Salary Cap concerns - all teams

PKC wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:
While I like the Hossa move, the Flyers really messed up and will be carrying the cap hit even if he retires. I think every team will have one or two of these deals going forward.

I think you underestimate GMs. Worst case scenario, and this is absolute worst case scenario if they can't get his cap hit off the books from retirement, they buy out his last two years at about 150k per year for 4 years. Marginal numbers for a team like Philadelphia. There are ways to get around this stuff you know...these GMs have legions of lawyers with immense knowledge of the CBA at their disposal.

If PHI were to buy out the last year of Pronger's deal, they wouldn't have to pay him very much, it's true -- but the hit against their cap would be much more substantial that you suggest.

The figure would be 2/3rds of $4.9 mil spread over 2 times the remaining years (so, 2 x 2 = 4 years). 2/3rd of $4.9 mil = $3.234 mil, and $3.234 mil divided by 2 = $1.617 mil. PHI would thus have a hit against their cap of $1.6 mil for the next four years after Pronger's 'buyout,' or more than 10 times the cap hit you were suggesting.

Not a great scenario, you have to confess. I tend to think that PHI thought they were going to get away with this, because they signed Pronger to the deal before he turned 35, but it blew up in their faces.

Since they signed after 35 (not before, as they thought), doesn't the full cap hit apply?

Or is that just the fact that retirement for contracts signed after 35 doesn't negate the cap hit?

Acrobat wrote:Since they signed after 35 (not before, as they thought), doesn't the full cap hit apply?

Or is that just the fact that retirement for contracts signed after 35 doesn't negate the cap hit?

If Pronger retires at any point during this contract, the full cap hit ($4.9 mil) will remain on the Flyers' books until the contract expires.

If they try to buy him out, they will get stick with a cap hit of 2/3rds the value of Pronger's cap hit ($4.9 mil) spread out over twice as many years as remain on the contract (so, if they buy him out with 3 years remaining on the contract, they get stuck with a cap hit of $1.617 mil for 6 years; if they buy him out with 2 years remaining, they get stuck with a cap hit of $1.617 mil for 4 years; etc, etc).

The bottom line is that this deal is going to cause some havok for PHI's cap situation moving forward, especially during the last 2-3 years of the deal, when Pronger will be in his late thirties and early forties.

They better hope that Pronger has a little bit of Chelios in him.

Wait ... that's ... not ... how I meant for that to sound. :oops:

Rooney>as usual, your analysis is most astute.

Prager>as PKC points out, the inventiveness of GMs is going to be increasingly solicited as teams look for ways to attract impact players.

These new mega-contracts are, in a sense, a form of 'personal service contract'...where a player becomes compensated, not just for having performed on the ice, but for making a long term committment to the organization.

There may be even be a tacit understanding between the parties as to when the player anticipates retirement, with the unspoken agreement that this will take place before the calendar date of the contract's expiration. With the kinds of dollars being waved about, one would think this is the case.

The fact that Pronger and other players signed to deals of heretofore umimaginable length is less relevant to these organizations, than their perceived need to secure these players for a substantial term, and thereby enhance their chances to win big.

While this approach thumbs its nose at the Cassandras in the mainstream hockey media, it also confirms the shift to a model whereby teams build around a relatively small, expensive core, and rotate personnel in and out from season to season.

It's reasonable to surmise that, in most if not all cases, the brain trust and the bean counters--not to mention the legal eagles--of each club have had lengthy meetings to examine how 'doable' these deals are.

Crafty accountants have all kinds of way of making numbers dance, and the expensive lawyers who draft these contracts usually build in 'fail-safe' options.

That said, teams are, effectively, mortgaging their futures.

What's the alternative?

A team can have plenty of cap room, no so-called 'albatross' contracts, no long term deals, and no issues in terms of asset management.

Hmm...who are those teams, and are they winning?

rooneypoo wrote:If PHI were to buy out the last year of Pronger's deal, they wouldn't have to pay him very much, it's true -- but the hit against their cap would be much more substantial that you suggest.

