Wow! Murray Quote from today's con call.

Acrobat wrote:True enough.

Edit:

Perhaps the answer is to tie the relative performance of the player and the team - if the team falls off by 5% but the player by 10%, then the clause is void; it also means that if the player bumps by 5% but the team overachieves and jumps by 10%, then they also lose the protection.

The reference point could be GF, GA, shots, or whatever you choose as relevant for the position, type of player, etc in question.

I like where it's headed, because the logical conclusion is performance based contracts, and we can eventually get rid of agents. :BB:

I like it.

wprager wrote:

Acrobat wrote:True enough.

Edit:

Perhaps the answer is to tie the relative performance of the player and the team - if the team falls off by 5% but the player by 10%, then the clause is void; it also means that if the player bumps by 5% but the team overachieves and jumps by 10%, then they also lose the protection.

The reference point could be GF, GA, shots, or whatever you choose as relevant for the position, type of player, etc in question.

I like where it's headed, because the logical conclusion is performance based contracts, and we can eventually get rid of agents. :BB:

oh see now you are talking, make it like the real world then lol.

SensFan71 wrote:

wprager wrote:

Acrobat wrote:True enough.

Edit:

Perhaps the answer is to tie the relative performance of the player and the team - if the team falls off by 5% but the player by 10%, then the clause is void; it also means that if the player bumps by 5% but the team overachieves and jumps by 10%, then they also lose the protection.

The reference point could be GF, GA, shots, or whatever you choose as relevant for the position, type of player, etc in question.

I like where it's headed, because the logical conclusion is performance based contracts, and we can eventually get rid of agents. :BB:

oh see now you are talking, make it like the real world then lol.

It'd be really simple - just take away the "guaranteed" part of the contract.
Harsh, but in line with reality.

Allow signing bonuses to count against the cap, for the duration of the contract (e.g. $10M signing bonus for 5yr contract = $2M per year, whether or not the player remains with the signing team)

Now there's incentive for intelligent cap management, incentive for management to keep players they signed, and incentive for players to play hard and not get released.

My prediction would be that you'd see 2-3yr contracts (Ovechkins, Crosbys, Malkins excluded) with some, but not a lot, of player movement. You'd see player salaries brought closer to the median - the tighter the bunching of salaries, the easier it is to trade.

Acrobat wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:

wprager wrote:

Acrobat wrote:True enough.

Edit:

Perhaps the answer is to tie the relative performance of the player and the team - if the team falls off by 5% but the player by 10%, then the clause is void; it also means that if the player bumps by 5% but the team overachieves and jumps by 10%, then they also lose the protection.

The reference point could be GF, GA, shots, or whatever you choose as relevant for the position, type of player, etc in question.

I like where it's headed, because the logical conclusion is performance based contracts, and we can eventually get rid of agents. :BB:

oh see now you are talking, make it like the real world then lol.

It'd be really simple - just take away the "guaranteed" part of the contract.
Harsh, but in line with reality.

Allow signing bonuses to count against the cap, for the duration of the contract (e.g. $10M signing bonus for 5yr contract = $2M per year, whether or not the player remains with the signing team)

Now there's incentive for intelligent cap management, incentive for management to keep players they signed, and incentive for players to play hard and not get released.

My prediction would be that you'd see 2-3yr contracts (Ovechkins, Crosbys, Malkins excluded) with some, but not a lot, of player movement. You'd see player salaries brought closer to the median - the tighter the bunching of salaries, the easier it is to trade.

My vote is for you as commissioner, your proposal would allow for a much healthier/competive NHL, means a bit more shrewd management by GM's with their bonuses as well.

I'd do it if it meant getting rid of Pee Wee Herman.

The little Weasel with the Napoleon complex has almost destroyed the NHL by putting it on incredibly shaky ground - it pains me to see our national pasttime (yes, I know our national sport is lacrosse, but let's get real here) get railroaded by someone whose ego won't let him get by the interest of the sport in general.

Acrobat wrote:I'd do it if it meant getting rid of Pee Wee Herman.

The little Weasel with the Napoleon complex has almost destroyed the NHL by putting it on incredibly shaky ground - it pains me to see our national pasttime (yes, I know our national sport is lacrosse, but let's get real here) get railroaded by someone whose ego won't let him get by the interest of the sport in general.

Such is what happens when you try to target the game more for the US crowd and not the diehard Canadians. I think it is time for a mutiny in the NHL office, who should we throw our support behind? Colin Campbell?

