More From GM Meetings

[CenterIce 83]

From ESPN.com:

NAPLES, Fla. -- After two days focused on fighting, NHL general managers finally turned their attention to the sagging economy on the final day of their annual meeting.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said Wednesday he expects the salary cap to be "about where it was this year" for next season, but there's more uncertainty about 2010-11. The collective bargaining agreement, reached after the 2004-05 NHL lockout, is set to expire in 2011. Players could vote to extend it for another year.

The recent decline of the Canadian dollar will also affect revenues, Bettman said.

"We've very leery of contracts that run into the 2010-11 season. We think it's going to be very tough," said Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke. "I think we'd be delusional to think we'd not see some impact [from the poor economy]."

Added Ken Holland, GM of the 2008 Stanley Cup champion Detroit Red Wings: "We know we're going to lose some players [in the next two seasons]."

The general managers also voted against a proposal Wednesday to change the tiebreaking procedure for playoffs. Holland had suggested making regulation wins the first tiebreaker instead of overall wins. This would avoid rewarding teams who win in shootouts, which aren't considered "real" wins by hockey purists.

Burke said he thinks Holland's idea could be passed in the future.

"I think it makes a lot of sense," Burke added.

Burke got a victory of his own on Wednesday, as one of his many proposals was finally passed by general managers who agreed that TV timeouts should be allowed after an icing penalty.

But Burke's proposal that teams could continue to pay some of a player's salary after trading him, in order to complete trades that might not otherwise go through, was still stuck in neutral.

"I think it's gathering support," said Holland, who would like to see the proposal pass.

On Tuesday, the GM's tackled their top issue -- fighting -- by suggesting a new rule to punish "staged" fights with a 10-minute misconduct penalty and more aggressive calling of the instigator penalty. Bettman said the group had also recommended earlier intervention from the linesmen if a fight was clearly one-sided.

The death of Don Sanderson prompted a serious discussion about fighting at this year's meetings. Sanderson, an Ontario native, died in January of injuries sustained when his head struck the ice during a hockey fight in an amateur league

"Fighting has always been an emotional issue," said Bettman, who maintained fighting's relevance to the NHL. "The overwhelming sentiment is that [fighting] is a part of the game. These are tweaks around the edges."

Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press

[DRW Dominance 255]

I would like to hear why they are allowing tv timeouts after an icing. Maybe they don't feel it makes much of a difference?

[Chunkylover 26]

What's interesting is Bettman wants to keep fighting in the game and the GM's are the ones applying restrictions. I don't think there will be any benefit from the changes the GM's have suggested.

Because I didn't see the Sanderson fight, I can only guess that it wasn't a staged fight, but a fight born of the typical emotions of battling hockey players. This staged fight rule will be frustratingly arbitrary and won't last long.

Should we ban slap-shots since taking a 100-MPH puck to the face can be lethal?

[Chunkylover 26]

I would like to hear why they are allowing tv timeouts after an icing. Maybe they don't feel it makes much of a difference?

I don't understand why they are already scrapping it since it hasn't even had a full season of influence. I guess the GM's hated it unanimously!

[stevkrause 1,247]

I would like to hear why they are allowing tv timeouts after an icing. Maybe they don't feel it makes much of a difference?

I feel this is probably 100% based on $$ - more timeouts = more advertising revenue = more lucrative TV contracts

[Inultus 12]

Doesn't allowing a TV timeout after an icing nullify the recently passed rule about not letting the offending team get a fresh line on the ice?

Edited March 12, 2009 by Inultus

[Chunkylover 26]

I feel this is probably 100% based on $$ - more timeouts = more advertising revenue = more lucrative TV contracts

They have the same amount of commercial breaks as they had prior to this rule change, it just affected the rigidity of the commercial break.

Previously, if there was an icing but they weren't in a commercial zone, they would go right to the face-off.

Making money is a good thing. The more everyone is allowed to make (from their own effort), the better off everyone will be.

[VM1138 1,921]

Doesn't allowing a TV timeout after an icing nullify the recently passed rule about not letting the offending team get a fresh line on the ice?

Yes, but this way there is $$$$ to be made.

[KrazyGangsta 79]

Bulls*** CBA ... screw that I hope NHL goes back to the era with no cap where the Owners that want to win a cup spend ... and the Owners that only want to make money lose. I find that the cap is bulls*** excuse for the Owners that just don't want to spend money on there team. An Owner should spend as much as they want for any player as long as there good.

Hope no more cap after 2011. We'd keep Hossa Franzen ... everyone lol ... maybe even sign crazy FA's. I miss those days where your team could just make any impact FA signing or a trade without worrying about money. I mean look at this trade deadline there's no1 that didn't know that wings wouldn't do a move. No cap ... just takes the fun away. We got lucky on the Hossa signing last year really lucky. Either then that did anyone expect Hossa on the wings no ... we had barely cap remember ... anyways I miss the years like krazyyyy july 1 waiting impatiently to see who the wings going to go after ... now no room in the cap to do anything cause we've got a stupid cap.

