Salary Cap concerns - all teams

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.

SpezDispenser wrote:

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.

That might be true...but the pressure is on to win now...at any cost.

davetherave wrote: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.

To a certain extent, the players' salaries are already tied to league revenues - if the revenues are below the threshold, then the escrow amounts are not returned to the players. This amount has varied, and I have heard that it may be 25% of salaries this upcoming season that is held in escrow. The only thing that Rooney's suggestion does is formalize and make transparent the connection. (I'll humbly add that I believe I made the same suggestion almost a year ago - I'll have to dig it up if I can)

EDIT: Can't find it, and it's probably not almost a year anyhow, since the board is only 11 months old (!)
In searching, I did realize that I deserve a little self-congratulation - one of my first real posts was this blog entry: http://gmhockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm

Time for a bit of "N4L"-ing...

Acrobat> exactly. The players' revenues ARE tied to the league's revenues because of the escrow agreement.

What Rooney appears to suggest is that they would be asked to further tie themselves to revenue fluctuation and risk losing even more if revenues dip.

(And how does revenue accrual get verified if there is a dispute? A possible accounting nightmare...there is a suitable analogy to Hollywood actors trying to unravel the P&L of movie studios. This process can take years...)

I don't see the players buying in--especially not the achievers, who would, in their eyes, be 'subsidizing' the rest.

That's why I see a shift--for those can command them--towards long term individual contracts that are essentially 'personal service agreements' between the player and the organization (i.e. Pronger, Hossa, Zetterberg, Alfredsson).

The young talent? They get the entry level deals, and then get their shot at the big dough.

As for the rest--the middle tier of players as it were--I can envision the day when their contracts are no longer guaranteed...and they can be cut just like that.

Will it happen? The discussions regarding the new CBA are not that far off...

Acrobat wrote:

davetherave wrote: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.

To a certain extent, the players' salaries are already tied to league revenues - if the revenues are below the threshold, then the escrow amounts are not returned to the players. This amount has varied, and I have heard that it may be 25% of salaries this upcoming season that is held in escrow. The only thing that Rooney's suggestion does is formalize and make transparent the connection. (I'll humbly add that I believe I made the same suggestion almost a year ago - I'll have to dig it up if I can)

EDIT: Can't find it, and it's probably not almost a year anyhow, since the board is only 11 months old (!)
In searching, I did realize that I deserve a little self-congratulation - one of my first real posts was this blog entry: http://gmhockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm

Time for a bit of "N4L"-ing...

Woot! Deion is happy for you....


Go ahead....you've earned it!



Please, don't try and build this at home. It's already been patented. No, I am not kidding.

By Neely?

I believe there is a very similar device -- patented, as well -- for kicking oneself in the behind.

Acrobat wrote:By Neely?

Hah no. It was patented in '86. Possibly before N4L was born.

Zoolander wrote:

Acrobat wrote:By Neely?

Hah no. It was patented in '86. Possibly before N4L was born.

Ah, in anticipation then...

Acrobat wrote:

Zoolander wrote:

Acrobat wrote:By Neely?

Hah no. It was patented in '86. Possibly before N4L was born.

Ah, in anticipation then...

Acrobat wrote:

Zoolander wrote:

Acrobat wrote:By Neely?

Hah no. It was patented in '86. Possibly before N4L was born.

Ah, in anticipation then...

I honestly have no clue what's going on here, none.

Neely4Life wrote:I honestly have no clue what's going on here, none.

Jokes are not nearly as funny if you have to explain them to the listener (in this case the reader).

Ya, I'm lost...

Zoolander wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:I honestly have no clue what's going on here, none.

Jokes are not nearly as funny if you have to explain them to the listener (in this case the reader).

Or to the subjects of the jokes.

A blind man and his guide dog enter a bar and find their way to a
barstool. After ordering a drink, and sitting there for a while, the
blind guy yells to the bartender, "Hey, you wanna hear a blonde joke ?"

The bar immediately becomes absolutely quiet. In a husky, deep voice, the woman next to him says, "Before
you tell that joke, you should know something. The bartender is blonde,
the bouncer is blonde, and I'm a 6' tall, 200 lb. blonde with a black
belt in karate. What's more, the woman sitting next to me is blonde and
she's a weight lifter. The lady to your right is a blonde, and she's a
wrestler. Think about it seriously, Mister. You still wanna tell that
joke?"

The blind guy says, "Nah, not if I'm gonna have to explain it five times."

If anyone explains, I'll be a dead man...



Oh, well, here goes...

I had just given myself a pat on the back (I don't get to do that much) for a blog posting I did early in the forum's life talking about how Elliot may be the future franchise goalie we are all looking for ... it's here : http://gmhockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm

As a good-natured ribbing, I said that I'd pat myself on the back "like N4L". Admittedly, I was doing it in jest, but it kind of took on a life of its own, with a follow-up posting about this machine that does that for you. Then there was the patent issue, and ... well, you just gotta read from there...

All in good fun.