The figure would be 2/3rds of $4.9 mil spread over 2 times the remaining years (so, 2 x 2 = 4 years). 2/3rd of $4.9 mil = $3.234 mil, and $3.234 mil divided by 2 = $1.617 mil. PHI would thus have a hit against their cap of $1.6 mil for the next four years after Pronger's 'buyout,' or more than 10 times the cap hit you were suggesting.

Not a great scenario, you have to confess. I tend to think that PHI thought they were going to get away with this, because they signed Pronger to the deal before he turned 35, but it blew up in their faces.

Holy Dung, I just read this in the paper...wow, I really doubt Holmgren knew what the deal was on this one - thought everything was all good if he retired.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:If PHI were to buy out the last year of Pronger's deal, they wouldn't have to pay him very much, it's true -- but the hit against their cap would be much more substantial that you suggest.

The figure would be 2/3rds of $4.9 mil spread over 2 times the remaining years (so, 2 x 2 = 4 years). 2/3rd of $4.9 mil = $3.234 mil, and $3.234 mil divided by 2 = $1.617 mil. PHI would thus have a hit against their cap of $1.6 mil for the next four years after Pronger's 'buyout,' or more than 10 times the cap hit you were suggesting.

Not a great scenario, you have to confess. I tend to think that PHI thought they were going to get away with this, because they signed Pronger to the deal before he turned 35, but it blew up in their faces.

Holy Dung, I just read this in the paper...wow, I really doubt Holmgren knew what the deal was on this one - thought everything was all good if he retired.

Spez, don't forget WHY the Pronger deal was done...to fast-track the Flyers to a shot at the Cup. This only, as you put it, blows up in Holmgren's face, if the Flyers flop...

And hopefully you get a chance to watch Pronger live in Ottawa this year, so you can see for yourself why they pay him the big money.

Also, you may want to consider EJ Hradek's view from his ESPN column yesterday:

"...before we jump to any conclusions in this matter, we all should consider that the current CBA is scheduled to expire after the 2010-11 season. At that point, Pronger will have six seasons remaining on his deal. A new CBA could contain different rules in regard to these types of situations. So, while it's interesting fodder for chit-chat among us puckheads, a new CBA could change the discussion."

More from Hradek here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=hradek_ej

davetherave wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:If PHI were to buy out the last year of Pronger's deal, they wouldn't have to pay him very much, it's true -- but the hit against their cap would be much more substantial that you suggest.

The figure would be 2/3rds of $4.9 mil spread over 2 times the remaining years (so, 2 x 2 = 4 years). 2/3rd of $4.9 mil = $3.234 mil, and $3.234 mil divided by 2 = $1.617 mil. PHI would thus have a hit against their cap of $1.6 mil for the next four years after Pronger's 'buyout,' or more than 10 times the cap hit you were suggesting.

Not a great scenario, you have to confess. I tend to think that PHI thought they were going to get away with this, because they signed Pronger to the deal before he turned 35, but it blew up in their faces.

Holy Dung, I just read this in the paper...wow, I really doubt Holmgren knew what the deal was on this one - thought everything was all good if he retired.

Spez, don't forget WHY the Pronger deal was done...to fast-track the Flyers to a shot at the Cup. This only, as you put it, blows up in Holmgren's face, if the Flyers flop...

And hopefully you get a chance to watch Pronger live in Ottawa this year, so you can see for yourself why they pay him the big money.

Also, you may want to consider EJ Hradek's view from his ESPN column yesterday:

"...before we jump to any conclusions in this matter, we all should consider that the current CBA is scheduled to expire after the 2010-11 season. At that point, Pronger will have six seasons remaining on his deal. A new CBA could contain different rules in regard to these types of situations. So, while it's interesting fodder for chit-chat among us puckheads, a new CBA could change the discussion."

More from Hradek here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=hradek_ej

Sounds like great strategy to me. Let's go sign all the best players to deals that take them into their 50s, and hope that the NHL re-jigs the CBA somewhere down the line so that they can get us out of the mess we make for ourselves. Genius!