Sorry about any misspells in a hurry to go to work lol.

[esteef 2,679]

Doesn't allowing a TV timeout after an icing nullify the recently passed rule about not letting the offending team get a fresh line on the ice?

They can't change lines anyway because of the icing, but the tv timeout at least gives the offending line a rest until play resumes. I thought that was why they instituted the rule. If you know there is a tv timeout coming, why not ice the puck if you're in trouble?

esteef

[Chunkylover 26]

Bulls*** CBA ... screw that I hope NHL goes back to the era with no cap where the Owners that want to win a cup spend ... and the Owners that only want to make money lose. I find that the cap is bulls*** excuse for the Owners that just don't want to spend money on there team. An Owner should spend as much as they want for any player as long as there good.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I also don't want to just start a new thread for a simple counter-point.

I've heard this from a lot of fans and commentators concerning many teams. Most recently a Sabres fan who said their owner is more interested in running the team like a business than winning. I don't see the two as being separate objectives. If that were the case Illitch would be a bad businessman because he wants to win!

No, the difference between Illitch and Golisano, Wang, or any other owner of a struggling franchise, is that Illitch is better at running a successful business than they are. A good owner does everything he can to provide his customers (fans/advertisers/investors) with the best possible product. Many teams have their own self-imposed cap. That isn't an example of running a team like a business, that's an example of failing to run a business.

I agree that it would be nice to ditch the cap, but I'm happy with the way the Wings have been run under its restrictions.

Teams/broadcasters selling more ad time is the best thing we could hope for.

[MacK_Attack 108]

I feel this is probably 100% based on $$ - more timeouts = more advertising revenue = more lucrative TV contracts

The broadcasters have been complaining that they aren't always getting their allotted TV timeouts each period because of icings.

Edited March 12, 2009 by MacK_Attack

[Wombat 26]

The important part of that article is about the cap. Because revenues for this year were mostly already paid for (season tickets, ad sales, corporate sales, etc) there won't be a big effect on next year's cap. But the year following, it's going to be bad. Next season most every team will experience fewer ticket sales, corporate sponserships, and less merchandise sales, even if they cut the prices on tickets and merch. I have a feeling that the Wings are not going to sign either Hossa or Franzen in the near future, not because of next year's cap, but because of the following year's cap. Hopefully I'm wrong and one signs, but it might be pretty bad in two years.

[MacK_Attack 108]

The important part of that article is about the cap. Because revenues for this year were mostly already paid for (season tickets, ad sales, corporate sales, etc) there won't be a big effect on next year's cap. But the year following, it's going to be bad. Next season most every team will experience fewer ticket sales, corporate sponserships, and less merchandise sales, even if they cut the prices on tickets and merch. I have a feeling that the Wings are not going to sign either Hossa or Franzen in the near future, not because of next year's cap, but because of the following year's cap. Hopefully I'm wrong and one signs, but it might be pretty bad in two years.

Heard one GM on a radio show (I'm blanking on who it was) a couple days ago say that they've been told to prepare for a $45-48 million cap for 2010/11.

This is going to be the summer of the 1-year deal.

Edited March 12, 2009 by MacK_Attack

[Z and D for the C 712]

What about adding a rule of sorts that says the salary cap can increase but it cannot go below the salary cap of the last season.

Also I do definitely like burke's suggestion about being able to trade cap space, so to speak.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Z and D for the C

[Wombat 26]

Heard one GM on a radio show (I'm blanking on who it was) a couple days ago say that they've been told to prepare for a $45-48 million cap for 2010/11.

This is going to be the summer of the 1-year deal.

Bill Simmons of ESPN.com made an offhand remark that a NBA executive predicted that 15 NHL franchises would fold in the next 2 years because of the economy. Clearly, it must be taken with a grain of salt, but there were franchises in big trouble BEFORE the economy went to hell. How are some of these teams going to actually survive with fewer people spending money on sports and fewer businesses able to give sponserships/advertising money? I could easily see 4-8 teams in the NHL changing ownership, moving, or folding because their current situations are not sustainable even in the short term.

You're totally right that no one will want to commit to multiple years unless the player is a bona fide star that is willing to take a lower cap number than expected, and if that team has mega cap space already.

[toby91_ca 620]

What about adding a rule of sorts that says the salary cap can increase but it cannot go below the salary cap of the last season.

This would effectively mean the cap can never go down, which the owners would have to be incredibly stupid to agree to something like that. If revenues decrease, the salary cap has to decrease, it is that simple.

[Hank 0]

Yes, but this way there is $$ to be made.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact, that every player and coach knew when the TV timeouts were coming. So they'd ice it knowing that.

