Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Should Be Addressed in the New CBA?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,280 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:40 AM

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.
Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#2 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:58 AM

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, 20 July 2012 - 10:05 AM.


#3 ogreslayer

ogreslayer

    Hall-of-Famer

  • HoF Booster
  • 2,002 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:06 AM

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.

#4 blgillett

blgillett

    Stevie the one and only Captian

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Location:Ludington Mi

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:08 AM

That's easy no one should have to see Bettmen ever again
"He was standing there like a cigar store Indian" Mickey Redmond
"Holmstrom gets more attention around the net than a pretty girl around closing time!" Mickey Redmond
IPB Image

#5 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,395 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

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, 20 July 2012 - 10:14 AM.

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..

<< Win it for Mr. Hockey !


#6 ogreslayer

ogreslayer

    Hall-of-Famer

  • HoF Booster
  • 2,002 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:31 AM

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.

#7 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,280 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:42 AM

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?
Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#8 Jedi

Jedi

    Christmastime is buzzing in my skull...

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 9,827 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:50 AM

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.

"And the best, I must confess, I have saved for the last, for the ruler of this Christmas land,

is a fearsome king with a deep mighty voice, least, that's what I've come to understand.

And I've also heard it told, that he's something to behold, like a lobster, huge and red!

When he sets out to slay with his rain gear on, carting bulging sacks with his big great arms, that is so I've heard it said.

And on a dark cold night, under full moon light, he flies into a fog like a vulture in the sky!

And they call him Sandy Claws!


#9 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,395 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:10 AM

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.

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..

<< Win it for Mr. Hockey !


#10 Z Winged Dangler

Z Winged Dangler

    Part 3: Return of the Hammer Hands

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg, MB

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:32 AM

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, 20 July 2012 - 11:46 AM.

"I play hockey, but I am not very good.  Can someone please tell me what it would take to sign with the Wings ? I can use a million or two."  ~ arag

 

Dan Cleary is an Xbox 360.  While good for a while, it's time for the new generation to take over.


#11 BigWillieStyle

BigWillieStyle

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Location:Lapeer, MI

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:53 PM

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.

#12 rage

rage

    Nicklas ~The World's Best~ Lidstrom

  • Silver Booster
  • 3,879 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas!

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:08 PM

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!

Posted Image





#13 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:57 PM

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.

#14 Z Winged Dangler

Z Winged Dangler

    Part 3: Return of the Hammer Hands

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg, MB

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:53 PM

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.

"I play hockey, but I am not very good.  Can someone please tell me what it would take to sign with the Wings ? I can use a million or two."  ~ arag

 

Dan Cleary is an Xbox 360.  While good for a while, it's time for the new generation to take over.


#15 Rivalred

Rivalred

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,315 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:27 PM

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.


D-Fence Avatar Win-O-Meter 8-1

#16 ogreslayer

ogreslayer

    Hall-of-Famer

  • HoF Booster
  • 2,002 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:58 PM

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, 20 July 2012 - 10:04 PM.


#17 dirtydangles

dirtydangles

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,024 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:02 PM

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.

Is there a kickstarter campaign for Jakub Kindl to never play another NHL game?


#18 FlashyG

FlashyG

    1st Line All-Star

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,162 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 21 July 2012 - 12:07 AM

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.

#19 rage

rage

    Nicklas ~The World's Best~ Lidstrom

  • Silver Booster
  • 3,879 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas!

Posted 21 July 2012 - 01:03 AM

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.

Posted Image





#20 dobbles

dobbles

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Location:Tulsa, OK

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:28 AM

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.

I love Maltby, but to say he wasn't a ****** is a dis-service to his career of douchebaggery.






Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users