Rooney> remember, regardless of what you or I think, NHL owners and GMs are playing high stakes poker...and have been for as long as I have been following hockey (going on half a century...yikes).

For a little perspective, you might want to read Stan Fischler's fascinating book, Slapshot! (no relation to the movie BTW, rather an uncensored diary of Fischler's many years covering the NHL)--in particular, the chapter entitled "The Con Men and the $hit Merchants"...it gives you a rather less flattering picture of hockey players than that to which you may be accustomed.

The rules of engagement regarding what gets spent, and who gets the biggest piece of pie, have changed constantly over these past decades. Management and players adjust...or don't, the latter option being at their peril, as the lockout demonstrated.

What's first and foremost for GMs doesn't change, though: getting the team into the playoffs and going as deep as possible to generate that all important revenue from ticket sales and ancillary streams.

Before the cap, teams like Detroit spent in ways that blow away today's salaries...like the infamous Sergei Federov contract, $28 million for 43 total games in 1997–98--the largest single season amount paid to an NHLer.

Ya think Federov was overpaid? Maybe? Or not?

So Pronger, Hossa, Thomas and Zetterberg get signed to contract that extend into the ozone of their careers? No biggie for the well heeled proprietors of the Flyers, Hawks, Bruins, and Wings...the new dickering with deals is another example of how creative the parties are ready to get in order to keep on dancing together all the way to the bank.

All this 'cap yap' is just political maneuvering and media BS...something to fill the hockey pages, websites and Darren Dreger's mouth.

Just go back and read Paul Kelly's statements over the past twelve months. Do you think he wants the cap to go down? Not on your life...it would mean his union members have to accept being paid less.

When it comes time to negotiate the new CBA, expect a lot of bluster and then a miraculous reconcilation as both sides grease each others' palms.

The modus operandi is simple: push the envelope, and then push it some more. If you win, all sins are absolved. If you don't, the Lord won't help you.

And while that irritates the hell out of advocates of fiscal responsibility, the owners obviously don't care...as long as the seats are full, the suites are sold, and the cash registers at the concessions and souvenir shops are ringing.

In the meantime, this drama, real or manufactured, provides fodder for fertile minds until the next puck drop.

...and frankly, I can't wait for October to get here, already.

davetherave wrote:Rooney> remember, regardless of what you or I think, NHL owners and GMs are playing high stakes poker...and have been for as long as I have been following hockey (going on half a century...yikes).

For a little perspective, you might want to read Stan Fischler's fascinating book, Slapshot! (no relation to the movie BTW, rather an uncensored diary of Fischler's many years covering the NHL)--in particular, the chapter entitled "The Con Men and the $hit Merchants"...it gives you a rather less flattering picture of hockey players than that to which you may be accustomed.

The rules of engagement regarding what gets spent, and who gets the biggest piece of pie, have changed constantly over these past decades. Management and players adjust...or don't, the latter option being at their peril, as the lockout demonstrated.

What's first and foremost for GMs doesn't change, though: getting the team into the playoffs and going as deep as possible to generate that all important revenue from ticket sales and ancillary streams.

Before the cap, teams like Detroit spent in ways that blow away today's salaries...like the infamous Sergei Federov contract, $28 million for 43 total games in 1997–98--the largest single season amount paid to an NHLer.

Ya think Federov was overpaid? Maybe? Or not?

So Pronger, Hossa, Thomas and Zetterberg get signed to contract that extend into the ozone of their careers? No biggie for the well heeled proprietors of the Flyers, Hawks, Bruins, and Wings...the new dickering with deals is another example of how creative the parties are ready to get in order to keep on dancing together all the way to the bank.

All this 'cap yap' is just political maneuvering and media BS...something to fill the hockey pages, websites and Darren Dreger's mouth.

Just go back and read Paul Kelly's statements over the past twelve months. Do you think he wants the cap to go down? Not on your life...it would mean his union members have to accept being paid less.

When it comes time to negotiate the new CBA, expect a lot of bluster and then a miraculous reconcilation as both sides grease each others' palms.

