• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
vladdy16

What Should Be Addressed in the New CBA?

Rate this topic

24 posts in this topic

I see many comments in several threads about what should change in the new CBA. I thought it was a very topic-worthy discussion. The issues that leap to mind are contract length and signing bonuses, besides the usual player percentage of profits and how many years before players reach UFA status.

Personally, I think if a team wants to take the risk of signing a player to a very long-term contract, bon chance. I see no issue with that.

I also don't see an issue with signing bonuses. It doesn't circumvent the cap. As far as being a tool that less-established teams don't have access to, I say so sorry. There's already revenue sharing; I see no reason why teams like Toronto, Philly & Detroit shouldn't be able to use their cap dollars as they see fit.

Z Winged Dangler and Vladifan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a broad topic, I'm not even sure where to start...

Personally, I think if a team wants to take the risk of signing a player to a very long-term contract, bon chance. I see no issue with that.

I also don't see an issue with signing bonuses. It doesn't circumvent the cap. As far as being a tool that less-established teams don't have access to, I say so sorry. There's already revenue sharing; I see no reason why teams like Toronto, Philly & Detroit shouldn't be able to use their cap dollars as they see fit.

I think there has to be significant discussions about both the structuring of contracts and the manner in which the salary cap is calculated. I disagree completely with your assertion that bonuses and contract structure aren't being used to circumvent the cap.

What is the salary cap? Why does it exist? The whole reason the NHL installed a Cap was to narrow the significant financial gap between the haves and have-nots of the NHL. Prior to 2005, this was resulting in significant competitive disadvantages for cash-strapped teams.

Players like Parise, Suter, and Weber are going to earn up to $26 million for a single year of hockey, due to front loading and bounses. But the Cap says that their value as a hockey player is closer to $7 or $8 million. If you are losing money as a hockey franchise, this is a big deal. The teams like Nashville and Phoenix that could barely afford to pay a player's cap number, let alone the actual value of his contract cannot retain or acquire elite-level talent, without asking them to take a significant pay cut over other options.

We need to start viewing contracts in this sport more like the NFL than MLB. It really isn't in the sport's best interests to commit $100 million deals to players for 10 years or more. It will do nothing but add inflation to the sport, as we've already seen with long-term deals like Brian Campbell, DiPietro, and Luongo. If those players are still healthy and productive, there's no reason their value can't be reevaluated every 5-7 years, which means that the "monster" contracts might be around $50 million instead of $100 million

Edited by StormJH1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty clear the owners what the length of contracts addressed along with signing bonuses. Wouldn't surprise me to see the ufa/rfa structure get readdressed i.e. owners want to raise the age/years of service & adding back the ability to include cash in player trades again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like someone said this is easy:

- Give Bettman the boot this is the most important thing get rid of this guy once and for all

- stop the PR fiasco because some teams just don't have a big enough fanbase to support an NHL team

- lower the floor but increase the cap

- get rid of the NMC/NTC minimum age

- swtich Winnipeg and Detroit

Players like Parise, Suter, and Weber are going to earn up to $26 million for a single year of hockey, due to front loading and bounses. But the Cap says that their value as a hockey player is closer to $7 or $8 million. If you are losing money as a hockey franchise, this is a big deal. The teams like Nashville and Phoenix that could barely afford to pay a player's cap number, let alone the actual value of his contract cannot retain or acquire elite-level talent, without asking them to take a significant pay cut over other options.

So what? Then they have to settle for other players, problem solved.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should actually address is teams taking revenue sharing kick-backs from the teams that make money going out & dropping huge bucks on free-agents while complaining that salary expenses are too high. I'm looking at you, Craig Liepold.

BigWillieStyle likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a broad topic, I'm not even sure where to start...

I think there has to be significant discussions about both the structuring of contracts and the manner in which the salary cap is calculated. I disagree completely with your assertion that bonuses and contract structure aren't being used to circumvent the cap.

What is the salary cap? Why does it exist? The whole reason the NHL installed a Cap was to narrow the significant financial gap between the haves and have-nots of the NHL. Prior to 2005, this was resulting in significant competitive disadvantages for cash-strapped teams.

Players like Parise, Suter, and Weber are going to earn up to $26 million for a single year of hockey, due to front loading and bounses. But the Cap says that their value as a hockey player is closer to $7 or $8 million. If you are losing money as a hockey franchise, this is a big deal. The teams like Nashville and Phoenix that could barely afford to pay a player's cap number, let alone the actual value of his contract cannot retain or acquire elite-level talent, without asking them to take a significant pay cut over other options.

