feel the players should top that up. That's the biggest problem right now, and it's really not the players fault." Bang on, stevegm!!! As a lot have already noted, this is really owner v. owner, not owner v. player.
    Posted by seobrien



      Unfortunately it is, and will probably stay owner vs player unless the owners feel a groundswell of negative PR.  I believe the owners will be very sensitive to public opinion.  It more directly affects them than the players, and could be the catalyst to a quicker resolution.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    I don't think bad PR would change the owners at all. The rich owners have other avenues of income, the NHL is another avenue of riches. Delaware North is a cash cow, the Little Cesar's pizza is as well etc. The same rich owners that controlled everything in 2005 probably won't have a problem money wise if the the players don't buckle again.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Did they really win?  There have only been three teams with combined salaries over $70M (Ranger$ twice...shocking) before.  The players got free agency dropped to 27 allowing much increased mobility.  On the surface, it looked like the players got thumped, but I'd say the majority of NHL players are doing quite well these days despite the "loss". When complete goons can make a million for staging fights and jumping up and down on the bench, things are pretty rosy for the players.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Who's to blame for the goons getting these deals.  They arent writing their own cheques. 
    Again...no issue limited deals.  No issue dropping the cap back some.  But the owners should come out and say
    "we screwed up on the last CBA...there are obvious loop holes that we as owners used to make players sign on for the highest amount possible...we are the reason that this new CBA must be restructed bc we royally screwed up on the last one.  We are sorry...and we will make this one fool proof so that smart owners can't play the system and win...thank you for your patience"
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    It's incorrect? You have evidence that a team could have signed Suter or Parise with a 5 year deal? I think not. If you want to compete in the free agent market you need to sign a player to a long-term deal.  All it takes is one or two teams willing to offer it (good decision or not) and the others are forced. Even RFA's are no longer safe, as we saw with Weber. Nashville's choice was 14 year deal or rebuild. If they wanted to compete, then needed to match.

    I don't know what you're babbling on about when it comes to principles and stuff. The long contract limits also have little to do with revenue splits and the survival of Phoenix. They are about having sensible contracts and avoiding cap circumvention. This is a sports league. It needs rules on and off the ice to make it fair and competitive. A rule on contract lengths is not the owners trying to save themselves from themselves, but the majority of owners trying to save the group from a few rogues.

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : The first part of your statement just isn't correct.  The second part is, but it's no justification for any additional legislation for self-protection.    In this hemisphere,  in our business models, one of the most basic fundamental principles, is our belief in the sanctity of competition, and it's importance to our values as a people.  The issues of supply and demand are core to our western civilization. Sometimes, for overall good, we move away from that a little, in this example, we go with a cap.  The virtues of risk/reward though, should never be almost totally removed. What the league is really asking for is a guarantee that Phoenix is a good business decision, and that guarantee is coming from the players. They want no competitive pressure whatsoever, when paying their employees til well after the average NHL career.  They want it guaranteed, that employees have virtually no say whatsoever, in terms of where they work, or how much they make, for a term that is several times, the average NHL career, and they want a guarantee that they can offer employees whatever salary they please, and the employee have absolutely no independent 3rd party weigh in on it. And on the flip side, these poor whining billionaires, who are constantly showing the intellect, and judgement of the absolute poorest and dumbest of us, expect legislation to protect them from virtually any economic pitfall imaginable.  This, while being "entitled" to "push and explore the ceiling" of the spending habits of their fans. There is an absolutely loathsome double standard here.  
    Posted by stevegm

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    If I were a tree-hugging hemp lover, I'd also add that the indignation expressed on behalf of NHL players is better expressed for those in US manufacturing jobs that are increasingly shipped overseas as a way to control labour costs.  Also a great example of when union pork choppers fail their constituency.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Not a reasonable comparison.  Although I'm equally disappointed in what's happenned to the manufacturing sector, there are many contributing factors that don't apply to the NHL.
    I also haven't come across much 'indignation' from the players.  Certainly no more than the owners .
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Not a reasonable comparison.  Although I'm equally disappointed in what's happenned to the manufacturing sector, there are many contributing factors that don't apply to the NHL. Posted by stevegm


    Controlling labor costs has everything to do with a Bain Capital type company shipping jobs over seas, no unions. The NHL owners want control of players salaries it is very much the same and why it was a good pint by Book.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    It's incorrect? You have evidence that a team could have signed Suter or Parise with a 5 year deal? I think not. If you want to compete in the free agent market you need to sign a player to a long-term deal.  All it takes is one or two teams willing to offer it (good decision or not) and the others are forced. Even RFA's are no longer safe, as we saw with Weber. Nashville's choice was 14 year deal or rebuild. If they wanted to compete, then needed to match. I don't know what you're babbling on about when it comes to principles and stuff. The long contract limits also have little to do with revenue splits and the survival of Phoenix. They are about having sensible contracts and avoiding cap circumvention. This is a sports league. It needs rules on and off the ice to make it fair and competitive. A rule on contract lengths is not the owners trying to save themselves from themselves, but the majority of owners trying to save the group from a few rogues. In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... :
    Posted by OatesCam


    Babbling??  I'd sooner have adult discussions with you, but if you prefer us to continue rudely, guess I'll have to go along.
    I was responding to 2 points you made earlier on this thread.
    #1.  You stated, "they are signing players to long term contracts, because they have to in order to compete"
    #2.  Paraphrasing..."teams are competitors, not one collective mind".

    Although I agree with much of what you've written above, it doesn't really apply to what my response was to your original thought.
    It's not opinion Oates, it's fact that you DON'T need to sign expensive UFA's to ridiculous terms and amounts of money to compete.  Many successful teams don't do that....that's irrefutable.  Those that do, don't automatically come out on top.  They take a huge gamble, and under the system, that could go either way.  My response to your 2nd point, was merely that although true, it didn't validate point #1.

    I guess my opinion is that the durations aren't really a deal breaker.  I agree they're not a good thing, but still having to work within the confines of a reasonable cap I believe,  balances things out.
    I don't put that part forth as fact, just my opinion.
    I'm wondering if having to re-invent the wheel, from a bargaining perspective, every 4 years or so, isn't playing right into the hand of the Minnesota's and NJ's.  As it stands now, they have to be accountable for their decisions.  A reworked deal could give them somewhat of a pass. 
    In summary, I don't disagree these long term deals should be looked at.  I just don't think they're as big a hurdle or issue, as some.  Rather than the length, I'm more concerned about the accounting.  What you spend per year, per player, should go toward the cap.  If you want to sign him for 20 years...fine, but what he's paid each year is the cap figure.  If he quits, retires, whatever, after 3 years, he stops getting paid, the cap hit is removed, and his team keeps his rights for 17 more years in the event he ever changes his mind.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share