The modus operandi is simple: push the envelope, and then push it some more. If you win, all sins are absolved. If you don't, the Lord won't help you.

And while that irritates the hell out of advocates of fiscal responsibility, the owners obviously don't care...as long as the seats are full, the suites are sold, and the cash registers at the concessions and souvenir shops are ringing.

In the meantime, this drama, real or manufactured, provides fodder for fertile minds until the next puck drop.

...and frankly, I can't wait for October to get here, already.

Solid post, i couldn't agree more.

Very well said!

davetherave wrote:Rooney> remember, regardless of what you or I think, NHL owners and GMs are playing high stakes poker...and have been for as long as I have been following hockey (going on half a century...yikes).

For a little perspective, you might want to read Stan Fischler's fascinating book, Slapshot! (no relation to the movie BTW, rather an uncensored diary of Fischler's many years covering the NHL)--in particular, the chapter entitled "The Con Men and the $hit Merchants"...it gives you a rather less flattering picture of hockey players than that to which you may be accustomed.

The rules of engagement regarding what gets spent, and who gets the biggest piece of pie, have changed constantly over these past decades. Management and players adjust...or don't, the latter option being at their peril, as the lockout demonstrated.

What's first and foremost for GMs doesn't change, though: getting the team into the playoffs and going as deep as possible to generate that all important revenue from ticket sales and ancillary streams.

Before the cap, teams like Detroit spent in ways that blow away today's salaries...like the infamous Sergei Federov contract, $28 million for 43 total games in 1997–98--the largest single season amount paid to an NHLer.

Ya think Federov was overpaid? Maybe? Or not?

So Pronger, Hossa, Thomas and Zetterberg get signed to contract that extend into the ozone of their careers? No biggie for the well heeled proprietors of the Flyers, Hawks, Bruins, and Wings...the new dickering with deals is another example of how creative the parties are ready to get in order to keep on dancing together all the way to the bank.

All this 'cap yap' is just political maneuvering and media BS...something to fill the hockey pages, websites and Darren Dreger's mouth.

Just go back and read Paul Kelly's statements over the past twelve months. Do you think he wants the cap to go down? Not on your life...it would mean his union members have to accept being paid less.

When it comes time to negotiate the new CBA, expect a lot of bluster and then a miraculous reconcilation as both sides grease each others' palms.

The modus operandi is simple: push the envelope, and then push it some more. If you win, all sins are absolved. If you don't, the Lord won't help you.

And while that irritates the hell out of advocates of fiscal responsibility, the owners obviously don't care...as long as the seats are full, the suites are sold, and the cash registers at the concessions and souvenir shops are ringing.

In the meantime, this drama, real or manufactured, provides fodder for fertile minds until the next puck drop.

...and frankly, I can't wait for October to get here, already.

There is too much evidence to the contrary.

I'm not deriving my opinions from Dregger or any other source. I'm looking at the numbers and they don't make sense. That's cold reality, not blather.

The new CBA will not survive a prolonged dip in revenues, should that ever happen. Fixed contract values combined with a fluctuating cap ceiling is a recipe for disaster. The problem lies at the very heart of the new CBA.

Greg "Puck Daddy" Wyshynski from Yahoo Sports dishes up this tasty fare from his own viewpoint and a selection of scribes including the New York Post's irascible Larry Brooks and MLive.com's Wings columnist George James Malik.

Malik's "Salary Cap Panic-Mongering Made Easy", referenced below, and linked to here, is highly recommended reading as well.
http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/07/salary_cap_panicmongering_made.html


Hockey's money bummers: cap drop, pending CBA headaches
Greg Wyshynski, Yahoo Sports, July 12, 2009

There's an underlying vibe to this offseason that's been a total bummer, and one can't help taste the familiar bile of impending doom that gurgled up before the lockout.

This summer, it's the precipitous salary cap deflation that will allegedly cause Armageddon for teams that are carrying large payrolls next summer. (Or the drop won't be as bad as expected. One of the two.) It's not the level of gloom that infected everything NHL-related before the lockout; it's just that nasty aftertaste for every offseason transaction.