We need to start viewing contracts in this sport more like the NFL than MLB. It really isn't in the sport's best interests to commit $100 million deals to players for 10 years or more. It will do nothing but add inflation to the sport, as we've already seen with long-term deals like Brian Campbell, DiPietro, and Luongo. If those players are still healthy and productive, there's no reason their value can't be reevaluated every 5-7 years, which means that the "monster" contracts might be around $50 million instead of $100 million

There's a cap in place to level the spending field. There's revenue sharing; teams are getting paid merely because they exist. Now you're saying that teams with a larger fanbase and/or more money shouldn't be allowed to spend up to the cap as they see fit? That's severe over-regulation IMO. Why not just say each team has to spend 40 million period then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you, V16. If a GM wants to handcuff his team for a decade or more for one or two big splash signings, then he should be free to do so. The GM's shouldn't have to rely on the NHL to save themselves from their own stupidity.

Vladifan and Rick D like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly if GMs are willing to take the risk let them do it. I can't wait to see the players reaction offer it will for sure set the tone going forward and give us a better look at the possibility of a lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Max term a player can sign for is 6 years.

2. No front loading contracts. A player signs 4 years, $20 mil then it's $5mil/year period.

3. A team can dip into revenue sharing no more than $10 mil. If they need more assistance than that, relocate or shed salary.

4. No sending bad Huet contracts to Europe or the AHL to get rid of the cap hit.

5. Base salary contract should be implemented with performance bonus. Have a guy signed at $1 mil and he gets money based on stats, games played and PK % and things like that which can be worked into a contract. With this type of contract there's a starting point with a max amount that the player can make and the GM would have to have cap space to cover the max incentives.

6. Gary Bettman is sent to Afghanistan for reasons unknown to the public, but we have it on good authority that he is not happy with his situation.

Forgot about 1 thing. The player/owner percentage should be 50% each. The owner still has to pay the rest of the staff as well, and pay to run the rink and all the bills included in that. The players just have to pay their agents. And without the owners, these players don't get paid millions to PLAY HOCKEY FOR A LIVING!

Edited by Z Winged Dangler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot about 1 thing. The player/owner percentage should be 50% each. The owner still has to pay the rest of the staff as well, and pay to run the rink and all the bills included in that. The players just have to pay their agents. And without the owners, these players don't get paid millions to PLAY HOCKEY FOR A LIVING!

In saying what you just said, wouldn't you think the owners should get more than a 50/50 share? What financial risk does the player have? Guaranteed contracts, have zero financial risk for the players. If Franzen turns into Cheechoo, he still gets paid a large amount of his contract. If Illitch plays like Cheechoo, he just lost Millions of dollars. The risk/reward is much greater for the owners.

Also, I don't really like the long term contracts, though I feel they should "allow" 1 or 2 per team to be dedicated to keeping "franchise" players of whom the team has drafted and developed. The rest, I would like to see a 5-6 year maximum on. As much fun as it may be to watch a GM paint himself into a corner with $100 million lifetime contracts to lure the top free agents, it really just leads to another lockout coming in the future, and doesn't promote a healthy business model.

The main priority of the CBA, is to keep the business of hockey at a sustainable level. Let's hope both sides can remember that.

Z Winged Dangler and rage like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see many comments in several threads about what should change in the new CBA. I thought it was a very topic-worthy discussion. The issues that leap to mind are contract length and signing bonuses, besides the usual player percentage of profits and how many years before players reach UFA status.

Personally, I think if a team wants to take the risk of signing a player to a very long-term contract, bon chance. I see no issue with that.

I also don't see an issue with signing bonuses. It doesn't circumvent the cap. As far as being a tool that less-established teams don't have access to, I say so sorry. There's already revenue sharing; I see no reason why teams like Toronto, Philly & Detroit shouldn't be able to use their cap dollars as they see fit.

Of course it does as does the long-term contracts. The whole point of the long-term contracts is to circumvent the cap. lol

And the ridiculous signing bonus that Weber is getting could very well be too much for a small market team to match. Then it's just not fair and the whole point of the cap is to make things fair for all teams and when a big market team comes and does something like philly and weber are doing, it is against what the whole salary cap was meant to be for.