The NHL caught on so they stopped doing TV timeouts after icing calls. But all this did was lose revenue for the league. So it's going back in.

Regarding the 'staged fights' I couldn't agree more with this rule. Most of the staged fights are boring and useless. It's two guys who like each other and agree to dance.

And a great, great majority of the time the fight is boring. Heavyweights know how to tie up and avoid punches. You'll be lucky to see 2 punches landed.

I'd much rather see a fight break-out between two guys when someone is genuinly angry. The Weber-Leilja fight was great because you could see how pissed off Weber was.

Not only that, but most of those types of fights happen between two guys that don't know how to throw-em like a seasoned pro - so it's more entertaining since less defense is involved.

What the NHL is trying to do is get rid of the circus side show fights, and allow for more heat-of-the-moment tilts.

In my mind, that's a step forward.

[Echolalia 2,961]

To add to the tv timeout ban: when it comes down to it, it never really added a significant incentive to not ice the puck in many of the situations where a team generally would ice the puck a year ago. The ultimatum presented is often ice the puck to relieve immediate pressure, and play a bit longer with tired guys, but a now equal chance at getting possession, or try to break out of your zone immediately with tired guys and risk turning the puck over at an opportune moment for the opposition. It still isn't much of an ultimatum for teams faced with the option of icing the puck, compared to before the tv timeout ban was implemented. Besides, there haven't been too many occasions where a team has actually capitalized on the play and scored a goal immediately following an icing resulting from pressuring a worn down defense. That time would be much more economical if it went towards commercial sales. I think this is a good move.

[sibiriak 84]

Here's what I don't understand: every season players are paying a certain part of their salary into an escrow fund. This money is to be given back to owners, in case the combined salaries of all players exceed 56% of the total NHL revenue. So if the revenue go down in 2010, the players' salaries will be reduced proportionately.

But will the new lower salaries count against the salary cap number, or will the original salaries count?

If a player was supposed to make $8. mil before the escrow, and ends up with $7 mil. cash on hand after escrow money is given back, will his cap number go to $7 mil. or still be counted at $8 mil.?

Edit - splelling.

Edited March 12, 2009 by sibiriak

[Chunkylover 26]

Here's what I don't understand: every season players are paying a certain part of their salary into an escrow fund. This money is to be given back to owners, in case the combined salaries of all players exceed 56% of the total NHL revenue. So if the revenue go down in 2010, the players' salaries will be reduced proportionately.

But will the new lower salaries count against the salary cap number, or will the original salaries count?

If a player was supposed to make $8. mil before the escrow, and ends up with $7 mil. cash on hand after escrow money is given back, will his cap number go to $7 mil. or still be counted at $8 mil.?

Edit - splelling.

I watched that TSN video with Bob McKenzie and I had no idea what he was talking about.

It would definitely be good for teams if they could adjust the player's cap hit down, but it would devalue the contracts, and conversely, should the cap increase, players would want their salary to go up in proportion as well.

[Wombat 26]

A great idea that I saw from a member of a Buffalo Sabres' board was to link each player's salary directly with a proportion of the cap. That way, as revenue goes up, salaries rise, and as it drops, salaries drop without teams needing to do buyouts/trades to get under a lower cap.

So you could sign Hossa to a deal guaranteeing 10% of the salary cap. When the cap is $57 million, he makes $5.7 million. If it drops to $50 million, he makes $5 million. I think that would be a great way to do salaries but we'd have to wait for them to put it into the next CBA. Unless I'm mistaken, it really would not be that much different from the escrow account, but this way everyone would know before the season started how much money they would be making.

[CenterIce 83]

A great idea that I saw from a member of a Buffalo Sabres' board was to link each player's salary directly with a proportion of the cap. That way, as revenue goes up, salaries rise, and as it drops, salaries drop without teams needing to do buyouts/trades to get under a lower cap.

So you could sign Hossa to a deal guaranteeing 10% of the salary cap. When the cap is $57 million, he makes $5.7 million. If it drops to $50 million, he makes $5 million. I think that would be a great way to do salaries but we'd have to wait for them to put it into the next CBA. Unless I'm mistaken, it really would not be that much different from the escrow account, but this way everyone would know before the season started how much money they would be making.

I don't see the player's association agreeing to allowing a decrease in player's salaries over their contracts.

[Z and D for the C 712]

This would effectively mean the cap can never go down, which the owners would have to be incredibly stupid to agree to something like that. If revenues decrease, the salary cap has to decrease, it is that simple.

That's the point. Why would that be so horrible? The league still functioned without a salary cap at all if I'm not mistaken, so why can't it function with one that just can't go down?

[55fan 5,133]

Just a thought... Maybe the next CBA could have some sort of an agreement that the cap can't go down by more than x% over the previous year. Then at least they'd be able to plan a bit better instead of holding their breath and waiting.