Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Should Be Addressed in the New CBA?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 BigWillieStyle

BigWillieStyle

    1st Line Sniper

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

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:04 PM

NHL labour dispute: A "players" perspective.

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...-agreement.html



#22 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,158 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:40 PM

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.
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

#23 Red Crazy

Red Crazy

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Location:Manitoba, Canada

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:39 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!


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

#24 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,421 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:44 AM

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.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users