• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

906 posts in this topic

The thing is, I don't think Bettman even wants to get rid of the floor. In the NHL's proposal cap floor is lowered but in his quest for parity it seems like he doesn't trust all the owners to put a competitive team on the ice. And I'm guessing it has to do with revenue sharing too.

I honestly don't know if it's needed or not. In theory I could see how it would make a team spend the money to put a decent product on the ice. But it also seems to inflate salaries as a team under the floor overpays for a player or two to get up to the cap floor.

At the very least it should be lowered, but any new CBA would almost certainly have it lowered as they reduce the cap limit.

You are correct, at least from what has been released so far. Bettman didn't mention the cap floor in his proposal. It could be in there, but lets assume he didn't mention it because its not an issue. He concentrated on rolling back salaries, limiting contracts, and getting rid of arbitration. Just further proof, as you and I have said about 10 pages ago, he doesn't recognize what the real problems are.

As has been demonstrated before, spending to the cap ceiling doesn't mean you are going to win a cup or even make the playoffs. We have small market teams beating big market teams all the time. The CBA that Bettman is proposing lowers the cap floor and ceiling for a few years with the rollback in salaries, but it doesn't address the long term health of the league. In 4 years, the owners will be in the same predicament that they are in right now. Just as the players proposal, while lowering salaries a couple percent for a few years, doesn't address the long term health of the league or teams in 3-4 years. Owners are going to be boneheads, and players will sign inflated contracts as a result.

IMHO, by eliminating the cap floor and imposing a luxury tax system, the small market teams will still be able to get players while the big market teams will share revenues with the small market ones. It works well in baseball, and should work well in hockey. Bettman obviously hates it, but I think Fehr would be a fan of it.

Teams have to ice NHL level lineup. If a teams can't do that maybe it should not exist.

Teams were icing NHL level lineups even before the salary cap era.

drwscc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those teams doing poorly in attendance, and as a result not doing well money wise, shouldn't be forced to spend to a cap floor.

So, those owners are in the business for what, a tax right-off against their other business interests?

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, those owners are in the business for what, a tax right-off against their other business interests?

I think that gets to the heart of it. With the floor they're trying to force owners to put together a competitive team and not just take revenue sharing while writing off the losses as they rake money in on their arenas.

Just because a franchise isn't profitable doesn't mean it can't be. Or that the owner's intent is to run a franchise in a way that appears profitable. It's one of owners many holdings. It's not necessarily in their best interest to look like they're turning a massive profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams have to ice NHL level lineup. If a teams can't do that maybe it should not exist.

There are several baseball teams that could stand to follow that same logic, too. So it's not just an issue in hockey. That's part of why I've always believed if you're going to install a salary cap, you need to also install a floor. Otherwise, if you tell teams you can only spend.....$90 million dollars (for example), unless you also tell them they have to spend at least 80% of that (for example), or $72 million, they'll spend the absolute bare-bones minimum they can get away with, and pocket the revenue sharing and write off losses, as Harold pointed out.

Off-topic, but doesn't the NFL have a salary floor of 80% of the cap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several baseball teams that could stand to follow that same logic, too. So it's not just an issue in hockey. That's part of why I've always believed if you're going to install a salary cap, you need to also install a floor. Otherwise, if you tell teams you can only spend.....$90 million dollars (for example), unless you also tell them they have to spend at least 80% of that (for example), or $72 million, they'll spend the absolute bare-bones minimum they can get away with, and pocket the revenue sharing and write off losses, as Harold pointed out.

Off-topic, but doesn't the NFL have a salary floor of 80% of the cap?

88.8% I believe.

Also note that the floor isn't just for parity. The players (in total) are guaranteed an exact percentage of all league HRR. The floor ensures each team contributes their fair share.

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back at it, this time in New York.

Maybe they'll keep more focus without Gary Bettman being close to shiny things in the HOF...

Oh wait....

Tuesday's meeting is cut short to 14 1/2 minutes. Gary Bettman is later found in Manhattan staring at the Statue of Liberty. This has been going on for 6 hours. Someone taps him on the shoulder and he comes out of his daze and blerts out LOCKOUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The league presented a new proposal to the union today. hopefully this one is at least somewhat close to realistic.

Fehr said it's one they intend to respond to, but didn't get into details.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=403993

https://twitter.com/aaronward_nhl

Just saw that on KK .. It's very uplifting to hear that to say the least.

oh yea in the words of the great Scotty Bowman ... "Is that f**king Aaron Ward out there?"

Edited by PROBIE4PREZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw that on KK .. It's very uplifting to hear that to say the least.

oh yea in the words of the great Scotty Bowman ... "Is that f**king Aaron Ward out there?"

Scotty Boman actually said that? What a legend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this on twitter.. NHL's proposed salery caps.

@DarrenDreger: Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

The salary cap dropping that much would be ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this on twitter.. NHL's proposed salery caps.

@DarrenDreger: Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

The salary cap dropping that much would be ridiculous.

Also this...

"

The NHL is not asking for any rollback in current contracts, suggesting that the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow."

Link:

http://www.rgj.com/usatoday/article/57385074?odyssey=mod%7cnewswell%7cimg%7cSports%7cp

So the Red Wings could potentially be in a great position to absorb some salary dumps, depending on what these adjustments are. As it stands now, they would be a little more than $800k under a $58mil cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with what has been released so far... do people feel more confident about a deal getting done? This seems a ton more reasonable coming from the league. The salary cap rollback isn't too crazy and I like how the league has said they don't want to roll-back players' salaries (good idea, because that would have surely pissed off the players). The wings would be in good shape to sign a 2-3 million dollar defensemen or trade away some forward pieces for a more lucrative contract.... In either case, I hope this moves the process ahead and gives us a full season, or close to one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this on twitter.. NHL's proposed salery caps.