This whole philly and weber thing disguts me. I don't mind the signing or RFA, but structuring that contract w/ the signing bonuses is so ill willed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should actually address is teams taking revenue sharing kick-backs from the teams that make money going out & dropping huge bucks on free-agents while complaining that salary expenses are too high. I'm looking at you, Craig Liepold.

I am not sure that Minnesota Wild is on the receiving side of revenue sharing. It would be interesting to see NHL revenue numbers by team if anybody has such data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In saying what you just said, wouldn't you think the owners should get more than a 50/50 share? What financial risk does the player have? Guaranteed contracts, have zero financial risk for the players. If Franzen turns into Cheechoo, he still gets paid a large amount of his contract. If Illitch plays like Cheechoo, he just lost Millions of dollars. The risk/reward is much greater for the owners.

Also, I don't really like the long term contracts, though I feel they should "allow" 1 or 2 per team to be dedicated to keeping "franchise" players of whom the team has drafted and developed. The rest, I would like to see a 5-6 year maximum on. As much fun as it may be to watch a GM paint himself into a corner with $100 million lifetime contracts to lure the top free agents, it really just leads to another lockout coming in the future, and doesn't promote a healthy business model.

The main priority of the CBA, is to keep the business of hockey at a sustainable level. Let's hope both sides can remember that.

I agree with you completely. I was stating that there should be more of a compromise from the players at least to begin with. They are well over 50% if i'm not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a limit on how long a contract can be in correlation to the players age, maybe capping it at age 38-40 yrs old.

Arbitration rules need to be tweaked - players should only get money based on other similar players salaries + performance based over 2-3 seasons averaged together. Avoid the last year in contract year and they play harder to get more money?

If a player signs a long term contract, that said team should not be able to trade that said player for a minimum of 3 or 4 seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that Minnesota Wild is on the receiving side of revenue sharing. It would be interesting to see NHL revenue numbers by team if anybody has such data.

Last I saw was that they got nearly $20m in revenue sharing last season.

Edit: That $20m may be high though. Have found the full share for 2010 & that was $10m. Probably above that last season but not double.

Edited by ogreslayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In saying what you just said, wouldn't you think the owners should get more than a 50/50 share? What financial risk does the player have? Guaranteed contracts, have zero financial risk for the players. If Franzen turns into Cheechoo, he still gets paid a large amount of his contract. If Illitch plays like Cheechoo, he just lost Millions of dollars. The risk/reward is much greater for the owners.

Also, I don't really like the long term contracts, though I feel they should "allow" 1 or 2 per team to be dedicated to keeping "franchise" players of whom the team has drafted and developed. The rest, I would like to see a 5-6 year maximum on. As much fun as it may be to watch a GM paint himself into a corner with $100 million lifetime contracts to lure the top free agents, it really just leads to another lockout coming in the future, and doesn't promote a healthy business model.

The main priority of the CBA, is to keep the business of hockey at a sustainable level. Let's hope both sides can remember that.

I like the idea that ufas should have a limit on contract length but players you draft and develop should have less restriction on length. I also think that teams should be responsible for the caphit of a player until the end of contract regardless of retirement unless therenis a legit career ending injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I'd word the rule, but I think something needs to be done with the way Philadelphia is using LTIR. When someone like Pronger announces that he'll never play again, he should be retired, not put on LTIR so they can use his cap space on someone else.

I think its against the spirit of the rule, and also drives insurance costs up league wide since they are paying the lions share of his salary not the Flyers.

rage likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I'd word the rule, but I think something needs to be done with the way Philadelphia is using LTIR. When someone like Pronger announces that he'll never play again, he should be retired, not put on LTIR so they can use his cap space on someone else.

I think its against the spirit of the rule, and also drives insurance costs up league wide since they are paying the lions share of his salary not the Flyers.

Totally agree.