Like when Marian Hossa is signed to a long-term deal by the Chicago Blackhawks, and there's more talk about what it means for their salary cap next July than what it could mean on the ice for them next June.

This is a symptom of cap culture: transforming the debates that make sports delightful escapism for fans into sullen evaluations of business practices from armchair financial analysts.

But such is our current hockey culture: The business side is securely tied to the competitive side, and every conversation about the Game is anchored by its financial implications.

Like when Chris Pronger signed his new contract with the Philadelphia Flyers, and the well-documented conflict between the structure of the deal and the 35-and-over clause in the CBA could have ramifications years down the line.

Forget whom his defensive partner might be next season; his contract has gotten the biggest headlines of the summer, following his trade from the Anaheim Ducks.

But in examining the Pronger issue in today's edition, Larry Brooks of the NY Post looks ahead to both the expected decrease in the salary cap and the next CBA, which is expected to be negotiated around 2012. In doing so, he wonders how many current NHL contracts will be dramatically altered or eliminated in "bridging the gap" between the current CBA and the new one -- which promises to be an uncomfortable battle between the PA and the NHL.

Brooks writes that the Flyers won't suffer the $4.921 cap hit when Pronger is likely retired in 2016 -- the aforementioned goof in signing him before the 35-and-over clause kicked in -- because the current CBA won't be in use by then. So the assumption is that by 2012, when Pronger is 38, there's a chance the Flyers could clear the rest of the cap hit through some new CBA-influenced contract loophole, like a one-time buyout.

From Brooks:

"The Flyers will not take the hit because the CBA will be long extinct by that time, with another round of rollbacks and amnesty buyouts expected to bridge the gap between the current labor agreement and whatever comes next.

"There are no guarantees, of course, but no one knows the fate of contracts that run beyond 2011-12, which is when the CBA will expire once the NHLPA exercises its pro-forma option to extend the deal through that season.

"It would, however, be a shock if the league doesn't recalibrate as part of a battle that's certain to include a laundry list of givebacks from the union intended to shrink the cap. Indeed, several general managers have told Slap Shots they believe a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful."

Re-read that last part: If the cap drops like a stone, the PA and the NHL might work together for "a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts" in order to accommodate the hockey recession.

You think a guy like Dale Tallon might be interested in that kind of cap relief?

In thinking about next year's cap drop, we recommend a great analysis and news roundup by George James Malik on Snapshots that deals with several issues, including how the NBA's recent cap drop works as a harbinger for the NHL's. But he also points to an Adam Proteau piece from The Hockey News that should send a chill through hockey fans worried about another potential labor war in the next CBA negotiation:

"Certain people in the industry believe the league is going to attempt to remove guaranteed contracts in the next labor negotiations - a move that almost certainly would result in another work stoppage. If that happens, I think the owners will be in for a far rougher public-relations ride than they experienced in the canceled 2004-05 season.

"The salary cap was held up by Gary Bettman as a panacea for virtually all of the game's financial issues, but the league's collective playing field remains almost as uneven as it did before the lockout.

"And though many fans say they'd 'play for free" if they could, I think even the most hardened heart out there would concede that, given the physical sacrifices made by NHLers in their day-to-day on-ice duties, guaranteed contracts are a fair and deserved contractual stipulation."

Agreed, except for the uneven playing field remark; there's parity in the League and well-managed teams will excel, CBA be damned. But agreed that it's absolutely insane to think that the players would ever concede on guaranteed contracts, nor should they.

The NHLPA and the NHL would seem to have a rather sunny relationship right now; how would that change in this fight?

That's one battle; but there's another.

It's expected that the NHL might attempt to fight these front-loaded, long-term deals like the Pronger one in the next CBA as being something bad for hockey. It's not an easy argument to make, when they allow teams to retain their talent at a reasonable price rather than having players poached by huge-money offers elsewhere (an essential plank in the competitive balance platform for the NHL).

They also allow strong teams to thrive, giving the NHL powerhouses instead of a
collection of B-grade teams.