SensFan71 wrote:

Acrobat wrote:I'd do it if it meant getting rid of Pee Wee Herman.

The little Weasel with the Napoleon complex has almost destroyed the NHL by putting it on incredibly shaky ground - it pains me to see our national pasttime (yes, I know our national sport is lacrosse, but let's get real here) get railroaded by someone whose ego won't let him get by the interest of the sport in general.

Such is what happens when you try to target the game more for the US crowd and not the diehard Canadians. I think it is time for a mutiny in the NHL office, who should we throw our support behind? Colin Campbell?

Me.
Or you.
Or ASQ2.
Or anyone. Let's just pick someone, and do it. Let's get that moron the heck out of there before the game disappears.

An opportunity is arising: NASCAR popularity is falling; people are losing faith in baseball's integrity; more and more are seeing basketball as "a bunch of rich spoiled brats".

The NHL should pull back to traditional hockey markets (say 24 teams) but try to increase TV exposure. The Northeast and Northwest are huge markets; essentially anything above the Mason-Dixon line. The league then needs to "come back to the people" even more than it has already.

By decreasing the number of teams, the skill level of players will increase (the marginal players will be relegated to the AHL). By focusing on true hockey markets, the stands will be full; it's much more interesting to watch a game on TV when there's more than six people cheering (you listening, Florida?) Start with regional coverage on ESPN, but demand that it not be pre-empted. The bigger games (top teams, playoffs, etc) could get national coverage - this would start to build the fan-base elsewhere. Then have the league sponsor events at a grass-roots level. And finally, for f***s sake, stop changing the rules every year/month/game/period. Just call the game consistently as the rules are intended.

Yes, it would be painful. Yes, it would displace a lot of players (almost 200). Yes, it would be an accounting and legal nightmare.

But it pales in comparison to a collapse of the entire league.

WHOA! Acrobat, I say you're onto something there.

It's painfully obvious that Bettman has LONG overstayed his welcome. And his Napoleon complex I think can be attributed to the fact that he's trying to outdo his brother, who is the Manager of the World Series of Poker (and quite honestly, it too has it's problems, but for the most part, he runs a pretty tight ship) so Bettman and his ridiculous and pathetic ego should be shown the door, and let's bring in fresh blood and mix it up with Veteran blood (NOT the old-guard, a.k.a. Bettman's hand-picked cronies) and see what comes.

Acrobat wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:

Acrobat wrote:I'd do it if it meant getting rid of Pee Wee Herman.

The little Weasel with the Napoleon complex has almost destroyed the NHL by putting it on incredibly shaky ground - it pains me to see our national pasttime (yes, I know our national sport is lacrosse, but let's get real here) get railroaded by someone whose ego won't let him get by the interest of the sport in general.

Such is what happens when you try to target the game more for the US crowd and not the diehard Canadians. I think it is time for a mutiny in the NHL office, who should we throw our support behind? Colin Campbell?

Me.
Or you.
Or ASQ2.
Or anyone. Let's just pick someone, and do it. Let's get that moron the heck out of there before the game disappears.

An opportunity is arising: NASCAR popularity is falling; people are losing faith in baseball's integrity; more and more are seeing basketball as "a bunch of rich spoiled brats".

The NHL should pull back to traditional hockey markets (say 24 teams) but try to increase TV exposure. The Northeast and Northwest are huge markets; essentially anything above the Mason-Dixon line. The league then needs to "come back to the people" even more than it has already.

By decreasing the number of teams, the skill level of players will increase (the marginal players will be relegated to the AHL). By focusing on true hockey markets, the stands will be full; it's much more interesting to watch a game on TV when there's more than six people cheering (you listening, Florida?) Start with regional coverage on ESPN, but demand that it not be pre-empted. The bigger games (top teams, playoffs, etc) could get national coverage - this would start to build the fan-base elsewhere. Then have the league sponsor events at a grass-roots level. And finally, for f***s sake, stop changing the rules every year/month/game/period. Just call the game consistently as the rules are intended.

Yes, it would be painful. Yes, it would displace a lot of players (almost 200). Yes, it would be an accounting and legal nightmare.

But it pales in comparison to a collapse of the entire league.

well sure, you might be right, it will be a painful adjustment, but with a better product on the ice, and stop with the all star game all together, who is really interested in that anyway? ( or at least if you keep it, don't let the fan's vote the starters or we end up with an all montreal team almost again)

Feeling the pain for a few years is better than 5 years down the road, no nhl, and 15 million plus canadians that are going Diddlin' nuts because there is no hockey on.