Philly is as shady as they come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a cap in place to level the spending field. There's revenue sharing; teams are getting paid merely because they exist. Now you're saying that teams with a larger fanbase and/or more money shouldn't be allowed to spend up to the cap as they see fit? That's severe over-regulation IMO. Why not just say each team has to spend 40 million period then?

you're entirely missing the point... what folks are saying is that teams shouldnt be allowed to circumvent the rules of the cap. many posters are talking about these contracts being ok because thats the risk the gm's are taking. but unfortunately under the current CBA, there is no risk at all. why? because even if you sign a terrible contract, you can just bury it. the pronger deal in philly was terrible. but philly has just put him on LTIR for like 13 seasons in a row and avoivded any cap penalty... the huet contract by the hawks was terrible. but chicago just moved him to europe for several seasons and avoided any penalty. there are many other examples of bad contracts getting moved to the ahl, europe, or mysteriously going on LTIR.

no to mention the new fad of front loading long contracts to keep the cap hit down and then just anticipating the player will retire before the end of the contract and avoid having to deal with the cap hit the last few years. thats one of the areas i think a lot of folks want to see cleaned up. sure, its not realistic to expect contracts to pay the exact same every year of the deal. but to have a contract pay 14 million for one of the seasons and 1 million for a later season. thats just silly.

those are the loopholes that people want closed. fans want accountability and fairness. they want to know that if minnesota is dumb enough to commit to 2 guys for 13 years, that they will be stuck with them good or bad. instead, its just a game of bending the rules. its about as bad as the nba and all their dumb rules and everyone trying to trade expiring contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're entirely missing the point... what folks are saying is that teams shouldnt be allowed to circumvent the rules of the cap. many posters are talking about these contracts being ok because thats the risk the gm's are taking. but unfortunately under the current CBA, there is no risk at all. why? because even if you sign a terrible contract, you can just bury it. the pronger deal in philly was terrible. but philly has just put him on LTIR for like 13 seasons in a row and avoivded any cap penalty... the huet contract by the hawks was terrible. but chicago just moved him to europe for several seasons and avoided any penalty. there are many other examples of bad contracts getting moved to the ahl, europe, or mysteriously going on LTIR.

no to mention the new fad of front loading long contracts to keep the cap hit down and then just anticipating the player will retire before the end of the contract and avoid having to deal with the cap hit the last few years. thats one of the areas i think a lot of folks want to see cleaned up. sure, its not realistic to expect contracts to pay the exact same every year of the deal. but to have a contract pay 14 million for one of the seasons and 1 million for a later season. thats just silly.

those are the loopholes that people want closed. fans want accountability and fairness. they want to know that if minnesota is dumb enough to commit to 2 guys for 13 years, that they will be stuck with them good or bad. instead, its just a game of bending the rules. its about as bad as the nba and all their dumb rules and everyone trying to trade expiring contracts.

Okay, I get that. If someone is dumb enough to sign Pronger's contract, they should have to pay it and it should count against the cap. I totally agree with that. There has to be some wiggle room and there are definitely loopholes that should be closed, but not all of them. Teams with money to spend should be able to spend it however they see fit. I think front loading the contract was genius. Revenue sharing would pay for that contract if Nashville decides to match.

I don't think it's even reasonable to pay teams merely because they exist; if they don't have quite the same playing field other teams have, then they should strive to get there. Isn't that what our whole economic system is based on? And since the system is in place and isn't likely to change, we're giving them a little leg up; why can't we use what we already have to our advantage?

If you're going to hamstring owners with money, then again, just say everyone has to spend 40 million period and be done with it. That's true parity if that's what you're aiming for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Max term a player can sign for is 6 years.

2. No front loading contracts. A player signs 4 years, $20 mil then it's $5mil/year period.

3. A team can dip into revenue sharing no more than $10 mil. If they need more assistance than that, relocate or shed salary.

4. No sending bad Huet contracts to Europe or the AHL to get rid of the cap hit.

5. Base salary contract should be implemented with performance bonus. Have a guy signed at $1 mil and he gets money based on stats, games played and PK % and things like that which can be worked into a contract. With this type of contract there's a starting point with a max amount that the player can make and the GM would have to have cap space to cover the max incentives.

6. Gary Bettman is sent to Afghanistan for reasons unknown to the public, but we have it on good authority that he is not happy with his situation.

Forgot about 1 thing. The player/owner percentage should be 50% each. The owner still has to pay the rest of the staff as well, and pay to run the rink and all the bills included in that. The players just have to pay their agents. And without the owners, these players don't get paid millions to PLAY HOCKEY FOR A LIVING!

I agree with all of this but I would give the owners a little more then 50% maybe 55%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap floor needs to be a percentage of the cap ceiling. With revenues growing quickly, the ratio of the floor to the ceiling has become large and this has (somewhat) hindered the ability of low-budget teams to control their financial well-being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0