The salary cap is a baffling animal. It's meant to establish parity through hockey socialism: a redistribution of "wealth" (re: talent) from the haves to the have-nots. It exists to maintain financial order and fairness. Yet owners, GMs and agents are in a near-constant search for loopholes around it.

These front-loaded, long-term deals aren't in the spirit of the cap. It's hard to defend them when you have the intentional hilarity of Chris Pronger not only playing until 2015 by making a whopping $525,000 for doing so. But the ability for the Detroit Red Wings to retain their talent is good for that market and, as a flagship franchise, is good for the NHL.

Plus if you close one loophole, smart fellows like Ken Holland will find another. They always do.

No matter what the salary cap looks like or the new CBA looks like, it all comes down to the triumphs and tragedies of management and owners, some of whom are born to blunder no matter the system in place.

A bad decision is always going be a bad decision; the CBA and the cap simply magnify or lessen the consequences.

rooneypoo wrote:There is too much evidence to the contrary.

I'm not deriving my opinions from Dregger or any other source. I'm looking at the numbers and they don't make sense. That's cold reality, not blather.

The new CBA will not survive a prolonged dip in revenues, should that ever happen. Fixed contract values combined with a fluctuating cap ceiling is a recipe for disaster. The problem lies at the very heart of the new CBA.

Rooney> your diligence is admirable, and your prognosis is founded in logic.

However, you may find this excerpt from Malik's aforementioned article, "Salary Cap Panic Mongering Made Easy", enlightening:

(Malik quoting Sports Illustrated's Allan Muir, followed by his own comment):

"What's going on here is what's always gone on in pro sports: the league sets out rules it believes are airtight and foolproof, then GMs and agents go about searching for loopholes and devising strategies to exploit the loopholes.

"After years of that exploitation, the league goes into its next labor negotiations motivated and focused on closing off the loopholes. Even if they are able to achieve that goal, the new rules will undergo the same degree of scrutiny until new loopholes are discovered and exploited with just as much vigor as was seen in the previous era."


There's a reason that every NHL team has hired a "capologist" with a law degree--to exploit said loopholes--and I'd argue that Red Wings capologist Ryan Martin does a helluva job.

---

Malik basically underlines what I have been saying...the financial contortions that teams do to bend the rules are nothing new.

Cap or no cap, the best organizations--like Detroit, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia, to name the most recently visible examples--hire the best and the brightest minds to come up with the answers so they can spend, to win.

davetherave wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:There is too much evidence to the contrary.

I'm not deriving my opinions from Dregger or any other source. I'm looking at the numbers and they don't make sense. That's cold reality, not blather.

The new CBA will not survive a prolonged dip in revenues, should that ever happen. Fixed contract values combined with a fluctuating cap ceiling is a recipe for disaster. The problem lies at the very heart of the new CBA.

Rooney> your diligence is admirable, and your prognosis is founded in logic.

However, you may find this excerpt from Malik's aforementioned article, "Salary Cap Panic Mongering Made Easy", enlightening:

(Malik quoting Sports Illustrated's Allan Muir, followed by his own comment):

"What's going on here is what's always gone on in pro sports: the league sets out rules it believes are airtight and foolproof, then GMs and agents go about searching for loopholes and devising strategies to exploit the loopholes.

"After years of that exploitation, the league goes into its next labor negotiations motivated and focused on closing off the loopholes. Even if they are able to achieve that goal, the new rules will undergo the same degree of scrutiny until new loopholes are discovered and exploited with just as much vigor as was seen in the previous era."


There's a reason that every NHL team has hired a "capologist" with a law degree--to exploit said loopholes--and I'd argue that Red Wings capologist Ryan Martin does a helluva job.

---

Malik basically underlines what I have been saying...the financial contortions that teams do to bend the rules are nothing new.

Cap or no cap, the best organizations--like Detroit, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia, to name the most recently visible examples--hire the best and the brightest minds to come up with the answers so they can spend, to win.