@DarrenDreger: Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

The salary cap dropping that much would be ridiculous.

And then 2019, lockout.

Ally and F.Michael like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this...

"

The NHL is not asking for any rollback in current contracts, suggesting that the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow."

Link:

http://www.rgj.com/u...ll|img|Sports|p

So the Red Wings could potentially be in a great position to absorb some salary dumps, depending on what these adjustments are. As it stands now, they would be a little more than $800k under a $58mil cap.

Am I missing something?

How do teams, who were basing their decisions on the projected $70 million cap, shed $10+ million without any salary rollback?

The new NHL deal also includes redefining what constitutes hockey related revenue. So when they say the eventual split is 50/50, that's not really the case. They're taking money out of the pot while also asking the players to take less of it.

And it sounds like the NHL's proposal still didn't address revenue sharing. This offer at least doesn't sound completely insane. But the league is standing firm on ignoring revenue sharing as a solution and expect the players to bear the burden of saving these struggling franchises by "partnering" with the league.

In 2005, I thought "2012, hell, that's 7 years. Who cares about a lockout then. That's light years away"

And here we are...

The only hope is Bettman won't be commissioner then, otherwise, I wouldn't make any hockey-based plans in 2019.

Pskov Wings Fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something?

How do teams, who were basing their decisions on the projected $70 million cap, shed $10+ million without any salary rollback?

The new NHL deal also includes redefining what constitutes hockey related revenue. So when they say the eventual split is 50/50, that's not really the case. They're taking money out of the pot while also asking the players to take less of it.

And it sounds like the NHL's proposal still didn't address revenue sharing. This offer at least doesn't sound completely insane. But the league is standing firm on ignoring revenue sharing as a solution and expect the players to bear the burden of saving these struggling franchises by "partnering" with the league.

The only hope is Bettman won't be commissioner then, otherwise, I wouldn't make any hockey-based plans in 2019.

I haven't really been following the issue at all, so I'll ask you, do you think they'll get something done in time for the season to start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either the dwarf is the most stupid commissioner ever or this is the NHLs way of presenting another insulting offer to the player all along?

You can't have a 58 million salary, when some teams are already near the cap not exactly business science ey? The players would be incredible dumb to even think about accepting that, it is not a solution and would mean, tons of players are getting waived or sent straight to the AHL. I trust Fehr so hopefully they don't accept it.

Once again the owners fail to provide solutions, other than taking the players money in orer to fix their own damn system. I'm sure in his little land, with his little but heavily expensive car this joke of a commissioner dreams about no NHLPA what a disgrace.

I think 66 million would be a more reasonable salary,why not keep the status quo and just drop the salary a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest proposal of the owners sounds like they gave in significantly in regards to their first proposal (from 43% to 50%). With the NHLPA set at keeping the 57% they need to drop significantly as well.

The revenue regarding hockey-related and non-hockey-related income was negotiable according to both sides if I remember correctly.

I just don't see how teams can get under the cap without a rollback but to send players to the AHL. However players would still be guaranteed their original salary which I think is important to the NHLPA.

I guess the salary cap is negotiable when the NHLPA is willing to drop from their 57%...???

And for the record...both proposals from the NHL and NHLPA does not solve the problem regarding revenue sharing amongst teams.

Just don't count on getting my sympathy vote when players reject to take a 7% drop in salary in the NHL, but still go play in Europe for a small percentage of their NHL salary.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest proposal of the owners sounds like they gave in significantly in regards to their first proposal (from 43% to 50%). With the NHLPA set at keeping the 57% they need to drop significantly as well.

The revenue regarding hockey-related and non-hockey-related income was negotiable according to both sides if I remember correctly.

I just don't see how teams can get under the cap without a rollback but to send players to the AHL. However players would still be guaranteed their original salary which I think is important to the NHLPA.

I guess the salary cap is negotiable when the NHLPA is willing to drop from their 57%...???

And for the record...both proposals from the NHL and NHLPA does not solve the problem regarding revenue sharing amongst teams.

Just don't count on getting my sympathy vote when players reject to take a 7% drop in salary in the NHL, but still go play in Europe for a small percentage of their NHL salary.

I have to agree.

In order for a deal to be made, both sides have to be willing to give up something. The first proposals really don't address the issue. This one, while giving up some things, doesn't address the issue. As has been mentioned by others, it just opens the door for another lockout due to horrible spending practices by the owners and inflated contracts for the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really been following the issue at all, so I'll ask you, do you think they'll get something done in time for the season to start?

They still have a couple weeks so who knows, but it seems unlikely the season would start on time.

Either the dwarf is the most stupid commissioner ever or this is the NHLs way of presenting another insulting offer to the player all along?

You can't have a 58 million salary, when some teams are already near the cap not exactly business science ey? The players would be incredible dumb to even think about accepting that, it is not a solution and would mean, tons of players are getting waived or sent straight to the AHL. I trust Fehr so hopefully they don't accept it.

Once again the owners fail to provide solutions, other than taking the players money in orer to fix their own damn system. I'm sure in his little land, with his little but heavily expensive car this joke of a commissioner dreams about no NHLPA what a disgrace.

I think 66 million would be a more reasonable salary,why not keep the status quo and just drop the salary a bit?

And I'm not really clear on whether or not the owners kept the other insane parts of their initial offer. 10 years until reaching UFA status. 5 year rookie contracts, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0