I think we're talking apples and oranges here, DTR. You seem to be looking at things on a team-by-team basis, such as the potential consequences of the Pronger deal and how PHI might wiggle out of it at sometime, whereas I'm thinking league-wise and long term.

I maintain that the new CBA will not survive a prolonged dip in revenues because of the fundamental contradiction build into the system: a fluctuating cap combined with fixed, guaranteed salaries per player. That is a combo which, when you fact in decreasing revenues, will lead to disaster.

As more and more teams move to lock up their 'core' players long term, what we're seeing is a slow but consistent decline in available dollars, league-wise, for remaining players. As RobbyJ's posts have been showing, we're already at the point where there the money, league-wise, being allocated to signed contracts outstrips the money left over for the rest of the league. If things continue as is and signed players eat up more and more of that space, especially if the cap shrinks, we're going to reach a crisis point -- that is, when the average amount of dollars available per player will be below the league minimum ($450,000), which would effectively bring an end to the CBA.

Think that sounds like a doomsday scenario? Think again. RobbyJ's quick calculations already reveal that that average number for the next year will be in the neighbourhood of $1.6 mil / per unsigned player. More long term contracts, and a decreasing cap, will shrink that number quite quickly.

This is where the problem lies.

Rooney>we are not disagreeing...just giving you some different views of the issues.


Frankly speaking, the level of discussion here on this forum is far more intelligent than most of what is trumpeted in the Main Stream Hockey Media.

IMHO there is a far more sinister aspect to all of this. I believe the owners actually WANT to precipitate an end to the CBA. They won the battle last time...so I think they will play 'chicken' with the NHLPA, especially when it comes to guaranteed contracts and NTCs.

There will be blood...

davetherave wrote:Rooney>we are not disagreeing...just giving you some different views of the issues.


Frankly speaking, the level of discussion here on this forum is far more intelligent than most of what is trumpeted in the Main Stream Hockey Media.

IMHO there is a far more sinister aspect to all of this. I believe the owners actually WANT to precipitate an end to the CBA. They won the battle last time...so I think they will play 'chicken' with the NHLPA, especially when it comes to guaranteed contracts and NTCs.

There will be blood...

I've been saying this for a while: for the cap system to be sustainable long-term, players salaries need to be tied to the cap and fluctuate with it. To that end, GMs and players should be negotiating for a guaranteed percentage of the team's salary cap for any given year (anywhere between, say, 1-20%, max).

Such a system would insulate teams and the league from instability regardless of revenue fluctuations, and it would make for rather marginal fluctuations in player salaries (a huge dip in the cap one year of, for instance, 20% -- which would be disastrous by today's standards -- would mean a guy making $5 mil one year has to settle for $4 mil, boohoo). It would also give everyone on board, players included, incentive to grow the game and, most importantly, league revenues.

Rooney> your thinking is logical...but IMHO the players would be reluctant to tie their salaries to such a fluctuation. Greed is what it is.

They're probably already pi$$ed they had to give up as much as they did in escrow payments.

I envision a situation not unlike the NFL...where contracts are no longer guaranteed.

In this context, one could imagine the following:

• The 'cap' (which would be a cap in name only) would be set at a higher level.
  
• The superstars would make megabucks and get signed to lengthy deals with graduated payments; and the rosters will be filled by inexpensive entry level players, with a few budget priced vets squeezed in.
  
• NTCs would be a thing of the past.
  
• Teams would get younger on average, and the window for players to make their money, much shorter.
  

Not a pretty picture for the 'mid-range' player.

davetherave wrote:
Spez, don't forget WHY the Pronger deal was done...to fast-track the Flyers to a shot at the Cup. This only, as you put it, blows up in Holmgren's face, if the Flyers flop...

And hopefully you get a chance to watch Pronger live in Ottawa this year, so you can see for yourself why they pay him the big money.

Oh, I know how good Pronger is. I've seen him a few times. I like the cap hit, but there will be 6 years from now, it'll happen eventually - and the Flyers will be sitting there wondering how the heck to get rid of Pronger's 5 million hit so they can play PLAYER X 5 million and take another shot at a Stanley Cup.